Mercure Hotel Newport not housing asylum seekers
Despite the online noise surrounding the hotel, both the Mercure Hotel and Newport City Council have issued clear statements refuting the claims.
A spokesperson for the Mercure Hotel said: 'We confirm that this property is operating as a hotel as usual, and as such it remains fully open to guests. The property has not been designated for any alternative use. Any suggestions to the contrary are incorrect.'
Newport City Council also clarified its position.
'Accommodation for people seeking asylum is provided by the Home Office and their housing partners. We do not have any hotels in Newport operating under these arrangements,' a spokesperson said.
A suggestion that the hotel was being used in this way had been posted as a comment on an Argus story online, before being removed.
Visitors come and go from the Mercure Hotel in Newport as the premises is open for business as usual. (Image: NQ) On Friday, August 8, The Argus reported on a demonstration and counter-demonstration at the Holiday Inn, Rhoose, over suggestions it was being used to house asylum seekers.
In fact, the hotel in the Vale of Glamorgan is housing Afghans who supported the British military efforts in their home country and are now in danger from the Taliban. They are in the UK not as asylum seekers but as entitled persons who have been granted the right to live here.
The Mercure Hotel in Newport, meanwhile, continues to operate as normal, welcoming guests and serving the community, not as a facility for asylum accommodation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
23 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Why Scottish independence is the opposite of Brexit and John Swinney's plan is the right one
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The SNP, and Scotland, suffered a grievous loss this week with the passing of former Presiding Officer George Reid, the last of the 1970s intake of SNP MPs. George was pro-independence because he was an internationalist. He recognised that for Scotland, and its citizens, to thrive, it needed to be a full member of, and active participant in, the European and broader international community. Not because Scotland is unique or better than any of its neighbours, but for the rather more mundane reason that Scotland should simply be the same as them. Of the Brexit debacle, he claimed a 'moral responsibility' to speak out against a move that would 'negate everything I've believed all my public life'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I spoke to him when I was writing my own book, Nation to Nation: Scotland's Place in the World, for his own characteristically thoughtful take. There is a long internationalist tradition among those who support independence that underlines the overall movement's commitment to the international rules-based system. This has been championed by successive political giants including Professor Neil MacCormick, Winnie Ewing, George and, going back to the party's foundations, Robert Cunninghame Graham among others. Internationalism has long been a theme within the Scottish independence movement (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell) | Getty Images Brexit celebrated in Kremlin The appeal sits at the heart of the case for independence, and reimagining the governance mechanisms among the nations of these islands. Scotland's independent neighbours of a similar size such as Norway, Denmark, Ireland and Finland have thrived with independence vastly improving their citizens' lot, whilst making a positive contribution to the world. In that regard the independence that George sought is the opposite of an increasingly isolated Brexit Britain that has turned its back on its neighbours. A Brexit project that leaves its citizens worse off, celebrated in the Kremlin and Trump's White House, whilst being mourned across mainstream democratic Europe. A failed project that has reduced the rights of anyone who holds a British passport, diminished the UK's standing in the world and put unnecessary barriers up to business. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Brexiteers seek a world that does not exist, and we're all suffering the consequences for that misadventure. No state sits alone and is truly sovereign. Professor Neil McCormick knew that, as did George. The international rules-based system and the views of other state actors count, not least in Europe where the sharing of sovereignty keeps the peace, enhances prosperity and creates a better standard of living. As foreign ministers from Dublin to Helsinki, Copenhagen to Ljubljana understand, it also strengthens the independence and sovereignty of European states no longer subject to the whims of great powers. That idea of respecting the rules and that no state sits alone speaks to John Swinney's Independence strategy. The First Minister's announcement that he wants the SNP to gain an independence referendum through the party winning a majority of seats is because he knows that the process counts. As he said earlier this week: 'You can't deliver independence unless your country has domestic and international legitimacy.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Getting London's agreement matters There are those who disagree with independence and simply wish the issue would go away. That is undemocratic and short-sighted in the light of consistent polls that show that at least half the population want to see the nation regain its sovereignty. There are also those supporters who think that there are simple solutions that will provide a shortcut to independence. I am not sure that a UK Government that doesn't agree to a referendum, even faced with popular support for one and another independence majority in the Scottish Parliament, will somehow roll over in those circumstances. Gaining agreement from London matters to the rest of the world and it should therefore matter to Scots. As an internationalist and believer in independence, I can understand the frustration. However, no one is more frustrated than the First Minister who has campaigned for and believed in independence his whole adult life. He sees daily the restrictions placed on his administration in terms of spending, tackling child poverty, engaging with the EU and measures that other nations take for granted. The mechanism of the SNP gaining a majority has triggered a referendum in the past, and if you support independence, then 'both votes SNP' is the most logical approach. Some Greens may disagree, and they have every right to, as the only other pro-independence party which has gained any real public support at the ballot box. That said, in 2011, when a referendum was granted, it was because the SNP were winning seats both on the constituency and regional list vote. In 2016 unionists claimed there was not a majority, unfairly, effectively, counting Green party votes as being pro-Union. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A voluntary Union? If unionist politicians disagree with this approach, it is for them to come up with an alternative. In 2016, the SNP won a greater share of the vote and constituency seats than either Boris Johnson's Conservatives did in 2019 (bringing in profound changes with what they considered to be a mandate for a hard Brexit) or Keir Starmer's Labour did in 2024. If the Union is a voluntary one, then what are the rules for ending it? One cannot simply make them up after an election. If the Union is no longer voluntary, then it is a very different one from that on the ballot in 2014. If so, we deserve a vote on that prospectus as do the hundreds of thousands of Scots who have never had the opportunity to vote on sovereignty. We are still a long way out from the Holyrood elections. At this stage 15 years ago, the SNP had just lost heavily to Labour in the 2010 general election and were behind in the polls. Bookies had the SNP at 11-2 to be the biggest party in 2011. There is all to play for. If, like George did, you believe in an outward-looking, internationalist Scotland then it has to be backing the First Minister's plan for both votes SNP.
New Statesman
44 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The Brits who want to overthrow the state
Illustration by Roy Scott / Ikon Images Reading this while British? Then there's an extremely high chance you want to overthrow the state, or so right-wing commentators would have it. If this information comes as a shock, then I can but point you to this tweet by Daily Express political correspondent Christian Calgie that reads: 'If you don't understand how close tens of millions of Britons are to wanting a full-blown revolution, let alone fail to understand why, then you have no value as a political commentator.' There are almost 70 million people in the UK. That, by my count, puts the odds that you're a closet revolutionary at somewhere around one in three. Eye your neighbours with suspicion, comrade. This is easy to mock. But this excitable doomsday prophesying is hardly unique. The Express journalist Carole Malone has warned Jeremy Vine that immigration has left Britain 'like a tinderbox that's set to explode'. Over in the Telegraph, Isabel Oakeshott has, more in sorrow than in anger, agreed with Nigel Farage's claim that Britain is facing 'societal collapse'. 'Unless our leaders get a grip – and fast,' she warned, 'exasperated communities will turn vigilante.' Meanwhile, columnist Allison Pearson – who, delightfully, co-hosts a podcast named Planet Normal – recently tweeted, 'Anyone else hoping for a military coup?' At its end, she included a shrug emoji. Then there's disappointed former politics professor Matt Goodwin, whose Substack I have looked at so you don't have to. Recent headlines over there have included 'Labour is pushing the UK into civil unrest', 'Is Britain about to blow?', 'Epping is a warning of what's to come', and 'How things fall apart'. (This last one promises 'more BOMBSHELL numbers on what is really happening in the UK'. Exciting!) I am writing this from London, which, so far as I can tell has not fallen, is not on fire and remains free of sharia law. So perhaps I know not whereof I speak. But I do not think this country is on the verge of revolution. Sorry, but I don't. It just isn't very British. We tried it once, didn't like it, switched it off again, and were then one of the few countries in Europe that didn't join in the fun during 1848. We've experienced both street action and political violence, yes, and these are febrile times – but such things have never overthrown a government. Most of the time they don't even change policy. There is ample evidence of real rage out there (there's this report from Anoosh Chakelian, for one thing). Events in Epping are worrying; last summer there were riots. From Corbyn to Brexit, the Labour landslide to the Reform surge, there are plenty of signs that the public hungers for substantive change. But anti-migrant protests have often been accompanied by pro-migrant counter-protests, and polling has found that the British public overwhelmingly oppose street violence as a form of political action. (According to YouGov, just 7 per cent supported last year's riots; 85 per cent were opposed.) This is not a country that's ready to man the barricades. Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe All of which raises a question: what exactly do right-wing commentators think they're playing at? Why are they not just predicting social disorder – of the sort they'd want water cannons or worse to deal with, if it came from, say, students – but salivating over it? Their tone inescapably brings to mind the anti-hero character Rorschach from Alan Moore's Watchmen ('And all the whores and politicians will look up and shout: 'Save us!' And I'll look down and whisper: 'No.''). Or possibly it just reminds one of a tantruming child sobbing out the words, 'THEN you'll be sorry.' One possible explanation for all this is that an urge to shout increasingly unhinged things is an unfortunate necessity in today's ultracompetitive attention economy. Another is that Brexit irreparably warped some commentators' grasp of the concept of loser's consent. If you've spent years earnestly arguing that the will of the people is paramount, and an election victory is a mandate to deliver whatever what you happen to want, then an election loss must come to feel insupportable. The will of the people, surely, must make itself known in some other way. Then again, perhaps this is just what happens when a government is too cowardly to ever state, in plain language, that not all concerns are legitimate, that whipping up hysteria is, at best, anti-social, and that feeling angry is not the same thing as being right. It's just possible that all that's in the mix, too. [See more: Visions of an English civil war] Related
New Statesman
44 minutes ago
- New Statesman
What JD Vance was really doing in Britain this week
Photo byJD Vance is the most underestimated man in Washington. Memes of him with a cartoonishly fat face populate the internet. A recent South Park episode had Donald Trump shouting at a tiny Vance 'Will you get out of here?!' and kicking him off screen. The news that he was turned away from The Bull pub in Oxfordshire this week following a staff mutiny was gleefully reported by American media. Democrats sneer that he is nothing more than a drooling dauphin, simpering and slavish. Vance is certainly going along with Trump's conceits in order to inherit the throne. But this narrative misses that JD Vance is already the prince of the Western right. His trip to England was the surest proof yet that Vance's constituency isn't just to be found in Washington or Ohio – but across the influencers and intellectuals of a tightly bound and unusually loyal transnational reactionary movement. This summer Vance held court in an English 18th-century manor, a forward operating base in his campaign to Maga-ify the British right. Part of his itinerary was set up by the slick Cambridge theologian James Orr and the podcasting former chancellor George Osborne. The less well-known Orr used to do Jordan Peterson's scheduling during his tours of British university campuses. Orr also serves as a Vance interpreter, having been quoted in the Times that Vance has a 'special concern' for the UK. Vance's criticism of the British government, particularly over its backsliding on free speech, seems grounded in a paternal feeling for America's errant ward. For these precious weeks Vance has come in-person, here to help guide the country onto stronger ground. The line between what counts as an official trip and a family holiday has blurred under Trump's administration. One of Vance's first 'official' trips was to the Vatican – where Vance, a Catholic convert, met Pope Francis – and to India with his family, the birthplace of his wife's parents. Meanwhile, the president invites world leaders to attend to him at his Scottish golf course. Informality takes precedence over diplomatic protocol. But while Trump invited Keir Starmer and Ursula Von der Leyen to Turnberry, Vance can look to the future. His guestlist showed he is interested in a new generation, one which will be ushered in under his tutelage. On 11 August, Vance hosted a small reception, organised by Osborne. Four Conservative MPs were there, all relatively young, and none the party leader: Robert Jenrick, Laura Trott, Chris Philp and Katie Lam, who recently clocked nearly one million views on X with a video illustrating mass migration with a jar overflowing with beads. Kemi Badenoch and Vance insisted diary clashes explain her absence. Under normal circumstances, you'd think someone who wants to be prime minister would make a trip to see the person most likely to be the next president of the United States. On 13 August, the vice-president instead met the person most likely to be the next prime minister. He hosted Nigel Farage for a one-on-one breakfast which Farage described to the Telegraph as 'two old friends meeting with many, many common interests. After all, I've been the longest public supporter of Maga in Britain.' Despite this 'old' friendship, Farage is not a recipient of the ultimate honour: the only one of these political guests Vance follows on his X account is Robert Jenrick. And Vance's online habits have taken to even more unexpected corners of British internet culture. He also follows Thomas Skinner, the former Apprentice candidate and self-made English influencer known for his catchphrase 'bosh'. Skinner was a guest at the manor for a barbecue on the evening of 10 August, alongside Orr and the Tory MP Danny Kruger. This is unusual. Imagine Dick Cheney eating ribs with David Davis, Ann Widdecombe, Robert Kilroy-Silk, and a young Michael Gove at a rented cottage in Salcombe. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Vance once said that Kruger's 2023 book on Britain, Covenant, has 'lessons for all of us who love the civilization built by our ancestors'. In a fragment, here is Vance's conflicted affection for England. The view that the ancestral home has been wrecked by liberal progressivism and mass immigration is a common thread in Maga. Steve Bannon once remarked to me: 'It's so pathetic, England. God, I love England – it's so fucked up'. In a column for the Wall Street Journal to mark Vance's visit, Orr claimed that the 'historical heuristic for our [Britain's] national unwinding is Beirut 1975'. That's a soft, almost cryptic way of saying that Britain is heading for a civil war fought along ethno-religious lines. This sense that Britain needs radical reform is what explains Vance's guestlist. Jenrick not only shares a physiognomy – a stout moon-shaped face, topped with closely cropped dark hair – with Vance (at least before Jenrick's Ozempic glow-up); both men have moved gradually but decidedly from liberal conservatism to the radical right, fuelled by civilisational angst at the extraordinary number of migrants who have arrived in Europe and America in recent decades. Another term for their beliefs is national conservatism. And it's not just a belief system: 'national conservatism' might be seen as a byword for this network of individuals, one which can unite theological grandees, international statesmen – and ambitious politicians. The same network of ideas and influence will be on display in Washington DC in September when the National Conservative Conference will take place. This is the sixth annual gathering, the brainchild of the American-Israeli political thinker Yoram Hazony. Vance, the Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump adviser Stephen Miller have all attended in the past. The conferences are organised by Hazony's Edmund Burke Foundation, who have a UK branch, chaired by none other than Orr. Hazony recently told the New York Times that National Conservatism distinguishes itself in two directions: from the libertarians in the Republican Party to their left and the racist and anti-democratic figures to their right. Farage, who is listed as a conference speaker, has long said something similar about creating a wall between himself and people such as Tommy Robinson. Yet there are other speakers far to the right of most on Vance's guestlist: Jeremy Carl, the man trying to revive white identity politics; Jack Posobiec, a Bannon ally who once called for the overthrow of democracy; Jonathan Keeperman, an influential figure on the online right who runs Passage Press, a publishing company that prints forgotten books by reactionary authors (Ernst Jünger, HP Lovecraft) alongside contemporary writers popular with Maga intellectuals (Curtis Yarvin, Steve Sailer). One forthcoming NatCon panel will discuss how to overturn the Supreme Court ruling which legalised gay marriage in America. Does the British right have anything useful to learn from this crew? Apart from one Farage foray into abortion rights, the social issues that rivet America have little grasp in the UK. And while Skinner might like to tweet occasionally about going to church, the Catholicism of Vance and his political allies is dedicated and doctrinaire. As Ross Douthat, the Catholic New York Times columnist who interviewed Vance at the Vatican in May, told me, 'If you're going to be a Christian in the intelligentsia, it feels like Catholicism or nothing.' A paradox of American secularism is that religion is also a font of political philosophy. That is not the case in Westminster. Kruger's evangelical Christianity is unusual in parliament. But outside the Commons, perhaps the most influential evangelical is Paul Marshall, the owner of the Spectator and co-owner of GB News. Marshall met Vance on 12 August. Yet few in England would cite the Archbishop of Canterbury as a political inspiration. Roger Scruton plays the role of in-house philosopher for British conservatives much more than Pope Benedict XVI. But religiosity is not a precondition for national conservatism. English national conservatism will always be couched in English culture. Progressives' adoption of woke politics, exemplified by the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, was the last significant American political import into Britain. Is Vance leading what could be the next? There is no JD Vance analogue in the country. But this son of Scots-Irish America is assembling the English shards of himself, from the religious intellectual pondering integralism, to the Essex hillbilly with the common touch. National conservatism has the inventory to hand a wily politician both a populist playbook and at the same time an elite intellectual hinterland to serve as a guiding philosophy. One suspects Vance dished out some advice to his guests while in the Cotswolds on how to use this very modern synthesis to fuel Britain with the same forces he and Trump are using to reshape America. [See also: The Cotswolds plot against JD Vance] Related
