Stop panicking about asylum hotels, Sir Keir. I've got the perfect solution
Three years ago, Ron DeSantis – the Republican governor of Florida – decided that he was sick of his state being deluged by asylum seekers. And he was even more sick of being lectured by rich liberals who were always loudly supportive of mass immigration, while living in neighbourhoods that were largely untouched by its downsides. So he came up with a little idea.
He assembled a group of asylum seekers who'd arrived in Florida, and kindly arranged for them all to receive one-way flights to Martha's Vineyard: a fashionable part of New England that is home to lots of rich liberal celebrities.
You may be astonished to learn that, in liberal circles, Mr DeSantis's plan was met with horrified fury. Not, of course, because these liberals don't like asylum seekers, and were appalled by the prospect of having to share their beautiful neighbourhoods with them. It was merely because they felt it was callous and inhumane of Mr DeSantis to use vulnerable people as pawns in a cynical political game. That was all. Important to make that clear.
Anyway, there's a reason I bring this story up. Here in Britain, our Labour Government has got itself into a bit of bother. Earlier this month, it pledged to end the use of asylum hotels by 2029. But now David Bolt, the chief inspector of borders and immigration, has said: 'I don't think it will be achieved, frankly.'
Luckily for Labour, I'm here to save the day. As we know, asylum hotels are, for some mysterious reason, almost always found in areas that are home to people who are not very well-off, and unhappy about mass immigration. Yet strangely few are found in areas that are home to people who are well-off, and love mass immigration.
So why not take a leaf from Mr DeSantis's book? Remove all the asylum seekers from their hotels – and instead put them up in places that are full of rich liberals. Branches of Soho House, say, or BBC headquarters.
Admittedly this might take some time to arrange. So, for this weekend at least, the Government could just bus them all into the Glastonbury festival.
A perfect solution that will please everyone. It's just a wonder that Labour didn't think of it sooner.
Nigel versus the Nats
I don't know how many Telegraph readers also take The National, the newspaper that, in the proud words of its masthead, 'supports an independent Scotland'. But for those who weren't lucky enough to get hold of yesterday's extraordinary edition, here's what you missed. On its front page were two stories. And both were about Nigel Farage's Reform UK.
The main story was headlined: 'BBC Called Out Over Question Time Slot for Reform Man.' And its opening sentence was: 'The BBC's decision to platform Reform UK in Scotland when the Right-wing party has no elected members has been branded 'bizarre'.'
The other story, however, was headed: 'Poll Suggests Farage's Party Would Gain First Scottish MPs.' This was followed by the alarmed subhead: 'Our analysis finds Reform would also take second place in 16 constituencies and third in a staggering 37.'
So, to summarise: Reform is an overhyped electoral irrelevance that doesn't deserve any airtime in Scotland, because it's so pathetically unpopular there. Yet it's also an existential threat to everything Scotland holds dear, because it's so terrifyingly popular there.
This presents us with a profound philosophical conundrum. Because it would seem that Mr Farage has created the political equivalent of Schrödinger's cat. A party that's simultaneously both dead and alive.
He's achieved some remarkable things in his career, but this surely trumps the lot.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
17 minutes ago
- BBC News
Portland incinerator: Campaigners welcome Court of Appeal hearing
Campaigners have said they are "delighted" after being granted permission to take their case against the decision to build an incinerator near Dorset's Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site to the Court of April, the High Court dismissed an appeal for a statutory review into Powerfuel Portland's £150m waste incinerator planning application was given the go-ahead by the government last September, despite initially being refused by Dorset Stop Portland Waste Incinerator (SPWI) group has argued the incinerator would cause air pollution and damage the local tourism industry. The incinerator is expected to be able to process up to 202,000 tonnes of household, commercial and skip waste a year, creating enough energy to power about 30,000 site for the incinerator is on land owned by Portland Port, which previously said the plant was "vital to this port's future" by allowing it to offer shore power to docked cruise applied for permission for a Court of Appeal hearing after the High Court failed to grant a statutory review of the campaign group has said the Secretary of State's decision "does not satisfy" Dorset Council's Waste Plan and did not properly apply local planning policy, which requires any waste incineration to be in the most appropriate Debbie Tulett said: "I am absolutely delighted that our argument that the Dorset Waste Plan has not been complied with has finally been recognised and I have been vindicated for pushing this point all the way to the Court of Appeal." Opponents of the scheme include Olympic champion Ellie Aldridge, who said "no-one will want to train" at the nearby National Sailing Academy if an incinerator was Council leader Nick Ireland has also previously said the incinerator would be "throwing out nitrous dioxide, sulphur dioxide, arsenic, nickel, chromium" into the atmosphere and harm the area's tourism Environment Agency granted Powerfuel Portland an environmental permit for the incinerator in February after concluding it had met all of its necessary waste management company has said the facility would not burn hazardous or clinical waste. You can follow BBC Dorset on Facebook, X, or Instagram.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Starmer still faces Labour anger over risk of ‘two-tier' disability benefits
Keir Starmer is battling to stem the revolt over his cuts to disability benefits, with about 50 Labour MPs concerned the new concessions will create a 'two-tier' system where existing and new claimants are treated differently. Senior government sources insisted things were 'moving in the right direction' for No 10, with the whips phoning backbenchers to persuade them to support the bill on Tuesday. Government insiders said they believed they had peeled off enough of the original 120-plus Labour opponents of the legislation to win the vote, after the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, promised to exempt current disability claimants from the changes, and to increase the health element of universal credit in line with inflation. However, rebel MPs will attempt to lay a new amendment on Monday giving colleagues a chance to delay the bill, which will still involve £2.5bn of cuts to future disability benefits. The continuing row over the changes is likely to blight the week that will mark the first anniversary of Labour's return to power. In an interview on Thursday, Starmer admitted to a range of mistakes – including using the phrase 'an island of strangers' in an immigration speech, and hiring his former chief of staff Sue Gray. His government has made a series of U-turns in the last 12 months, but his handling of the welfare bill might be the most damaging episode of them all. Starmer will next week be hoping to draw a line under the difficult period, in which the government has also reversed cuts to winter fuel payments and changed course over holding an inquiry into grooming gangs. Dozens of Labour MPs are continuing to criticise the welfare cuts on a Labour WhatsApp group. Many MPs are still undecided about how they will vote and are pressing for more assurances that it is ethical and legal to set up a division between current and future claimants. Disability charities have said the bill remains 'fatally flawed' and will lead to an 'unequal future' for different groups of disabled people, making life harder for hundreds of thousands of future claimants. The government confirmed on Friday night that people who have to make new claims for Pip after November 2026 will be assessed under the new criteria. This means those reapplying after losing their Pip or who have fluctuating health conditions will not have the level of their previous awards protected. Starmer defended the bill on Friday, saying it struck the right balance. The changes will protect 370,000 existing recipients who were expected to lose out after reassessment. The prime minister said: 'We talked to colleagues, who've made powerful representations, as a result of which we've got a package which I think will work, we can get it right.' Asked how the government would pay for the £3bn of concessions, which experts believe will have to be funded by tax rises or extra borrowing, Starmer replied: 'The funding will be set out in the budget in the usual way, as you'd expect, later in the year.' There would need to be at least 80 rebels to defeat the bill, and government sources were quietly confident they had given enough ground after Meg Hillier, the chair of the Treasury committee, said she would back the legislation following changes. Others were unconvinced. One leading rebel said 'everyone but a handful of people is unhappy', even if they do end up reluctantly backing the changed legislation. Another expressed frustration that No 10 and the whips were 'trying to bounce people into agreeing before we've seen enough details'. Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, a leading opponent of the bill, said: 'They are going to have to go back to the negotiating table … deaf and disabled people's organisations are rejecting these changes as it fails to address future need and gives no security for people with fluctuating conditions, for instance where people are in remission.' Other critics who plan to vote against the bill include the MP for Crawley, Peter Lamb, who said: 'Despite many improvements to the system set out in the bill, at its core the bill remains a cost-cutting exercise. No matter the level of involvement of disability groups in co-producing a scheme for new applicants, to save money the new scheme has to result in people with high levels of need losing the support necessary to wash themselves, dress themselves and feed themselves.' Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Simon Opher, the MP for Stroud, said he still opposed the bill. 'The changes do not tackle the eligibility issues that are at the heart of many of the problems with Pip [personal independence payments]. The bill should be scrapped and we should start again and put the needs of disabled people at the centre of the process.' Diane Abbott, a leading figure from the left of Labour, said the rebellion was 'far from over', while another Labour MP said: 'The bill starts from the premise of cuts, not reform. It's also arse about face in terms of impact assessments and co-production. It's simply a negotiated dog's dinner. In that sense, nothing has really changed except the fact they've negotiated more [people to] misguidedly to sign up to it.' One thing Labour MPs are pushing for is more clarity on the review of the Pip system, due to be done before autumn by Stephen Timms, a work and pensions minister. Many expect that process to change the points system from the current proposals. Some in the party also want Starmer to reinstate Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a whip to vote against the bill before the U-turn was made. Stella Creasy, a leading Labour MP who had initially signed the amendment to delay the bill, said she wanted to see more details. 'We need to understand why we would treat one group of claimants differently from another,' she said. A Labour MP from the 2024 intake said: 'I'm waiting to look at the details before making any decisions. Many are in the same place as me and need to get something more than a midnight email on an issue of this much importance to hundreds of thousands of people.' The Labour MPs opposed to the changes are citing a fundamental rejection of the idea that a Labour government will be making disabled people worse off. At the same time, many of them have also been alienated by what they say is a No 10 operation that is out of touch with the parliamentary party, and has tried to strongarm MPs into backing the legislation with threats and promises of preferment. 'Good will has been lost and there is still huge suspicion about whether they will try and pull a stunt at the last minute,' said one Labour MP. The majority of disability charities and campaign groups still opposed the cuts. Ellen Clifford, from Disabled People Against Cuts, said: 'Many people who rely on Pip to survive have fluctuating conditions which means our support needs can go up and down. By penalising existing claimants if we go out of and then go back to the benefits system depending on our health, more people will be denied the support they need. 'This is exactly why no disabled people's organisation across the whole of the UK has welcomed these concessions because we know the complexities of the social security system and bitter experience from years of cuts that there are many ways in which grand sweeping statements about protections translate to very little in practice when you go into the detail of it.' The disability equality charity Scope said that despite the concessions, an estimated 430,000 future disabled claimants would be affected by 2029-30. Its strategy director, James Taylor, said: 'It is encouraging that the government is starting to listen to disabled people and MPs who have been campaigning for change for months. But these plans will still rip billions from the welfare system. 'The proposed concessions will create a two-tier benefits system and an unequal future for disabled people. Life costs more if you are disabled. And these cuts will have a devastating effect on disabled people's health, ability to live independently or work.' Additional reporting by Frances Ryan
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘Worse than anything under the Tories': changes to welfare bill anger disability campaigners
'As a community we feel totally let down and these last-minute concessions do nothing to make up for that,' Andy Mitchell, a disability campaigner and a member of Unite Community, says. 'My friends are scared. Some have spoken about suicide. This is worse than anything that happened under the Tories.' With the government offering major concessions to the welfare bill, ministers will be hoping critics have at last been appeased. But many campaigners have reacted with anger and concern over the changes. Disabled people's organisations, such as Inclusion London, WinVisible and Long Covid Advocacy, have told the Guardian that plans to exempt only existing claimants from the cuts will create a 'two-tier' benefit system that 'condemns' future disabled people to poverty. 'Protecting entitlements for current recipients is the right thing to do and if it's right for current recipients then it has to be the right thing for future claimants too,' says Tracey Lazard, CEO of Inclusion London. 'Even with these concessions, the bill before parliament is not a reform – it's still rationing. There is no moral or economic case for balancing the books on the backs of disabled people. MPs must not condemn future disabled people to the poverty and indignity these devastating planned cuts will cause.' Claire Every, spokesperson for Long Covid Advocacy said: 'A last-minute napkin deal will not assure safety for disabled people. The concessions create an unfair two-tier system – it is unethical to only throw some people under the bus. 'These changes will negatively impact people with long Covid as they discriminate against those with fluctuating disabilities and will see those who contract the illness in the future receive less support than those who fell ill earlier in the pandemic,' she added. Some campaigners warn that a system that treats new and old claimants differently could lead to future legal challenges against the government. 'How can you justify someone with the same impairments getting two different rates of social security payments based solely on [when they applied or how long they've been ill]? Is it even legal?' says Linda Burnip from Disabled People Against Cuts. 'The concessions are ridiculous and [effectively mean] anyone not already ill or disabled in Britain can't become ill or disabled and expect to have enough money to live on in the future.' Others have accused the government of trying to sow division within the disabled community to quell opposition to the bill. 'We refuse the government's divide-and-rule between old and new claimants, and MPs should keep voting against the horrendous cuts they are planning,' says Claire Glasman from WinVisible. 'We won't stop campaigning – new claimants lose out massively across Pip and universal credit, especially women with invisible and fluctuating conditions. Labour is still going after sick and disabled people. 'These offers of concessions are a glimpse into the window of the soul of the government; that they think people are protesting these cuts for their own gain not the wellbeing of all disabled people,' says Cherylee Houston, co-founder of the #TakingThePIP campaign. It is still unclear whether the concessions will protect eligibility for the connecting benefits to Pip, such as carer's allowance, she added. 'We don't agree to anything which doesn't safeguard future disabled people from abject poverty and despair. How can they draw a line to which people who become disabled after a certain date will not receive the support they need?' The government has pledged the entire criteria system will be reviewed in conjunction with disabled people, but disability groups told the Guardian they are concerned any changes from the review will not be made before the bill passes, while MPs will not have sufficient time to consider proposals. 'MPs are going to be voting on these concessions without people having a decent enough time to look and understand them,' says Mitchell. 'One of the points from the amendment was that disabled people hadn't been properly consulted, so how can it be right when these concessions have not been consulted on at all?' 'If concessions are possible, so is proper reform,' added Lazard. 'Fast-tracking a bill with such major consequences is irresponsible and cruel. It denies parliament, disabled people and the public real scrutiny. We urge MPs to stand your ground, stop this dangerous bill and demand better for everyone.'
