Why can't ministers just tell us where they plan to house migrants once spending on hotels stops?
What trust?
WHY can't ministers just tell us where they plan to house migrants once spending on hotels stops?
Their only answer to the question is to repeatedly insist that the Government wants to deport those who have no right whatsoever to be here.
1
How can voters have any trust in that?
In the year to March, just 6,339 people were forcibly returned.
But more than 15,000 have arrived illegally by small boat already in 2025.
Another 125,000 people are still waiting for decisons on their asylum claims.
So in the unlikely event ministers find an immediate way of either stopping the boats entirely or sending migrants straight back to France, tens of thousands will have to be housed for years.
The uncomfortable truth for the Government is that the vast majority will be shoved into rented accommodation — for several years to come.
Blocks of flats filled largely with young, unemployed men.
All living for free among families struggling to pay the bills.
Surely even the Home Office can see this is not a recipe for community cohesion?
Zero cheer
PRESIDING over an economy as remorselessly sluggish as the UK's, it was perhaps unwise of the Chancellor to boast that Britain has enjoyed the fastest growth in the whole of the G7.
Yesterday's GDP figures for April showing a 0.3 per cent fall mean we are now in danger of having the fastest SLOWING economy.
Some of the mini-slump was caused by Donald Trump's insane tariffs.
But the cost to businesses of the National Insurance rise on employers is now very real.
It has cost jobs, while also squeezing wages and consumer spending.
Next spring, bigger bills landing on the doorstep will include whacking great council tax.
That is now set to rise at the fastest rate for 25 years. Far from fixing the foundations, the Chancellor's problems are again piling up.
Awful April might just signal the start of an even worse year.
Pray for them
THE terrible scenes which unfolded during the Air India crash were, as the King said, desperately shocking.
It is horrifying to think of so many loved ones gone in a few moments of appalling tragedy.
Couples like Brits Fiongal and Jamie Greenlaw-Meek, who were just returning from a holiday of a lifetime.
Yesterday was a day of overwhelming pain and grief.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Spending billions on unclean, risky energy? What a nuclear waste
Rolls-Royce pressurised water reactors have powered British nuclear subs since 1966, but small modular reactors (SMRs) aren't yet proven at scale anywhere on land (Rolls-Royce named winning bidder for UK small nuclear reactors, 10 June). Only three are operating worldwide: two in Russia, one in China. Argentina is constructing the world's fourth; is Labour simply keen to keep up with historical geopolitical rivals (Sizewell C power station to be built as part of UK's £14bn nuclear investment, 10 June)? The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reported actual cost overruns of 300% to 700% for all four projects. Rolls-Royce claims costs of £35 to £50 per MWh; so should we triple this? The government says the SMR project would create 3,000 new low-carbon British jobs, but at what cost? The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, can't know the true costs yet, and three reactors doesn't scream 'economies of scale'. Yet £2.5bn is already 10 times more than Great British Energy has invested into simple, cheap rooftop solar, which democratises energy savings. The true cost of renewables must consider intermittency and balancing costs, but why not invest more in flexibility through distributed renewables and grid-scale storage? And what of energy security? SMRs may mitigate against Putin snipping offshore wind cables, but increased reliance on imported uranium, and a heightened nuclear waste security threat, are significant risks. Last May, the IEEFA concluded that SMRs 'are still too expensive, too slow and too risky', and that we 'should embrace the reality that renewables, not SMRs, are the near-term solution to the energy transition'. Has this truly changed? The climate crisis requires scaling all feasible solutions as fast as possible, but, with limited capital, we should prioritise those that make economic sense HillMBA student, Cambridge Judge Business School As Nils Pratley says, Great British Energy's budget has been nuked to divert funding away from local energy initiatives (11 June). But let's get away from the idea that SMRs are a cutting-edge technology. Rolls-Royce is proposing a 470MW reactor, the same size as the first-generation Magnox reactors. Their 'small' modular reactor, if it ever emerges, will use the familiar method of generating a lot of heat in a very complex and expensive manner, in order to boil water and turn a turbine. It will bequeath yet more radioactive waste to add to the burden and risk at Sellafield. In the meantime, if government SMR funding continues, it takes money away from opportunities for cutting-edge technical and social innovation, discovery and training all around the country, as schools, hospitals, community groups, network operators and all of us get to grips with renewables-based systems. This sort of innovation is necessary, it's already benefiting us and it needs full-on government support rather than uneasy compromises with an increasingly redundant nuclear DarbyEmerita research fellow, Environmental Change Institute I'm a Scot who moved to the US in 1982. I returned to the UK seven years ago. In my time in the US, I worked with a few contractors as a chemist and health and safety manager on a number of environmental clean-up projects, chemical, biological and nuclear. The nuclear clean-up sites I worked on directly and indirectly were Hanford in Washington state, and Rocky Flats, Colorado. The multibillion-dollar Hanford cleanup is ongoing. Most of the problems there are as a result of gross mismanagement of nuclear waste during the cold war. I very much believe in wind, solar and other environmental solutions to energy production. I am cautiously supportive of small‑scale nuclear energy, but outraged by this government's failure to include the costs of the disposal of past, current and future nuclear waste in its support of 'cheap energy'. Has Ed Miliband taken into account future waste management issues? Google Hanford cleanup to see the real expense. Can we trust this and any future government to protect the environment, public health and the taxpayer from future nuclear 'cost overruns'?Peter HolmyardEdinburgh The more I read about the government's nuclear intentions, the more it sounds like HS2 all over again, ie another financial boondoggle. Where are the detailed costings? What is our experience with cost overruns, eg at Hinkley Point C? What is the overseas experience with pressurised water reactors (the kind proposed for Sizewell C) at Olkiluoto, at Flamanville, at Taishan? Uniformly bad in all cases, actually. No matter which way you look at this, viz the future cost overruns, the facts that we consumers will be on the hook for them, that reactors are never constructed on time, that nuclear wastes are unaudited, that we have to import all our uranium, that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2023 that renewables are 10 times better than nuclear at lowering carbon emissions, all point to a remarkably poor decision by the government, sad to Ian FairlieIndependent consultant on radioactivity in the environment; vice-president, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Russia adviser Fiona Hill's alarming conclusion
Fiona Hill's assessment of the Russian threat to Britain is a classic example of how a seemingly rational argument based on a false premise and scanty evidence can lead to a mad conclusion (Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says, 6 June). It is especially alarming that this conclusion was reached by one of the three principal authors of the recent strategic defence review. The false premise is that Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is the first step to make Russia 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. Evidence that Britain is already under attack is provided by 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations … cyber-attacks and influence operations ... sensors … around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables'. It follows that Britain's economy and society must be geared up to resist the Russian menace. Deny the premise and the argument for a 'whole society' mobilisation against Russia collapses. What it reveals is the strength of the warmongering mood of official Britain. This is not to deny that we have to take precautions against the real danger of a significant US pullout, perhaps amounting to rendering article 5 of the Nato treaty meaningless, and that the Russians can be quite ruthless in exploiting an advantage if they think they have one. But this is a far cry from proposing, as the strategic defence review does, a national mobilisation in face of an immediate and pressing Russian Skidelsky Emeritus professor of political economy, Warwick University, Richard Balfe Former MEP, Anthony Brenton British ambassador to Russia, 2004-08, Thomas Fazi Author and journalist, Anatol Lieven Senior fellow, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statesmanship, Ian Proud Senior diplomat, British embassy, Moscow, 2014-18, Geoffrey Roberts Professor, University College Cork, Richard Sakwa Emeritus professor of Russian and east European studies, University of Kent, Brigitte Granville Professor of international economics and economic policy, Queen Mary University of London Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Independent
36 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump warns Iran ‘make nuclear deal or face slaughter' as fears of all-out Middle East war grow
Donald Trump has warned Iran to make a nuclear deal now or face 'slaughter' amid growing fears of all-out war in the Middle East. Benjamin Netanyahu launched 'Operation Rising Lion' in the early hours of Friday morning with an attack on Tehran 's nuclear facilities and military commanders. Israel said around 200 Israeli Air Force aircraft dropped 330 munitions on around 100 targets in total, which included ballistic missile factories. In all, at least 20 senior commanders were killed, two regional sources said, reportedly including the head of the Revolutionary Guards aerospace force. Iran warned 'the gates of hell will open' in retaliation, while Israel said the strikes were only the start of its campaign as tensions in the region reach boiling point. The US president issued a stark warning to Tehran while also indicating there was still time to avert further attacks. 'I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal," he said Friday morning. 'There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left.' Britain and the US both denied any involvement in Israel's attack. But while Sir Keir Starmer convened an emergency Cobra meeting and urged restraint, Mr Trump labelled the attack 'excellent' and said Washington had been informed beforehand. 'We gave them a chance [to strike a nuclear deal] and they didn't take it,' said the US president, who in 2018 pulled out of a deal struck with Iran by his predecessor Barack Obama. 'They got hit hard, very hard. They got hit about as hard as you're going to get hit. And there's more to come. A lot more. 'We knew everything, and I tried to save Iran humiliation and death,' he said. 'I tried to save them very hard because I would have loved to have seen a deal worked out. They can still work out a deal however, it's not too late.' Tehran was among six cities struck in the overnight attack, which Iran said killed six nuclear scientists and several top commanders, including Hossein Salami, the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, along with Mohammad Bagheri, the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, and the army's deputy commander in chief, Gholamali Rashid. Mossad operatives situated deep within Iranian territory also conducted a series of covert sabotage missions targeting the country's air defence systems. This involved building a drone base near Tehran, a security source told the Times of Israel. Israel has made clear its intentions to wipe out Iran's nuclear capability, with Mr Trump previously warning they 'cannot get a nuclear weapon'. While Iran insists its nuclear programme is intended merely for energy purposes, Tehran's leadership has repeatedly called Israel a 'cancer' in the Middle East. The Israeli military claimed on Friday it had been forced to act by new intelligence information showing that Iran was 'approaching the point of no return' in the development of a nuclear weapon. But a source familiar with US intelligence reports said there had been no recent change in Washington's assessment that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not authorised a resumption of the nuclear weapons programme that was shut in 2003. As Iran retaliated with a salvo of 100 drones, Jordan's military said it had intercepted a number of missiles and drones that entered its airspace and which had been likely to fall in Jordanian territory, including populated areas. As sirens reportedly sounded in Amman, civilians on the ground in Baghdad told The Independent that they initially believed Iraq was under attack as they heard explosions overnight. Iran's main nuclear enrichment facility in Natanz was damaged in the overnight attack, but investigations have not shown any radioactive or chemical contamination outside the site, the country's atomic energy organisation said. 'I woke up to deafening explosion. People on my street rushed out of their homes in panic, we were all terrified,' said Marziyeh, a 39-year-old from Natanz. Explosions were also reported in Tehran and other cities including Bandar Abbas, Arak, Isfahan and Kermanshah. Despite strikes being reported in Isfahan, the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iran's nuclear facilities there had not been impacted, citing Iranian officials. But the UN's nuclear watchdog warned that any military action jeopardising the safety and security of nuclear facilities risks grave consequences for the people of Iran, the region, and beyond. Further Israeli strikes were reported on Friday, including at Iran's military airport in Tabriz and at the Shiite holy city of Qom, according to Iran's semi-official Mehr news agency. Tensions in the region were already ramped up after 20 months of war in Gaza, sparked by Iranian-backed Hamas 's attack on Israel on 7 October 2023. Over that period, Israel has also decimated Iran's powerful Lebanese ally Hezbollah, while trading fire with the Houthis in Yemen, who had been targeting Gulf shipping in retaliation for the Gaza war. However, Israel's major escalation will raise fears of all-out conflict between the region's most powerful militaries and a destabilising wider escalation, with concerns that US military sites and shipping in the Persian Gulf could become targets. Iran's defence minister Aziz Nasirzadeh had warned on Wednesday that it would retaliate by hitting US bases in the region if Iran was subjected to strikes. The US has a military presence at bases across the Middle East. In an acknowledgement of the heightened risk, the US on Wednesday announced the partial closure of its embassy in Baghdad, while authorising the 'voluntary departure' of military dependents from bases in Bahrain and Kuwait. Also on Wednesday, the UK's maritime agency warned that increased tensions in the Middle East may lead to an escalation in military activity that could impact shipping in critical waterways. It advised vessels to use caution while travelling through the Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Straits of Hormuz, which all border Iran. While Hezbollah indicated on Friday that it would not respond to Israel's attack on Iran, the Tehran-allied regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria has also been toppled since Iran's major attack on Israel last April. However, there are fears that Iran-aligned paramilitaries in Syria sought by the nascent rebel-led administration established after the fall of Assad December.
