Starmer has just revealed he has absolutely no idea how to to stop the boats
What's more, the top countries for asylum seekers to Britain are Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. These are all countries where human rights law means they will likely never be sent home. Plans to stop the use of asylum hotels have been put off until 2029, and on current trends, there is no reason to think it wouldn't be put off again. That means they will keep costing billions every year.
What the Government needs is a deterrent. Having dumped the Rwanda Plan in their first week in office, they lost the best effort at one so far. As they were so vociferous in attacking it, it seems unlikely they will try to resurrect it. Instead, they are supposedly planning a new deal with France.
Early reports suggested a 'one in, one out' rule. That would mean that almost every small boat migrant would be sent back to France within weeks of arrival. In return, Britain would agree to take one asylum seeker from France with family links to Britain for every migrant sent back.
The hope is that this would put potential small boat migrants off trying to come. Why bother spending thousands of pounds if you are guaranteed to be returned to France? Many of those coming on small boats do have family here already, though, so it is unclear how effective it would be.
The Government seems to be aware that there are problems with the idea. They have had presentations from senior figures at the European Stability Initiative to discuss an alternative plan. This would involve a coalition of European countries, but not the European Union, who would agree to take back all small boat migrants from Britain. In return, Britain would agree to take a certain number of asylum seekers from them, suggested at a level of 20,000 for four years.
The plan is that this would demonstrate that illegal crossings won't work but that there are safe and legal routes for refugees, with Britain setting up a visa application process in EU countries. Britain would still be taking asylum seekers but in significantly lower numbers. The European states, meanwhile, could test a plan they could then apply with other countries, to end the illegal immigration issues they face in the Mediterranean.
This is very similar to the 2016 EU-Turkey deal which the European Stability Initiative helped to broker. That did reduce the numbers of asylum seekers coming through Turkey. However, the flows of illegal immigrants simply shifted to other routes, with overall levels still higher than they were before the 2015 refugee crisis.
Many will also point out that this doesn't actually fix our issues with human rights laws; it just makes them slightly less worse. Taking in 80,000 asylum seekers would still be a large and costly policy, costing us all billions and directly contrary to what voters want. No wonder that Home Office sources have stressed that this is still a 'work in progress'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer to speak with coalition of the willing ahead of Zelensky-Trump meeting
Sir Keir Starmer will speak to western allies on Sunday ahead of Volodymyr Zelensky's White House meeting with Donald Trump. The Prime Minister, France's Emmanuel Macron and Germany's Friedrich Merz will host the meeting of the coalition of the willing on Sunday afternoon. The coalition, made up of 30-plus nations, is prepared to deter Russian aggression by putting troops on the ground in Ukraine once the war is over. The meeting, which is expected to take place at approximately 2pm UK time, comes on the heels of US President Mr Trump's summit in Alaska with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Mr Trump hoped to secure a peace deal from the talks at a military base in Anchorage, but both he and Mr Putin walked away without agreement on how to end the war in Ukraine. The US leader, however, insisted 'some great progress' was made, with 'many points' agreed and 'very few' remaining. Several news outlets have cited sources which claimed that during the negotiations Mr Putin demanded full control of Donetsk and Luhansk – two occupied Ukrainian regions – as a condition for ending the war. In exchange he would give up other Ukrainian territories held by Russian troops. Other outlets reported that Mr Trump is inclined to support the plan, and will speak to Mr Zelensky about it on Monday when they meet in the Oval Office. After the Alaska summit, the US president told Fox News it was now up to Mr Zelensky to 'make a deal' to end the war. Sir Keir commended Mr Trump's 'pursuit of an end to the killing' following a phone call with the US president, Mr Zelensky and Nato allies on Saturday morning. But he insisted Ukraine's leader must not be excluded from future talks to broker a peace in Ukraine.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
‘Eco-hypocrite' Miliband refuses to reveal his number of domestic flights
Ed Miliband has been branded an eco 'hypocrite' after refusing to reveal how many domestic flights he has taken. Ministers insisted the Energy Secretary would not disclose any details about his air travel within the UK since he entered office last July. Claire Coutinho, shadow energy secretary, said the refusal represented 'one rule for him and another for everyone else' given that the Left-wing frontbencher has been a vociferous opponent of domestic air travel. Labour has also forced through significant increases to air passenger duty that have added hundreds of pounds to some family holidays. The accusation came after a Conservative MP challenged the Energy Secretary to publish details of the internal UK flights he has taken since the last election. Answering on Mr Miliband's behalf, Michael Shanks, the energy minister, replied: 'Details of internal domestic flights are not published.' Claire Coutinho, the Tory shadow energy secretary, said: 'As Ed Miliband sticks a holiday tax of up to £400 on a family of four, it does seem the height of hypocrisy that he won't reveal his own flights, which are funded by the taxpayer. 'People expect transparency and fairness from their politicians, but when it comes to the most stringent net zero costs, it's one rule for him and another for everyone else.' Mr Miliband's stance is in line with other Whitehall departments, which also do not release details of ministers' domestic flights. The Government said it was 'the practice of successive administrations', including Tory ones, not to 'publish granular information' about their movements. Mr Miliband, who is in charge of net zero policies, has previously said Britons should cut down on such flights 'as much as we possibly can'. But he was embarrassed earlier this year when it emerged his department is spending more on internal flights under his watch than the Tories. Figures released in April revealed it spent £44,000 on domestic flights for ministers and officials between July and December last year. That was more than the £40,000 spent in the first half of 2024 by the Tories, when Ms Coutinho was in charge of the net zero ministry. Mr Miliband has previously suggested that the Government should encourage ordinary voters to take trains and buses rather than flying. Asked when he was shadow business secretary whether domestic flights should be banned, he said: 'Not completely, but as much as we possibly can.' Speaking to the BBC in 2021, he added: 'Fairness and giving people alternatives is an absolutely key part of making this transition happen.' Labour repeatedly criticised the Conservatives for taking flights and pledged before the election to clamp down on ministers' use of jets. But since taking office, Mr Miliband has been heavily criticised for jet-setting, which has seen him spend 10 times more on foreign trips than Ms Coutinho. The Energy Secretary spent £62,712 on overseas travel in his first six months in office, according to Taxpayers' Alliance analysis, In contrast, his Tory predecessor spent just £6,155 during her first half-year in the role.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
‘I should be living independently – but I can't afford it'
The full-time worker's inability to buy or rent her own place is highlighted as it was claimed that planning permission for build to rent and student accommodation outstrips affordable housing by over 20 to one in the city. Liz Davidson is just one of the many people affected by Glasgow's housing emergency. She has lived in Partick since she was five years old but says there is no way she could afford the new housing currently being built in the area. 'There are two developments going on near where I live, neither of which is at all affordable to me,' she said. READ MORE: Scottish Government minister joins march in support of Palestine 'I work a full-time job and they would want about 75% of my wages for a one-bedroom flat. Because of this, I've had to make the hard decision to stay living with my gran in her flat, which is a social home. 'At 37, I should be living independently and starting a family but I can't afford to. That's not my shame, it's Glasgow City Council's. They seem to think they're above the rules when it comes to building affordable housing.' The National Planning Framework 4's requirement is that all developments include 25% affordable homes or provide 'commuted sums' to help pay for infrastructure. However purpose built student accommodation is exempt from the rule, making it more attractive to investors. Campaign group Living Rent claim developments of purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) and build to rent in Glasgow outstrip affordable housing by 23 to one. They say only 447 units of affordable housing (mid-market rent and social housing) were approved between February 1 2023, and March 1 2025, while 53.7% of all applications granted planning permission are for PBSA developments in Glasgow. The majority of build-to-rent and PBSA developments are in the city centre, without any affordable housing units. The figures show that the council could be doing much more to alleviate the housing crisis, Living Rent claims. Only two developments by private corporations had an affordable housing contribution, one of 15% and the other of 13%, the Living Rent study says. In addition, the researchers could find no evidence of Glasgow City Council agreeing commuted sums for build-to-rent or private developments that failed to provide the 25% affordable housing component. The council declared a housing emergency in November 2023 citing an 'overwhelming increase' in homelessness. READ MORE: I went to the 'first legal wedding' at the Edinburgh Fringe – here's what it was like As of September 2024, there were more than 7000 people living in temporary accommodation, of which 3100 are children. This is costing the city £36 million a year for B&B spend, a 40% increase over the last three years. Glasgow has also seen a 22% increase in homelessness applications in the year from September 2023 to 4241. This is not helped by the rise in private rental prices. Since 2010, rent has increased 81.8% for a two bedroom property, over 30% above inflation (50%). Bianca Lopez, a Living Rent's spokesperson, said Glasgow was quickly becoming a city that prioritised the interests of developers over the wellbeing of its residents. 'Glaswegians don't need more student accommodation or expensive build-to-rent,' she said. 'We need social and affordable housing. 'Across Glasgow, people are being forced out of their communities, pushed into poverty and, in some cases, made homeless by the shortage of affordable places to live. 'Our report exposes the hypocrisy of Glasgow City Council and their failures to take action on affordable housing, despite announcing a housing emergency. 'It's unbelievable that the council has chosen to prioritise private developers' profits over the homes that Glasgow so badly needs.' Lopez said the council needed to prioritise affordable homes in its planning system and shift the balance away from unaffordable tenures such as PBSA and build to rent. 'It needs to implement the 25% requirement in NPF4 across the board. Only then will it be able to deliver the social and affordable housing that Glasgow deserves,' she said. What is the council saying? A Glasgow City Council spokesperson said: 'We do not recognise these figures. Around a half of all homes built in Glasgow every year are affordable/social, and comparing student rooms to new homes with a number of bedrooms is not comparing like for like. In Glasgow, there is a very high proportion of social homes built compared with the figures for any other Scottish or UK local authority.' The spokesperson added that planning applications did not lead to a development. 'If a housing association puts in a planning application for a development of social/affordable homes, then it will have support for funding and will in all likelihood be built out,' he said. 'This is not always the case for PBSA or build to rent.' However Living Rent said this was ignoring the 'fundamental point' of their research. 'The council is trying to pull the wool over our eyes by citing past data and ignoring the fundamental point of what our research says: their planning approvals are favouring unaffordable housing which will push up rents and push us out of the city centre,' said a spokesperson. 'Unless action is taken now, Glaswegians who have lived here their whole lives will be forced out by high rents and a lack of social housing. Glasgow needs social and affordable housing developments to be prioritised not PBSA and build-to-rent developments. 'If the developments that have received planning approval go ahead or developments seeking approval are granted permission, Glasgow and particularly the city centre would become increasingly gentrified. 'Our city centre will be a playground for the rich, all the while enabling foreign investment funds huge returns.' With regards to comparing student accommodation with other housing developments, Living Rent said it would be wrong to count a student development as one unit when it contained hundreds of beds. 'Many social housing developments did not specify the number of beds, so the 'unit' metric is imperfect but the closest way to compare what is being approved,' said the spokesperson. 'Even if we assume that a social home is on average 2.5 beds, approved purpose-built student accommodation and build-to-rent developments still vastly outstrip social and affordable housing by eight to one.'
