Labour MP's migrants claim contradicted by own government data
Uh oh. Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones has found himself in a tight spot after his Question Time appearance on Thursday night. The Labour MP for Bristol North West told the BBC audience on the issue of Britain's borders that 'the majority of the people in these boats are children, babies and women'. But it appears that data published by, er, his own government contradicts that claim…
The government's official statistics for irregular migration to the UK state in black and white that 'since January 2018, 70 per cent of people detected arriving irregularly have been adult males ages 18 and over'. The document notes that in the same time period, 'just under one-fifth of(19 per cent)' of detected arrivals were children. Yet despite this, Jones decided last night to double down on his contradictory claim. Arguing with Reform UK's Zia Yusuf and sceptical audience members, the Treasury man added:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
37 minutes ago
- Spectator
The post-Brexit Gibraltar deal is going down badly in Spain
Conservative and Reform politicians have denounced this week's post-Brexit Gibraltar deal as a betrayal. 'Gibraltar is British, and given Labour's record of surrendering our territory and paying for the privilege, we will be reviewing carefully all the details of any agreement that is reached,' Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said. Meanwhile, describing Labour as 'the worst negotiators in history', Nigel Farage called the agreement 'yet another surrender'. But Spain's right-wing parties have, if possible, been even more damning. José Manuel García-Margallo, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, described the agreement as 'total surrender', the 'absolute renunciation' of Spain's political and economic sovereignty over the Rock. 'All the British companies that want to settle in the EU post-Brexit will now go to Gibraltar,' he predicted, asking rhetorically who will now invest in Spain's neighbouring territory. He dismissed the argument that the pact helps the approximately 15,000 people living in Spain who work in Gibraltar, insisting that Spain, 'the fourth largest economy in the euro should be able to provide a solution for that number of people'.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Dominic Cummings may have just blown the grooming gangs scandal wide open
All progressives solemnly honour LGBTQIA+ Pride Month. And Islamophobia Awareness Month. And Black History Month. Plus many other such events. This is because they're passionately committed to 'raising awareness' of social injustice. So why not the grooming gangs scandal? For some reason, this is one example of social injustice which has failed to grip progressives' attention. To rectify this, I suggest we introduce Grooming Gangs Awareness Month. Fly an official Grooming Gangs Scandal flag from all public buildings. Get civil servants to wear Grooming Gangs Scandal lanyards. Then perhaps these people might finally take an interest. Then again, we may be wasting our time. In all likelihood, progressives have never lacked 'awareness' of the grooming gangs. They just didn't want anyone else to be aware of them. Which brings me to the explosive allegations made on Thursday by Dominic Cummings. In an interview with GB News, he claimed that, when he was working at the Department for Education in the early 2010s, there were 'mass cover-ups of the whole thing in Whitehall'. Are Mr Cummings's allegations true? I don't know. But then, that's why we need the full national inquiry that Labour continues to deny us. A handful of mere 'local inquiries' won't do – not least because it wouldn't be within their scope to investigate Mr Cummings's claims about what went on in Whitehall. Yesterday, incidentally, seven members of yet another grooming gang were found guilty of raping two teenage girls in Rochdale. Labour may not like Mr Cummings. But this time I think it should listen to him. And, for that matter, to the increasingly furious public. Talking Bull Personally, I was somewhat taken aback when, on Tuesday, the new chairman of Nigel Farage's Reform UK told voters that 'immigration is the lifeblood of this country, and it always has been'. I was even more surprised when, on Wednesday, he told Richard Madeley on ITV's Good Morning Britain that he was once strangled by an evil spirit masquerading as the ghost of his late grandmother. To my mind, though, Dr David Bull's most intriguing comment of the week was this. Asked whether he supports calls to ban the burqa in this country, he replied: 'I'm very anxious about the rise in people that think it is OK to hide their faces. We had a conversation yesterday about whether that was the burqa, crash helmets, scarves or whatever.' Hang on. Crash helmets? I for one have always admired Reform's bracingly no-nonsense attitude towards health-and-safety-gone-mad. But a ban on crash helmets, I feel, might be taking it a touch too far. In any case, I'm not convinced that there's a huge public clamour for such a ban. There are plenty of people who want to ban the burqa, and they have strong arguments for doing so. But I've never heard a voter say: 'I'm sorry, but I'm sick of seeing all these women walking around the streets in crash helmets. It's not as if it's their choice, either. Their husbands force them to do it. The crash helmet is a disgusting symbol of misogyny and patriarchal oppression. 'Also, crash helmets make normal human interaction impossible. When a motorcyclist zooms past me at 70mph, I expect to be able to see his face. 'Anyway, it's just not British. If motorcyclists want to wear crash helmets, they can go and do it in their own country.' Remarks like those, I would guess, aren't heard all that often in focus groups. So why Dr Bull raised the idea, entirely unprompted, in reply to a question about banning the burqa, I don't know. Still, I'm not complaining. Far from it. When I stepped down as this newspaper's parliamentary sketch writer in 2021, after 10 years, I felt that politics was in danger of becoming dull. The previous decade had teemed with the most glorious eccentrics, on Left and Right alike. Increasingly, however, they seemed to be fading from view, to be replaced by robotic regiments of Starmers and Sunaks. How wonderful it is to see a new generation coming through. Violence: a Left-wing guide I don't know whether you ever read Left-wing news outlets. But if you do, this week you'll probably have noticed something peculiar. In such outlets, the violence in Ballymena is always described as 'rioting' – yet the violence in LA is always described as 'protests'. You may well have wondered why this is. After all, both Ballymena and LA have seen cars set on fire, missiles thrown, and police officers injured. These are all very bad things. So why don't Left-wing news outlets refer to both as 'rioting'? The answer is simple. The violence in Ballymena is being perpetrated by people who are against mass immigration. The violence in LA, in contrast, is being perpetrated by people who are in favour not only of mass immigration, but of 'irregular' (i.e., illegal) immigration. And, just as importantly, they hate Donald Trump. Therefore, their actions must be made to sound understandable and legitimate. In other words: sometimes setting people's cars on fire is nasty and frightening. And sometimes it's noble and compassionate. Please update your records accordingly.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
5mph speed limits: another bonkers Labour idea to make drivers' lives hell
The war on motorists grows more bizarre every day. Wales, long ruled by Labour, remains the source of the most bonkers ideas. Earlier this year, Jane Hutt MS, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, appeared to be floating the idea of a speed limit of 5mph being appropriate 'in some circumstances'. 🚨WELSH GOVERNMENT TO INTRODUCE 5MPH SPEED LIMITS?🚨 Welsh Government minister @JaneHutt appears to endorse cutting speed limits to as low as 5mph, before saying the 20mph policy, which cost taxpayers £32m, was "welcomed by the people of Wales". Out of touch. — DOGE Wales 🏴💰 (@SeneddWaste) May 20, 2025 That is roughly the speed of a horse-drawn carriage, so long as it was walking. A trotting horse would typically do double that speed, leaving Ms Hutt in the dust in her car, presumably before being promptly turned into glue for speeding, if the Senedd had its way. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. After all, this is the administration which famously withdrew support 'for all major road projects in Wales because of climate change', and pushed through the controversial 20mph blanket speed limit across all residential roads and busy pedestrian streets in 2023. Nearly two years since the imposition of the policy, Welsh drivers remain furious. And who can blame them? The speed limit is a stick with which to beat drivers into swapping their cars for bicycles and public transport. 'To suck every bit of joy out of driving and make life miserable for drivers,' as a friend once put it. He's picked up nine points, all for driving around 24 or 25 miles per hour, after struggling to rein in a life-long habit of driving at a slightly more reasonable and efficient pace. 'I spend the whole time looking at the speedometer,' another told me. 'The journey to work takes about 20 minutes longer, so I burn fuel for longer and pay more for it'. With a minimum fine of £100 and three penalty points for going over the limit and prosecutions starting at 26mph, the costs to motorists are considerable. The risk of loss of licence and even livelihoods for some is a real danger. There are also more cars on the road for longer, resulting in increased stop-and-go traffic, with frequent braking and accelerating also contributing towards greater fuel consumption and associated costs. Then there's the wider costs. The Welsh government's own research reportedly found that the 20mph policy could potentially cost the economy £4.5bn, though spread over 30 years. This analysis was signed off by the minister for climate change in January 2023 as 'a fair and reasonable view of the expected impact' of the policy, but – in line with the eco evangelism proudly adopted by her government – that she was 'satisfied that the benefits justify the likely costs'. But it's not only in Wales that drivers are being driven out of town. This side of the border motorists are being caught out by 'low traffic neighbourhoods' which not only imposed steep fines when the often imperceptible borders are innocently breached, but have been blamed for increasing pollution on major roads where poorer residents typically live. One scheme set up by Lambeth council in south London was deemed unlawful by the High Court after it ruled the authority had failed to properly listen to residents' concerns. Cash-strapped councils are raising ever-growing sums from parking permits and fines. Across Britain, local authorities have raised £360m from residential parking permits over the last five years, according to Cinch, the online car dealer. Top of the list was Wandsworth Borough Council, which collected £38m from residential permits between 2020 and 2024 alone. And that's before you add in fines from mistakes like driving in bus 'gates' and lanes as well as car parking charges. Back to Wales and its obsession with slow driving. Sense has prevailed in Wrexham at least, with some roads already returning to a 30mph limit. We must not let the age-old argument of safety hold back progress. An infamous New York Times article from 1928 raised concerns around 'horseless carriages' being driven without the added intelligence of a second creature. The answer was to improve safety, not to place restrictions that would make them less efficient than the horse-drawn carriages they were destined to replace. The same is true today, with technology gradually making cars safer. That's not to mention the improved air quality the advent of electric cars – over which I have other concerns, perhaps best discussed in another piece – will usher in at least in this country. As ever, families and businesses are left to pick up the price of government interference, through higher running costs and missed opportunities caused by delays, and in some cases, even the loss of livelihood.
