Article  Burnham: Wealthier areas must do their part in housing asylum seekers (travel to UK)

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c204d4z1gg8o

EXCERPTS: Prime Minister Andy Burnham has suggested that wealthier areas of the UK should house more asylum seekers. "We cannot have a situation where it's only the poorest communities in the country that receive all of the dispersal of refugees and asylum seekers," he told GB News on Tuesday.

His comments came in response to a question about protests which have taken place in the village of Piddington, Oxfordshire over plans to provide accommodation for asylum seekers on a nearby former military base. But shadow home secretary Chris Philp, responding to Burnham's comments, said: "We shouldn't be housing illegal immigrants anywhere – wealthy or not."

Labour has pledged to stop using asylum hotels, a costly form of accommodation that has become a focal point for anti-migrant protests.

The government has sought to house migrants at military sites across the country instead, announcing in June that it planned to open three more including the site in Bicester, Oxfordshire. The plans have prompted protests there, with residents of nearby Piddington voting to stage a symbolic referendum on leaving the UK.

[...] After winning the Makerfield by-election in June, Burnham promised to end "HMO Britain" and said he would change Britain's asylum accommodation system. HMOs, or houses in multiple occupation, have been widely used by government contractors to house asylum seekers, often in lower income, urban areas.

Last week, there were anti-immigration demonstrations in the town of Thetford, Norfolk, with protesters attempting to enter homes where they believed asylum seekers were living. In response to Burnham's interview, Philp reiterated the Conservatives' policy of leaving the European Convention on Human Rights in order to deport migrants to their country of origin or a safe third country... (MORE - details)

But those refugees are still going to shop, work, and attend school among the poor... unless the UK plans to elevate them to the level of those neighborhoods. So they're still the problem of the poor. So Burnham is just making happy noises without actually changing/improving anything... which would require limiting such immigration.

Andy Burnham tells GB News that Labour can't commit to stopping small boats crisis by 2029
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/andy-bur...l-election

MICHAEL HEAVER
https://youtu.be/JJw81YFJ0sY

Labour have already admitted defeat ... https://youtu.be/JJw81YFJ0sY
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/JJw81YFJ0sY

Quote:Andy Burnham tells GB News that Labour can't commit to stopping small boats crisis by 2029

Why doesn't somebody ask him why his government doesn't stop the boats TODAY???

They obviously have the ability. What they lack is the will to do anything about it.

They want to transform Britain into some kind of woke paradise that only exists in their imaginations. They like the constant flow of migrants into Britain because they imagine that it promotes the changes in the country that they desire. It's all intentional.

Frankly, I expect things to go from bad to much worse. I just hope that Britain survives in halfway recognizable form until the next election.
Hopefully by then there will have been positive political changes in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and some of the others that are confronting similar problems that might make it possible for Europe to confront its issues as a united front.

Things that a sane new British government might want to consider:

First of all, stop offering migrants free services like food, housing, medical care and schooling. Halt the magnetic attraction that pulls migrants into Britain from across the English channel in France. Strengthen asylum policies so as to reject anyone who claims oppression in their home country after passing through safe third countries like France. No more asylum-shopping. Start vetting asylum applicants so as to finally stop admitting the world's most radical Islamists who faced arrest for good reason in their own countries for their subversive activities. (And don't let them set up their huge mosques in London!)

(Aug 13, 2026 10:42 PM)Yazata Wrote:

Quote:Andy Burnham tells GB News that Labour can't commit to stopping small boats crisis by 2029

Why doesn't somebody ask him why his government doesn't stop the boats TODAY???

They obviously have the ability. What they lack is the will to do anything about it.

They want to transform Britain into some kind of woke paradise that only exists in their imaginations. They like the constant flow of migrants into Britain because they imagine that it promotes the changes in the country that they desire. It's all intentional.

Frankly, I expect things to go from bad to much worse. I just hope that Britain survives in halfway recognizable form until the next election.
Hopefully by then there will have been positive political changes in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and some of the others that are confronting similar problems that might make it possible for Europe to confront its issues as a united front.

Things that a sane new British government might want to consider:

First of all, stop offering migrants free services like food, housing, medical care and schooling. Halt the magnetic attraction that pulls migrants into Britain from across the English channel in France. Strengthen asylum policies so as to reject anyone who claims oppression in their home country after passing through safe third countries like France. No more asylum-shopping. Start vetting asylum applicants so as to finally stop admitting the world's most radical Islamists who faced arrest for good reason in their own countries for their subversive activities. (And don't let them set up their huge mosques in London!)

The problem is that a lot of rhetoric is suggested online in regards to why "asylum seekers" attempt to get into the country and it misses most of the points.

First off the people running the boats will be state operatives of an unfriendly country. (e.g. Russia)
Who in turn gets the likes of the Kurdish communities to do their bidding. The Kurds don't have a country themselves, they've drifted into countries and tend to cause internal problems as they don't integrate where they go and tend to operate to their own rules.

The Kurds run smuggling, drugs and money laundering operations along with growing other unsavoury businesses within the countries they setup in (operating fronts like Turkish Barbers, Vape shops, general stores with limited stock and Tanning salons and the like).
They funnel money using a one pot network which undercuts the usual financial observations.

The people coming across on the boats currently potentially pay money to travel, in which they are then indebted to that network. That network intends to take a cut of whatever pay they get should they manage to get into the country. That's why their network and operations have been growing exponentially.

So it's not about just stopping the boats, it's about stopping the state operators triggering this hybrid war tactic, and stopping the criminal empires that have already infiltrated into the country from continuing to function. If those networks cease operation, then there is no money for those people turning up.

All the stuff mentioned about benefits and asylum seeking etc is just rhetoric spread by those that haven't examined what is actually going on.

Wrongly or rightly, much blame for the problem is often placed on the ECHR. But getting out of the latter probably isn't tenable for the UK, perhaps due to the stigma of doing so. The Vatican and Belarus may be the only European members that don't subscribe to it (if one excludes Russia via its westernmost parts intruding upon the continent).