[Cherie]

Labour will break its manifesto pledge to end the scandal of asylum seekers living in expensive hotels after the Government admitted the practice will continue for years to come. Taxpayers currently pay £5.5million every day to house asylum seekers in hotels but a Treasury investigation claimed "global instability" will make it impossible to move them out.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/new...fca8d11b&ei=14


So let me get this straight, Labour are considering sending failed asylum seekers to the Balkans and will build migrant hubs there, but they cant build any migrant hubs here....anyone smell a massive rat .....

[arista]

[Taxpayers currently pay £5.5million every day]


Yes, Labour has failed.

[Cherie]

Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper should "hang their heads in shame" over Labour's asylum crisis, critics declared on Monday.

A record number of migrants have crossed the Channel in the first three months of this year, with some 5,847 people detected on 106 small boats.

And a Treasury document has revealed many are likely to be held in taxpayer-funded hotel rooms for years.

But the Home Office faced fresh fury after documents - seen by the Daily Express - detailed how the department has rejected "alternative housing solutions" because of their costs "despite being cheaper than current contingency hotels".

Asylum accommodation provider Serco has put forward plans for a "range of alternative medium-sized accommodation sites", including converting student accommodation, but the Home Office Property Board has rejected the majority of the proposals.

This is likely to undermine Labour's plan to close down migrant hotels.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp told the Daily Express: "At the election, Labour promised to end the use of asylum hotels.

"In fact, there are now 8,500 more illegal immigrants in hotels than when they came into power. Labour has lost control of our borders, with a 28% increase in illegal immigrants crossing the channel since the election.

"So far, 2025 has been the worst year on record. It was a catastrophic mistake to cancel the Rwanda deterrent before it even started. Labour should hang their heads in shame.

"It is a disgrace that taxpayers are shelling out well over £10 million a day to house illegal immigrants in hotels at a time when hard-working Brits are struggling to make ends meet thanks to Starmer's swinging tax rises."


Sigh

[Vanessa]

Surely there must be a cheaper way to house them. They're costing too much

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vanessa

Surely there must be a cheaper way to house them. They're costing too much

That wont put money in their mates pockets

[Beso]

Walter Mitty.


That's who starmer is.

[Crimson Dynamo]

They are now out of control and lunging all over the place. They can't last 4 years, it's madness

[Beso]

If only we were in Turkey.

[Beso]

https://youtube.com/shorts/wBLHBIgwq...i63Ertij0qVxeQ

[user104658]

"This can't last four years" whilst fist-bumping over the POTUS and chums crashing the global economy . Dear oh dear.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

"This can't last four years" whilst fist-bumping over the POTUS and chums crashing the global economy . Dear oh dear.

This about Labour

Not your TDS

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

This about Labour

Not your TDS

The obvious implication in what I said was "it can and will last 4 years" just like every other shite elected govt. I'll not be blamed for thick folk not being able to read subtext sorry.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Migration Watch Chairman Alp Mehmet said:

Official figures from the ONS have revealed projected population growth by
mid-2032 of almost five million people and of almost ten million people by
2047. This astonishing increase will be entirely due to immigration and the
children of migrants. The projections are based on the assumption that net
migration will fall to an annual 340,000, from 2029, which is unlikely without
radical policy change.

Beside the massive, negative, economic impact, such population increase will
lead to a further significant fall in the percentage of the indigenous (white
British) population. This has already fallen from 95% in 1991 to 75% in 2021.
No wonder 71% are now saying immigration has been too high.

[user104658]

Most white British people are not even close to being "indigenous" lol, especially in England. Anglo-Saxons are barely more indigenous to the UK than white Europeans are indigenous to the Americas.

[Crimson Dynamo]

"Starmer – who supports human rights to the point of committing national suicide – is
simply setting up a useful idiot in an attempt to avoid the electoral catastrophe that is
coming Labour's way in the May elections."

DT reader comment

[bots]

we need immigrants to pay for our aging population. Families arent having more kids, so immigration is the only option. The other thing is that immigrants are unlikely to stay until pension age, they make money and then head back to their country of origin. Sometimes, things are not as they seem

illegal immigration, of course, is not the same

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by bots

we need immigrants to pay for our aging population. Families arent having more kids, so immigration is the only option. The other thing is that immigrants are unlikely to stay until pension age, they make money and then head back to their country of origin. Sometimes, things are not as they seem

illegal immigration, of course, is not the same

Until fairly recently we successfully managed legal and needed immigration but now...

and the problem is the left just see illegal immigration and immigration exploitation as a culture war issue and as such cannot engage with it for fear of losing face

[Livia]

It always makes me smile when I'm told we need immigration to pay for our aging population. Yet, we can afford nearly £10 billion for another bridge across the Thames. We can afford £5.5 million per day - per day - to house and entertain illegal immigrants while our own homeless sleep in doorways. While social housing is handed over to newcomers while people who have been waiting for social housing for years are ignored. This government hasn't got a clue how badly it's alienating the population, giving people no hope that things will improve and they wonder why Brits aren't having so many kids. Who would want to bring up kids in a country where a primary school cancels Easter in favour of Refugee Week. In short, no one in government gives a stuff about the British, and definitely not about the elderly who've been robbed of their winter fuel allowance after only a couple of weeks in power. In twenty years this country will be unrecognisible if things continue the way they are going and the Great Replacement is allowed to continue.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

Until fairly recently we successfully managed legal and needed immigration but now...

Yes because British people (the 1st world in general) aren't having children. We don't have a sustainable population (and thus, we don't have a sustainable economy long term).

This is not complicated it's one of the most talked existential threats to humanity . At the bare minimum if people want immigration down, then the money (and more money on top) instead needs to be funnelled into funding/financing young British people to start having more children, and earlier. There are currently zero reasons to do that and countless reasons not to. The problem is absolutely gargantuan.

We need the immigration but y'all voted for Brexit so now we have less of the "legal and needed" (i.e. desired) European economic migrants, and more of "the sort" that Brexit voters wanted kept out. If it wasn't so tragic it would be fkn hilarious.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Who would want to bring up kids in a country where a primary school cancels Easter in favour of Refugee Week.

Entirely out of touch and a position of financial privilege; 99% of parents don't give a **** about kids making easter bunnies, they want to know that they'll be able to afford to feed them and keep a roof over their heads. That's why young people aren't having children. Not because they're scared of Ramadan.

[Livia]

People who think they have all the answers about every single topic, who accuse others of being stupid while being unworldly themselves are fkn hilarious.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

Entirely out of touch and a position of financial privilege; 99% of parents don't give a **** about kids making easter bunnies, they want to know that they'll be able to afford to feed them and keep a roof over their heads. That's why young people aren't having children. Not because they're scared of Ramadan.

I'd like to see your stats. No one mentioned Ramadan, only you. And Easter bunnies are not a Christian concept but relate to the goddess Oestra, whose feast day was 21 March and whose symbols were eggs and hares.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

Yes because British people (the 1st world in general) aren't having children. We don't have a sustainable population (and thus, we don't have a sustainable economy long term).

This is not complicated it's one of the most talked existential threats to humanity . At the bare minimum if people want immigration down, then the money (and more money on top) instead needs to be funnelled into funding/financing young British people to start having more children, and earlier. There are currently zero reasons to do that and countless reasons not to. The problem is absolutely gargantuan.

Elon highlighted this issue ages ago, I am glad you finally caught up and agree with him

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

Yes because British people (the 1st world in general) aren't having children. We don't have a sustainable population (and thus, we don't have a sustainable economy long term).

This is not complicated it's one of the most talked existential threats to humanity . At the bare minimum if people want immigration down, then the money (and more money on top) instead needs to be funnelled into funding/financing young British people to start having more children, and earlier. There are currently zero reasons to do that and countless reasons not to. The problem is absolutely gargantuan.

We need the immigration but y'all voted for Brexit so now we have less of the "legal and needed" (i.e. desired) European economic migrants, and more of "the sort" that Brexit voters wanted kept out. If it wasn't so tragic it would be fkn hilarious.

Keep the straight ones and send back the gays...problem solved and other problem halved..

Parmy for PM.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'd like to see your stats. No one mentioned Ramadan, only you. And Easter bunnies are not a Christian concept but relate to the goddess Oestra, whose feast day was 21 March and whose symbols were eggs and hares.

You suggested that the reason that young couples aren't having children and more and more people are choosing not to have children at all is because schools are "celebrating Refugee Week instead of Easter", which is so painfully out of touch with the reality of the situation it's barely worth discussing. People are having fewer kids because they have no confidence they'll be able to support them. And are on top of that, actively told that they then "shouldn't", by the same people who want less immigration.

People with an endless list of complaints but no desire to hear that the practicalities of what they're seeking just don't add up - you can't have a society that won't support young families in having children and tells them "don't do it if you can't afford it", then complain when they say "OK we won't do it" resulting in increased immigration needs for sustainable population levels.

I mean I say "you can't" but that's not correct is it. Clearly plenty of people are perfectly happy to completely ignore the Catch-22 and declare that they want the "best of both", no matter how unrealistic (impossible) that is.