��������

How to deal with migrants and asylum seekers in the UK remains a highly divisive and contentious issue. It is likely to remain so, as the government and opposition parties trade blows — depending on their point of view — about the country’s failure to deal equitably with those who seek refuge, those who could be a useful addition to the workforce and those who are in the UK to freeload and further damage a struggling economy. There are also populists on the extreme right, who are currently gaining momentum, that believe the newcomers are damaging British society’s white Christian tradition.

The government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, which is aiming to turn around its waning popularity, finds itself in a tight spot, just like many other Western democratic governments. It is grappling with ways to tame the inflow of migrants, while preventing the extreme-right populists from using it as a topic to win votes. The right-wing demagogues have been using immigration to create a toxic narrative that has eroded the standing of the centrist government and is helping them in the race to win voters’ hearts and minds. As a result, the government has been on the back foot.

Stories about Labour’s failure to stem the flow of asylum seekers and migrants into Britain dominate the airwaves. Hardly a day passes without migration or asylum seekers making headlines — whether about a protest outside a hotel housing asylum seekers, migrants drowning during a small-boat crossing of the English Channel or a crime or violent act being blamed on migrants. Such narratives keep on being used by opposition parties as a means to discredit and weaken the government.

And they are succeeding, aided by a warped social media realm that exaggerates criticism and promotes posts blaming the government and its asylum policies. It relentlessly churns out news concerning the government’s failure and its inadequate policies aimed at stemming the “invasion” of migrants, as we are told.

The noose keeps on tightening on the government and all the plans it fields to try to reverse its declining popularity. The latest such plan — after the “one in, one out” deal with France — is to house asylum seekers in army barracks to lower the cost of using private hotels. But using barracks will not necessarily lower the cost, nor will it please right-wing voters. And, above all, it will not be a silver bullet to turn around Starmer’s unpopularity.

The government last week promised to move the first 900 asylum seekers from hotels to two army barracks — one in Inverness in Scotland and the other in East Sussex in England. The two sites were previously used to accommodate Afghans who had worked with UK forces and their families after they were evacuated from their home country following the Taliban takeover of Kabul in 2021. They lived there temporarily before being resettled elsewhere.

Stories about Labour’s failure to stem the flow of asylum seekers and migrants into Britain dominate the airwaves

Mohamed Chebaro

Meanwhile, the government is studying other options, such as converting industrial sites, disused accommodation and even resorting to prefabricated structures and other temporary facilities. Many believe the government is aiming to house up to 10,000 asylum seekers away from hotels as a first step.

Even before the process starts, critics from all sides have been piling pressure on the government due to the costs involved. Many claim that the barracks will not be any cheaper than the hotels. Some have also questioned the wisdom of placing asylum seekers in areas inhabited by the families of veterans and the long-term impact on local communities. Others have evoked human rights due to the quality of the accommodation, since the barracks are basic and are nowhere near the luxury of even the most budget hotel.

As of June, about 32,000 asylum seekers were being housed in hotels, down from a peak of more than 56,000 in 2023 but 2,500 more than at the same point last year.

It is clear that the country’s governments have been shouldering a lot, since the expected cost of Home Office accommodation contracts for 2019-29 has tripled from £4.5 billion ($5.8 billion) to £15.3 billion amid what Parliament’s Home Affairs Committee called a “dramatic increase” in demand. It is worth considering the cost of procuring rooms via private contractors that are basking in the spoils of the refugee crisis, earning handsome government contracts.

Many believe that the UK’s addiction to private contractors is part of the problem and maybe that is where Starmer’s government should be starting. Perhaps there should be a hybrid third way that uses barracks and hotels in addition to social housing, as well as enforcement and control and a review of existing laws and regulations about government provisions. Any review should look to involve local councils, which have been sidelined in recent decades. They should renew their efforts to increase their participation in finding local and durable solutions.

Investment in that area should not be overlooked, as a larger investment in social housing could be one way to manage the needs of society, rather than throwing money down the drain and funding for-profit, and often unscrupulous, contractors. Starmer today has a golden opportunity to have a nationwide debate and review all provisions and laws for migrants and asylum seekers. This is especially so as a recent cross-party Commons report accused the Home Office of squandering billions of pounds on asylum accommodation due to the long-term mismanagement of a system that it described as a chaotic and overpriced failure.

• Mohamed Chebaro is a British-Lebanese journalist with more than 25 years’ experience covering war, terrorism, defense, current affairs and diplomacy.