Have your say
The pictures of Aylan Kurdi, the three-year-old Syrian boy found washed up on a beach in Antalya, Turkey, appear to have (finally) brought it home to the British commentariat that more must be done to help those refugees currently fleeing from war and dictatorship.
As such, David Cameron is coming under increasing pressure to let in more refugees. Up to now the prime minister has responded that Britain is doing a great deal to help refugees – but by spending money on aid to be sent to the areas where people are fleeing in the first place.
But are the prime minister’s critics right – should Britain take in more refugees? Or is Britain, as the PM likes to point out, already doing its bit?
Have your say – the results of the poll will be published early next week.
Create your own user feedback survey
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
94 Responses to “Poll: Should Britain take in more refugees?”
john ingamells
I would not try to second guess the thought process from a perspective of the father who has lost his wife and 2 sons in that dinghy, which was clearly ill equipped to cross the Mediterranean other than to assume he believed his security and safety wasn’t as safe in Turkey as we are seeing it. I have read they applied as a family to seek asylum and then ultimately hope for citizenship in Canada, where they already have family. It was turned down but i assume they didn’t see a future for them in Turkey. A big mistake, but many of these people are probably traumatized to varying degrees by the sheer death and destruction in Syria. These deaths so visible and now front page news have been occurring for months, clearly they believed a better future was the other side of the Mediterranean. What has happened in both Syria and Iraq, and apparently rapidly the case in Libya, is that our intervention in whatever forms, militarily in both Iraq and Libya, initially through Western encouragement for overthrowing the despot Assad in Syria by encouraging civil war and from there IS have moved into the ruins. From that western support and encouragement, many Syrians are now displaced either in camps in Jordan and Lebanon, etc. What remains of a civilised functioning country in Syria, along with the murdering cult of IS, is making it a place which i imagine refugees believe will never be fit or safe to return to. I fear both Iraq and Libya could be going down the similar route. If the West and others believed bombing alone would remove IS it seems our politicians are mistaken. This is a refugee situation which would be the worst since the Second World War, without the prospect of defeating an enemy. Clearly the military intervention and support for the government in Iraq by the US and UK has failed. The natural consequence is our politicians globally must address the numbers of potential refugees in the future and formulate some cohesive strategy in the failing countries and for the movement of people.
clair hugs
i have notice in a lot of the pics the young men have mobile phones and ear phones also hungry is a safe country why do they not wish to go there
clair hugs
you wil lget it when u can not get your children in a school or a hospital appointment
clair hugs
they do already
mr_fatty
Cameron, Garage and co. saw you coming, didn’t they? 30 years of privatisation and spending cuts by right wing governments are the reason why you can’t get a school or hospital appointment. If schools and hospitals can’t turn a quick cash profit to line the pockets of millionaires they’re penalised. Immigrants have nothing to do with it. You’re blaming the wrong people – which is exactly what politicians, bankers and company directors want you to do.