Over half of asylum-seekers are in the poorest third of council areas
When the government closed the ‘Dubs’ route for child refugees into the UK, they said it was because local authorities couldn’t accommodate any more than 400 unaccompanied children — a tiny fraction of the 3,000 initially mooted by Lord Alf Dubs.
On those grounds, the Conservatives voted, with just three exceptions, against a cross-party amendment that would have required councils to identify their capacity to house child refugees.
So how does that square that with revelations in today’s Guardian that overall, Conservative-led councils in Britain are accommodating just 1,560 asylum-seekers, compared to 34,936 in Labour-led council areas?
Theresa May’s own constituency of Maidenhead currently hosts just four refugees, while Philip Hammond’s has welcomed only two.
The burden has disproportionately fallen on poor councils in the north and in Scotland. The poorest third of councils are accommodating 57 per cent of asylum-seekers, while the the richest third have welcomed just 10 per cent.
This reflects a toxic relationship between the Conservative central government and Conservative-led councils, with local and national politicians using each other’s attitudes to justify their own recalcitrance.
If May is serious about meeting Britain’s existing pledges — which are strikingly unambitious — she should start by applying pressure within her own party.
See: Over 200 migrants feared drowned off Libya – as 2017 promises to be even deadlier than 2016
4 Responses to “Tory councils are refusing to take their share of asylum-seekers – Theresa May should act”
NHSGP
So how many do you want to house in Knightsbridge and at what cost?
Ewan from Swansea
An intriguing question, NHSGP. Currently, about 57,000 homes in London stand vacant – global elites use them as safe assets or holiday homes. So that would allow us to accommodate 200,000 to 300,000 asylum seekers – and the city of London would benefit from the influx of labour, demand for services and payment of council tax.
How does that sound to you?
Fred
Since the Left is always banging on about how great immigration is and how we must accommodate more asylum-seekers (a view not shared by the majority of voters) it is only fair that Left-wing controlled areas take the majority of asylum-seekers.
The rest of us, who have had our fill our mass–immigration, and don’t live in Left wing areas can avoid them. Perfectly reasonable. If the Left wants mass immigration (and we all know it secretly favours open borders), then it should deal with the consequences.
BSA
You, Fred, are ascribing to the Left only your own English victim fantasies and I doubt if you have personally had your fill of mass immigration, apart from perhaps in the pages of the Daily Mail.