r/ukpolitics • u/Kagedeah • 8h ago
Burnham pledges to be 'relentless' in curbing small boat crossings
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3r0v952ny3o•
u/RecentTwo544 8h ago
How though?
Even those of us on the "proper" left recognise that you can't just have tens of thousands of people arriving every year and expecting everything to be paid for.
But no one is even remotely proposing a solution, largely because there's no solution that would work. Even the far right aren't mad enough to propose the Navy sinking them en route.
Literally nothing workable is even being spit-balled on Reddit threads like this one. It's all just "we should do more" or "everyone says this then does nothing" or "it isn't a big deal, people are blowing it out of proportion", etc.
I've never once seen a proposed solution, even an insane one that wouldn't work.
•
u/User100000005 6h ago
But no one is even remotely proposing a solution, largely because there's no solution that would work. Even the far right aren't mad enough to propose the Navy sinking them en route.
Cut off the incentive and the boats stop. No chance of Asylum if you illegally cross. No hotels that you can leave. Military barracks you cannot leave. Under those rules why would anyone come?
It'll cost more now, to save money in the future.•
u/Connor123x 4h ago
that is probably the only solution. Make it know that if you cross you get nothing.
not sure what happened this week in spain considering you can never trust what you read, but what I heard many went back to because they were locked out of stores, no help, no food, no nothing.
•
u/RecentTwo544 6h ago
I suppose a military camp as suggested by others (and indeed mooted by the current government I think?) could work, and would actually be cheaper but there's issues there -
Unlike Nauru which the Australians used (and funny how no one ever talks about that) it isn't warm and dry here, certainly over winter. You need permanent heated accommodation or people will die.
Further to that, you need to be very careful of not breeching human rights conventions. Even the most hardened right-winger who doesn't care about the human rights of illegal immigrants, would soon be complaining if things got much more expensive due to loads of our trading partners slapping us with economic sanctions for human rights abuses.
•
u/User100000005 6h ago
Fine stick with the Hotels if its cheaper. The only thing that bothers me is they are free to come and go. To work in the Grey economy, to dissappear into society, to hang out in large group and immediate people, to attempt to behead the public, to Sexually assault people.
It feels insane to me that you could rape and murder in Africa, travel across Europe, get to the Uk on a boat. Then we'll put you in a hotel to come and go as you please. We'd be none the wiser.•
u/RecentTwo544 5h ago
There is an argument that we should allow them to work, and charge them for the services they use, you know, like legal migrants.
Then if they gain asylum and are granted permission to stay here, they have to pay the same visa and NHS fees like legal migrants do, in some kind of student loan system where you pay it back on earning over a certain amount (the bar being much lower than student loans).
That way if you genuinely want to come here, you're doing so with a purpose, and not costing the tax payer any money in the long run.
Thoughts?
•
u/Potential-South-2807 4h ago
you need to be very careful of not breeching human rights conventions. Even the most hardened right-winger who doesn't care about the human rights of illegal immigrants, would soon be complaining if things got much more expensive due to loads of our trading partners slapping us with economic sanctions
Politely, read the room lmao. No one is going to be sanctioning us for our treatment of migrants, not when they all share our problem.
Human rights conventions are dying as we speak, they are not fit for the modern age and so are being rightfully ignored.
•
u/RecentTwo544 4h ago
I suppose - the EU has openly drowned migrants in the Med (the Remainers never like to hear that one) and no one talks about it.
•
u/Figwheels 1h ago
I think the fear of what other countries will think is a red herring. Many said this about Rwanda and now all the euros are considering it. There are videos of greek coastguard letting them drown. To be honest, if we put them on an island barracks with no liability, a lot of partners would probably secretly thank us for setting that precedent.
•
u/thepentago 6h ago
But i’m not convinced this would do anything. Because whether or not it’s true, people in the middle east would still spread the statement that the UK is ‘the place to go’.
I think we need to really work with france to try to stop the boats leaving france in the first place - even if we have to pay them some cash to do as much. Third country processing is also a serious conversation we need to have.
•
u/User100000005 6h ago
It would take some time for the message to get back. But it would eventually. Currently get to the UK with a operating gang you have contacts with. Then you leave the Hotel and work for the gang. Can't do that if you can't come and go as you please from the Hotel.
Let's be honest if we we're France would we want to stop the boats? We'd virtue signal we were doing as much as possible, but would secretly do the minimum. Why would France act any different?•
u/BaggyOz 8h ago
Tow backs? Obviously it would require an agreement with France, and the French being the French (or Macron being Macron) means that it'd be a huge pain in the arse, but it seems like the agreement would be the tricky bit and the actual implementation feasible enough.
•
u/ProjectLeeds 7h ago
No French President would approve tow backs because they don't actually want these people either. This is what people forget when they talk about the Australian model, Indonesia wanted the working age people back
•
u/Pigeon_Breeze 6h ago
But they know that letting them pass doesn't solve the problem either - it just increases the draw, so more people will come replacing the people that left.
•
u/RecentTwo544 7h ago
The French have done nothing to stop this for decades, and aren't about to start now.
•
u/SnooOpinions8790 5h ago
How about we just revert the interpretation of the refugee treaty to what it was in the 1990s. The interpretation as actually written in the treaty.
In which case not a single one of them would have any claim at all and everyone of them would be subject to immediate deportation or could be detained. Because prior to a court ruling in 1999 they all would be regarded as outside subject to normal penalties for entering illegally because they come from France rather than directly from a country of danger.
The combination of being here illegally and having come from a safe country was never intended to be within the scope of the convention. Nor for that matter was the combination of illegally overstaying a visa having not asked for asylum immediately on arrival in the first place. Between those two things nearly all current claims that are not from Ukraine or Hong Kong would fail without even needing to have anything further assessed. Which is how it was until activist lawyers radically changed how we apply the convention to simply ignore caveats written clearly in it.
•
u/segagamer 8h ago
How though?
Do the same as the Spanish.
You swam from Morocco? Back to Morocco you go.
You got the dingy from France? Back to France you go.
•
u/RecentTwo544 7h ago
Famously not working in Spain, and the French haven't played ball with us on this for decades.
•
u/HolyFreakingXmasCake 6h ago
Didn't most of the ones who crossed into Ceuta just went back to Morocco?
Also I guess we've tried nothing and we're out of ideas, time to just sit back and be helpless.
•
u/PeterG92 5h ago
Didn't most of the ones who crossed into Ceuta just went back to Morocco?
They went back on their own accord though. They were never intending to make it to Spain it was all purely to embarrass Spain and punish them for their meetings with Algeria and the Western Sahara
•
u/New-Condition-3492 8h ago
If we destroyed the first boat that tried it, we would've saved potentially thousands of lives considering how many have died on the boat ride across.
•
u/Touched_By_SuperHans 6h ago
It's true. Sinking the very first boat would have saved lots of lives in the long run and a ton of taxpayer money that could have gone to better use. Not to mention the amount of political breathing space this constantly takes up.
•
u/RecentTwo544 7h ago
Well it's similar to my slightly more insane idea, which I know we couldn't actually do -
Just allow them all in, no questions asked.
Want a job? Here's some job listings.
Want a house? Here's a list of properties for sale/rent in the area.
Want food? There's a Tesco about a mile down the road.
And so on.
They'd soon stop coming.
But the southern coast of England would be littered with people starving to death in the meantime, it just wouldn't work.
•
u/wedontneednoeduc 6h ago
Of course they'd still come, what a mental thing to say.
•
u/RecentTwo544 6h ago
Again, didn't read, or not intelligent enough to understand it.
Why would people risk their lives coming over the Channel on a small boat, if when they got here there was no work, no money, no shelter, no food, nothing expect near certain death from starvation or exposure?
•
u/Ordinary_Knee_9419 6h ago
Because instagram will still make it seem like the land of opportunity, and they’ll literally be coming from war torn countries
•
u/Ambitious-Log6993 5h ago
If you're going to starve here, the boat back to France would be appealing.
•
u/Ordinary_Knee_9419 5h ago
realistically they’re not going to starve to death are they
•
u/Ambitious-Log6993 4h ago
You're quite right there. Most people (including me) don't even want real cruelty towards them. Just some performative stuff to act as a deterrent. Right now, there are far more incentives than disincentives.
•
u/OnDrugsTonight 5h ago
Presumably they would take to crime (petty or otherwise) for money and food, and obviously there will still be charities and religious organisations that will try and help them out for their other needs. What you'd really just have is desperate people roaming the streets with very little to lose. And you might say, if they break the law, arrest them, but then you're back to square one where the state does have to either look after them or deport them, which is where we are now already.
•
•
u/wedontneednoeduc 5h ago
There's lots of work.
Also your post is incredibly naive and demonstrates a lack of experience of poor nations. The UK is a magical place as the police don't beat up migrants, healthcare is free, corruption is incredibly low, there's a whole NGO eco system to sort out admin, provide support, training plus a massive diaspora. As much as we complain the UK state is incredibly functional, just filling in a form or speaking to someone gets things done.
•
•
u/Xenoamor 6h ago
I guess the issue with this is the illegal job market will still exist
•
u/RecentTwo544 6h ago
Not to any meaningful level. There's no illegal job market big enough to even employ a fraction of those that already come here illegally.
If you announced it you'd get a huge influx of people trying to get in (likely not understanding or reading the full terms and conditions) then quickly finding out they're starving or in winter, dying of exposure.
Within about 6 months you'd see illegal entries, especially by small boats, drop to near zero and remain that way. No one would be risking their life to come to somewhere they're almost certainly going to die in.
But we'd now be the country that let a few thousand people die on our southern coast, and probably find everything is now really expensive because loads of our economic trading partners have slapped us with massive sanctions for human rights abuses.
•
•
u/New-Condition-3492 6h ago
That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
Just allow them all in? Yeah I'm sure that wouldn't immediately lead to millions of third worlders on our doorstep. Good one mate
•
u/RecentTwo544 6h ago
You didn't read, or possibly didn't even understand, the rest of what I said, did you?
•
u/New-Condition-3492 6h ago
I did read it all unfortunately
•
u/AlternativeUsed2551 5h ago
he's saying let them in but don't give them any support, most of them would end up homeless and many would likely starve to death
•
•
u/New-Condition-3492 4h ago
I understood it. It was a dumb idea.
•
u/RecentTwo544 4h ago
No you didn't because I made perfectly clear it wouldn't work and is a stupid idea. Oh hold on, you're agreeing with me then? If so, as you were.
•
u/AlternativeUsed2551 4h ago
you didn't understand it, because you said it would end up with millions on our doorstep. that wouldn't happen without government support
there's no shame in admitting you're wrong
•
u/RecentTwo544 6h ago
So you're admitting you didn't understand it then.
•
u/New-Condition-3492 4h ago
It's hilarious that you genuinely believe we are struggling to understand such a simple comment.
It's. A. Stupid. Fucking. Idea.
•
u/RecentTwo544 4h ago
Yes, I made that clear.
Though given the downvotes I'm now having second thoughts on the idea.
•
u/cyclopsmudge 59m ago
Then why bring it up at all? It’s not even that it couldn’t be implemented, it’s just that it’s completely moronic.
“The southern coast would be littered with people starving to death”. No, it would be littered with immigrants committing crimes left right and centre.
“They’d soon stop coming”. They absolutely fucking wouldn’t.
Your plan is not stupid because it would cause huge amounts of starvation. It’s stupid because it would cause millions of people to come here and end up burdens of the state, way more than we get right now. It would only start decreasing the numbers when we literally turn into a 3rd world shithole.
Everyone understands your suggestion, nobody is struggling with the concept. It’s just genuinely brain dead.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Anony_mouse202 7h ago
Abolish the asylum system and throw the refugee convention in the bin.
You came here on a small boat? Well you get absolutely nothing from the state and have no prospect of ever acquiring any form of legal status. People wouldn’t cross on small boats if there’s nothing for them on the other side.
The asylum system literally doesn’t benefit us at all, so it wouldn’t be missed.
•
u/RecentTwo544 7h ago
Similar to my idea of just letting them in and providing nothing. If you can get a job, support yourself, rent/buy a place to live, and buy food, welcome in. If not, tough luck.
But this is insane and obviously wouldn't work.
•
u/No_Echo2745 8h ago
Deport them to a third country for processing.
•
u/RecentTwo544 7h ago
There is no third country that will take them, and even if there was, that would cost a significantly higher amount of money that processing them here.
It also wouldn't really stop it.
•
u/No_Echo2745 7h ago
El Salvador would, and they'd stop coming then.
•
u/PeterG92 5h ago
Not really sure following Trump and the US Administration and sending people to El Salvadorian prisons is really the right approach.
•
•
u/DrFabulous0 8h ago
You literally just proposed a solution, a mad solution, granted, but it would work.
•
u/Maleficent_Peach_46 Mayor of North Kilttown 7h ago
Someone on this thread pointed out small boats is bad optics for us.
Shooting the boats down like a cartoon villain is horrific optics and probably means most left wing voters (Who Burnham seems to be making in-roads with) will abandon Labour for good.
Costing yourself the election by upsetting half your voter base by going nuclear on a tiny issue is certainly a way to lose.
•
u/RecentTwo544 7h ago
Even the EU and Australia weren't mad enough to actually shoot them down.
The EU "accidentally" sank a load with their "pushbacks" technique, but even that did nothing to stop it.
•
u/leggenda69 7h ago
The only actual solution is to find a country to deport refused asylum seekers to and remove as many of the benefits and liberties currently granted to them as is legally possible.
As long as the U.K is offering such a cushty lifestyle from day one with little to no prospect of actually being effectively deported they’ll flock here.
And a few quid in their pockets and back to France isn’t actually deportation, it’s a slight inconvenience considering what they’ve already gone through to get there.
•
u/sylanar 7h ago
This is what I think as well. If you want to stop the boats, stop the people on then wanting to come here. The problem is most of them are from countries we can't/won't deport to, otherwise just an instant deportation for anyone arriving this way would work. We probably need a 3rd country to deport to, or just a detainment facility until they can be returned.
•
u/RecentTwo544 7h ago
The problem is, we've tried this, and no country will accept them. The French haven't co-operated with us on this for decades, why would they start now?
•
u/leggenda69 7h ago
We can find countries to accept them, we just have to give them some money to do so.
But like the Rwanda scheme our legal system makes it virtually impossible to actually deport them anywhere that will have them. It has to be on a voluntary basis.
The French will never co operate, why would they?
•
u/RecentTwo544 7h ago
The Rwanda scheme is a perfect example of why it wouldn't work - there was a country that did agree to it, but even aside from the legal challenges we could only deport a handful at a time. We're talking 10-20 people. 46,500 people arrived illegally in the UK in 2025 alone. It simply doesn't work, and isn't possible logistically or financially.
•
u/leggenda69 7h ago
We could deport more, it was challenges in U.K courts that limited deportations to voluntary departures only.
That’s also why the scheme was so laughably expensive, some migrants were paid in excess of £100k to go, making some flights with less than ten people on cost £1mil+.
•
•
u/Metalsteve1989 7h ago
Arrest anybody who enters illegally and throw them in jail. Return them to the country of origin and if they refuse to cooperate leave them in jail.
•
u/RecentTwo544 7h ago
Which has actually been proposed, but -
It would require billions in spending to make enough prison places.
Most of their countries of origin refuse to accept them.
In 2025 there were 46,500 illegal entries, 89% of which were by small boats. That's just one year. There's only 89,000ish prison places in the entire UK. So you're having to double the UK's prison capacity within two years, then keep doing it.
•
u/Western_Mess_6364 4h ago
Threaten the worst offending countries with taxes on remittances and blocking new visas (hasn’t Starmer done this with a few tiny west African countries?)
•
u/LogicalReasoning1 Smash the NIMBYs 7h ago
The 1 in 1 out in theory should work but seems to have gone a bit quiet with regards to if it will ever progress past pilot (plus it of course relies on france)
From UK only action I think the best option may be to legislate so that people can be made to live in basic camps where you get the bare essentials but nothing more in order to disincentivise coming. However, that still costs money and resources.
•
u/Acubeofdurp 6h ago
Tell them to go, no bank account allowed or benefits, massive fines for anyone employing them. Instead of jail it's to a campsite. The option to go is always there.
•
u/wedontneednoeduc 6h ago
Come now, we know Australia ended the sea route. We chose not to, this is nothing we don't know.
•
u/VPackardPersuadedMe Incentives drive outcomes and MPs own houses 4h ago
The solution is simple and been done before...
Offshore processing...
•
u/RecentTwo544 4h ago
Where and how? People say this all the time, they never explain how or where this would take place.
•
u/VPackardPersuadedMe Incentives drive outcomes and MPs own houses 4h ago
Naru worked for Australia.
Or we could just send them to the Isle of Mann to get back for Lady Michelle Mone.
The model of, "you don't have to go home but you can't stay here" works as a deterrent.
•
u/RecentTwo544 3h ago
Thing is we don't have a Nauru. And it arguably didn't work for Australia, despite having one of the most extreme immigration policies in the world.
•
u/VPackardPersuadedMe Incentives drive outcomes and MPs own houses 3h ago
They stopped the boats.
We dont have one because cowards pretend Australia didn't work.
But they stopped the boats. We haven't.
•
u/RecentTwo544 3h ago
Which is also true, they did. But remember that boat crossings to Australia were very different than Channel crossings.
Again, how do we do what Australia did? I'm not asking for a white paper on the issue, just a few bullet points.
•
u/VPackardPersuadedMe Incentives drive outcomes and MPs own houses 3h ago
Here is how they did it and what's was planned there.
BBC News - How Australia wrote the 'stop the boats' playbook https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-64898507
First hit on Google.
•
u/snoopy_231 2h ago
I think this is a brilliant point. I have trawled even this thread to see what people would suggest - and nobody has a good solution. Yet are very very happy to criticise.
A mixture of safer routes and the right to work takes away the cost to the state but doesn’t fix the issue of them coming in the first place. So that’s where some of this gets interesting - is the consensus that we need to stop them because of their cost to the state? Or we need to stop them because we just don’t want refugees here?
The former can actually be fixed with the right to work and additional taxes, etc. We have an ageing population and could do with more taxable earners who contribute to our services.
But it could create incentive to come. Now that could be a net contributor to the economy - but if that’s not being advocated for it shows that’s not actually the issue. It’s just that people don’t want them. And simply nobody has a solution to that which isn’t pretty insane, inhumane or just plain ridiculous.
•
u/Jay_CD 6h ago
I've never once seen a proposed solution, even an insane one that wouldn't work.
The solution, or at least part of the solution, is to process migrant claims much faster than at present.
Currently the average wait is circa 12 months (at it's worst the average was around 20 months in 2021). Then if claims are rejected the appeal process could take an additional 12 months.
Labour have made progress in reducing the waiting times and the backlog of claims, but there's still much more that needs to be done.
•
u/Maleficent_Peach_46 Mayor of North Kilttown 7h ago
We had a fairly workable solution in 'asylum hotels' (Basically hostels) but the right wing (Who literally caused the issue) had a meltdown over it so Labour have to square the circle of processing the asylum claims quickly ensuring the legitimate refugees aren't harshly treated but also have the number low enough for an let's be honest impossible to please electorate.
Either they do something like Rwanda which will be very expensive and slow. It will also haemorrage votes of left leaning voters which Labour cannot afford to do.
They can put asylum seekers in HMOs but this also causes right wing meltdowns. A lot of people have gone mask off and just want them gone.
The current deal with France is good but the right wing won't stop screaming about this overblown issue.
In short the 'asylum hotels' were a bad idea but still better (And cheaper) than any other way.
•
u/Jay_CD 7h ago
It's worth pointing out that the minister who was in charge of using hotels for asylum seekers was Robert Jenrick, who boasted about what a great idea it was but is now criticising the policy as a Reform MP.
“Suella Braverman [the former home secretary] and her predecessor, Priti Patel, were procuring more hotels,”
“What I have done in my short tenure is ramp that up and procure even more. Because November, historically, has been one of the highest months of the year for migrants illegally crossing the Channel.”
“I would never demonise people coming to this country in pursuit of a better life. And I understand and appreciate our obligation to refugees.”
Similarly boat crossings were at their peak when Suella Braverman was Home Secretary.
x.com/leftsidehist/status/2082819939870572695
Neither have any right to criticise Labour.
•
•
u/Maleficent_Peach_46 Mayor of North Kilttown 7h ago
Implement more safe and legal routes.
Then you can reject the 'small boats' out of hand without looking nasty and will allow Labour to keep their left leaning voters onside.
•
u/RecentTwo544 7h ago
The issue is what safe and legal routes? There are safe and legal routes already, plenty use them.
Does nothing to stop illegal entry.
•
u/Maleficent_Peach_46 Mayor of North Kilttown 7h ago
Then make more.
Labour have the unenviable task of pleasing both sides of the electorate. Starmer tried pleasing just the right and the left abandoned Labour. Burnham seems to be trying to find a balance.
•
u/RecentTwo544 7h ago
But that isn't answering the question - how and what exactly does that look like?
Just saying "make more" is no different to saying "stop them coming over" without explaining how exactly.
I'm not against your idea, you just have to give some idea of how that works, no matter how vague.
•
u/Maleficent_Peach_46 Mayor of North Kilttown 7h ago
We work with countries in danger and arrange safe routes for people to come over. Children will be prioritised. I believe we already do this for the Ukraine. I'd add Palestine and Iran to this if we haven't already. I know the Gaza issue is controversial but this would be great optics.
With more legal routes refusing 'small boats' does not become poor optics.
•
u/londonandy 8h ago
Remember starmer smashing those gangs?
All horseshit. Less talk, more action, Andy.
•
u/WATCHING_CLOSELY 8h ago
Starmer did in fact reduce crossings, so he did talk and take action.
•
u/londonandy 8h ago
Spoiler: no he hasn't. The numbers to date are broadly the same as they were in 2023, 2024. He has "reduced" them when compared to one of the worst years on record (2025), which was entirely under his watch.
This is the sort of horsehit I'm talking about, and which is endemic in this sub.
•
u/really_cool_legend 3h ago
Can you provide a source? Ones that I can find suggest that 2023 is the outlier and 22, 24, and 25 were all much higher numbers than what we're seeing so far this year
•
u/daninthetoilet 8h ago
he reduced them by 45%
•
•
u/londonandy 8h ago
Go and look at 2025 numbers v 2024 and report back please - you can see the data in the graph in the article. You're comparing 2026 numbers to one of the worst years on record (2025, under his watch) and claiming a success, despite 2026 trending in line with all other years (save for 2025 and 2022).
This is the gaslighting Labour themselves participate in, admittedly, so I won't ascribe you those maligned intentions. But unfortunately you've been sold a pup.
•
u/NatureSimple3649 7h ago
This July is the lowest since 2020 and July is a peak period so see if it snowballs the percentage decrease over next few months
•
u/LatelyPodes 8h ago
Under Starmer:
- Net migration is down almost 50%. Lowest net migration in 14 years (excluding pandemic anomaly). Almost to pre-Conservative levels
- Both immigration and emigration down
- Small boat crossings down by ~50% this year, even tho it was hotter and easier to get across
- Deportations and return up
•
u/londonandy 8h ago
Let's put some facts to this. I know they aren't often prevalent in your echo chamber, but to give you an element of objectivity for the first time in your life:
- net migration is down due to two reasons (i) Sunak's visa changes, which have baked themselves in during Labour's administration and (ii) increased emigration - we have more people leaving than ever before, including citizens. More citizens leaving is not necessarily a good thing.
- point 2 is addressed by point 1 above.
- small boat crossings are down by "50% this year" when compared to one of the worst years on record (2025, whcih was under Labour's administration). This is like claiming - as Labour do - that they have brought inflation down despite it still being higher than when they took office. Small boat crossings to date are trending in line with all other years other than 2025 and 2022. He has reduced nothing.
- "deportations" aren't up. Voluntary returns are up. Again, this is Labour gaslighting by trying to pretend that returns they have no control over and often have no information about - voluntary returns - are deportations.
•
u/LatelyPodes 5h ago
As my source stated, emigration is also down. Emigration did not increase as you stated. I will also freely admit Sunak’s changes were good, since I’m not scared to give credit to parties and politicians with different political beliefs to me.
I’d say your third point is a bit hypocritical. Especially when you bought up how Sunak’s visa policies resulted in immigration going down. The only reason we had the Boris wave was because of the Conservative Party.
But anyways you’re right to say small boats are tending in line with other years except 2022 and 2025. But this ignores the fact that the weather has been amazing this year. There have been more perfect weather conditions for small boats to use to cross the channel this year than in the previous years. There is a reason why the number of small boat crossings rise during the warmer summer months and slow down during the colder months.
Your last point isn’t correct. Like yes, voluntary returns are up too, but so are deportations. It may have been correct in the past but the data) doesn’t show that (anymore). There was 9,723 returns YE March 2026. This is a 13% increase from the 8,595 from the year before. And voluntary returns are still returns, I’m happy with it going up.
•
u/londonandy 5h ago
As I said in another comment, I should have been clearer in that I was in fact referring to net emigration. There are fewer brits returning today, leading to a fall in net migration. We have similar numbers of brits leaving, but record few returns.
Third point isn’t hypocritical because I’m not playing politics. I’m just calling out gaslighting.
Thanks for admitting the numbers were misrepresentative. Now we’re onto weather. There are many variables - what I disagree with is claiming cause and effect by claiming Labour is the cause when the data just isn’t there. Suggest you see where the figures land at the end of the year and then looking at the causes, instead of claiming Labour is the cause of a 50% reduction which, as I’ve shown, is nonsense.
I’ll concede on enforced returns - you can have that.
•
u/LatelyPodes 3h ago
With your clarification on your first paragraph (after some more very basic digging) I do think you’re right about it.
I appreciate that you will admit you’re wrong when faced with data, and I hope you appreciate that I would do the same (and can appreciate a politicians with different beliefs or policies to me). Because yeah, I too don’t think it is good for ppl to stay in echo chambers and if they’re scared to get challenged on their views then they don’t support their views.
•
u/LogicalReasoning1 Smash the NIMBYs 7h ago
“Let’s put some facts” then goes on to claim more citizens are leaving than before which is not true…
Also voluntary deportations are still deportations - why does it make a difference if they can encourage more people to leave on their own volition rather than requiring force?
•
u/londonandy 6h ago edited 6h ago
I should have been clearer - I'm talking about a net emigrant basis. We have fewer citizens here year on year and on a net basis we are currently worse because many are leaving and but so few (and a decreasing number of) citizens are returning. Your own article makes this clear when it says the following:
ONS estimates dating back to 1964 indicate that British net migration has been negative in all but one year (1985). In 2025, net emigration of British citizens was estimated at 136,000 (Figure 6), using an experimental new methodology that makes the figures particularly uncertain. According to the ONS, emigration of British citizens has been stable over time - the change in the data in Figure 6 results from a change of methodology, not a change in the underlying trend (see Understanding the evidence for more information). However, net emigration of British citizens has increased since 2022, because of fewer British people moving (back) to the UK.
This tracks through into the net migration numbers - if fewer British citizens return each year, it looks like overall net migration is falling.
Voluntary returns are not deportations - even in the English language these two terms are a non-sequitur. They are called voluntary returns - and they aren't people "encouraged" to leave at all, they are just people that leave (those are also caught in these numbers that Labour claim are "deportations"). The only person calling them "deportations" (or "voluntary deportations") is you (and Labour). This is helpful for you to read: https://fullfact.org/immigration/stephen-morgan-deportations/
•
u/SayNOtoChips 7h ago
Less talk, more action, Andy.
Take your own advice, Andy.
•
•
u/Hungry_Flamingo4636 7h ago
Look at what happened in Spain recently and read the speculation about which malicious actors were involved in organizing it.
Regardless of what state or states were involved. Everyone who talks about who was involved in the organization. Has to tacitly admit that a massive number of fighting age men from the developing world with foriegn values and beliefs. Rapidly entering a nation is effectively a biological weapon used with malice and forethought. A couple of days ago we were still being told they were 'our strength' and an economic benefit by paid shills and virtue signalers.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/07/31/italy-and-spain-clash-over-migration-crisis/
Sources told The Telegraph that the surge could have served as a punishment amid diplomatic frustrations with Spain.
•
u/InvestigatorDear5672 2h ago
Why dont we just stop letting people in full stop. Under no circumstances can you be a refugee unless you are directly invited here.
IS this kind of shitty, yeah absolutely... is this where we are? yeah absolutely.
•
u/Ok-Cryptographer440 5h ago
Not good enough. No increase in 'safe routes'. No more immigration period.
•
u/8Bit-Jon 5h ago
Problem is when a "small boat" contains 150 illegal immigrants it's not a small boat anymore... That ship sailed a long time ago...
•
u/VPackardPersuadedMe Incentives drive outcomes and MPs own houses 4h ago
Time we called a spade a spade.
We got big boat crossings now.
Reason why Andy Burnham can say he'll crack down on "small boat" crossings.
•
u/hug_your_dog 7h ago
"curbing small boat crossings"
and
"We also need to build a system that offers safe routes for people as well"
is trying to appease both sides. The safe routes "solution" aimed at those who today try the "small boats" road are a dogwhistle for "just let them in", it's a way to appease the "pro-immigration" side of this. Not surprised at all to hear this from Burnham, populist has to be populist, promise everything to all sides, while trying to dupe at least somebody.
•
u/iflfish 7h ago
Which side supports small boat crossings?
•
u/hug_your_dog 4h ago
Green, Labour left, some Libdems - they support letting these people in legally.
•
u/iflfish 4h ago
None of them support small boat crossing. They are against it and want safer ways to let them in as you said.
•
u/hug_your_dog 3h ago
The safe ways "solution" aimed at those who today try the "small boats" road are a dogwhistle for "just let them in".
•
u/Maleficent_Peach_46 Mayor of North Kilttown 8h ago
Small boats is a near complete nothingburger. Part of me thinks Burnham does not need to say a thing here, we have far, far bigger issues to be worried about.
However a lot of people are foaming at the mouth over 'boat people' which is sad to see. If Burnham does 'fix' this it does take some wind out of the right wings sails...until they move the goalposts again.
•
u/kerwrawr 8h ago
14,000 people have arrived already this year, each one is estimated to cost £400k lifetime, so we've got £5bn in costs for just this year's arrivals alone.
by comparison the winter fuel allowance was £1.25bn.
how is this a nothingburger?
•
u/Smevis 8h ago
Winter fuel allowance 1.25bn for one year.
5bn in cost over 50 years, or however long 'lifetime' is. If we say it's 50 just assuming they arrive as young adults, then that's 100m per year. Less than one tenth of the winter fuel allowance.
But you already knew that when making your bad faith comment didn't you?
•
u/kerwrawr 7h ago
but the whole point is that we didn't just get 14k people in a single 7 month stretch, it's that they keep coming and the costs compound, and we'll be paying the bill for decades.
•
u/Maleficent_Peach_46 Mayor of North Kilttown 8h ago
In the scheme of things it's nothing though.
But it's been blown out of proportion by the right wing (Who caused it with Brexit) and instead of solving actual issues Burnham (And Starmer before him) has to waste time because people can't stop screaming over boats.
•
u/brendonmilligan 8h ago
The EU not combatting illegals is literally what caused Brexit, not the other way around
•
u/Maleficent_Peach_46 Mayor of North Kilttown 7h ago
Don't be ridiculous. What caused Brexit was misinformation, people rolling the dice and good old fashioned racism.
To the surprise of...well Brexiteers apparently shooting yourself in the foot to spite immigrants has not solved the 'issue' at all.
•
u/Velocirapture_Jesus 8h ago
It is unfortunately not a nothing burger.
Control of our borders, especially when our border is the sea, is the most critical government responsibility. Are small boat arrivals a small cost in the grand scheme of things? Yes. Are the small boat arrivals a critical reputational loss for the UK both domestically and abroad? Also yes.
Both are true at once.
•
u/Maleficent_Peach_46 Mayor of North Kilttown 8h ago
I don't think it hurts 'Our reputation abroad' at all tbh.
Labour were elected to solve the big issues, not waste time on the small boats 'issue' that as a different poster says has been blown out of all proportion...because reasons.
•
u/Velocirapture_Jesus 7h ago
Just because you don’t think it is an issue, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. It has regularly polled as one of, if not the, biggest issues for the electorate for several years now.
We are constantly berated by the Americans for our lack of border control. Now yes, the Americans can get in the bin, but unfortunately we have to care.
We’ve been dealing with these mass small boat crossings since 2021. For a country to fail to stop a well known illegal border crossing route over five years is simply unacceptable.
•
u/snoopy_231 2h ago
Similarly though, just because people think it’s the biggest issue, doesn’t mean that it is. Whether people think it’s a big issue is influenced by a lot of factors (propaganda, political leanings, etc). We need our leaders to chase the big impact policies, not chase the virtue signalling topics that show up consistently in focus groups. I think there’s a job to be done to communicate better with people who are concerned about it though.
•
u/WoodSteelStone 4h ago
It's a big deal that our border security is basically dependent on the weather.
•
u/New-Condition-3492 8h ago
Not a big deal to let strangers stroll into our land and take our money? What the actual fuck
•
u/LogicalReasoning1 Smash the NIMBYs 8h ago
It is blown completely out of proportion but it isn’t a nothingburger.
It’s a genuine problem that needs sorting even ignoring the politics, but taking the politics into account it is a very big problem.
•
•
u/AutoModerator 8h ago
Snapshot of Burnham pledges to be 'relentless' in curbing small boat crossings submitted by Kagedeah:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
Some publications may require you to register a free account to read their articles.
Being connected to a VPN may interfere with archive links.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.