Rachel Reeves will next week single out a spiralling hotel bill for asylum seekers that could cost up to £10 billion a year as she pins the blame for financial pressures on the Tories.
The Chancellor will use a speech to the House of Commons on Monday to reveal the details of her “audit” on hidden public spending realities commissioned after Labour took office.
Conservatives and think tank figures are claiming that Labour figures are exaggerating their surprise at the problems in government to pave the way for tax rises in the autumn.
The Telegraph revealed that Ms Reeves is expected to say the black hole in the public finances is around £19 billion, with an early assessment pointing to that figure.
This newspaper now understands that among the “hidden” issues the Chancellor will point to will be the scale of spending forecasted to house asylum seekers in hotels, which is more than three times previously thought.
Home Office estimates show asylum support costs are set to rise to £30 billion to £40 billion over the next four years, around £10 billion a year.
That is significantly higher than previously assumed. It had been said that £8 million was being spent on hotels for asylum seekers each day, which amounts to £3 billion a year.
One Government source familiar with plans for Monday said that the asylum hotel bill had been “completely uncontrolled” under the Tories.
Another said: “We are facing enormous asylum accommodation costs for the next year until we are able to get to the point that we can get processing up to speed. But that won’t happen overnight.”
Housing asylum-seekers in hotels, with the state picking up the bill, was a move taken under the Tories due to the surge in small boats crossing the English Channel carrying migrants to the UK.
During the election campaign, the Tories accused Sir Keir of having no detailed plan for stopping small boat crossings.
The Prime Minister has scrapped the Tories’ Rwanda deportation plan, calling it a “gimmick” and instead putting focus on “smashing the gangs” who are smuggling people on small boats
There’s probably plenty more reasons than just that, but it definitely doesn’t help.
It’s a bold move by Hunt, to be fair.
“Stop pretending to be surprised at the state of finances. Everyone knows how shit we left it. Now let us tell you what you should now do”
So someone thinks that spending billions housing people that have rocked up here is a bad idea…? Maybe we should send them back.
Good thing we don’t have any homeless of our own to house.
The Tories created a narrative that Labour had destroyed the economy and used that to justify their agenda for the next 5+ years (and they continued to refer to it throughout their time in power). Good to see Labour returning the favour.
While in power, the Conservatives normalised corruption. It’s frankly disgusting that more is not said about the way people they associated with benefited so greatly from their time in government. May they remain an irrelevancy for a long time.
Back in 2018, Sadiq Khan announced a £1 billion program to build 11,000 social homes in London.
£10 billion would have got you an extra 110,000 social homes in London every year.
Instead we give it to Serco and Britannia hotels to help asylum seekers.
Introduce a new law with a lengthy prison sentence for anyone controlling/steering a Vessel with the intention of illegally entering British Waters. I’m sure the Video evidence will be sufficient to convict
>Home Office estimates show asylum support costs are set to rise to £30 billion to £40 billion over the next four years, around £10 billion a year.
That is 1% of GDP. That is about the same as we spend on transport.
10 years ago the argument was that immigration was not responsible for the deterioration in local services. Well back when we were hitting 2.5% growth per year and immigration was around 100 000 a year, this was true.
Now we are going to have to face up to the fact that at 1% growth per year and 700 000 a year net migration, it is a having a big impact. And this bill sits on top of that in terms of similar levels of resources for more people, now its going to be £40 billion additional costs to the net migration.
The issues with housing are clear and obvious, so many people seeking housing drives up the cost. That cost is then often paid from the tax take.
Hopefully Reeves will use her speech to give a number of specific examples where costs are much higher than expected, and much higher than pre-election data suggested.
“It’s worse than we thought” is a solid position, providing there’s concrete examples behind it.
Ok what’s she going to do about it? Stop homing them? Stop them coming in the first place?
Wouldn’t it have just been cheaper for the Tories to pay a few admin staff to process their asylum claims?
Perhaps then we wouldn’t have this queue of people with nowhere to go waiting to be processed?
Just a thought. Invest in the capacity to process more asylum claims rather than simply expand the capacity to store people as they wait for their claim to be processed (in hotels that happen to be run by rich Tory donors of course).
Silly last Tory government.
I don’t want to hear the torygraph say anything for atleast 10 years. Then they can speak
I don’t really get the point of the article nor of Rachel reeves palming it off blaming the tories. Immigration to Europe overall has increased year on year since the late 2000’s. This is evident just by looking around, viewing other articles, the news and data from various sources. In addition, it’s what gave ukip a foothold in earlier elections to sway voters. And from various election outcomes. (for example, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, and lately France). It’s having a similar effect on their countries population too. None of the parties would have got a foothold if the issue wasn’t that widespread and costly as it is.
So the point of my comment is that it is an undeniable fact that immigration is rising, and for all intense and purposes, going to continue rising for the foreseeable future. This is no main parties fault. (I know we could go into the whole, “labour opened the floodgates to it” previous argument. But let’s jsit focus on now.
I’m not going to give blame here on faults, migrants stay where they are etc. But the problem I have is, what exactly did and does Rachel reeves expect? And why use it to blame the tories? I just don’t see the logic. It’s a bottomless money pit issue, simply because it’s reported to continue rising, so any additional resources labour throws at it now, will just be out paced by the increase, which will require further additional resources, which will possibly require taxing the public.
Migrants come, they need to be housed as per various human rights regulations the country must follow, until applications are processed. Housing whether it be a centre, barge, hotel or rental property will cost money. In the case of hotels and renters of property. They know this, and personally known people who are converting their second homes to hmo’s, family that works at a hotel. Both parties intentionally prefer this over the public. Because it’s a guaranteed income from the government and they often tend to raise the cost a little as well to take advantage.
As it’s a European wide issue, why keep blaming the tories. It’s very much an easy cop out in my opinion. And unfortunately, alot of people seem to go along with it. Saying well, tories destroyed the economy for the last 14 years, that’s why it’s costing so much now. None of it adds up, because I suspect even if labour were in power instead. They’d be in the exact same position on this particular issue. It’s behaviour like this childish blame game that often leads voter apathy, (among other points ofcourse). As people don’t see competent leaders saying we’ll get on it and sort it. But instead say, well the last guys left it a super mess so we can’t sort it like we would.
Tory scum wrecked the country to line their own pockets
14 comments
Article text –
Rachel Reeves will next week single out a spiralling hotel bill for asylum seekers that could cost up to £10 billion a year as she pins the blame for financial pressures on the Tories.
The Chancellor will use a speech to the House of Commons on Monday to reveal the details of her “audit” on hidden public spending realities commissioned after Labour took office.
Conservatives and think tank figures are claiming that Labour figures are exaggerating their surprise at the problems in government to pave the way for tax rises in the autumn.
The Telegraph revealed that Ms Reeves is expected to say the black hole in the public finances is around £19 billion, with an early assessment pointing to that figure.
This newspaper now understands that among the “hidden” issues the Chancellor will point to will be the scale of spending forecasted to house asylum seekers in hotels, which is more than three times previously thought.
Home Office estimates show asylum support costs are set to rise to £30 billion to £40 billion over the next four years, around £10 billion a year.
That is significantly higher than previously assumed. It had been said that £8 million was being spent on hotels for asylum seekers each day, which amounts to £3 billion a year.
One Government source familiar with plans for Monday said that the asylum hotel bill had been “completely uncontrolled” under the Tories.
Another said: “We are facing enormous asylum accommodation costs for the next year until we are able to get to the point that we can get processing up to speed. But that won’t happen overnight.”
Housing asylum-seekers in hotels, with the state picking up the bill, was a move taken under the Tories due to the surge in small boats crossing the English Channel carrying migrants to the UK.
During the election campaign, the Tories accused Sir Keir of having no detailed plan for stopping small boat crossings.
The Prime Minister has scrapped the Tories’ Rwanda deportation plan, calling it a “gimmick” and instead putting focus on “smashing the gangs” who are smuggling people on small boats
There’s probably plenty more reasons than just that, but it definitely doesn’t help.
It’s a bold move by Hunt, to be fair.
“Stop pretending to be surprised at the state of finances. Everyone knows how shit we left it. Now let us tell you what you should now do”
So someone thinks that spending billions housing people that have rocked up here is a bad idea…? Maybe we should send them back.
Good thing we don’t have any homeless of our own to house.
The Tories created a narrative that Labour had destroyed the economy and used that to justify their agenda for the next 5+ years (and they continued to refer to it throughout their time in power). Good to see Labour returning the favour.
While in power, the Conservatives normalised corruption. It’s frankly disgusting that more is not said about the way people they associated with benefited so greatly from their time in government. May they remain an irrelevancy for a long time.
Back in 2018, Sadiq Khan announced a £1 billion program to build 11,000 social homes in London.
£10 billion would have got you an extra 110,000 social homes in London every year.
Instead we give it to Serco and Britannia hotels to help asylum seekers.
https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-agrees-1bn-plan-to-build-11000-new-homes
Introduce a new law with a lengthy prison sentence for anyone controlling/steering a Vessel with the intention of illegally entering British Waters. I’m sure the Video evidence will be sufficient to convict
>Home Office estimates show asylum support costs are set to rise to £30 billion to £40 billion over the next four years, around £10 billion a year.
That is 1% of GDP. That is about the same as we spend on transport.
10 years ago the argument was that immigration was not responsible for the deterioration in local services. Well back when we were hitting 2.5% growth per year and immigration was around 100 000 a year, this was true.
Now we are going to have to face up to the fact that at 1% growth per year and 700 000 a year net migration, it is a having a big impact. And this bill sits on top of that in terms of similar levels of resources for more people, now its going to be £40 billion additional costs to the net migration.
The issues with housing are clear and obvious, so many people seeking housing drives up the cost. That cost is then often paid from the tax take.
Hopefully Reeves will use her speech to give a number of specific examples where costs are much higher than expected, and much higher than pre-election data suggested.
“It’s worse than we thought” is a solid position, providing there’s concrete examples behind it.
Ok what’s she going to do about it? Stop homing them? Stop them coming in the first place?
Wouldn’t it have just been cheaper for the Tories to pay a few admin staff to process their asylum claims?
Perhaps then we wouldn’t have this queue of people with nowhere to go waiting to be processed?
Just a thought. Invest in the capacity to process more asylum claims rather than simply expand the capacity to store people as they wait for their claim to be processed (in hotels that happen to be run by rich Tory donors of course).
Silly last Tory government.
I don’t want to hear the torygraph say anything for atleast 10 years. Then they can speak
I don’t really get the point of the article nor of Rachel reeves palming it off blaming the tories. Immigration to Europe overall has increased year on year since the late 2000’s. This is evident just by looking around, viewing other articles, the news and data from various sources. In addition, it’s what gave ukip a foothold in earlier elections to sway voters. And from various election outcomes. (for example, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, and lately France). It’s having a similar effect on their countries population too. None of the parties would have got a foothold if the issue wasn’t that widespread and costly as it is.
So the point of my comment is that it is an undeniable fact that immigration is rising, and for all intense and purposes, going to continue rising for the foreseeable future. This is no main parties fault. (I know we could go into the whole, “labour opened the floodgates to it” previous argument. But let’s jsit focus on now.
I’m not going to give blame here on faults, migrants stay where they are etc. But the problem I have is, what exactly did and does Rachel reeves expect? And why use it to blame the tories? I just don’t see the logic. It’s a bottomless money pit issue, simply because it’s reported to continue rising, so any additional resources labour throws at it now, will just be out paced by the increase, which will require further additional resources, which will possibly require taxing the public.
Migrants come, they need to be housed as per various human rights regulations the country must follow, until applications are processed. Housing whether it be a centre, barge, hotel or rental property will cost money. In the case of hotels and renters of property. They know this, and personally known people who are converting their second homes to hmo’s, family that works at a hotel. Both parties intentionally prefer this over the public. Because it’s a guaranteed income from the government and they often tend to raise the cost a little as well to take advantage.
As it’s a European wide issue, why keep blaming the tories. It’s very much an easy cop out in my opinion. And unfortunately, alot of people seem to go along with it. Saying well, tories destroyed the economy for the last 14 years, that’s why it’s costing so much now. None of it adds up, because I suspect even if labour were in power instead. They’d be in the exact same position on this particular issue. It’s behaviour like this childish blame game that often leads voter apathy, (among other points ofcourse). As people don’t see competent leaders saying we’ll get on it and sort it. But instead say, well the last guys left it a super mess so we can’t sort it like we would.
Tory scum wrecked the country to line their own pockets