Sedare l’inquietudine pubblica vale la pena spendere di più per ospitare i rifugiati nelle baracche, afferma il n. 10

“We know that communities don’t want asylum seekers housed in hotels, and neither does the government, and that’s why we are determined to fix the mess that we’ve inherited by getting a grip of the issue and committing to close every single asylum hotel, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds.”

Part of the Laboour manifesto was to end the use of asylum hotels, which seems reasonable enough… but close to 70% of asylum seekers are in HMOs, and in many ways, that’s worse for communities.

I guess my question about this policy is: will the use of barracks target only those in hotels?
If so, then it isn’t enough, and they should be honest and acknowledge the immigration crisis isn’t just confined to the parameters of hotels.

> Downing Street indicated that some higher costs of moving asylum seekers into military sites would be worthwhile because where they were housed had become “an issue of public confidence”.

Seems unwise not to predict that also happening in the future.

The hotel issue has ways been one of cost for me, if costs rise then that would also cause a loss of confidence in the government.