The hotel count has fallen, but the argument has moved next door. Voters here gave a clear Yes verdict, with the strongest case insisting that the headline reduction conceals a change of venue rather than an end to the accommodation burden.
The floor’s most-respected Yes voices focused on displacement. One argued that hotels were “just being substituted for ex-military bases, HMOs”, while another said the government was wedded to “misinformation lies & lies by omission”. A shorter formulation — “Hotel numbers may be down but H M O residents are up . Semantics numbers are up” — captured the chamber’s central suspicion.
The No side made the narrower, more literal case. Its strongest argument said that if the government was answering whether “hotel accommodation has halved”, then “that’s true”; another accepted that people had been moved into accommodation “MUCH cheaper in the long run”, even if overcrowding made it less humane. But that defence answered the wording more readily than the voters’ broader concern about total cost, capacity and whether the system was actually being brought under control.
That is where the debate touched the wider immigration argument: a lower hotel count can coexist with continued public expense, local disruption and a backlog of unresolved claims. Even the most-respected No voice conceded that people still had to be housed while claims were processed, while the Yes case demanded “swift, fair decisions” rather than treating one accommodation category as the measure of progress.
The room was not weighing a technicality so much as rejecting a narrow definition of success: fewer hotels, perhaps, but no convincing evidence yet of fewer pressures.
26 Opinions
This government is wedded to misinformation lies & lies by omission. Its demonstrable they are not deporting anybody so if removed from hotels they must be housed somewhere. Another example of how useless incompetent & venal this govermentv& Civil Service are. The exact status of the accommodation is irrelevant it’s the fact they are being intentionally imported and funded for life with benefits which exceed what a lot of citizens can earn by working. Deport.
The government may be utilising less hotels, but they are just being substituted for ex-military bases, HMOs, and the houses that should be being designated as affordable housing for struggling English citizens.
They are gaslighting the country. Anyone who can't see this is stupid.
Well as they’re housing them on ex military camps in their hundreds with buses laid on to take them into the villages nearby where they can outnumber the residents . Not to mention the gyms, free food, phones, leisure activities ( no money for youth clubs in towns ) - there’s even one town near the Weathersfield site ( 800+) where women avoid Thursdays because of the men bussed in. Amazing that they can publish numbers of any sort when they can’t report crime figures.
"Hotel" numbers may be down but H M O residents are up . Semantics numbers are up
YES The factual answer to the question is yes As to where they're going is another question The number of migrants arriving has gone down, whilst the numbers being returned has gone up, compared to previous year's So overall the numbers in country are going down, that's not an opinion it's just counting! Many of those who are only now questioning the government, are the same 1s who kept quiet whilst the Tory government actually had more arriving than they were returning
The men who have broken into our country are dangerous. They should be locked up pending deportation, not roaming the streets, imposing on the locals and living nice lives at our expense. The government knows this but instead of protecting their own people choose to enable this horror instead.
Since all the protests were about housing asylum seekers in hotels, the Government has made real efforts to put them elsewhere. So they have responded to that particular concern. But we have an obligation under the Refugee Convention (not just the ECHR) to deal with asylum claims and to look after human beings (which is what asylum seekers are!). While we process their claims, they have to be housed somewhere. This is a European issue, not susceptible of quick-fix solutions.
The whole situation is political and pathetic. The ECHR is our problem with all of this. HR solicitors are getting rich over this. Its simple every male who comes here square bash them put them in uniform and put them to work unpaid with tags on them. When word gets out those boats will stop.
No, they misleading public by not answering the basic questions: how big is total and per capita cost of accommodation for asylum seekers and asylum granted.