Quelling public disquiet is worth extra cost of barracks asylum housing, says No 10

PM's Spokesperson Defends Barracks Asylum Housing Plan Amidst Protests

The UK government has reaffirmed its commitment to housing asylum seekers in disused military barracks despite widespread criticism and protests from local communities, refugee organizations, and politicians. The plan, which aims to house over 10,000 asylum seekers on military sites, has been met with skepticism, with many accusing the government of being "fanciful" and "too expensive."

The decision to use barracks instead of hotels has sparked concerns about public confidence in the housing arrangement, particularly among local communities. According to Downing Street, quelling public disquiet is worth any extra cost associated with the plan.

However, refugee organizations and politicians argue that accommodating asylum seekers in barracks has failed in the past and poses significant logistical challenges. The Refugee Council's chief executive, Enver Solomon, described the plans as "too expensive" and "logistically difficult."

The Conservative government had initially planned to save public money by moving asylum seekers into former RAF bases. However, an assessment by Whitehall's spending watchdog found that plans to place hundreds of asylum seekers in the former RAF base at Scampton would have cost £45.1m more than hotels.

Inverness Council has accused the UK government of failing to consider the local impact of moving hundreds of asylum seekers to barracks in the centre of Inverness, citing concerns about community cohesion and the potential disruption to the local community.

Meanwhile, immigration enforcement visits have reached their highest level since comparable data began in 2011, with a total of 21,858 visits recorded in the 12 months to September this year.

The controversy highlights the ongoing debate over asylum seekers' accommodation, with many questioning the government's approach and its potential impact on local communities.

I'm just thinking, it's like, what's going on here? The gov is trying to solve a big problem (asylum seekers) but it seems like they're creating more issues than solutions. Like, using barracks instead of hotels might save money in the short term but it comes with its own set of problems - logistics, community cohesion... all that jazz.

And I get why local communities are up in arms about this. They have a right to know what's going on and how it's going to affect them, you feel? It's not just about the asylum seekers, it's about the impact on the whole community.

I wish they could find a more balanced solution that works for everyone - the gov, local communities, and of course, the asylum seekers.

idk why they cant just use hotels or community centers like everyone else? it feels so unfair that ppl who need a safe place gotta live in barracks instead of actual homes... i get that cost is an issue but isnt there a way 2 make it work? also, its not like its a new idea 2 move ppl into military sites but i guess thats just how th UK wants 2 handle asylum seekers now

I'm not sure why they're still pushing with this barracks plan . It just seems like a recipe for disaster - what if the asylum seekers aren't handled properly? And don't even get me started on the logistics of it all... it's like they haven't thought this through at all . The fact that the Refugee Council and politicians are saying it's too expensive is telling, but I guess the government just doesn't care about local communities . It's so short-sighted and selfish. We should be working together to find solutions, not pitting people against each other . And what really gets me is that they're using barracks because of cost savings... does that mean we're just not valuing the human lives of asylum seekers enough?

I think it's pretty unfair to bash the PM's spokesperson for trying to quell public disquiet over barracks asylum housing. I mean, come on, people were being super negative about it from the get-go! It's one thing to have concerns, but another to be completely opposed without considering all the facts.

I don't think it's too expensive to accommodate a few thousand asylum seekers in old barracks - it's not like we're talking about building some fancy new development here. And, let's be real, it's better than leaving them on the streets! I'm not saying it won't cause any logistical challenges, but I think that's something we should work out together as a country.

It seems to me like there's been a lot of knee-jerking going on here - politicians and refugee organizations are all jumping on the bandwagon without really thinking about what this plan could achieve. We need to have some constructive conversations about how to tackle asylum seeker accommodation in a way that works for everyone.

so like what's the big deal about housing asylum seekers in old barracks? I mean, I get it, it's not ideal but is it that bad to use some old military sites instead of hotels? The gov's trying to save cash which I guess is a good thing but at what cost? Community cohesion and all that jazz. Can we get some stats on how many people actually end up staying in these barracks long term? And what about the £45m extra it's gonna cost? source me!

omg u guys can u believe this?? they're still gonna push with this barracks thing despite all the backlash lol idk wut they're thinking, saving public money by housing 10k+ asylum seekers in disused military bases? sounds like a recipe for disaster to me i mean, refugee orgs & politicians are saying it's too expensive and logistically challenging... but hey who cares right? at least its not hotels all the way lol. btw, did u see that immigration enforcement visits hit a new high this year? scarily lit

I mean, who wouldn't want their city turned into a giant Airbnb for asylum seekers? I guess it's great that the gov is being super flexible and open to "community cohesion"... aka forcing hundreds of strangers into one small town and expecting everyone to be besties . On a more serious note, can we please talk about how we're expected to trust our government's math on this one? £45m more for barracks over hotels? sounds like someone needs to brush up on their budgeting skills .

I mean, I think it's kinda weird that they're still pushing for barracks as a solution . Like, I get that it's meant to save money and all, but what about the actual people affected by this plan? Refugee orgs are saying it's just too expensive and logistically tricky... I'd wanna know more about how it'll work in practice . And what really gets me is when they say quelling public disquiet is more important than saving money . Like, isn't that kinda the opposite of being a responsible gov?

I'm not sure why the gov't is so keen on using old barracks... it just seems like a lot of hassle for what? I mean, aren't we trying to help these people who are fleeing war or persecution? We're already paying hotels way more than barracks, and now they're saying it's worth the extra cost to quell public disquiet? It just doesn't add up... and what about all the potential issues with community cohesion?

I'm getting so frustrated with these barracks plans ... I mean, can't we just provide decent housing for those who are seeking refuge? It feels like the gov is playing politics with people's lives. And what's with the "too expensive" excuse? £45m more than hotels? That's peanuts compared to the cost of keeping our economy afloat. Plus, have they even thought about the long-term effects on local communities? I'm all for being fiscally responsible, but not at the expense of human dignity ...

I just can't help but wonder if we're putting the cart before the horse here... are we prioritizing the needs of asylum seekers or the fears of local communities? It feels like we're being asked to choose between two competing values: compassion and pragmatism. But what if those aren't mutually exclusive? What if we could find a way to balance both, to create spaces where people feel safe and supported while also respecting the concerns of those living nearby?

I mean, what's up with this plan? Housing thousands of asylum seekers in barracks is just crazy talk! The UK govt thinks they can just swap out hotels for military bases like it's no big deal? Local communities are totally opposed to the idea and for good reason - it's a recipe for disaster. What about the cost? Apparently, Downing Street says public confidence is more important than saving a few quid. Like, what even is that logic? And don't even get me started on the logistical nightmare... Barracks aren't exactly designed for humans, you know. It's just a wonder they're not planning on having to rebuild entire communities.

Man, I just don't get why they're so set on housing these asylum seekers in barracks. I mean, I know it might seem like a good idea to save some cash, but honestly, it feels like they're being super dismissive of the people who are actually going through this tough situation . It's not just about the money; it's about how these folks are treated and how their lives are impacted.

And what really gets me is that everyone's all up in arms, but nobody's really talking about the human side of things. Like, what if this plan actually works? What if it helps people who've been through some serious trauma find a safe place to call home? But at the same time, I can see why local communities are skeptical – it feels like they're being told to just deal with the extra stress and disruption.

I don't know, man. It's just hard for me to see both sides of this issue without getting all emotional about it .

i dont get why ppl are so opposed to housing asylum seekers in barracks. its not like they're gonna be living there forever ...the gov'ts all about cuttin costs n stuff but whats the harm in givin a roof over their heads? ...im sure its easier said than done tho n all, but can we just try 2 find a compromise here?

Barracks ain't cuttin' it for asylum seekers, gov needs a new plan .

I don't get why the gov can't just use hotels for asylum seekers. It seems like a lot more practical & easier to deal with. Barracks sound super complicated. And £45m more? That's crazy! It's like they're saying "oh, public cost isn't an issue, let's just go with barracks". Like, I get that we want to help people, but do we really have to make life harder for everyone else?

OMG, like, what's next? They're gonna move in, drop their bags, and just chill in some barracks like it's a 5-star resort. I mean, come on, £45.1m more than hotels? Who needs all that extra cash when you can have the charm of a military base, right?

And don't even get me started on the logistics, dude... refugee organizations and politicians are like, "Uh, no, this is not gonna work." And the government's all, "Nah, we got it covered." Like, have they ever actually met an asylum seeker or just assumed they're some sort of super-efficient, barracks-dwelling robot?

And what really gets me is that they're moving hundreds of people to Inverness and expecting everything to be hunky-dory. Community cohesion? Please. I mean, who wouldn't want a bunch of strangers living in their backyard? It's like they're trying to create some sort of Asylum Seeker Utopia or something...

I mean, come on... barracks as a solution for asylum seekers? It sounds like something out of a dystopian novel . Don't get me wrong, it's great that the UK is trying to find ways to accommodate all these people fleeing conflict and persecution, but can't they just build some decent housing instead?

And what's with the excuses from the PM's spokesperson about quelling public disquiet being worth any extra cost? That just seems like a cop-out. And have you seen those images of the barracks they're planning to use? They look more like prison cells than cozy homes for refugees .

Refugee organizations and politicians are totally right to question this plan, though. It's gotta be super difficult to accommodate all these people in barracks, especially when there are logistics involved like food, healthcare, and education .

I guess it just goes back to the old adage: "you can't please everyone"... but that doesn't mean you should settle for a subpar solution .

man... the more i think about it, the more i wonder if our society is just not ready for people who are literally running for their lives . we're so quick to judge and criticize, but have we ever stopped to think about what they've been through? the trauma, the pain, the loss? we're basically saying that a hotel room is too good for someone who's had to flee war, persecution, or whatever it is they're fleeing from .

and yeah, i get it, cost is an issue, but is £45.1m really worth the potential damage to our communities and people's lives? . it's like we're valuing numbers over human beings. what if this was my family member or friend who needed a place to stay? wouldn't i want the government to do everything in its power to support us? .

i think we need to take a step back and reevaluate our priorities as a society. are we truly compassionate, or are we just pragmatic? do we care about the impact our decisions have on others, or is it all just about convenience and expediency? .