Politicians, right-wing news media and far-right extremists opportunistically exploit public concern over asylum seekers in hotels, inciting protests and potential violence.
How did we get here? And why the gulf between public perception and reality?
The government spent nearly a third less on hotels to house asylum seekers between April 2024 and March 2025.
The Home Office's annual accounts show £2.1bn was spent on hotel accommodation - an average of about £5.77m per day, down from £3bn or £8.3m per day, the previous year.
The use of hotels for asylum seekers stems from policy decisions made by successive UK governments.
Until mid-2002, asylum seekers could work if they had to wait more than six months for an initial decision on their asylum claim. New Labour banned this.
Blair's Labour banned asylum seekers from working after six months because the perception was that it was taking jobs from UK citizens.
This made asylum seekers reliant on state support, fueling the perception that they are 'lazy freeloaders' who contribute nothing to society.
In 2012, Cameron and Clegg's Coalition government outsourced asylum accommodation to profit-driven contractors, leading to reliance on costly, often substandard contingency housing like hotels, fueling narratives of asylum seekers being 'treated better than British people'.
Johnson's Tories kept asylum seekers in hotels post-Covid, and under Sunak, opportunistically allowed the asylum claim application backlog to grow while promoting divisive rhetoric about small boat crossings and pursuing costly and unfeasible policies.
In large part, the growth in the backlog was driven by a slowdown in processing rates. The share of applications processed within six months fell from around 78% in 2015 to around 15% in 2022. Some suggest this was a deliberate political strategy to 'weaponise' asylum seekers.
Backlogs are exploited to suggest a crisis. The initial decision backlog is not the only backlog. Under UK legislation (Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; Immigration Act 2014), asylum seekers have the right to appeal initial decisions in specialist immigration courts.
A combination of more decisions on asylum claims and a smaller asylum grant rate means that the number of refusals has increased sharply in recent years, from around 6,000 in 2022 to 44,000 in 2024, while divisive anti-immirant rhetoric gathers pace.
Around 16,000 asylum appeals were decided in 2024. Although that was 76% more than the year before, it was significantly lower than the 37,000 new appeals lodged in 2024.
The number of new appeals will remain high as more initial decisions are made and refusals appealed.
This suggests the appeals backlog is likely to continue growing in 2025.
Significant challenges in increasing the processing of asylum appeals include the need for more Judges and hearing rooms, as well as legal representation for both the Home Office and claimants.
The Labour government began recruiting more judges to address the backlog last year.
To increase the availability of lawyers, a consultation was launched in January aiming to increase legal aid fees – which have been fixed at the same level since 1996 – by the end of 2025.
Taken together, these policies, introduced by successive governments, have prolonged hotel use, fueling public discontent and far-right agitation and its monetisation through livestreaming.
Starmer’s government aims to phase out hotel use by 2029.
I've focused on the (largely manufactured) backlog of asylum claims and decisons made by successive governments in relation to housing asylum seekers in hotels.
In this 🧵, I try to spell out the current state of play, and put a few myths to bed:
GB "News", which employs 75% of Reform UK MPs, is not a news channel - it's Reform's propaganda wing, co-funded by billionaire Paul Marshall and Dubai-based investment firm Legatum, who see it as an investment opportunity to help protect their wealth and interests.
@Ofcom
In the UK, since 1990, 'due impartiality' and 'due accuracy' have been fundamental components of broadcasting - especially for news and current affairs - and imho are essential for a well-informed citizenry and a fair-minded functional democracy.
GB "News" appears to disagree.
The first broadcasting standards in the UK emerged with the BBC in 1922.
Formal standards took shape with the Royal Charter in 1927, which mandated that the BBC provide information, education, and entertainment while maintaining impartiality and serving the public interest.
Voters need to know how right-wing populist nationalist politicians and radical/far-right nativist extremists construct their divisive discourse and rhetoric to exploit the anti-elite climate and fuel violence and division - and what to do about it.
So what can be done to counter divisive narratives and framing and to help Britain to become a more open, inclusive, fairer, less polarised and better multicultural society?
I make several suggestions in the above article, but make more below,
Countering the extreme right’s narrative of feeling "attacked" and needing to "defend" national identity requires a strategic, multi-faceted approach that challenges their framing while addressing underlying concerns and emotions.
The shameless lie that "Britain is lawless" is categorically false, as it contradicts empirical data on crime trends, rule of law metrics, and the functioning of UK institutions. Reform UK often use fearmongering exaggeration and selective framing to create a sense of crisis.
Official data from the ONS and Home Office indicate that overall crime rates in England and Wales have fluctuated but do not support the notion of a "lawless" state. The ONS reported a 7% decrease in total recorded crime (excluding fraud) from 2023 to 24.
#OnThisDay, 21 July, 1969, the Chicago Daily News published: The ‘love it or leave it’ nonsense, by Sydney J. Harris.
It began: One of the most ignorant and hateful statements that a person can make is “If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”
I reproduce it, below.
Harris was born in London in 1917, moving to the US in 1922. A formidable journalist who established a distinct voice integrating incisive social commentary with wit and humour, his weekday column, ‘Strictly Personal’, was syndicated in 200 US newspapers.
The ‘love it or leave it’ nonsense, by Sydney J. Harris.
One of the most ignorant and hateful statements that a person can make is “If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”
That attitude is the main reason America was founded, in all its hope and energy and goodness.
A few thoughts on Bob Vylan leading the #GlastonburyFestival crowd in chants of "Death to the IDF" (Israeli Defence Force), livestreamed by the @BBC, and the mischaracterisation of the chant by some MPs, news media, and activists.
In England, where #GlastonburyFestival is located, all of us have the right to freely express our criticism of anyone or anything - as long as there is no intent to provoke immediate unlawful violence or there is a reasonable likelihood it will occur as a consequence.
In England, free speech is protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. However, inciting violence is a criminal offence under several laws which attempt to balance public safety with free expression rights.
In many countries, especially since Musk bought Twitter/@X, underregulated online extreme content has been used to groom and radicalise vulnerable people.
Too many cowardly politicians are scared to speak up for fear of being branded 'anti-free speech'.