Andy Burnham’s record at stopping the boats worse than Sir Keir Starmer’s, figures show, with larger proportion of Channel migrants successfully reaching Britain
According to an analysis of Home Office figures, a larger share of people attempting Channel crossings reached Britain during Andy Burnham’s first ten weeks as prime minister than during Keir Starmer’s first ten weeks in 2024. The comparison has fuelled criticism that the crossings are not a priority for Burnham, though the article presents the figures alongside political claims and does not establish why interception rates differed.
Of 10,048 people who attempted the journey during Burnham’s first ten weeks, 6,666, or 66 per cent, reached the UK; French authorities intercepted 3,382. Under Starmer, 9,959 of 17,966 attempts, or 55 per cent, succeeded, while just over 8,000 were blocked. The article also reports 1,739 arrivals in the first week of October and 20,935 since 1 January, and quotes critics and a former Border Force chief debating the government’s approach and the role of French enforcement.
- A higher share of Channel crossing attempts succeeded during Burnham’s first ten weeks.
- The article compares 66 per cent with 55 per cent under Starmer.
- Critics question whether crossings are a government priority.
New here? Start with this
Migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats are an ongoing issue in British politics. Governments have prioritised stopping these crossings, which are often dangerous and irregular. The number of people successfully reaching the UK is used as a measure of government success in this policy area.
Andy Burnham became prime minister in 2026, following Keir Starmer's premiership from 2024 to 2026. Both leaders have had to manage the challenge of Channel crossings as a significant political issue. The public and politicians regularly scrutinise government performance on border control and migration.
An analysis of Home Office figures has compared how many migrants successfully reached Britain during the first ten weeks of each leader's tenure. Such comparisons attract attention because they provide a measure of how different administrations have tackled this policy area. The analysis has prompted discussion about the current government's approach to preventing Channel crossings.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
From a border security standpoint, the statistics present a clear picture: 66 per cent of migrants successfully crossed under Burnham versus 55 per cent under Starmer, suggesting weakened enforcement during his tenure. For those prioritising immigration control and effective deterrence, this comparative performance indicates the government is not adequately addressing the issue, and the figures warrant scrutiny of whether the new administration has made stopping the boats a genuine priority.
The case against
The article explicitly states it does not establish why interception rates differed, and many factors beyond government policy influence these outcomes—French enforcement efforts, weather conditions, seasonal variations, and smuggling network activity all play roles. Attributing the difference to Burnham's record without evidence of policy changes or accounting for these variables risks misinterpreting correlation as causation, and a 10-week period may reflect statistical noise rather than sustained policy failure.