Burnham’s migrants plan just proves he’ll betray those who don’t back Labour, Kemi Badenoch says
Kemi Badenoch has accused Andy Burnham of deliberately placing illegal migrants in middle-class, non-Labour-voting areas as punishment, comparing the approach to a Reform UK proposal to site detention centres in Green-voting constituencies. Her attack follows Sir Keir Starmer's defence of plans to house 1,250 male asylum seekers at a former military base near Piddington, a village of 400 people in a Lib Dem seat, with a similar-sized camp planned for RAF Linton-on-Ouse in a Tory seat in North Yorkshire. The row centres on the Government's stated aim to spread asylum accommodation more evenly rather than concentrating it in poorer towns, a shift Badenoch says is politically, rather than fairly, motivated.
Burnham has argued that "middle England" must take its share of dispersal, rejecting a system in which deprived communities alone host asylum seekers in Houses in Multiple Occupation, even though a fairer approach would cost more. Even Labour MP Rachael Maskell has criticised the Linton-on-Ouse plan, warning of a six-to-one male-to-female ratio in the 600-person village near a primary school and nursery with only four daily buses to York. A Labour source hit back at Badenoch, citing the Conservatives' record of housing 56,000 asylum seekers in 400 hotels at a cost of £9 million a day, while the Government said hotel use has fallen 35 per cent in a year and overall asylum costs are down £1 billion.
- Badenoch accuses Burnham of siting migrant camps in non-Labour villages as punishment
- Plans target Piddington (Oxfordshire) and RAF Linton-on-Ouse (North Yorkshire)
- Even a Labour MP has criticised the Linton-on-Ouse proposal
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of a broader distribution of migrant accommodation argue that no single community, often poorer areas with limited political influence, should be expected to carry a disproportionate share. They contend that areas with stronger housing markets, public services and local resources may be better placed to contribute, and that a fair national system should not exempt affluent places simply because residents may object politically.
The case against
Critics argue that accommodation decisions must be based transparently on suitable housing, local capacity and meaningful consultation, rather than any perceived electoral advantage. If communities believe they are being selected because they are less likely to support the governing party, they say this would undermine trust and risk placing avoidable pressure on schools, health services and housing; residents in all areas deserve equal consideration.