POLL OF THE DAY: Should middle class areas have to take in more migrants, as Andy Burnham says?
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
Andy Burnham has said middle class areas will have to accept more asylum seekers, pledging that arrivals will no longer be concentrated only in the poorest communities. He argued that "all parts of the country need to play their part," a stance likely to prove contentious given ongoing pressure over asylum accommodation and small boat crossings.
The comments come as Channel crossings under his premiership passed the 3,000 mark, including 230 migrants who arrived aboard a record "mega-dinghy" brought into Dover on Monday. This takes the total number of crossings since Labour took power in July 2024 past 80,000. The Daily Mail is now running a poll asking readers whether they agree middle class areas should take in more migrants, following a previous poll in which 98 per cent of over 11,000 respondents said France should do more to tackle the small boats crisis.
- Burnham says wealthier areas must house more asylum seekers, not just poor ones
- Channel crossings under his premiership have passed 3,000
- Total crossings since July 2024 election now exceed 80,000
New here? Start with this
Migration policy covers who can enter and stay in the UK, including people seeking asylum, refugees and those arriving for work or family reasons. Once people need housing or support, councils and central government may be involved in deciding where this is provided.
Andy Burnham is the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, a role that covers transport, policing and other regional issues but not control of the UK’s immigration system. His comments relate to a wider argument about whether responsibility for accommodating migrants is shared evenly between poorer and more affluent communities.
The issue matters because local housing, school places, healthcare and public services can be affected by changes in population. It also raises questions about how decisions are made, which level of government pays for support, and whether communities have a say in local arrangements.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that wealthier areas often have stronger public services, more housing options and greater economic capacity, so a fair migration policy should not concentrate responsibility in poorer communities already under strain. They see a broader distribution as both a matter of social justice and a practical way to avoid segregation, enabling newcomers to access jobs, schools and support networks across the country. The underlying value is that national obligations should be shared according to capacity rather than left to a limited set of places.
The case against
Critics argue that decisions about accommodation must reflect local housing supply, school and health-service capacity, and the views of existing residents, rather than applying a broad label such as middle class. They may also contend that large or rapid placements can undermine public confidence and make integration harder, whatever the affluence of an area. The underlying value is that a sustainable migration system requires genuine local consent, careful planning and manageable numbers in every community.
Full account
Reports said Andy Burnham had argued that asylum accommodation should be spread more widely, so that poorer communities were not left carrying a disproportionate share of the burden. He was quoted as saying that every part of the country should contribute, framing the issue as one of fairness between areas with differing levels of wealth and existing provision.
The comments came amid opposition to plans to house up to 1,250 male asylum seekers at a former military site near Piddington in Oxfordshire, a village of about 400 people. Residents have objected to the scale of the proposal and, according to one report, backed a symbolic vote on leaving the UK. Borders minister Anna Turley defended the wider approach, saying distribution should be fairer and should reduce pressures on individual communities.
The reports also highlighted the broader debate over the use of taxpayer-funded support for people awaiting decisions on asylum claims. Home Office accommodation and subsistence are generally available to eligible applicants, who are dispersed around the UK. A Daily Mail analysis said 17 local authorities had no supported asylum seekers at the end of March, with many of those areas described as rural or affluent, including the Cotswolds, the New Forest, the Highlands, the Isle of Wight and several island authorities.
Small-boat crossings were presented as part of the political backdrop. One report said 230 people arrived at Dover in what it described as a record-sized dinghy, taking crossings since Labour entered office in July 2024 beyond 80,000. It also said crossings during Burnham's premiership had passed 3,000. The proposed redistribution has drawn Conservative criticism, while supporters argue it is intended to share responsibility more evenly.
Where outlets differ
Source 1 is chiefly a poll-led article, asking readers whether middle-class areas should accept more migrants and foregrounding Channel-crossing figures and the previous day's poll result.
Source 2 concentrates on its analysis of local authorities with no supported asylum seekers, names the areas concerned, and gives substantially more detail about the Piddington proposal, local opposition and Anna Turley's defence.
Both reports attribute the redistribution argument to Andy Burnham and describe him as Prime Minister, although the supplied extracts do not explain that characterisation.