My friend comes from a distant continent. She married an Englishman and now works in a white collar job. She lives with her family in a quiet suburb. She is aware of the multi cultural composition of London and works with some migrants as clients in her job.
Unfortunately what she and most media pundits, including Radio 4 and BBC tv comedians, do not know is how life is for people in other regions of the UK. Some areas of the country are powerhouses of the modern economy, others face high unemployment and economic downturn.
Now the BBC has broadcast a radio programme about asylum seekers. Unless you download the podcast, it won't be available for very long.
Here's the blurb:
'Around 28 thousand people are claiming asylum in the UK. They're accommodated in some of the nation's most deprived areas while their cases are considered. Now, with numbers on the rise, some communities saytthey're struggling to cope.
Allan Urry reports from the Northwest of England where, in some areas, there's concern about growing pressures on health services and schools. In Liverpool the City's Mayor, Joe Anderson, talks of an asylum "apartheid" and says other towns and cities need to take a fairer share. In Rochdale in Greater Manchester, there are more asylum seekers than the whole of the south east of England. The local MP Simon Danczuk says he's worried the pressures could undermine the good community relations that have always existed in the town.
Recent stories of asylum seekers living in fancy hotels have led to outraged newspaper headlines but are they a symptom of bigger failings in the UK's system for housing those who come here seeking refuge?'ey'
Why did the government reduce the number of organisations dealing with asylum seekers to 3 private providers (G4S, Serco and Clearel, only one of which had experience in the field)?
Could it be that donations to party funds and sophisticated lobbying may have helped? G4S made a modest £50K donation in 2012, compared with Serco's £300,000. Conflict of interest amongst politicians may be a factor, given that 2 Conservative and 2 Labour peers have shares in Serco, for example. Some politicians obtain consultancies and directorships (after Westminster) with companies that have benefitted from government contracts.
Why would the government dump most asylum seekers in North West of England and Rochdale on the outskirts of Manchester rather than dispersing them more widely round the country (so the South East of England, excluding London, had 441 asylum seekers compared with 6298 in the North West)?
One of the official reasons is that housing in these areas is cheaper, making it easier to accommodate people. There are some cheaper areas in other parts of England, including the South East, but housing is a highly contentious issue. Successive governments have allowed the UK economy to rest on inflated house prices, putting them out of the reach of youngsters and ordinary people.
North West England and Rochdale are traditional Labour voting territory and unlikely to change, unless they swing to UKIP. South East England is a traditional Conservative voting area. 2015 is the year of a general election and polling suggests there will be no overall winner.
gl
Why did the government remove local government from involvement in this process, having little say in who is moved into their areas?
Local government in these areas, with long experience in dealing with migrants. If government removes their power, they have little recourse. These 3 private companies have a bad reputation in outsourced services. Only local councils could call them to account, IF they were still involved.
What effect does this have on local people?
Local residents have less time to see their doctor, public housing is no longer available to them as asylum seekers (once allowed leave to remain) take priority, schools are full.
Some of my readers have assumed I'm a UKIP supporter, which I'm not.
However they have opened a discussion that most people (especially politicians cosily cosseted in the Westminster bubble and valuable houses in London, who hold down a well paid job and have expectations of lucrative contracts after their Parliamentary career) wish to avoid.
Gordon Brown tried to stifle the debate in Rochdale, when he refused to address the concerns of an elderly woma in 2010, giving her an election address and later referring to her as a 'bigoted woman'.
Gordon Brown remained an MP, though rarely appeared in the House of Commons (except to claim his allowances). He and his wife ran a charity, which amassed large sums of money from his speaking tours, but strangely never seemed to disburse them to any charitable work. He claimed £10,000 per week in expenses, but have less than £1million to charity. He told this elderly widow that no one should claim benefits for more than 6 months, but get out to work. Effectively Gordon Brown was a benefit claimant from the taxpayer, given how little he did as an MP in his last years. Brown has resigned as an MP.
ng to cope. Allan Urry reports from the Northwest of England where, in some areas, there's concern about growing pressures on health services and schools. In Liverpool the City's Mayor, Joe Anderson, talks of an asylum "apartheid" and says other towns and cities need to take a fairer share. In Rochdale in Greater Manchester, there are more asylum seekers than the whole of the south east of England. The local MP Simon Danczuk says he's worried the pressures could undermine the good community relations that have always existed in the town.
Recent stories of asylum seekers living in fancy hotels have led to outraged newspaper headlines but are they a symptom of bigger failings in the UK's system for housing those who come here seeking refuge?
No comments:
Post a Comment