Angela Rayner has approved plans for accommodation for 1,256 male asylum seekers beside Piddington, a village of 358 people, despite 3,177 objections and just one in support.
But beds don’t stop boats. Rather than continually finding new places to accommodate people arriving across the Channel, shouldn’t we be concentrating on removing the incentive to make the journey in the first place?
That’s what I argued last week when I joined Nana Akua on GB News.
Watch the full interview below.
France Is Blaming Britain for the Small Boats Crisis
Former French prime minister and presidential hopeful Édouard Philippe has accused Britain of encouraging migrants to cross the Channel, arguing that our immigration policies and opportunities for illegal employment make the UK an attractive destination.
He has even threatened to renegotiate or terminate the Touquet treaty governing cross-Channel border arrangements unless Britain changes its approach and contributes more towards French policing costs.
It takes some nerve for a French politician to blame Britain for people trying to leave France. Nevertheless, his argument raises an important question about why people gather in northern France specifically to reach the UK.
If the ultimate objective is to reach Britain, what happens when that journey no longer reliably gets people here?
My argument is simple. Remove the incentive to attempt the crossing. If paying a people-smuggler thousands of pounds no longer provides a realistic route into Britain, surely many would think twice about travelling to northern France in the first place.
Why Not Return Small Boats to France?
As I explained during my GB News interview, when boats are intercepted in the Channel, rather than routinely bringing everyone to Britain, why not establish an agreement to return them safely to France?
If people-smuggling gangs could no longer offer a realistic prospect of reaching Britain, their business model would be seriously challenged. And if people knew attempting the crossing would result in being returned to France, why would they pay thousands of pounds to make that journey?
The previous UK-France one in, one out deal was, in my view, a predictable failure.
The scheme stopped accepting new cases in October 2026, having returned more than 1,500 people to France. But Britain also agreed to admit an equivalent number through a legal route.
Think about that. For every person sent back to France, another could come to Britain through the reciprocal arrangement. The scheme was never designed to reduce overall admissions through those exchanges alone.
The Government argued that the threat of being returned would deter dangerous crossings. But with so few actually returned compared with the number crossing, how convincing was that deterrent?
A returns policy only deters if it’s the rule, not the exception.
Returns would need French cooperation and safe operations at sea. But Britain has already committed £662 million over three years towards joint border operations with France, with some funding conditional on results.
Surely that considerable financial commitment should form part of discussions about a more comprehensive returns agreement, rather than continually paying to prevent boats leaving French beaches.
Small Boat Arrivals Are Down — But What About the Weather?
According to the latest Home Office figures, approximately 23,529 people arrived by small boat between 1 January and 11 November 2026, compared with 39,075 over the equivalent period last year.
That’s a reduction of almost 40%, which is significant. The Government argues that disrupting the supply of boats and equipment to smuggling gangs has contributed to the fall, but weather conditions also influence when crossings take place.
The Home Office’s own analysis identifies wind speeds, wave heights and other crossing conditions as important factors.
Favourable weather can bring a surge in arrivals, while rough seas can temporarily reduce them. Neither tells us whether the underlying incentives have changed.
The challenge is establishing how much of the fall represents lasting policy success rather than changes in crossing opportunities.
Piddington: The Cost of Accommodating the Arrivals
Which brings us back to Piddington, where Rayner has granted planning permission for up to 1,256 male asylum seekers at the former MoD Bicester site.
The neighbouring parish had just 358 residents at the 2021 Census, meaning the proposed accommodation has capacity for 3.5 times the local population.
The planning decision recorded 3,177 opposing representations and just one in support, with concerns raised about safety, infrastructure and pressure on public services. Even the local Liberal Democrat MP, Calum Miller, opposes it.
Then there’s the cost to taxpayers.
In 2024, the National Audit Office found that an earlier programme of four large asylum accommodation sites was projected to cost £46 million more than using hotels, despite initially being expected to save money.
Those figures don’t establish what Bicester will cost, but they demonstrate why the financial case for these developments deserves proper scrutiny.
The Government argues that alternative accommodation will reduce reliance on expensive asylum hotels. However, while planning permission has now been granted, the Home Office has not yet made its final decision to open the Bicester site.
The broader question remains: why spend ever more money managing the consequences when we should be doing more to prevent dangerous crossings in the first place?
Tackle the Cause, Not Just the Consequences
Britain needs to spend less time debating where to accommodate small-boat arrivals and more time examining how to reduce the journeys themselves.
I believe a credible agreement to return intercepted boats safely to France could change the incentives, weaken the people-smuggling gangs and reduce pressure on taxpayers and the asylum system.
Because building another asylum accommodation site might provide more beds—but it won’t, by itself, stop the next boat leaving France.
✍️ Thanks for reading Stat of the Nation. If you find my analysis useful, please share or subscribe to support my work.
✍️ Jamie Jenkins
Stats Jamie | Stats, Facts & Opinions
📲 Follow me here for more daily updates:
This got me thinking 🤔
We own our country. We own the land, the history, the culture. We allow someone to represent us in parliament because we can't all go personally. We are sovereign. So why does Andy Burnham think he can let foreigners say what we can and can't do? Why does Angela Rayner make decisions which are against the wishes of We, The People? We are sovereign. They are employed by us. At what point do we act to remind parliament that of this?
I sorry but you just do not understand the situation. It’s not the fact that Paddington, a rural village is too be swamped by over 1200 males whose background is unknown, but the fact that these jumped up Left loving Immigrants Welcome broke ranks and asked “Do not house hundreds of males amongst a village of women and female children, we are concerned”. Our “Ange” has stuck it to them, racists bastards, how dare they!, Diversity is Our Strenght!, now they can face the horrors the North has faced for almost forty years!.
Piddington is finished, it was once a rural idyllic place, now it is a place where fear is palpable, and why, because the residents objected to Labours preferred voter base, just look at the Front Bench and see how many rely, ney, require, the Muslim Islamic vote and since this is male driven via “family” voting, they have a major investment in ensuring that the “Right” voters arrive.
In North Yorkshire, the sleepy village of Linton on Ouse, it’s discarded RAF base will be used to house a similar number of single males, like Piddington, it is off the beaten track, too far to walk to the nearest town, poor public transport links, another village that has a problem………it’s just too damn white!, and that irks the Labour planners and “Our Ange”, so unleash the dogs of war, cry God Save The People and accept the fact 5hat Piddington and Linton on Ouse are collateral damage should anything untoward happen……I pray that nothing does but history on this matter is not on my side.