Of course France won't stop the small boats
Britain certainly won't receive much in the way of help from the pro-migrant Emmanuel Macron, despite what Keir Starmer may claim
The Beeb paid their call last Friday and encountered around 80 people waist deep in water. These weren't locals having a dip to escape the June heatwave but migrants from Eritrea, Afghanistan and elsewhere. They were waiting for what the BBC described as a 'taxi-boat', one of the myriad vessels that cruise the coastline picking up passengers and transporting them across the Channel to England. 'The taxi boat system appears to give the smugglers a little more control over what has often been a chaotic and dangerous process,' explained the BBC.
More control means more efficiency which results in larger numbers of 'passengers' being taxied to England. So far this year over 16,000 have made the voyage north (an increase of 42 per cent on the same period in 2024). Given that the weather is set to be fair for the foreseeable future, the numbers will only increase in the coming months. Even Downing Street admitted on Tuesday that the situation is 'deteriorating'.
There is another certainty to the Channel migrant crisis and that is that the French will do little to stem the human tide. Why should they? It's in the interest of the government to offload migrants onto Britain.
At the start of the year Bruno Retailleau, the Interior Minister, bullishly declared that he wanted to change the rules of engagement so that the French police could intercept migrant boats in shallow water; that has yet to happen.
Retailleau gave a lengthy radio interview on Wednesday morning, talking for 25 minutes and immigration and insecurity. Not once did he mention small boats on the Channel. What he did talk about was tightening France's borders within the Schengen area: in other words reducing the number of illegal immigrants crossing into France from Italy, Spain, Germany and elsewhere. But not a word about Britain.
Retailleau doesn't care about Britain, and why should he? Like all French conservatives he believes Britain's migrant crisis is to large extent a mess of their own making. In 2015 one of Retailleau's centre-right colleagues, Xavier Bertrand, said migrants regarded Britain as a utopia 'because there's work there, and above all, you can work there without identity papers.' England, declared Bertrand, 'needs to change its rules on working with illegals'.
Retailleau is expected to run as the centre-right candidate in the 2027 presidential election and a recent opinion poll indicated he is likely to be a serious contender. He's in favour of a referendum on immigration and he's also a fierce critic of what he regards as the left-leaning judiciary. For the moment, however, there is little he can do to tackle the small boat crisis so why get involved? It could undermine his tough-talking image. Better to turn a blind eye and let the British suffer.
Britain certainly won't receive much in the way of help from the pro-migrant Emmanuel Macron, despite what Keir Starmer may claim. The PM and the French president apparently discussed the migrant crisis at this week's G7 Summit in Canada and agreed to 'work closely' together to stem the small boats.
As closely as Macron promised Rishi Sunak in 2023? On that occasion the PM wrote the president a cheque for £500 million in return for a promise to clamp down on small boat crossings. It was, proclaimed Macron a 'moment of reconnection' between the two countries.
As Donald Trump remarked earlier this week, 'whether purposely or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong.' The same goes for all the British PMs who have boasted they were going to crack the migrant crisis.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
The BBC Gaza documentary report is a cover-up
The BBC's long-awaited editorial review of its documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone was published today. It reads not like a rigorous investigation into serious journalistic failures, but like a desperate institutional whitewash. The report bends over backwards to defend the indefensible, trying to sanitise a catastrophic editorial misjudgment as little more than 'a significant oversight by the Production Company.' At the heart of the scandal lies the BBC's failure to disclose that the documentary's narrator, a Palestinian boy named Abdullah Al-Yazouri, is the son of Ayman Al-Yazouri, a senior official in the Hamas-run government in Gaza. This, the report acknowledges, was 'wrong' and constituted a breach of guideline 3.3.17 on accuracy, specifically the obligation to avoid 'misleading audiences by failing to provide important context.' Yet this is the only breach the report concedes, despite a litany of other egregious failures. According to the BBC, the production company hired to make the film was 'consistently transparent' in believing that the narrator's father held 'a civilian or technocratic position' and 'made a mistake' by not informing the BBC. This is absurd. The director, co-director, and one Gaza-based crew member were all aware of the father's identity. In my opinion, the notion that anyone could mistake a deputy minister in the Hamas government for a non-political figure is either wilful blindness or calculated deceit. Even more damning is the revelation that the production company met directly with both the narrator and his father in August 2024. And yet, the report states with astonishing credulity: 'I have been told by the Production Company that there was no discussion of the father's position at this meeting.' Somehow, though, the report's author considers this not to be evidence of concealment, but merely an unfortunate omission. The BBC claimed contributors' social media had been checked, yet it took just one independent journalist a single evening after broadcast to uncover everything they missed, and they still aired it again two days later. The narrator's family was paid around £1,817 in goods and cash. The report assures us that sanctions checks were performed and 'no positive results returned'. One wonders how the family of a senior Hamas official could possibly escape UK sanctions, given that Hamas is a fully proscribed terrorist organisation under British law, but then again the money was paid to the narrator's sister, intended for his mother. Even more startling is the admission that the BBC 'was only made aware of the disturbance fee paid for the Narrator after the broadcast of the Programme.' Aside from the Hamas minister's son, perhaps the most brazen deception in the film was also swept under the rug in just two short paragraphs of the BBC's report; its use of non-sequential editing in a sequence portraying a supposed mass-casualty incident. The programme presents us with a child volunteer paramedic (an entirely unbelievable notion anyway) responding to an Israeli airstrike. It opens with a graphic reading '245 days of war' signalling to viewers that the events depicted occurred on a single, specific date. The narration references a particular airstrike and location, accompanied by a map pinpointing the area, further reinforcing the impression that this is a chronological slice of a real event. And yet, the child appears in multiple shots wearing different shoes and with visibly different hair lengths. He looks freshly shorn in one scene and noticeably untrimmed in another. The only constant is a T-shirt, which the BBC admits created an illusion of continuity. The report concedes the sequence 'included scenes shot on different days', and that the impression of a continuous event was 'reinforced by the fact that the child was wearing the same clothes throughout'. Despite this orchestrated consistency, the report ludicrously claims: '[The sequence] did not make any assertions as to how what was shown fitted into the broader chronology of the Israel-Gaza war.' This seems to me to be indefensible. The film used date-stamped graphics, mapped coordinates, location-specific narration, and a carefully coordinated wardrobe, all designed to give the appearance of a single, continuous event. Yet the BBC insists that audiences were not materially misled, and that no editorial breach occurred. It is a blatant exercise in gaslighting, and an affront to even the most basic principles of journalistic integrity. The mistranslation of the Arabic word Yahud, 'Jew', as 'Israelis' is another glaring deception. The report flatly states: 'I do not find there to have been any editorial breaches in respect of the Programme's translation.' Instead, it claims: 'The translations in this Programme did not risk misleading audiences on what the people speaking meant.' This is not merely wrong, it is a conscious sanitisation of genocidal anti-Semitic rhetoric. The fact that Palestinians might use the word 'Jew' and 'Israeli' interchangeably is rather the point. The reason for their animosity towards Israel is precisely because it is the Jewish homeland and the world's only Jewish state. Why else would they use that word? The refusal to translate the word accurately distorts the ideological nature of the conflict. The BBC had ample opportunity to catch these failures. According to the BBC's own investigation, the narrator was identified in the early development stage having previously featured on Channel 4 News. Internal emails from December and January show that multiple BBC staff raised concerns about social media vetting, Hamas affiliations, and whether narration was being scripted for propaganda purposes. Yet these warnings were ignored or brushed aside. Incredibly, a mere footnote reveals: 'There was a reference in the Programme's Commissioning Specification to the Production Company understanding their obligations under the Terrorism Act, which it was stated they would get briefed on. I understand that they were not in fact briefed on these obligations.' Another footnote discussing the Hamas affiliation of the narrator's father mentions a post-broadcast phone call in which the production team allegedly said they 'had not told [the BBC] earlier because they did not want to scare [them].' The production company denies this, but the report admits 'the balance of evidence… supports the conclusion that a comment of this nature was made', but still insists it cannot be read as intentional deception. Despite all this, the BBC concludes smugly: 'I find that the correct formal mechanisms for an independent commission were followed'. This is an insult to the intelligence of every viewer, every Briton and every Jew. If this is what editorial compliance looks like, then those mechanisms are unfit for purpose, and the BBC is a sham organisation. This travesty is not an isolated error. It follows years of documented bias, mistranslation, double standards, and selective outrage. What the BBC has now produced is not an act of accountability, it is an act of institutional self-preservation. A cover-up of a cover-up. A report written not to confront failure, but to excuse it. And in doing so, the BBC has confirmed precisely what so many critics already feared: that when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the BBC is no longer a broadcaster, it is a partisan actor.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
UK draining aid budget with asylum seeker hotel policy
Some £1.8 billion of the projected £8.9 billion budget for overseas assistance could be spent on supporting refugees and asylum seekers in Britain in 2027-28, a report by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) says. THE UK's shrinking aid budget is being drained by the Government's prolonged use of asylum hotels — diverting life-saving global development funds while failing to provide refugees with humane and timely support, a watchdog has warned. Despite the June spending review suggesting a reduction in such costs over the next three years, the asylum seeker system is still on course to absorb a 'significant portion' of total aid funding, leaving as little as 0.24% of gross national income for global development, according to the watchdog. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has announced plans to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this Parliament after the National Audit Office said accommodation costs could hit £15.3 billion over a 10-year period. READ MORE: Heckling of Nigel Farage will only help reinforce Reform UK's mantra But progress in bringing down aid spending on so-called in-donor refugee costs remains 'slow', the ICAI said. International OECD rules allow governments to use their aid budgets to cover some of the costs of helping people claiming asylum in the first year of entering a country, such as housing and food. According to ICAI calculations, asylum costs are expected to take up £2.2 billion of total UK official development assistance (ODA) funding for 2026-27, £1.8 billion the following year and £1.5 billion by 2028-29. The UK Government slashed Britain's aid budget earlier this year from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% in order to pay for increased defence spending. Total ODA spending is now expected to fall from £10 billion in 2026-27 to £8.9 billion the following year before increasing slightly to £9.4 billion in 2028-29. This means a fifth of the total aid spend in 2027-28 is expected to go towards asylum costs, before dipping to around a sixth in 2028-29. ICAI commissioner Harold Freeman, who led the new report, acknowledged the Government had already taken some steps to address 'flaws in the system' but said further changes would be likely to be needed. READ MORE: Russell Findlay under fire for £150k taxpayer cash given to ex-spin doctor's firms He said: 'The UK's development programme is at a turning point, with budget reductions coming against a backdrop of increasing global conflicts, climate threats and rising humanitarian needs. 'At the same time, UK asylum costs are likely to continue to absorb a significant proportion of our aid funding. 'The Government has already taken steps to address some of the flaws in the system for managing aid identified by past ICAI work. 'But further changes will likely be needed to maximise the impact and value for money of the remaining development budget.' The UK Government has been contacted for comment. Last year, the watchdog raised 'value for money' concerns after some 28% – or £4.3 billion – of all UK aid in 2023 was spent on hosting refugees and asylum seekers in Britain under the previous Conservative government. The amount of ODA spending on in-house refugee costs has risen dramatically since 2020, in part due to visa schemes for Afghan and Ukrainian people but largely linked to lengthy stays in so-called asylum hotels, the ICAI said. In response to its latest report, the Tories said the 'eye-watering cost' of housing asylum seekers was 'utterly indefensible, particularly when so many people are struggling to get by'. Shadow Home Office minister Katie Lam said: 'This broken system rewards delay and indecision, while the British taxpayer foots the bill. 'Those who have no right to stay here should not be languishing in hotels; they should be detained and deported within days – not years. 'We need a migration system that is firm, fair, and fast. 'Over the past 12 months, Keir Starmer has systematically dismantled every deterrent, while his joke of a migrant deal agreed with France last week will do nothing to stem the flow of migrants risking their lives to cross the Channel.' The One campaign, which aims to reduce poverty in Africa, said the report confirmed that UK aid had been 'stretched to breaking point'. Executive director Adrian Lovett said: 'While it's right that refugees are housed in safe accommodation, paying for this from the diminished international aid budget means there will be even less support for the world's most vulnerable people at a time of growing global need.' Lovett added: 'The UK is at its best when it delivers a strong and growing aid budget, but also uses its political and diplomatic muscle to help create the conditions for sustainable solutions. 'We look to ministers to be creative and ambitious on both fronts in the months and years ahead.'
Sky News
5 hours ago
- Sky News
How Nigel Farage and Reform UK are winning over women
Reform UK is on the march. Following a barnstorming performance in this year's local elections, they are now the most successful political party on TikTok, engaging younger audiences. But most of their 400,000 followers are men. I was at the local elections launch for Reform in March, looking around for any young women to interview who had come to support the party at its most ambitious rally yet, and I was struggling. A woman wearing a "let's save Britain" hat walked by, and I asked her to help me. "Now you say it, there are more men here," she said. But she wasn't worried, adding: "We'll get the women in." And that probably best sums up Reform's strategy. When Nigel Farage threw his hat into the ring to become an MP for Reform, midway through the general election campaign, they weren't really thinking about the diversity of their base. As a result, they attracted a very specific politician. Fewer than 20% of general election candidates for Reform were women, and the five men elected were all white with a median age of 60. Polling shows that best, too. According to YouGov's survey from June 2025, a year on from the election, young women are one of Reform UK's weakest groups, with just 7% supporting Farage's party - half the rate of men in the same age group. The highest support comes from older men, with a considerable amount of over-65s backing Reform - almost 40%. But the party hoped to change all that at the local elections. Time to go pro It was the closing act of Reform's September conference and Farage had his most serious rallying cry: it was time for the party to "professionalise". In an interview with me last year, Farage admitted "no vetting" had occurred for one of his new MPs, James McMurdock. Only a couple of months after he arrived in parliament, it was revealed he had been jailed after being convicted of assaulting his then girlfriend in 2006 while drunk outside a nightclub. McMurdock told me earlier this year: "I would like to do my best to do as little harm to everyone else and at the same time accept that I was a bad person for a moment back then. I'm doing my best to manage the fact that something really regrettable did happen." He has since suspended himself from the party over allegations about his business affairs. He has denied any wrongdoing. 0:40 Later, two women who worked for another of Reform's original MPs, Rupert Lowe, gave "credible" evidence of bullying or harassment by him and his team, according to a report from a KC hired by the party. Lowe denies all wrongdoing and says the claims were retaliation after he criticised Farage in an interview with the Daily Mail, describing his then leader's style as "messianic". The Crown Prosecution Service later said it would not charge Lowe after an investigation. He now sits as an independent MP. 1:04 A breakthrough night But these issues created an image problem and scuppered plans for getting women to join the party. So, in the run-up to the local elections, big changes were made. The first big opportunity presented itself when a by-election was called in Runcorn and Helsby. The party put up Sarah Pochin as a candidate, and she won a nail-biting race by just six votes. Reform effectively doubled their vote share there compared to the general election - jumping to 38% - and brought its first female MP into parliament. And in the Lincolnshire mayoral race - where Andrea Jenkyns was up for the role - they won with 42% of the vote. The council results that night were positive, too, with Reform taking control of 10 local authorities. They brought new recruits into the party - some of whom had never been involved in active politics. 6:11 'The same vibes as Trump' Catherine Becker is one of them and says motherhood, family, and community is at the heart of Reform's offering. It's attracted her to what she calls Reform's "common sense" policies. As Reform's parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Highgate in last year's general election, and now a councillor, she also taps into Reform's strategy of hyper-localism - trying to get candidates to talk about local issues of crime, family, and law and order in the community above everything else. Jess Gill was your quintessential Labour voter: "I'm northern, I'm working class, I'm a woman, based on the current stereotype that would have been the party for me." But when Sir Keir Starmer knelt for Black Lives Matter, she said that was the end of her love affair with the party, and she switched. "Women are fed up of men not being real men," she says. "Starmer is a bit of a wimp, where Nigel Farage is a funny guy - he gives the same vibes as Trump in a way." 'Shy Reformers' But most of Reform's recruits seem to have defected from the Conservative Party, according to the data, and this is where the party sees real opportunity. Anna McGovern was one of those defectors after the astonishing defeat of the Tories in the general election. She thinks there may be "shy Reformers" - women who support the party but are unwilling to speak about it publicly. "You don't see many young women like myself who are publicly saying they support Reform," she says. "I think many people fear that if they publicly say they support Reform, what their friends might think about them. I've faced that before, where people have made assumptions of my beliefs because I've said I support Reform or more right-wing policies." But representation isn't their entire strategy. Reform have pivoted to speaking about controversial topics - the sort they think the female voters they're keen to attract may be particularly attuned to. "Reform are speaking up for women on issues such as transgenderism, defining what a woman is," McGovern says. And since Reform's original five MPs joined parliament, grooming gangs have been mentioned 159 times in the Commons - compared to the previous 13 years when it was mentioned 88 times, despite the scandal first coming to prominence back in 2011. But the pitfall of that strategy is where it could risk alienating other communities. Pochin, Reform's first and only female MP, used her first question in parliament to the prime minister to ask if he would ban the burka - something that isn't Reform policy, but which she says was "punchy" to "get the attention to start the debate". 0:31 'What politics is all about' Alex Philips was the right-hand woman to Farage during the Brexit years. She's still very close to senior officials in Reform and a party member, and tells me these issues present an opportunity. "An issue in politics is a political opportunity and what democracy is for is actually putting a voice to a representation, to concerns of the public. That's what politics is all about." Luke Tryl is the executive director of the More In Common public opinion and polling firm, and says the shift since the local elections is targeted and effective. Reform's newer converts are much more likely to be female, as the party started to realise you can't win a general election without getting the support of effectively half the electorate. "When we speak to women, particularly older women in focus groups, there is a sense that women's issues have been neglected by the traditional mainstream parties," he says. "Particularly issues around women's safety, and women's concerns aren't taken as seriously as they should be. "If Reform could show it takes their concerns seriously, they may well consolidate their support." According to his focus groups, the party's vote share among women aged 18 to 26 shot up in May - jumping from 12% to 21% after the local elections. But the gender divide in right-wing parties is still stark, Tryl says, and representation will remain an uphill battle for a party historically dogged by controversy and clashes. A Reform UK spokesman told Sky News: "Reform is attracting support across all demographics. "Our support with women has surged since the general election a year ago, in that time we have seen Sarah Pochin and Andrea Jenkyns elected in senior roles for the party."
