- Tue Nov 18, 2025 8:57 am
#100277
"Safe routes" could just be a bit of vague flannel, or it could be a proper attempt at something that can, overall, maintain support from backbenchers, a sort of "grand bargain", as it was called when Obama attempted something on immigration. It's easier to justify support for something if you can cite something positive in among the bad stuff. Crudely speaking, it's a "talking point". "I didn't vote for Tommy Robinson policies, do you think he supports safe routes?"
I see lots of people talking about migrants "throwing their phones away", and how they "could be anybody" (which they assume means they're the worst people ever). There may be more openness to some people who come via safe routes, of whose identity we can be more confident.
What sort of result would the government and the sort of people it's trying to appeal to want? Unlike Farage (and it has to be said, some Red Wall Labour MPs), I don't think it's zero. I think it's a smaller number overall, and a much smaller number in boats. Can policy achieve that? I don't know. Admittedly, we're talking about a pre-radicalization of the Right phase, but nobody much bothered with asylum seekers from about 2003-2020. Or at least nothing like as much as now.