Share this post:
A new report may have confirmed Vox Political’s opinion of government policy on asylum-seekers: that we have seen a series of headline-grabbing stunts rather than any coherent strategy.
The report by the National Audit Office states that the UK’s asylum system is affected by inefficiencies, “wasted public funds” and a succession of “short-term, reactive” government policies that have moved problems elsewhere.
According to the BBC, “The spending watchdog looked at a sample of 5,000 asylum claims lodged almost three years ago, in January 2023.
“Since then, 35% (1,619) of those asylum seekers had been given some sort of protection such as refugee status, and 9% (452) had been removed from the country. But 56% (2,812) still did not have a final outcome in their case.
“Most of the cases in the remaining group (2,021 out of the 2,812) remained in a sort of “limbo”, with no appeal lodged.
An honest future-direction message
“Vox Political is nearing the end of its fourteenth year, and I want to be honest with you: the online advertising model that kept the site free to read has deteriorated so sharply that it can no longer sustain the work.
This is not a reflection on the readership; it is a structural shift affecting small publishers everywhere.
Rather than quietly winding down, I’m giving you clear notice: Vox Political will close at the end of the year unless something dramatically changes. The good news is that The Whip Line already exists, is reader-funded, and is growing. That is where I can continue producing the journalism you value, free from the chaos of advertiser algorithms.
If you want the work to continue, please join me there. Free and paid subscriptions are available, but please remember it is the paid subscriptions – monthly and annual – that directly fund the reporting.”
“A shortage of other types of accommodation means that large numbers of asylum seekers whose cases are not closed are being housed in hotels. The cost of accommodation in 2024-25 was £2.7bn.
“The NAO’s report criticises how successive governments have dealt with the current surge in small boats crossings that began in 2018.
““Interventions have tended to be reactive and focused on fixing an urgent problem in one part of the system only, such as intake or initial decisions, without a clear view of the effects on other parts,” the report says.
““Increases in speed of processing have sometimes come at the expense of the quality of decisions, and improvements in one area have shunted problems elsewhere.”
“The NAO said it would be looking for evidence that the government was now moving away from “short-term, reactive fixes” towards a “sustainable whole-system approach”.
“The NAO also found that it was impossible to track individual cases through the whole asylum process because there is no “unique asylum case identifier” shared by Home Office, court service and local authority computer systems.
“The report says that because the asylum applications are subject to fluctuating demand with significant peaks, it was important to build a flexible and resilient system that can respond to increases and decreases in demand.
“Ruth Kelly, the NAO analyst, said the government needed to avoid reverting to “that pattern of counter-productive quick fixes that we have seen in the past”.”
A Home Office spokesperson has responded as follows: “The home secretary recently announced the most sweeping changes to the asylum system in a generation to deal with the problems outlined in this report.
“We are already making progress – with nearly 50,000 people with no right to be here removed, a 63% rise in illegal working arrests and over 21,000 small boat crossing attempts prevented so far this year.
“Our new reforms will restore order and control, remove the incentives which draw people to come to the UK illegally and increase removals of those with no right to be here.”
The NAO report is basically a forensic confirmation of something This Writer has highlighted for years, both here and in Vox Political: the asylum system keeps breaking because every government since 2018 has opted for flashy, vote-baiting “toughness” instead of building a system that can actually function.
The NAO report lays out these key points:
First, the inefficiency is structural, not situational. More than half of claims from nearly three years ago still have no final outcome. That alone demonstrates that the “backlog-clearing” narrative was a political performance, not a reform.
Second, the NAO stresses what happens when policy is driven by headlines. Fixing “one part” of the system only to break another demonstrates the consequences of such reactive policymaking.
Rishi Sunak’s attempt to clear the legacy backlog simply pushed the load onto the appeals process — where, as the report points out, there aren’t enough judges and incentives to handle the cases and the system stalled.
Third, the government cannot even track an individual through the system because agencies don’t share a unique case identifier. That is not an ideological failure; it is an organisational one. It gives the impression that nobody in power has ever seriously tried to run this system competently.
All of this supports my long-standing argument, that ministers have created the problems they now blame on refugees.
The interesting part is what the government says in response. You’d expect the NAO’s emphasis on root-and-branch structural issues to prompt a sober, detail-driven reply.
Instead, the spokesperson lists numbers designed for newspaper headlines – people “removed”, “illegal working arrests up”, small-boat attempts “prevented”.
None of that addresses any of the core failures the NAO identifies. It is, again, the language of spectacle, not system-building.
So the real question is whether the government is genuinely preparing meaningful reform – or doubling down on precisely the sort of stunts against which the NAO warns.
The tone of the official response — emphasising enforcement stats rather than structural fixes — strongly implies the latter.
The NAO is describing a system broken by governments addicted to headlines, and the government’s response is a symptom of that addiction.
That should tell us all we need to know about whether the asylum mess is going to be solved – or just repackaged for another round of headlines.
To read the full analysis, head over to The Whip Line.
A subscription unlocks all my analysis and helps keep independent UK political journalism going.
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Asylum report confirms The Whip Line’s view on government policy failures
Share this post:
A new report may have confirmed Vox Political’s opinion of government policy on asylum-seekers: that we have seen a series of headline-grabbing stunts rather than any coherent strategy.
The report by the National Audit Office states that the UK’s asylum system is affected by inefficiencies, “wasted public funds” and a succession of “short-term, reactive” government policies that have moved problems elsewhere.
According to the BBC, “The spending watchdog looked at a sample of 5,000 asylum claims lodged almost three years ago, in January 2023.
“Since then, 35% (1,619) of those asylum seekers had been given some sort of protection such as refugee status, and 9% (452) had been removed from the country. But 56% (2,812) still did not have a final outcome in their case.
“Most of the cases in the remaining group (2,021 out of the 2,812) remained in a sort of “limbo”, with no appeal lodged.
“A shortage of other types of accommodation means that large numbers of asylum seekers whose cases are not closed are being housed in hotels. The cost of accommodation in 2024-25 was £2.7bn.
“The NAO’s report criticises how successive governments have dealt with the current surge in small boats crossings that began in 2018.
““Interventions have tended to be reactive and focused on fixing an urgent problem in one part of the system only, such as intake or initial decisions, without a clear view of the effects on other parts,” the report says.
““Increases in speed of processing have sometimes come at the expense of the quality of decisions, and improvements in one area have shunted problems elsewhere.”
“The NAO said it would be looking for evidence that the government was now moving away from “short-term, reactive fixes” towards a “sustainable whole-system approach”.
“The NAO also found that it was impossible to track individual cases through the whole asylum process because there is no “unique asylum case identifier” shared by Home Office, court service and local authority computer systems.
“The report says that because the asylum applications are subject to fluctuating demand with significant peaks, it was important to build a flexible and resilient system that can respond to increases and decreases in demand.
“Ruth Kelly, the NAO analyst, said the government needed to avoid reverting to “that pattern of counter-productive quick fixes that we have seen in the past”.”
A Home Office spokesperson has responded as follows: “The home secretary recently announced the most sweeping changes to the asylum system in a generation to deal with the problems outlined in this report.
“We are already making progress – with nearly 50,000 people with no right to be here removed, a 63% rise in illegal working arrests and over 21,000 small boat crossing attempts prevented so far this year.
“Our new reforms will restore order and control, remove the incentives which draw people to come to the UK illegally and increase removals of those with no right to be here.”
The NAO report is basically a forensic confirmation of something This Writer has highlighted for years, both here and in Vox Political: the asylum system keeps breaking because every government since 2018 has opted for flashy, vote-baiting “toughness” instead of building a system that can actually function.
The NAO report lays out these key points:
First, the inefficiency is structural, not situational. More than half of claims from nearly three years ago still have no final outcome. That alone demonstrates that the “backlog-clearing” narrative was a political performance, not a reform.
Second, the NAO stresses what happens when policy is driven by headlines. Fixing “one part” of the system only to break another demonstrates the consequences of such reactive policymaking.
Rishi Sunak’s attempt to clear the legacy backlog simply pushed the load onto the appeals process — where, as the report points out, there aren’t enough judges and incentives to handle the cases and the system stalled.
Third, the government cannot even track an individual through the system because agencies don’t share a unique case identifier. That is not an ideological failure; it is an organisational one. It gives the impression that nobody in power has ever seriously tried to run this system competently.
All of this supports my long-standing argument, that ministers have created the problems they now blame on refugees.
The interesting part is what the government says in response. You’d expect the NAO’s emphasis on root-and-branch structural issues to prompt a sober, detail-driven reply.
Instead, the spokesperson lists numbers designed for newspaper headlines – people “removed”, “illegal working arrests up”, small-boat attempts “prevented”.
None of that addresses any of the core failures the NAO identifies. It is, again, the language of spectacle, not system-building.
So the real question is whether the government is genuinely preparing meaningful reform – or doubling down on precisely the sort of stunts against which the NAO warns.
The tone of the official response — emphasising enforcement stats rather than structural fixes — strongly implies the latter.
The NAO is describing a system broken by governments addicted to headlines, and the government’s response is a symptom of that addiction.
That should tell us all we need to know about whether the asylum mess is going to be solved – or just repackaged for another round of headlines.
To read the full analysis, head over to The Whip Line.
A subscription unlocks all my analysis and helps keep independent UK political journalism going.
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
Suella Braverman has deliberately endangered a lawyer acting for asylum-seekers
Like this:
Keir Starmer and Labour’s big idea for ‘illegal’ migration is as bad as the Tories’
Like this:
Why would the UK give asylum to refugees from Rwanda if that country is safe?
Like this:
Like this: