The UK government has announced a fresh £100 million investment in its ongoing attempt to stop people crossing the English Channel in small boats. So what?
The funding, which will go toward boosting National Crime Agency manpower and surveillance technology, is being sold as a decisive step to “restore order” to the immigration system. But the question remains: where is the actual plan?
This is not the first time a government has promised tough action. In fact, it’s just the latest in a long string of pledges dating back seven years, none of which have meaningfully reduced Channel crossings.
So far in 2025, more than 25,000 people have made the journey—a record for this point in the year.
The money itself isn’t the issue. A government investing in border security is doing what any government is expected to do.
Loading ad...
But this £100 million won’t solve the problem if it is used to chase symptoms instead of causes.
The core question is still being ignored: Why are people making these journeys in the first place?
We must stop people wanting to migrate here – not just police the migrations
People risk their lives to cross the Channel, not because it’s an easy or attractive option, but because they believe it’s their best—or only—chance of reaching the UK.
The government keeps trying to block the route, but without changing the conditions that make people take it in the first place, crossings will continue.
That means we need to get serious about:
Tackling instability in countries of origin;
Working with European neighbours to manage flows;
And making clear that asylum in the UK is not an open-ended offer.
We must deter dangerous crossings by showing that there are better ways to seek help—and also that the UK is not a soft touch for those who do not have a strong claim to be here.
The ‘One In, One Out’ deal: limited, but worthwhile
Critics have dismissed the new agreement with France—under which up to 50 people per week can be returned in exchange for asylum seekers with clear UK ties—as symbolic and ineffective.
But it’s a start. Unlike past rhetoric-heavy “solutions,” this deal creates a legal route for those with legitimate connections to the UK while reasserting border control.
If properly implemented, it could reduce the incentive for people to make illegal journeys in the first place.
What’s needed now is time and realism.
Let this deal prove its effectiveness.
If it works, it can be expanded. If not, at least it offers a foundation from which to build.
Target the smugglers, not the desperate
The government’s proposal to criminalise the advertising of illegal Channel crossings is not controversial—it’s long overdue. Let me explain:
People smugglers are not humanitarians.
They are criminals who exploit the vulnerable for profit.
The crossings are dangerous, inhumane, and have led to repeated loss of life.
Those promoting and profiting from them must be stopped, and the law should give authorities every tool they need to do so.
This part of it isn’t about punishing asylum seekers—it’s about going after the gangs that are orchestrating the traffic.
The public is right to be angry—but misled about the cause
Recent protests outside asylum seeker hotels, some descending into harassment and violence, are a symptom of public frustration that has been allowed to fester.
But let’s be honest about where the blame lies.
Successive governments have spent billions housing people temporarily in hotels, often without consultation, explanation, or local support.
According to Oxford researchers, more than £10 billion has been wasted on short-term fixes, while almost nothing has been spent on long-term solutions like managed accommodation or fair distribution across regions.
The result has been resentment, fear, and extremism. And yet ministers still claim to wonder why tempers are flaring.
Fix the asylum backlog—and tighten the rules
Tens of thousands of asylum seekers have been waiting more than a year for decisions and, ultimately, more than 70 per cent of them are eventually granted protection. This raises two questions:
Why are decisions taking so long?
Why is the bar for protection apparently so low?
The backlog is a betrayal—of those seeking safety and of the public who deserve a functioning system.
Speeding up decision-making is essential.
But that must go hand-in-hand with a review of the criteria for asylum in the UK.
Public consent depends on the perception that the system is fair, firm, and not being misused.
Asylum should be granted only to those with no safe alternative and a genuine reason to be in the UK.
Everyone else should be turned away—quickly and legally.
Legal routes—yes. Open borders—no.
Vox Political supports the idea of creating a serious legal pathway for people who truly need asylum and have a reason to come specifically to the UK. That’s the only way to end the dangerous small boat journeys.
But we need to be clear to our own government that this does not mean opening the floodgates.
Legal routes must be strictly limited, closely monitored, and rooted in need—not in convenience, economic opportunity, or preference.
A serious asylum system must be fair, but it must also have boundaries.
Otherwise, it will collapse under its own weight—and take public trust down with it.
It is long past time to shift the debate
The UK doesn’t need more headlines about tougher borders. It needs a serious, honest debate about what works.
That means:
Tackling the causes of forced migration;
Ending the business model of smugglers;
Creating controlled, fair routes for genuine refugees;
Stopping wasteful hotel spending;
And giving the public a system they can trust.
This extra £100 million might win some political points.
But without a real strategy, it will go the way of every other kneejerk announcement: into the sea.
£100 million more to stop small boats – but where’s the plan to stop the need for it?
Share this post:
The UK government has announced a fresh £100 million investment in its ongoing attempt to stop people crossing the English Channel in small boats. So what?
The funding, which will go toward boosting National Crime Agency manpower and surveillance technology, is being sold as a decisive step to “restore order” to the immigration system. But the question remains: where is the actual plan?
This is not the first time a government has promised tough action. In fact, it’s just the latest in a long string of pledges dating back seven years, none of which have meaningfully reduced Channel crossings.
So far in 2025, more than 25,000 people have made the journey—a record for this point in the year.
The money itself isn’t the issue. A government investing in border security is doing what any government is expected to do.
But this £100 million won’t solve the problem if it is used to chase symptoms instead of causes.
The core question is still being ignored: Why are people making these journeys in the first place?
We must stop people wanting to migrate here – not just police the migrations
People risk their lives to cross the Channel, not because it’s an easy or attractive option, but because they believe it’s their best—or only—chance of reaching the UK.
The government keeps trying to block the route, but without changing the conditions that make people take it in the first place, crossings will continue.
That means we need to get serious about:
Tackling instability in countries of origin;
Working with European neighbours to manage flows;
And making clear that asylum in the UK is not an open-ended offer.
We must deter dangerous crossings by showing that there are better ways to seek help—and also that the UK is not a soft touch for those who do not have a strong claim to be here.
The ‘One In, One Out’ deal: limited, but worthwhile
Critics have dismissed the new agreement with France—under which up to 50 people per week can be returned in exchange for asylum seekers with clear UK ties—as symbolic and ineffective.
But it’s a start. Unlike past rhetoric-heavy “solutions,” this deal creates a legal route for those with legitimate connections to the UK while reasserting border control.
If properly implemented, it could reduce the incentive for people to make illegal journeys in the first place.
What’s needed now is time and realism.
Let this deal prove its effectiveness.
If it works, it can be expanded. If not, at least it offers a foundation from which to build.
Target the smugglers, not the desperate
The government’s proposal to criminalise the advertising of illegal Channel crossings is not controversial—it’s long overdue. Let me explain:
People smugglers are not humanitarians.
They are criminals who exploit the vulnerable for profit.
The crossings are dangerous, inhumane, and have led to repeated loss of life.
Those promoting and profiting from them must be stopped, and the law should give authorities every tool they need to do so.
This part of it isn’t about punishing asylum seekers—it’s about going after the gangs that are orchestrating the traffic.
The public is right to be angry—but misled about the cause
Recent protests outside asylum seeker hotels, some descending into harassment and violence, are a symptom of public frustration that has been allowed to fester.
But let’s be honest about where the blame lies.
Successive governments have spent billions housing people temporarily in hotels, often without consultation, explanation, or local support.
According to Oxford researchers, more than £10 billion has been wasted on short-term fixes, while almost nothing has been spent on long-term solutions like managed accommodation or fair distribution across regions.
The result has been resentment, fear, and extremism. And yet ministers still claim to wonder why tempers are flaring.
Fix the asylum backlog—and tighten the rules
Tens of thousands of asylum seekers have been waiting more than a year for decisions and, ultimately, more than 70 per cent of them are eventually granted protection. This raises two questions:
Why are decisions taking so long?
Why is the bar for protection apparently so low?
The backlog is a betrayal—of those seeking safety and of the public who deserve a functioning system.
Speeding up decision-making is essential.
But that must go hand-in-hand with a review of the criteria for asylum in the UK.
Public consent depends on the perception that the system is fair, firm, and not being misused.
Asylum should be granted only to those with no safe alternative and a genuine reason to be in the UK.
Everyone else should be turned away—quickly and legally.
Legal routes—yes. Open borders—no.
Vox Political supports the idea of creating a serious legal pathway for people who truly need asylum and have a reason to come specifically to the UK. That’s the only way to end the dangerous small boat journeys.
But we need to be clear to our own government that this does not mean opening the floodgates.
Legal routes must be strictly limited, closely monitored, and rooted in need—not in convenience, economic opportunity, or preference.
A serious asylum system must be fair, but it must also have boundaries.
Otherwise, it will collapse under its own weight—and take public trust down with it.
It is long past time to shift the debate
The UK doesn’t need more headlines about tougher borders. It needs a serious, honest debate about what works.
That means:
Tackling the causes of forced migration;
Ending the business model of smugglers;
Creating controlled, fair routes for genuine refugees;
Stopping wasteful hotel spending;
And giving the public a system they can trust.
This extra £100 million might win some political points.
But without a real strategy, it will go the way of every other kneejerk announcement: into the sea.
Please watch this short video:
Share this post:
you might also like
Blogger takes down the Heil over Lineker smear
Never mind Theresa May’s refusal to accept foreign refugees in 2016 – what about her attitude to foreigners in general?
Straight-talking university conquers critics of refugee scheme with this great response