Andy Burnham leaves 10 Downing Street in central London (Image: AFP via Getty Images)
It may be the most polite revolution ever. The people of Piddington, a picturesque village in Oxfordshire, have voted to leave the United Kingdom, in protest at plans to house 1,250 asylum seekers next door. Andy Burnham plans simply to ignore them.
But he does so at his peril. Because anger at the placement of asylum seekers is only going to grow until the Government grasps the nettle and ends the chaos in our immigration system. It appears 311 villagers voted in the referendum, with 285 supporting independence. That means pretty much everyone took part, as the 2021 census recorded the parish’s population as 358.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
You can perhaps understand why the idea of accommodating 1,250 asylum seekers nearby caused some alarm.
It would be a big change, no matter who the new residents were.
And the Home Office has made it clear that it believes some, at least, of the overseas arrivals have pretty unpleasant attitudes towards women and children, after it published leaflets instructing them not to commit horrific crimes.
But, of course, Piddington can’t really separate itself from the UK. And the Government has stated bluntly that it will ignore the village’s concerns.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, a member of Andy Burnham’s cabinet, said the Government would “make sure that all communities are doing their bit in order to take people, many of whom will be fleeing persecution, will need a safe haven in Britain”.
And she made it crystal clear that what Labour considers wealthy areas – such as nice Oxfordshire villages – would need to accept migrants.
Ms Nandy told Sky News: “We don’t think it’s acceptable for all of the burden of shouldering not just asylum accommodation, but also many other forms of temporary accommodation to fall on poorer communities.”
Oxfordshire Village Holds ‘Independence Referendum’ Over Plans To House Asylum-Seekers nearby (Image: Getty)
The trouble is that not every protest will be so polite.
The Piddington protest is reminiscent of the charming Ealing comedy Passport to Pimlico, released in 1949.
We’ve seen other scenes that are far less charming. There have been riots and, more recently, balaclava-clad gangs on the streets near ports.
This is not acceptable. Concern about the state of our immigration system does not justify violence or intimidation. Personally, I’m very glad to see politicians promising to ban face coverings such as balaclavas in public.
The fact is that our society is going to become more angry and more divided for as long as immigration is broken.
It makes no sense to allow people to enter our country unlawfully – deliberately evading immigration controls by taking a small boat across the Channel – and then to give them food and housing, rather than removing them.
Andy Burnham will find that voters are in no mood to be lectured by him or his Cabinet colleagues.
He will pay a heavy price at the next election for Labour’s refusal to fix our broken immigration system.
ndy Burnham, Immigration and the Growing Political Tension in Greater Manchester
Immigration has become one of the most difficult and emotionally charged political issues in Britain. In Greater Manchester, the debate has acquired an additional dimension because local government is expected to deal with the consequences of national immigration and asylum policies while having limited control over the system itself. Andy Burnham, the political figure most closely associated with Greater Manchester, has repeatedly argued that central government decisions are placing excessive pressure on local services. His critics, however, argue that residents are entitled to ask whether the mayor is doing enough to address their concerns about immigration, housing and public resources.
The disagreement is not simply about immigration numbers. It is also about accountability, public confidence and the relationship between national government and local communities.
The scale of Britain’s asylum challenge is substantial. According to the Home Office’s latest statistics, 93,293 people were receiving asylum support at the end of June 2026. Of these, 16,021 were accommodated in hotels, while 73,068 were in other forms of accommodation. Although these figures were significantly lower than the peak reached in September 2023, the number of people receiving asylum support remained considerably higher than a decade earlier.
These figures help explain why immigration has become such a prominent issue in public debate. Housing is already under pressure in many parts of Britain, local authorities face financial constraints, and homelessness remains a serious concern. When asylum accommodation, temporary housing and homelessness services overlap, residents can understandably become frustrated about whether the system is functioning effectively.
Greater Manchester is no exception. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority has developed programmes specifically aimed at dealing with homelessness and immigration-related barriers. Its Restricted Eligibility Support Service, for example, provides specialist support to residents facing homelessness who have immigration-related restrictions on access to public funds. An evaluation by the authority found that the service helped address complicated immigration and housing problems and could generate savings for local government.
Supporters of Burnham’s approach argue that this demonstrates an important distinction that is sometimes lost in political arguments. Local authorities may have to manage the consequences of national immigration policy even though they do not control Britain’s borders, asylum legislation or the Home Office’s decision-making system. From this perspective, blaming a mayor for every problem associated with immigration risks confusing local responsibilities with national ones.
There is evidence for this argument. Burnham and other Greater Manchester leaders have previously criticised the way asylum accommodation decisions were implemented, particularly when people were required to leave Home Office accommodation. They argued that the speed of evictions could increase homelessness and place additional pressure on local services.
At the same time, this does not mean that criticism of Burnham is automatically unfair. Mayors are political leaders, and voters have the right to scrutinise their priorities. Residents may reasonably ask whether enough affordable housing is being built, whether public services are coping, whether homelessness is being reduced and whether local authorities are communicating clearly about migration-related pressures.
Indeed, the housing question is especially important. Manchester City Council announced in March 2026 that £26 million of Greater Manchester funding would support 423 new homes in Wythenshawe, including 233 homes for social rent. The broader regeneration programme aims to deliver thousands of additional homes. These measures indicate that housing supply is being treated as a major local policy issue. But they also underline how difficult the problem is: building homes takes years, while political pressure over housing and migration can rise much more quickly.
Another important factor is that the asylum system itself has been changing. Home Office figures for the year ending June 2026 show that 115,872 people received an initial asylum decision, while 42,394 people were granted refugee protection or other leave at initial decision. At the same time, 73,478 people were refused protection or other leave.
The backlog has also changed significantly. At the end of June 2026, 40,168 people were waiting for an initial decision, a 56 percent decrease compared with the previous year. This suggests that the Home Office has accelerated decision-making. Yet faster decisions can create another challenge: people who are granted protection need to move into mainstream housing and employment systems, while those whose claims are refused may eventually need to leave the country. Both processes can affect local communities.
The national government has therefore sought to change the financial and administrative framework surrounding asylum. In June 2026, the government announced legislation under which asylum seekers with sufficient financial resources would be required to contribute towards the cost of accommodation and support. Such policies reflect growing political pressure to reduce the cost of the asylum system and demonstrate greater control over public expenditure.
This is where the political argument surrounding Burnham becomes particularly complicated. Critics may see his emphasis on the failures of central government as an attempt to shift responsibility. Supporters may argue that he is highlighting a genuine constitutional problem: local authorities are being asked to manage consequences over which they have little control.
Neither interpretation should be treated as an established fact without evidence. Political accountability is rarely as simple as assigning responsibility to one individual.
There is also a danger in describing immigration as a single problem. Britain has several different migration systems: asylum, legal work migration, family migration, refugee resettlement and irregular migration are not interchangeable. People seeking asylum are subject to a particular legal process, and some are eventually recognised as refugees while others are refused. The latest Home Office statistics show both outcomes occurring on a large scale.
For local residents, however, these legal distinctions may not always resolve the practical concerns they experience. If a council is struggling with homelessness, temporary accommodation or pressure on local services, people may care less about which government department is technically responsible and more about whether the problem is being solved.
That is why public trust matters. When citizens believe that political leaders dismiss their concerns, frustration can become more intense. Conversely, when political debate exaggerates the scale or nature of a problem, it can also undermine informed public discussion. A serious approach requires both recognition of genuine pressures and careful attention to evidence.
Burnham’s political future, like that of any elected politician, will ultimately be shaped by voters. It would be speculative to predict that he will suffer a particular electoral punishment as a result of immigration. What can be said is that immigration, housing and homelessness are politically consequential issues, and leaders who govern areas experiencing these pressures will inevitably face scrutiny over how they respond.
The central question, therefore, should not simply be whether Andy Burnham is “for” or “against” immigration. It should be whether Greater Manchester has sufficient housing, whether homelessness is being effectively prevented, whether national asylum decisions are being implemented responsibly, and whether local residents receive clear information about the costs and responsibilities involved.
A constructive debate should also recognise that migrants and asylum seekers are not a single group and should not be treated as an abstract political statistic. Some people are eventually granted protection because authorities determine that they qualify under the law. Others are refused. The system has to be capable of making those decisions efficiently, fairly and transparently.
Ultimately, the immigration debate in Greater Manchester reflects a wider British problem: national policies can have highly local consequences. Central government controls immigration law and the asylum system, while councils and mayors deal with housing, homelessness and community pressures. When these responsibilities are poorly coordinated, political conflict becomes almost inevitable.
Andy Burnham therefore faces a difficult political environment, but so does every government involved in immigration policy. The most useful test is not whether one side can produce the strongest political slogan. It is whether governments at every level can provide workable solutions, explain their decisions honestly and demonstrate that public resources are being used effectively.
The public deserves accountability, but accountability is strongest when it is based on evidence rather than assumption. Immigration is too important, and its consequences too complex, to be reduced to a simple story of one politician being responsible for everything that has gone wrong. The real challenge is to determine who controls each part of the system, what is actually happening on the ground, and what practical policies can improve the situation for both existing residents and people who are legally entitled to protection.
That is the debate Britain needs: not simply anger, but evidence; not simply political blame, but responsibility;