Defence Secretary Wes Streeting (Image: Getty)
Households were urged to stockpile tinned food, bottled water and first aid kits, as Defence Secretary Wes Streeting warned the nation must “be ready”.
Hand sanitiser, blankets and clockwork radios should also be stored for emergencies, according to a new government campaign.
Mr Streeting said businesses and individuals should be prepared “for the eventuality that there may be disruption to essential supply chains caused by hostile state actors or terrorists.”
The Government last night called on people across the country to ensure they could survive for at least three days without contact with the outside world.
Officially, the measures are designed to ensure households can cope with extreme weather conditions.
But Mr Streeting highlighted the threat from the UK’s enemies when he spoke at the opening of the UK Gun Hall Plant in Telford, Shropshire.
He added: “How would we cope if the payment systems of the supermarkets went down?
“Those are the sorts of everyday challenges and threats we could well face, and it is right we ask the country to be ready for those things and ask everybody to do their bit.”
Former Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer revealed earlier this year that British intelligence believed Russia could launch an attack on a NATO country by 2030, which could place the UK directly in conflict with Vladimir Putin’s regime.
Ministers also last night announced plans for new legislation to protect the UK’s undersea cables and pipelines, which carry data used for online messages, video calls, online banking and shopping, after it emerged Russian fishing trawlers are spying on the vital infrastructure.
The “Be Ready” campaign, overseen by the Cabinet Office, warns every household should ensure they can cope for at least three days of isolation.
It urges people to store nine litres of water per person for drinking, with more for other tasks such as cooking and washing, and three days’ worth of tinned or dried food.
In addition, households should stock up on hand sanitiser, wet wipes and bathroom products, torches with batteries, power banks to charge phones and medical devices, copies of important documents such as passports or birth certificates, nappies, pet food, baby formula and essential medicines.
According to the guidance, blankets and sleeping bags should be stored because “homes can become cold very quickly when the heating goes off”.
Security Minister Dan Jarvis said: “Those who can follow this advice should follow this advice.
By taking simple steps to be ready for everyday emergencies like severe storms, people can reduce pressure on emergency services, helping them prioritise people who need more support in an emergency.”
A social media and radio advertising campaign will be launched in an attempt to reach audiences who may be particularly at risk in an emergency, such as families with young children and older people.
The Government has also recruited more than five hundred organisations including charities to businesses to spread the message.
Potential dangers from cyber-attacks were highlighted as 32 UK Government services were taken offline, and four were partially unavailable, while work was carried out to address security issues yesterday.
It followed the discovery of a critical security flaw in the programming language PHP, used by the majority of websites including Wikipedia and WordPress
Downing Street said no large UK public-facing critical services have been affected, but some “limited” Government websites have gone dark while issues are resolved.
National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) experts are working with OpenAI, whose technology was used to discover the vulnerabilities, and partners around the globe to address potential problems, a No 10 spokeswoman said.
Tech minister Baroness Lloyd of Effra told the House of Lords: “The information I have is that 32 Government services are unavailable and four are partially unavailable.”
She said that “has largely resulted from precautionary measures taken to protect systems while security updates and mitigations are applied”.
“YOU ARE GASLIGHTING THE PUBLIC!” — GB News Clash Erupts Over Small Boats
A heated debate over illegal migration and small-boat crossings has reignited Britain’s increasingly divisive immigration debate after a furious exchange on GB News. The confrontation, described by viewers as an explosive clash over whether the public is being given an honest account of the Channel crisis, has brought familiar questions back to the centre of national discussion: is the government doing enough to control Britain’s borders, and are politicians being transparent about the scale of the problem?
The accusation that someone is “gaslighting the public” is particularly powerful in a political environment where trust in institutions is already a major concern. It suggests that people are not simply disagreeing over policy, but are being given an account of events that critics believe fails to reflect reality. When immigration is involved, such accusations can quickly turn a discussion about statistics and government decisions into a wider argument about credibility, accountability and public confidence.
Although the precise details of the GB News exchange would need to be verified before attributing particular statements to individual participants, the controversy reflects the intensity of Britain’s ongoing debate over small boats crossing the English Channel.
Why the Small Boats Issue Continues to Divide Britain
Small-boat crossings have become one of the most recognisable symbols of Britain’s immigration challenges. Images of inflatable vessels carrying people across one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes have repeatedly focused public attention on the government’s ability to manage its borders.
For critics of current policies, the continued arrival of boats raises questions about deterrence, cooperation with France and the effectiveness of the asylum system. They argue that repeated promises to tackle irregular migration have created expectations that politicians must now demonstrate measurable progress.
Others stress that the issue cannot be understood solely through the number of people arriving. Some people crossing the Channel are seeking international protection from persecution or conflict, while others may have different immigration circumstances. Each asylum claim must be assessed according to the relevant legal framework rather than assumptions based on nationality or method of arrival.
The difficulty for policymakers is that border enforcement and the protection of refugees are both important responsibilities. A government must prevent dangerous journeys, disrupt criminal smuggling operations and enforce immigration rules while ensuring that people with valid protection claims can access a fair process.
These competing responsibilities help explain why the subject generates such intense disagreement on television and across social media.
The Meaning Behind the “Gaslighting” Accusation
The language used during political confrontations can be as significant as the policy arguments themselves. Accusing someone of gaslighting suggests that they are deliberately distorting information or attempting to make people doubt what they believe they have witnessed.
In the context of immigration, the accusation can arise when participants disagree about official statistics, the interpretation of government announcements or the difference between promises and actual results.
For frustrated viewers, the central issue may be whether politicians acknowledge the scale of irregular migration and explain why particular policies have succeeded or failed. They may feel that repeated announcements are insufficient if the outcomes remain unclear.
However, the accusation itself does not establish that anyone has misled the public. That conclusion requires evidence, including the statements made, the figures available at the time and whether important information was omitted or misrepresented.
A productive debate should therefore separate factual questions from political rhetoric. How many people have crossed the Channel during a specified period? How many asylum claims have been decided? How many people have been removed following unsuccessful claims? What has happened to the backlog, and how much has accommodation cost?
These are questions that can be examined through official data. Personal accusations may attract attention, but reliable evidence is necessary to determine whether the claims behind them are justified.
Government Promises and the Question of Accountability
Immigration has become a test of political credibility because successive governments have faced pressure to demonstrate control over irregular arrivals.
Voters often judge a policy by comparing its stated objectives with its results. If ministers announce a new strategy to reduce crossings, members of the public reasonably expect clear information about the targets, implementation and measurable outcomes.
When those results are difficult to identify, frustration can grow. Critics may argue that political leaders are prioritising announcements over practical solutions, while government supporters may point to operational difficulties, international cooperation and legal constraints.
The distinction between a policy’s announcement and its implementation is essential. A new agreement with another country does not automatically mean that crossings will stop. Additional enforcement measures may take time to produce results, and their effectiveness can depend on factors outside the government’s direct control.
Nevertheless, explanations of those obstacles should be accompanied by evidence. Ministers should provide regular updates, acknowledge setbacks and explain what changes are being made when a policy fails to meet its objectives.
Without transparent reporting, the debate risks becoming a contest between competing political narratives rather than a serious examination of the country’s immigration system.
The Role of France and the English Channel
The Channel crisis cannot be addressed through British policy alone. France is an essential partner because many dangerous crossings begin along its northern coastline.
Cooperation between the two countries can involve policing suspected smuggling networks, sharing intelligence, improving surveillance and coordinating measures intended to prevent people from making hazardous journeys.
Smuggling organisations create particular difficulties because they can adapt their methods when enforcement changes. They may move departure points, alter routes or exploit vulnerable people who believe that travelling in a small boat offers their only realistic chance of reaching Britain.
This is why tackling the criminal networks behind the crossings is an important element of any strategy. Preventing people from boarding dangerous vessels can save lives, while effective investigations can target those who profit from arranging the journeys.
At the same time, international agreements must operate within applicable legal obligations. Returning people to another country requires appropriate legal arrangements and safeguards. Diplomatic cooperation can be complicated, and an agreement’s existence does not necessarily guarantee that every person arriving irregularly can be returned.
Any politician claiming to have a complete solution should explain how the proposed arrangements would work in practice, including the legal framework, operational resources and cooperation required from international partners.
The Pressure on Local Communities
The political debate does not end when a boat reaches the British coast. People entering the asylum system may require accommodation while their claims are considered, creating responsibilities for national government and, in some cases, consequences for local communities.
Residents may raise concerns about accommodation costs, pressure on housing availability, the provision of public services and the level of consultation surrounding decisions. Such questions deserve clear answers, particularly where public money is involved.
Local authorities can find themselves dealing with the practical consequences of national policies despite having limited control over immigration rules and border enforcement.
Transparency is therefore essential. The government should explain how accommodation is funded, what arrangements are in place and how the needs of local communities are being considered. It should also distinguish between verified evidence and speculation about the effects of migration.
Equally, discussions about asylum seekers should avoid treating all individuals as a single group. People have different circumstances, and allegations about criminality or public spending must be supported by reliable information rather than generalisations.
A balanced approach allows legitimate concerns to be discussed without turning vulnerable people into targets of hostility.
Why Television Debates Become So Heated
Programmes such as GB News provide a platform for competing interpretations of political events. Live discussions can bring together people with sharply different views on immigration, creating opportunities to challenge government policy and question established assumptions.
However, the format can also reward dramatic confrontations. A forceful accusation may dominate headlines even when the underlying facts remain unresolved.
For viewers, the challenge is to distinguish between a memorable exchange and a convincing argument. The loudest participant is not necessarily the one with the strongest evidence, and a confident statement should not be mistaken for a verified fact.
A useful way to evaluate such a confrontation is to identify the specific claim being disputed. If one participant cites an official figure, viewers can examine the original statistics and determine what period they cover. If someone alleges that a policy has failed, the relevant objectives and available outcome data should be considered.
The same standard should apply to politicians, commentators and broadcasters regardless of their position on immigration.
The public deserves vigorous scrutiny of government decisions, but that scrutiny is most valuable when it helps people understand the facts rather than simply deepening existing divisions.
What Would a More Effective Approach Look Like?
A credible response to irregular Channel crossings would need to combine enforcement, administrative efficiency and international cooperation.
First, asylum claims should be processed as efficiently as possible while preserving fair procedures. Long delays can leave applicants in uncertainty, increase accommodation costs and make it harder for authorities to resolve cases.
Second, the government should strengthen efforts to identify and disrupt smuggling networks. Investigations should focus on those organising dangerous journeys and profiting from vulnerable people.
Third, decisions involving people who have no legal right to remain should be implemented consistently, subject to applicable legal protections and return arrangements.
Fourth, ministers should publish clear performance information. Regular figures on arrivals, asylum decisions, backlogs, removals and expenditure would enable the public to assess progress more accurately.
Finally, cooperation with France and other relevant partners should be measured by practical outcomes rather than announcements alone.
No single measure is likely to resolve every aspect of the problem. Effective policy requires sustained implementation, realistic objectives and a willingness to revise measures that fail to produce the intended results.
Conclusion: The Public Wants Answers, Not Just Arguments
The reported GB News confrontation over small boats reflects a broader struggle over trust, transparency and the future of Britain’s immigration policy. The accusation that the public is being gaslighted captures the anger that can emerge when people believe political explanations do not match the reality they see.
Yet strong language is not a substitute for evidence. Establishing whether the public has been misled requires examining the precise statements made, the relevant statistics and the record of the policies being discussed.
The central questions remain significant: are irregular crossings being reduced, are asylum claims being processed efficiently, are smuggling networks being disrupted and are public funds being used effectively?
Politicians should answer those questions directly, acknowledging both measurable progress and continuing difficulties. Broad promises and dramatic television exchanges may capture attention, but lasting public confidence depends on clear information and demonstrable results.
Ultimately, the small-boats debate is about more than political confrontation. It concerns the government’s responsibilities, the safety of people crossing the Channel, the protection of Britain’s borders and the public’s right to understand how decisions are made. A more constructive national conversation will require less reliance on unverified accusations and greater emphasis on facts, accountability and workable solutions.