The argument in 60 seconds
Don’t have time for the full article? Here’s the argument.
Government expects us to take responsibility for our decisions. We should expect the same standard from government.
That doesn’t mean pretending government can control everything. Migration, wars, international agreements and economic events impose real constraints.
On immigration, legitimate concerns about borders, integration, crime and public services shouldn’t automatically be dismissed — but neither should claims be accepted without evidence.
Government should be clearer about what it can control, what it cannot control, what its policies are intended to achieve and whether they actually worked.
The same principle applies beyond immigration: NHS waiting lists, housing, welfare, infrastructure and public spending should be judged by outcomes, not announcements.
Politicians would probably earn more trust by occasionally being willing to say four simple words: “We got this wrong.”
The full argument — including the evidence and the challenges to my own assumptions — is below. ↓
Yesterday, 230 people crossed the English Channel in a single small boat.
Two hundred and thirty people crowded onto one vessel.
It was the largest number yet recorded making the crossing in a single boat.
That’s the headline.
Then comes the complicating fact: small-boat crossings in 2026 are substantially lower than they were at the same point last year.
Both things are true.
And perhaps that contradiction says something about where Britain finds itself.
Government can point towards statistics showing progress. Yet many people look at what is happening around them and feel something very different.
That gap matters.
This isn’t an article blaming the people sitting in those boats for everything that is wrong with Britain. Nor is it an argument that government can simply flick a switch and stop irregular migration tomorrow.
It is about something much bigger.
Responsibility.
Government expects a great deal of it from us. We are expected to manage our finances, look after our health, save for retirement, obey the law, pay our taxes and take responsibility for the consequences of our decisions.
That seems reasonable to me. Personal responsibility matters.
But if government expects that standard from us, shouldn’t we expect something similar from government?
Something has changed in the national mood
Immigration is no longer a marginal concern in Britain.
It has become one of the country’s biggest political issues.
That doesn’t mean everybody concerned about immigration thinks the same thing.
Some worry about small boats and border control. Others worry about housing and public services. Some are concerned about integration and community cohesion. Others worry about crime and public safety.
Some simply look at the pace of change within their communities and wonder whether anyone ever asked how much change was manageable.
Not every fear will be supported by evidence. Some claims circulating online are exaggerated or simply false.
But the existence of the anxiety itself isn’t imaginary.
And dismissing it doesn’t make it disappear.
The Channel provides an uncomfortable example
Home Office figures show that 39,271 people arrived by small boat in the year ending March 2026.
There is important context behind that number.
Since 2018, 95% of people arriving by small boat have claimed asylum. Of those whose claims had received a substantive initial decision, 60% had been granted asylum or another form of protection.
That matters.
The idea that everyone arriving in a small boat can simply be immediately deported doesn’t reflect how Britain’s asylum system actually works.
We have asylum laws. We have international obligations. Claims have to be considered.
But acknowledging that doesn’t eliminate the question of border control.
Whatever someone’s eventual asylum decision, these journeys take place outside the normal immigration system and are frequently facilitated by organised criminal networks.
So perhaps asking “Who is actually in control?” is too simplistic.
The better question is:
Is government using effectively the powers it actually has?
Government cannot control everything
This is where I have to challenge my own argument.
Britain cannot control wars that displace populations. It cannot control political persecution overseas. It cannot unilaterally control the French coastline. It cannot force every foreign government to accept somebody Britain wants to return.
Government cannot simply ignore British courts or international agreements whenever they become inconvenient either.
Perhaps expecting complete control over migration is unrealistic.
But that doesn’t remove accountability.
It changes what accountability should mean.
I don’t expect government to control everything.
I expect government to explain what it can control, what it cannot control, what choices it has made and whether those choices worked.
Government isn’t doing nothing
That also needs acknowledging.
Home Office figures show 39,007 returns from the UK in the year ending March 2026, including voluntary and enforced returns. That was 7% higher than the previous year.
Among them were 2,750 people who had previously arrived by small boat, an increase of 16%.
Of the 39,007 total returns, roughly three-quarters were voluntary and one-quarter enforced.
Britain works with France. Enforcement activity has increased. Organised immigration crime is being targeted.
So saying government is doing nothing would be wrong.
But activity isn’t necessarily success.
The test should remain:
What were you trying to achieve, and did you achieve it?
Europe is changing its approach too
Britain isn’t the only country wrestling with irregular migration.
Across the European Union, governments are operating under a substantially revised system for dealing with asylum, borders and returns.
The EU’s new Migration and Asylum Pact came into application in June 2026. It introduces common procedures for screening and registering irregular arrivals at the EU’s external borders, alongside faster asylum and return procedures.
That doesn’t mean Britain can simply copy the EU system.
Britain is no longer an EU member. Our legal arrangements, geography and international relationships are different.
But the comparison raises an important question.
If European governments believe faster border procedures and stronger return mechanisms can operate alongside their international obligations, what comparable options are available to Britain?
If Britain genuinely cannot legally adopt a particular measure, explain why.
If Britain could adopt it but government chooses not to, explain that choice.
And if politicians are promising something the law makes virtually impossible, stop promising it.
That would at least be honest.
What about the ECHR?
The European Convention on Human Rights regularly enters this debate.
Sometimes it is presented as though it prevents Britain controlling immigration altogether.
That is too simplistic.
There is also the Refugee Convention, domestic legislation, British courts, international agreements and the practical problem of returning somebody when another country refuses to accept them.
But again, government has choices.
If ministers believe a particular interpretation of human-rights law prevents a necessary policy, tell us exactly which provision causes the problem.
Tell us whether domestic legislation could change it. Tell us whether an international agreement prevents it. Tell us what leaving or renegotiating an agreement would actually mean.
Then let voters decide whether the consequences are worth it.
What frustrates people is hearing politicians promise an outcome and later explain why they never possessed the power to deliver it.
What about crime and public safety?
This is one of the most sensitive parts of the immigration debate.
It is also one we shouldn’t avoid simply because it is uncomfortable.
There have been serious crimes committed by foreign nationals and migrants in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, including sexual offences. Those individual cases understandably attract enormous public attention and concern.
But we also have to be precise.
Foreign national, migrant, asylum seeker and irregular migrant are not interchangeable categories.
Britain does not currently publish sufficiently comprehensive national crime statistics cross-referenced by immigration status to allow us to make sweeping claims about the offending rate of people who entered illegally or subsequently claimed asylum.
That absence of data creates its own problem.
People see individual cases. They see reports from Britain and elsewhere in Europe. They see claims circulating online. Then they hear completely contradictory interpretations of what those cases mean.
Government should answer that uncertainty with evidence.
If immigration status has no meaningful relationship with particular categories of serious crime, good statistics should help demonstrate that.
If sufficiently robust evidence identifies particular problems, government should understand them and respond.
Either way, the public deserves reliable information.
Pretending the question itself is unacceptable merely creates suspicion.
When legitimate questions become labels
This brings me to something I think is becoming increasingly damaging.
Some people no longer believe they can raise concerns about immigration, integration or changes within their communities without being placed into a political category.
Ask whether immigration levels are sustainable and you may be described as right-wing.
Raise concerns about integration and somebody may assume hostility towards immigrants.
Question spending priorities and the discussion can quickly become an argument about your motives rather than the question you asked.
And sometimes people feel that raising uncomfortable questions risks an accusation of racism.
Let’s be clear.
Racism exists. Hostility towards somebody simply because of their race, ethnicity or nationality should be challenged.
But challenging racism does not require us to pretend that every question about immigration is racist.
Those are completely different things.
Someone should be able to ask whether immigration is putting pressure on housing without hating immigrants.
They should be able to question asylum policy without opposing genuine refugees.
They should be able to ask whether integration is working without believing one race or culture is superior to another.
They should be able to raise concerns about crime without holding an entire community responsible for the actions of individuals.
And they should be able to ask whether government spending reflects the priorities of the people paying for it.
The evidence may show that some of those assumptions are wrong.
Fine.
Challenge the argument with evidence. Don’t dismiss the person with a label.
Because when legitimate questions become unacceptable questions, they don’t disappear.
People simply stop asking them publicly.
The frustration remains. The suspicion grows.
And eventually people conclude that nobody is listening.
Then there is the question of priorities
Britain has finite resources.
The NHS is under pressure. Councils are struggling. Housing is expensive. Social care faces enormous pressures. Welfare expenditure is substantial and defence spending is rising.
At the same time, Britain continues to spend billions through its international development programme and considerable sums supporting asylum seekers within the UK.
Those are different areas of government spending with different purposes and obligations. It would be misleading simply to add them together and suggest the money could automatically be transferred from one service to another.
There is also important context.
Britain’s overseas aid budget is being reduced, not increased.
UK Official Development Assistance was approximately £13 billion in 2025, down 7.4% from 2024. The government intends to reduce aid spending further, towards the equivalent of 0.3% of national income by 2027, as defence spending rises.
There is another complication that isn’t obvious when we talk about “foreign aid”.
Approximately £2.4 billion of Britain’s aid budget in 2025 was actually spent inside the UK supporting refugees and asylum seekers.
So this isn’t simply a question of Britain handing money to foreign governments while domestic services struggle.
Reality is more complicated.
But taxpayers are still entitled to question priorities.
That isn’t the same as saying asylum seekers should be left destitute. It isn’t the same as saying Britain should never help people overseas.
It is asking:
How much are we spending? Why are we spending it? What are we trying to achieve? And is it working?
If overseas aid advances Britain’s humanitarian, diplomatic or strategic interests, explain the benefit.
If substantial expenditure processing and accommodating asylum seekers is unavoidable, explain why — and explain what government is doing to reduce unnecessary costs.
If another approach would cost less or produce better results, examine it.
Public money always involves choices.
Government should be prepared to explain those choices to the people providing the money.
Welfare raises the same issue
Government forecasts put UK social-security spending at approximately £334 billion in 2025–26, with around 55% of Great Britain’s social-security expenditure going to pensioners.
That number doesn’t prove Britain spends too much.
A large number isn’t evidence of waste.
Britain has an ageing population. People become sick and disabled. Families lose income. Pensioners have contributed throughout their working lives.
But expenditure on that scale inevitably involves choices.
If government reforms welfare because it says the changes will help more people into employment, measure the outcome.
Two years later, tell us how many actually entered work.
If a new assessment system produces large numbers of successful appeals, publish that too.
Don’t simply announce a reform.
Show us what happened.
The same test works everywhere
This is why I don’t think this is fundamentally an immigration article.
Take the NHS.
If government promises millions of additional appointments, don’t ask us to judge the announcement.
Did patients wait less time? Could they get appointments? Did waiting lists fall?
Housing is the same.
If government announces a target for new homes, tell us how many were actually built and whether they were built where people needed them.
Infrastructure?
If a major project exceeds its budget or timetable, explain why.
The principle is remarkably simple:
What did you promise? What happened? What did it cost? What will you do if it didn’t work?
People don’t expect perfection
At least I don’t.
Government cannot control everything.
Wars happen. Pandemics happen. Economies change. Migration patterns change. International agreements constrain what countries can do. Policies that looked sensible sometimes fail.
That’s government.
But there is a difference between accepting complexity and accepting the absence of accountability.
Government asks us to trust it with decisions about our money, our health, our borders, our security and our future.
That relationship cannot work if responsibility travels in only one direction.
Nor can it work if people believe their concerns aren’t even allowed to be discussed.
Government doesn’t have to agree with every public concern.
Sometimes the correct answer will be:
Yes. There is a problem.
Sometimes it will be:
No. The evidence doesn’t support what you believe.
Both are legitimate answers.
What matters is answering the question.
Four words I’d like to hear
I don’t expect politicians never to make mistakes.
I would probably trust them more if they admitted them.
There are four words I would genuinely like to hear from government more often:
We got this wrong.
We made a decision. It didn’t work. The evidence shows that.
Here’s what we’ve learned.
Here’s what we’re changing.
And here’s how you can judge whether the replacement works.
That isn’t weakness.
That’s accountability.
Government expects us to take responsibility for our decisions every day.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect the same standard from the people governing us.
And perhaps listening is part of that responsibility too.
Not agreeing with everything people say. Not validating every rumour or fear.
Listening. Investigating. Publishing the evidence.
And answering legitimate questions without first deciding what political label should be attached to the person asking them.
Because treating people like adults means accepting that they are capable of asking difficult questions.
Government should be capable of answering them.
What do you think?
Are people genuinely being ignored when they raise concerns about immigration, public spending and social change?
Or has political debate become so polarised that neither side is particularly willing to listen to evidence that challenges what it already believes?
And would you trust government more if politicians were occasionally prepared to say:
“We got this wrong”?
Editorial note
This is an opinion and analysis article about government policy, accountability and public concern. Statistics and factual claims have been checked against publicly available sources available at the time of publication. References to immigration, asylum and crime distinguish between different legal and statistical categories where the available evidence allows. The views and conclusions expressed are my own.