Ali Ahmadi, Catherine Barnard and Fiona Costello look at the reasons why asylum seekers come to the UK and to what extent UK asylum policy is a factor in the decision. 

The government’s flagship Restoring Order and Control policy is based upon the claim that tougher asylum policy will deter asylum seekers from coming to the UK. The proposals include measures such as temporary refugee status, scrapping family reunion, a longer route to settlement (up to 30 years), and limited access to benefits. These are intended, according to the Home Secretary, to reduce the ‘pull factors’ and/or the ‘generosity’ of the UK’s asylum offer. The logic is that if the UK makes the asylum system less attractive, fewer asylum seekers will come to the UK.

But what does evidence say about why (some) asylum seekers choose the UK as their destination? And to what extent does the UK’s asylum policy influence these decisions?

For asylum seekers heading to Europe and the UK, the strongest pull factor is social networks. Research consistently shows that first-time asylum applicants are more likely to apply in countries where they have family members, friends, and/or established diaspora communities. A 2023 analysis of asylum applications within the European Union (from 2008 to 2020) found that the number of previous asylum seekers and migrants from the same origin country was the biggest influence on where new asylum seekers went. The study also found that restrictive welfare policies and employment bans had only a ‘modest’ impact on the flow of asylum seekers. Similarly, the Home Office’s own research into ‘asylum seeker decision-making’ found that social networks were among the most influential factors in choosing a destination.

Family reunion seems to be a strong determinant of destination for asylum seekers. It is for this reason that the Home Office scrapped the refugee family reunion route last year. Although it is not possible to quantify its deterrent impact, it will likely discourage some asylum seekers from coming to the UK. However, the impact will likely be limited as most asylum seekers do not apply for family reunion. For instance, between 2023 and 2025, there was one arrival via family reunion for every five new grants of refugee status to adult main applicants. It is also possible that scrapping the possibility of family reunion will increase the number of ‘illegal’ arrivals via small boats, as entire family units might attempt crossing the channel rather than waiting for the main applicant to come and then apply for family reunion. Evidence from Europe and Australia shows that when reunion visas are unavailable, some families and children follow unauthorised routes.

The evidence on the effect of granting temporary rather than permanent status to asylum seekers is mixed. The probability of obtaining protection status matters a lot for asylum seekers, but there is not much research comparing temporary and permanent alternatives. When Sweden began granting permanent rather than temporary residency for Syrian refugees in 2013 this led to a ‘clear and fast, yet temporary,’ increase in Syrian asylum applications. This indicates that asylum policies can directly affect asylum flows. Yet other studies found no connection between permanent status rules and the number of asylum applications in European countries. When it comes to migration decisions more broadly, having access to permanent residence appears to be important, but not the length of time it takes to obtain it. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Home Office’s temporary status proposal will have any meaningful effect on arrivals.

Colonial and historical ties also have major influence on migration decisions. Asylum seekers from countries with past British rule, like Sudan or Pakistan, are more likely to come to the UK due to the colonial connection and established communities. This shows that language and educational content are part of making the UK a favourable destination for some asylum seekers. These factors are largely out of the UK government’s control.

It is also plausible that people refused asylum in the EU might see UK as their final chance, because it lacks access to shared asylum databases after Brexit. It is hard/impossible to know the number of arrivals motivated by this factor, but if it is at all significant, making the UK’s asylum policies more restrictive may have only a limited deterrent effect on this group who are desperate and do not have any other option available.

Evidence also suggests that ‘push factors’ from France encourage onward movements. For asylum seekers living in makeshift camps, life is often precarious and inhumane. Reports from Human Rights Watch have documented police brutality and abusive practices, limited access to water and sanitation facilities, and dependence on local associations for food distributions. In general, ‘push factors’ seem to be the main drivers of forced displacement. This is why some studies suggest that deterrence rarely works as it does not address the underlying factors such as conflict.

Ultimately, for all the government’s changes, evidence shows that asylum seekers have limited knowledge of asylum policies in destination countries. Most have vague and/or inaccurate information, particularly concerning their entitlements and requirements. Studies also suggest that the majority of asylum seekers rely on rumours, smugglers, and friends for information about destination countries and ‘very few’ are fully informed. This was also confirmed by the Home Office’s own research:

“They [asylum seekers] are guided more by agents, the presence or absence of family and friends, language, and perceived cultural affinities than by scrutiny of asylum policies or rational evaluation of the welfare benefits on offer.”

The available evidence shows that there is a far more complex relationship between asylum policy and asylum inflow than a simple ‘pull factor’ model would suggest. While the Home Office wants to manage asylum arrivals, their policy levers may be less effective than political rhetoric suggests. A more evidence-based approach might focus on addressing the factors within government control while acknowledging the limitations of policy in shaping destination choice. This would include ensuring fair and efficient decision-making and working with other European countries to address conditions that act as ‘push factors’ from transit countries like France. Simply making conditions harsher in the UK the hope it will deter arrivals appears, based on the evidence, unlikely to achieve the desired effect.

By Catherine Barnard, Senior Fellow, UK in a Changing Europe & Professor of EU Law and Employment Law, University of Cambridge, Fiona Costello, Assistant Professor, University of Birmingham and Ali Ahmadi, Research Associate, University of Cambridge and PhD student at Anglia Ruskin University.

Which “modifiable factors” might affect our cancer risk?

The WHO urged “context-specific prevention strategies”

Ike Ijeh is Head of Housing, Architecture & Urban Space at Policy Exchange.

Margaret Thatcher once famously intoned that Tony Blair was her “greatest achievement”. With a similar level of ironic counterintuition, one could reasonably argue that British municipal socialism’s greatest urban achievement over the past 25 years has been the luxury residential tower block.

These structures now proliferate across our inner-cities and suburbs and whether they are in Manchester, Birmingham, Croydon or Southwark, in the vast majority of cases, they were brought to you either by a Labour mayor or a Labour council.

In 2002 London had just twelve buildings taller than St. Paul’s Cathedral. After two Labour mayors and a Conservative mayor who promised to stop tall buildings then ended up building significantly more than his Labour predecessor, the capital now has well over 120.

Most of these towers are residential and they are frequently justified on the basis that they will help fix the housing crisis. But this has demonstrably not been the case and there is even an argument to suggest they might have made it worse. As Policy Exchange’s 2024 Tall Buildings paper exclusively revealed, of the new residential units created in the 70+ high-rises taller than St. Paul’s built since the Millennium, only 6 per cent have been affordable and just 0.3 per cent have been social housing.

Equally, despite decades regurgitating tall buildings, London retains the lowest residential density of any European capital save for Rome, Oslo and Dublin. Additionally, it offers only a quarter of the density of low-rise Paris.

This is why Policy Exchange’s latest paper calls for a fresh approach to solving the housing crisis. Instead of a rush to build tall, S.M.A.R.T Density: Building Dense, Building Beautiful, advocates for a smarter and more intelligent approach to density that essentially makes high density more desirable.

Housing density is currently occupying rare political prominence because the latest revision to the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) explicitly calls for residential density across England to be increased. This is a wise and natural response to the housing crisis and we saw it percolate through the Government’s policy portfolio last month when, as part of its ongoing planning reforms, it was announced that high density housing around strategic rail hubs will receive default planning permission.

However, high density, especially in the marginal greenbelt constituencies the Government wishes to install it, is frequently an electorally incendiary proposition precisely because local residents often fear it will lead to inappropriate tall buildings, harmful development, bad design, poor infrastructure and fractured communities.

This is scorched earth territory painfully familiar to Conservatives. The landmark Chesham and Amersham by-election was lost in 2021 due to the proposed zonal planning reforms that would have increased density in certain wards. And even the historic Conservative losses of Westminster and Wandsworth councils at the following year’s local elections could be construed, at least in part, as electoral punishment for both councils’ obdurate pursuit of locally contentious and sporadically ridiculed regeneration schemes like Nine Elms, Paddington Basin and the lamentable Marble Arch Mound.

Therefore, Policy Exchange’s S.M.A.R.T. Density paper seeks to publicly and politically rehabilitate high density from an acquired taste to an aspirational target. It does so by recommending that high density schemes adopt many of the characteristics advocated by Policy Exchange’s Building Beautiful programme, such as placemaking excellence, community empowerment and aesthetic quality. But it principally calls for the wholesale reintroduction of two entities once common to English urban planning: mid-rise and mansion blocks.

Mid-rise can be up to 40 per cent cheaper than high-rise to build and because it doesn’t absorb the spatial, structural, economic and energy inefficiencies high-rises eventually accumulate over a certain height, it can produce densities that either match or exceed those generated by tall buildings.

One of the strongest examples of mid-rise housing is the mansion block, the late 19th century London invention that is capable of producing astonishingly high densities within a format that is effectively a traditional, horizontal skyscraper.

Had Nine Elms been covered with mansion blocks rather than skyscrapers, not only could we have created a timeless new neighbourhood far more sympathetic to London’s traditional scale and character, but, in the midst of a housing crisis, we could have built thousands more homes too. Plus, because mid-rise is cheaper to build than high-rise, a mansion block-focused Nine Elms could have provided significantly more affordable and social housing.

Additionally, we have calculated that were our S.M.A.R.T. Density approach used to raise Birmingham’s density to London’s, this would mean another 200,000 homes in the city, a massive boost to one of Britain’s biggest regional economies. Equally, because high density makes transport improvements more viable, it would have been less likely to spark last month’s indefinite postponement of a new tram network for Leeds – already England’s least dense big city and, by no coincidence, Europe’s largest city without rapid rail transit.

But there is another, more politically localised advantage to increasing density. While Labour has deftly pirouetted from backing council estate tower blocks in the 1970s to privately developed luxury skyscrapers in the 2020s, British conservatism has not had a positive regeneration narrative since the transformation of Liverpool and London docklands in the 1980s. It desperately needs one.

It just so happens that the London districts that specialise in mid-rise and mansion blocks, such as Kensington, Chelsea, Maida Vale, Marylebone and Westminster, are not only some of the most dense echelons of the capital but they also happen to be some of the most desirable. If conservatives can use the density approach advocated in our paper to construct a housing crisis solution centred on recreating Marylebone rather than simply reaching targets, then Labour’s lurid legacy of towers could finally give way to a more popular, productive and patriotic sequel.

The worst hypocrisy  from the mouth of  the worst Traitor in parliament this really is the pot calling the kettle black, Starmer is selling out the UK to the EU for which he should be hanged as a Traitor , and the rent boy shagger of No 10 is now hanging his best bum friend out to dry, this man has no morals, no honour, and no balls to say he is a low life scumbag demeans scumbags.

Starmer said he regretted appointing Mandelson as the UK ambassador to the US (Alamy)

3 min read10 min

Speaking in PMQs on Wednesday, Starmer said he regretted appointing Mandelson as the UK ambassador to the US, and announced that he had agreed with the King to remove him from the Privy Council over the growing scandal surrounding his relationship with Epstein.

Starmer admitted to MPs that he was aware of Mandelson’s relationship with the paedophile financier when he appointed him as the UK’s ambassador in Washington, but said that Mandelson “lied” to him about the depth and extent of that relationship.

The PM sacked Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador in the US in September after more details about the nature of his relationship with Epstein emerged.

Starmer said that Mandelson had “completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process”.

On Tuesday night, the Metropolitan Police confirmed it will investigate the former cabinet minister for misconduct in public office.

Earlier in the day, Mandelson, who was a key figure in the New Labour administrations of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and has remained an influential figure in the Labour Party, said he would resign from the House of Lords amid growing outrage over his links to Epstein.

The government is also planning to use legislation to remove Mandelson’s peer title — an action which no UK government has taken since World War One.

It came after millions of court documents relating to Epstein were published by the US Department of Justice, revealing that Mandelson had shared confidential and high-level UK government information with him, including that the euro bailout was coming.

Speaking on Wednesday, Starmer said: “To learn that there was a cabinet minister leaking sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 crash is beyond infuriating.

“And I am as angry as the public and any member of this House. Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament, and my party.”

“Mr Speaker, he [Mandelson] lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador.

“I regret appointing him.

“If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.”

On Tuesday, PoliticsHome reported that the Prime Minister was coming under growing pressure from Labour MPs to sack his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, over his key role in the original appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador.

Questioned by Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, the PM defended McSweeney, who is seen as the driving force of the Starmer project, and said he had confidence in him.

“Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team. He helped me change the Labour Party and win an election. Of course, I have confidence in him,” he said.

The Conservatives are calling on Starmer to publish all documents regarding the vetting of Mandelson ahead of his appointment as US ambassador. The PM has said that he intends to publish all relevant documents, apart from those that could undermine national security and international relations. MPs will vote on what should be published later on Wednesday.

The PM also said that the Metropolitan Police had been in touch “to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations”.

“We’re in discussion with them about that, and I hope to be able to update the House,” he added.

Earlier this year, Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick dramatically defected to Reform. Since then, not everything has gone to plan.

According to Politics UK, both Braverman and Jenrick accidentally voted WITH Labour to abolish the two cap-benefit cap last night on 3 January. This is a direct conflict with Reform’s party line.

🚨 NEW: Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman accidentally voted with Labour to abolish the two-child benefit cap tonight after entering the wrong lobby pic.twitter.com/RsZSHsGfMV

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) February 3, 2026

Reform backed the wrong horses

Jenrick is the mastermind behind painting over a children’s mural in an asylum centre, so of course he found his political home with Reform. It’s the same with Braverman, who famously said that seeing a migrant plane take off to Rwanda was her “dream” and her “obsession.”

On 3 January, Nigel Farage announced that Reform would, unsurprisingly, vote against removing the two-child cap. And of course he did it with a pint in his hand:

If this doesn’t sum up Reform, I don’t know what does: kick millions of kids back into poverty (by reintroducing the two child benefit limit) so that a six quid pint of beer will reduce to £5.95…https://t.co/04sFXQthYZ

— Anne-Frances Hayes, Politics and all that. (@anne_staveley) February 3, 2026

As Alex Cocker wrote for the Canary:

Never a party to miss a vapid appeal to populism, Reform UK have announced plans to cut beer duty by 10%. Except, how do they plan to fund such a feat? Well, by reintroducing the two-child benefit cap, of course.

Under Reform’s new commitment, the party would gradually phase out business rates altogether for UK pubs. Incidentally, they’d also plunge around 350,000 children back into poverty, and 700,000 into deep poverty.

Advertisement

Despite Jenrick and Braverman enjoying cruelty, it appears they weren’t quite awake for last night’s vote on the two-child benefit cap.

Because they voted with Labour.

Ouch.

UPDATE: It’s been pointed out to me that because they went thru lobby the votes recorded. The record on HoC vote here. So Jenrick and Braverman voted WITH Labour to lift the two child benefit cap 🫣 https://t.co/SjVH1ZuGQ7 pic.twitter.com/R9p9DLYKXS

— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) February 3, 2026

Advertisement

Farage looks like a fool

After Farage’s very public welcome to Jenrick and Braverman, this fuck up from the both of them makes him look a little silly.

I warmly welcome @SuellaBraverman to Reform UK! 🇬🇧 pic.twitter.com/eGZoK0SdKG

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) January 26, 2026

As Maddison Wheeldon wrote for the Canary: 

 this latest whiplash episode suggests that Farage likewise lacks any real vision or principle. But we already knew that.

Let’s see if Farage can at least get his MPs to vote with the party line next time, shall we?

Featured image via UK Government

Rafe Fletcher is the founder of CWG and writes The Otium Den Substack

You can regularly eat and drink for free in Singapore.

Just turn up at one of the British property seminars that pepper the city’s function rooms. Developers and agents swallow the cost of a few freeloaders because it has been a fruitful market. Singaporeans are the second largest group of foreign home owners across England and Wales.

Demand isn’t spurred by colonial nostalgia. Rather, Singaporeans can buy a second home in Britain with far less hassle than in Singapore. And developers welcome the liquidity lacking in those supported only by a British-earned income. Just as a punitive tax regime leaves British buyers short of a deposit, so builders find construction can leave them short of a profit once they have navigated nebulous planning diktats.

Confronting the resulting housing bubble may look awkward for the Conservatives. Even in 2024, 37 percent of outright homeowners voted for them, a 12-point lead on Labour in second place. But the consequences of ducking the issues are starker. Those homeowners will see values deplete anyway under Labour’s trajectory of making everyone poorer. And the Conservatives will make no inroads with a generation shut out of the housing market.

It’s a lesser problem in Singapore where 90 per cent of citizens are homeowners. A product of mass public housebuilding under the Housing and Development Board (HDB). Only Singaporeans are eligible to buy these properties. Buyers draw upon their Central Provident Fund (CPF), a forced personal savings system to put down a deposit on HDBs’ subsidised values. Mortgages are offered with fixed interest rates of 2.6 per cent.

The HDB market is heavily restricted. They can’t be purchased by non-citizens and Singaporeans can only own one unit at a time. Re-sales are prohibited for five years, so there’s no “flipping” on the back of sudden value increases. If Singaporeans want to buy a second home, they must enter the fully private market, which constitutes just 20 per cent of the country’s housing stock. Doing so incurs 20 per cent stamp duty on any second property and 30% on additional ones after that.

Hence why buying in Britain is much more attractive where non-resident stamp duty is only two percent. With far lower tax rates and HDBs available at 3.8 times average income, Singaporeans have the means to buy British stock. Penalising such foreign buyers may play well optically. But as it is, they’re vital in getting homes built. Britain’s largest developer Barratt Redrow recently blamed a lack of them for missing its sales target. International capital helps developers meet affordable housing provisions under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Without buyers for higher-price units, the think-tank Onward reports that the cost of delivering new homes often exceeds their capital values.

Section 106 is one of many regulatory hurdles strangling supply. Onward’s research shows that small and medium-sized (SME) developers have been effectively priced out of the market. In the late 1980s, SMEs delivered about 40 per cent of new homes; by 2007, 30 per cent; and today just 12 per cent. They don’t have the scale or balance sheet to weather the costly and cumbersome planning permission process.

Mired in such regulation, Britain’s housing policy is hardly less statist than Singapore. But that statism resides in obstructiveness instead of forcefulness. Singapore can build because the state owns 90 per cent of the land (HDBs and most private housing are on 99-year leases). A situation engineered through the Land Acquisition Act of 1966 that empowers the government to buy any land it wishes at current market value. It is frustrating for golfers as the city-state’s few remaining courses are forcibly purchased to make way for new housing. But it gives the government total control over the supply-chain and costs.

A similar land grab is probably only contemplated by Zack Polanski in Britain. And it’s more likely to resemble Zimbabwe if it comes under the Greens. But there are other lessons Britain can learn from Singapore.

Firstly, provide tax-free incentives for young people to save for a house. Robert Colville writes in The Times that Brits with student loans are paying 50p in tax from every pound they earn over £50,000 and 71p over £100,000. Getting a deposit together is often hopeless for even top-earning graduates without help from the bank of mum and dad. Something like Singapore’s CPF would allow workers to save into a specific house-buying account. It need not be compulsory nor state managed. But it should be ring-fenced and explicitly linked to first-home purchase.

Secondly, remove uncertainty. Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority fixes land use, density and infrastructure expectations in advance. Builders operate within known limits. They don’t have to contend with Section 106-esque regulations that leave developers unsure if local housing associations will even buy the affordable housing they’re obligated to provide. Get things built first.

Finally, Britain needs to stop concerning itself with fringe measures that play only to the politics of envy. I recently went to an event at the Seven Palms complex on Singapore’s Sentosa island, an enclave of wealthy foreigners. It had the ghostly feel of many of London’s high-end developments, with owners mostly in absentia. We may criticise the atmosphere created by such projects but they’re incidental to the wider problem. It’s virtue signalling rather than serious policy.

Britain’s housing crisis is not unique amongst developed nations. But alongside an acute supply shortage, it faces weakening demand. If the most talented young people don’t believe there’s a realistic route to buying, they will leave. And house prices will fall anyway while the country gets poorer. Fixing things now may unsettle Conservative voters who sit on high paper valuations. But a reckoning will come anyway. Perhaps those free evenings out in Singapore will start to dwindle.

Singapore shows the benefits of a government that acts forcefully. Britain shows the consequences of a government that meanders – forcing risk onto developers, disincentivising building and earning, and pandering to NIMBYism. Noel Skelton’s property-owning democracy was once an inspiration to a young Lee Kuan Yew.

The Conservatives need to reclaim that legacy to feed aspiration rather than resentment.