The Labour Party is ashamed of its own leader

‘I can’t speak for Jeremy’ was a phrase I heard several times on the Today programme as Hilary Benn appeared discussing the Labour Party’s confused position regarding terrorism, the shoot to kill policy and Syria. We now find the opposition in such an absurd position that the Shadow Foreign Secretary - a thoughtful, rather than a bellicose, man - is not only disagreeing with his leader but also not offering him much of a defence.

Of course, in many ways, Jeremy Corbyn is right. It would be preferable for characters such as Mohammed ‘Jihadi John’ Emwazi to be brought before a court of law and be tried, found guilty and appropriately sentenced for his brutal murders. Similarly, it would be better if we were able to diffuse potential terror attacks far in advance and not be forced to rely on a shoot-to-kill policy; this is, after all, a last ditch defence and can go wrong – just think of poor Jean-Charles de Menezes.

Corbyn's view on the shoot-to-kill policy

But, ultimately, neither of these options is currently credible.

Corbyn is also right that to a certain extent the mistakes of the West have contributed to this terrible situation. We are still clearly feeling the consequences of the invasion of Iraq and it is perfectly easy to present an argument that the West’s actions have caused instability and terror over decades in places like Iran, Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. But, relying on simply blaming the errors of the West as the basis for a foreign policy is wholly inadequate and not sustainable.

Ultimate responsibility for the onslaught in Paris, the recent bombing of the Russian plane after it left Sharm el-Sheikh, and other similar attacks, lies with the perpetrators and no one else. The horrific actions by ISIL within the land they control cannot be blamed on the actions of the West. No one but ISIL alone can be held responsible for its prehistoric rule of terror, the beheadings, the mass executions, the stonings, the sexual exploitation, the beatings.

There is, for apparently good reason, widespread acceptance that it isn't possible to sit down at a table with these people and negotiate; there will be no agreement or peace and reconciliation commission. We are faced with the difficulty that the jihadis, high on blood lust and power, regard it as a privilege to be killed. This disconcertingly alien doctrine makes it horrendously difficult to know how to obstruct them. Ironically, it would seem that we need to give them the satisfaction of achieving martyrdom; the only way to defeat them must be by military means; it will, of course, be far more difficult, but all the more important, to defeat their ideas.

Instead of grappling with these realities, however, Corbyn is sticking with pacifist principles, insisting that there needs to be a peaceful solution to Syria. It goes without saying that not many would argue about the desirability of following such a path. If the situation were not so serious, there would be something almost admirable about Corbyn's insistence on remaining loyal to his ideals in the face of such horror. After all, there were many admirable men who were conscientious objectors in the last world war, usually motivated by a profound religious belief, who refused to fight or kill but still served society with great heroism. They did not, however, succeed as leaders of a major political party. The cold reality is that, when faced with complex, difficult moral crises, leading politicians require their ideals to be malleable, infused with a streak of Machiavellian realism.

So while Corbyn was comfortable as a principled, anti-war critic on Labour’s backbenches, as leader he now shies away from formulating policy knowing that the majority of the parliamentary Labour Party disagrees with him. 

Cameron’s strategy towards Syria may be incoherent and relies on ignoring the refugee crisis currently in Europe, but at least there is a semblance of a strategy emerging. There is a recognition that only massive international co-operation will tackle ISIL. 

Corbyn, meanwhile, plans to instruct Labour MPs to vote against extending British bombing in Syria - surely such an issue should be a matter of conscience - and yet has failed to offer a viable alternative. Shadow ministers know they cannot keep appearing in the news, flatly contradicting their leader, and, simultaneously, be a credible opposition. His parliamentary party know this and are furious and embarrassed.

I’m left wondering what Corbyn’s attitude would be towards situations like the genocide in Rwanda or the Bosnian War; under what circumstances would Jeremy Corbyn support military intervention? So far, it’s a question he refuses to answer and it won't go away.

What sort of NHS do we want?

It is quite a painful thought to realise that some think that by using IVF through the NHS one may have deprived someone of vital life-saving cancer drugs. Yet, that is what I was left thinking after listening to a debate on the radio the other day: it confirmed what many already suspected - access to IVF services is increasingly something of a postcode lottery across the country as the NHS has continually to tighten its belt as it struggles to stay vaguely solvent.

The programme brought memories flooding back from several years ago when my wife and I went through two IVF cycles through the NHS. Oddly enough, I find I struggle to remember many precise details as the whole process lasted so many years and the stress was so tiring, putting it out of my mind has broadly seemed the best thing to do.

Inevitably, we began with the many years of trying and failing to have a baby, then there were the exploratory tests, there was an operation, possibly two, there was a useless GP who lost our notes setting the whole procedure back months, and by doing so reducing our chances of success – and even of being accepted as patients – as we got steadily older and closer to very inflexible deadlines.

Once we finally were accepted, after a doctor was a little generous with my wife’s (lack of) weight, the drugs started, then the evening injections and the final, vital, trigger injection. The latter has to be given with such precision, the first time we did it we had to find a quiet room in the middle of a wedding reception to administer it. Then a specimen has be provided, the specialists do their wizardry. And then there is the waiting to see if it worked.

And, the first time, it didn’t. What next?

Apart from the inevitable huge disappointment, I remember going to our next appointment at the unit not entirely clear what we could do next; it’s possible that is just my recollection. But, suffice it to say, we started the drugs again, and another trigger injection – this time the specified time was in the middle of the night. To my horror, I managed to bend the needle but hoped I had administered the required quantity of the drug. Another specimen, more wizardry, then more waiting.

This time, it worked, bent needle or not. And our daughter has just turned 3.

Some describe this treatment as a ‘luxury’ but it certainly didn’t feel like it at the time. According to NICE guidelines, clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) should offer three cycles of IVF to all women of 39 or under. When we embarked upon this path, the age limit in our area was 35 and only two cycles were offered; it is certainly not the worst. The guidelines are woefully ignored across the country with only 18 per cent of CCGs offering the full service. What treatment one gets is entirely reliant on where one lives. It’s a hopeless situation which the government is studiously ignoring; its budgeting means that such treatments are a secondary concern.

According the OECD, Britain still spends less - in some cases significantly so - on health per capita than many of our European neighbours, such as France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark. We spend less per capita than Canada and Australia (and the US, though its health service is something of a basketcase).

It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the OECD finds that, as a consequence of pretty mediocre spending, by the standards of developed Western nations, we currently have a mediocre health service. Their new report finds that we lag behind countries in key areas such as the survival from cervical, breast and bowel cancer. We need 75,000 more doctors and nurses to match the standards of our peer nations (a cause hardly likely to be helped by our government's anti-immigration rhetoric).

In these circumstances, and ignoring the fact that infertility is a recognised medical condition, I can understand how someone might think that a trust spending £6,000 trying to assist a couple have a child might reduce funds available for other therapies. We have learned so much about the importance of speed, when treating cancer, for example, that our reaction to demands for swift medical intervention, is urgent and visceral. And politicians, to extent, can make moves to answer such demands. At the same time, however, it is almost impossible to quantify the long term costs accrued due to stress, depression from infertility, and consequent long term savings from successful IVF treatment. In ways similar to aspects of mental health, it is simply easier to ignore.

Ultimately, it is a matter of ambition: It is about what sort of NHS we want - and are willing to pay for. Should the service be one which is constantly scrimping and saving, where one treatment is competing with another and there is a debate about which is apparently more 'justifiable’? Do we want a health service which doesn't aspire to be the best but instead is stuck on a permanent downward spiral? Politicians can talk about delivering the best health service in the world but this needs backing with hard cash. Putting it simply, this should not be a question of either cancer treatment or IVF. We need, and should demand, both. 

While Labour shouts, the real battle is in the Tory Party

Somewhat unfortunately I found myself in an argument with an ‘ultra-leftie’ Corbyn fan the other night, one who clearly hadn’t got the memo about a kinder politics from his Dear Leader. He thought it was reasonable to illustrate a graphic explaining ‘How Tory Welfare Reforms Work’ with an image of a Swastika, claiming it was merely ‘a diagram’. When I suggested this was a fairly offensive comparison to make, I was taken to task. The implication was that if anyone implied that this 'diagram' might be unfairly tainting the Conservative Party with Nazism, then it was the viewer's - in this case, my - fault. Clearly, he had not managed to grasp the power of semiotics. 

For merely questioning his taste I was accused of being a Tory. And this is where the Labour Party now find themselves; unreasonable people railing against the world, convinced their own view is the one true view, accusing those who might question them of apostasy. The vast majority on the left, the thoughtful, kind, principled but pragmatic, have been rendered dumb by the earthquake that has occurred beneath their feet. Until Corbyn and his shadow cabinet emerge with a package of coherent policies, the official Labour Party is something of an irrelevance, failing to provide a decent opposition.

Meanwhile, in the real world, George Osborne has been busy donning a cloak of moderate sensibilities and set about stealing some of Labour’s best policies and there is barely a whimper of protest – or indeed claims of ownership – from Jeremy Corbyn and his shadow cabinet. Lord Adonis, whose talent for ideas and getting things done was such that he was close to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, has been left flailing in the wind and, given the opportunity to resurrect his idea of an infrastructure commission, leads it with George Osborne’s blessing. For a party serious about forming the next government, losing the talents of Lord Adonis is little short of criminal.

Other ideas Osborne has pinched or developed include the devolution of business rates, grand-parental leave, the abolition of non-dom status and the national ‘living wage’. And remember the city academies idea – chaotically attacked by the last shadow Labour cabinet – was the brainchild of a certain chap called Andrew Adonis when he was a part of a Labour government.

George Osborne’s pitch is part of the real battle currently going on in British politics; who will succeed David Cameron. The PM has reiterated this week his intention to last the full five years of his second term, but, as I have written before, this simply isn’t practical or honest. If Cameron isn’t to stand for election again – and there is time for him to find a way to renege on this pledge – he has to leave office giving his successor sufficient time to outline his or her vision for the country before the 2020 general election.

The Shadow Chancellor, who, inevitably as he is the one ordering ‘austerity’ across the country, has a reputation of being the hard man of the government, the hatchet man. To counter this, he has, without any shame, turned into a magpie and is happily stealing good ideas from wherever he can find them, trying to present himself as the possesor of the common ground, a man not attached to a particular political dogma and above the day-to-day political fray. For now, until when or if there is an economic downturn, he remains the Tory Party’s lucky chancellor and a supreme tactician.

Theresa May, on the other hand, has, with one speech, jeopardised her chances of succeeding in her campaign to become next leader. Ignoring the government’s own statistics (see this excellent James Kirkup piece here), she painted a fearful picture of a Britain being held back and divided by immigration, warning about how we must protect our borders from the hordes outside and, by doing this, remain strong, a ‘beacon of hope’. It’s not a million miles away from the vision created in the film of Children of Men. 

The motives for her speech are curious. This vision might appeal to some grass roots Tories, timid and fretful of the outside world, comfortable in their shires, but it's a weak pitch for leadership. The government has failed to hit its own targets at reducing immigration. Logically, the only way to get net migration to the tens of thousands is to bar European Union migrants and the only way of achieving this is to pull out of the EU to end the freedom of movement. (Her refusal to even acknowledge the migration crisis affecting Europe is a discussion for another day).

Unsurprisingly, this has prompted a ferocious backlash from business groups who find themselves on the same side as refugee groups. Simon Walker, the Director General of the Institute of Directors, said:

‘We are astonished by the irresponsible rhetoric and pandering to anti-immigration sentiment from the Home Secretary. It is yet another example of the Home Secretary turning away the world’s best and brightest, putting internal party politics ahead of the country and helping our competitor economies instead of our own.

‘The myth of the job stealing immigrant is nonsense. Immigrants do not steal jobs, they help fill vital skill shortages and, in doing so, create demand and more jobs. If they did steal jobs we wouldn’t have the record levels of employment we currently do.’

With such a response from what is supposed to be part of their core constituency, May’s speech and stance is very hard for any other minister to defend though some will foolishly try. A rattled Prime Minister later gave it a go on the BBC.

I have never much rated Theresa May’s chances to succeed Cameron; a long-serving Home Secretary yes, but she gives the impression of being too hard and too unsympathetic. She first warned of the Tories being seen by too many as the 'nasty' party and yet, here she is the one reviving the image. Combined with simply being factually wrong on the impact of immigration and annoying large swathes of business, I think her chances of becoming leader have slumped further.

The other much-touted contender, Boris Johnson, didn’t hurt his chances at the Conservative Party conference. He is the conference darling, his speech was packed with jokes and he presented a vividly more humane Tory alternative. But he is way behind Osborne at the moment, to such an extent the Chancellor can happily say he would be ‘very surprised’ if Boris didn’t make it to the top team under Cameron. He didn’t add ‘if he’s a good little boy’ but was probably thinking it.

Bye then Illtyd

I don't really know what to say about Illtyd, who died last week at the age of 84, as I know anything I write will fail to do him justice. As with all good teachers, Illtyd would say, with his soft, lilting, lyrical Merthyr tones - which could click seamlessly into hilarious, poetic, fluent and startling invective - you can always aim higher.

He was a man of immense and huge kindness; generous with his mind and money. He was an idiosyncratic  writer, his words threaded with wit and often irascible venom, and he was blessed with an infectious humour which made his wealth of stories - frequently about Labour politicians doing something in their youth that they shouldn't - sparkle.

Several times a week, he would limp his way into the Camden New Journal offices where I used to work, clutching books marked with the yellow paper - paper I have never seen anyone else use - upon which he wrote his columns and book and theatre reviews. Again, as with all good teachers I have known, his handwriting was appalling; knowing this, he would sit down and patiently dictate his words to one of the several young hacks there. It could be tricky, particularly if it was after lunch; his voice could get fainter and fainter and you'd be grasping to catch it, like the song of the lark as it soars higher and higher.

He was a nurturer. He wanted to help us all, to nudge us to success. He was always interested in our lives, concerned about our families. It was lovely that he made the time to come to my wedding more than ten years ago. His words of advice were affectionate and well-considered; though he wasn't shy of telling anyone that he or she was being an idiot if the moment required.

Illtyd, with a newly trimmed beard, at our wedding, with a long haired me

Often, after delivering his lines to whatever young Turk he encountered in the office, Illtyd and I would slink off to a nearby pub where we'd discuss the politics of the day; he had very little time for Tony Blair's New Labour and left the party over the invasion of Iraq. He also had a deep mine of stories from the Labour Party; older figures such as Barbara Castle, Marcia Falkender and Ken Livingstone would mingle with Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson.

I remember once he was opening a Camden New Journal jobs fair and, bizarrely, there was a stall representing the security services. Illtyd opened the fair in typically respectful fashion before turning with unveiled fury on the unfortunate officers at this stall, demanding they show him his MI5 security file. I don't think they returned to the fair in subsequent years.

Illtyd at the Gay Hussar, by Martin Rowson

Illtyd loved the conspiratorial nature of his tales. Similarly, he loved the gossipy atmosphere of the Gay Hussar, where he could take his huge range of friends, from politics, journalism and acting, for lunch. During a meal he could wave and greet old friends as well as scowl, with a menacing glint in his eye, at old foes, while regaling those present at his table with his stories. And, yes, I have never known a better swearer. Maybe there is something about the Welsh timbre which can enable the foulest language to sing like poetry. It was a naughty delight to hear Illtyd suddenly crackle with explicit glee, condemning some dull New Labour apparatchik in the most unrepeatable manner.

These lunches could take a while. I believe my then editor did wonder where I'd gone on those Friday afternoons. I remember one occasion when we were dining on the first floor of the Greek Street restaurant; at 5pm, I was still getting the brandy from behind the bar to top up our glasses. 

The great love of his life was Christopher Downes, the theatre dresser and Camden New Journal theatre reviewer. Together they ran what ran what Peter Mandelson called the 'trattoria'. Talking after his death in 2003, Mr Mandelson told me:

'I remember spending Saturday afternoons in the pub with them and their friends, and we would go back to Lea House (Illtyd and Chris's house), which I used to call 'the trattoria', and Chris would make and assortment of tasty and hearty dishes.' 

Homosexuality was illegal for some of the time they were together. In an interview for BBC Wales in 2008, his nephew, actor Richard Harrington, asked how the relationship had been possible, especially considering Illtyd held public office:

'We did it openly. There were lots of men and women like us. We didn't advertise, putting a sign up - we just got on with our lives.'

With Chris, they mixed with an altogether more glamorous crowd than mere politicians; thus, their encounters with Hollywood stars would be liberally sprinkled in their tales. Illtyd and Chris were together for over 50 years and Illtyd felt his loss deeply.

The day after Illtyd's death came news of the death of Denis Healey, a huge Labour figure. Illtyd was denied a chance to be an MP and a member of the House of Lords by machinist politicians who feared his variety and intellect, and Healey, likewise, could be said to have missed out on the top job for similar reasons. But both were part of a generation of post-war Labour politicians whose wider personal experiences, knowledge of a genuine ideological divide, informed their politics. Compared to the politicians of today, whose career trajectories are frequently dull and confined within the walls of Whitehall, this generation had 'hinterland' and knew personally of the real struggles people have to contend with in their daily lives

During one afternoon at the Gay Hussar with Illtyd, I recorded our conversation, many of his stories and his reflections on New Labour; it really is about time I dug up the recording and transcribed it.

Boris' Tour de France 'no brainer'

Fans of Boris Johnson like to claim that behind that bumbling, buffoonish, Bertie Wooster-esque, façade there is a clever, conscientious politician.

But it has become increasingly hard to be convinced by this argument and with his rejection of London hosting the Grand Depart of the Tour de France, he has acted with staggering unprofessionalism and short-sightedness, damaging any prospect of the race returning to Britain for many years to come.

London went through the whole process of bidding for this stage of the Tour triumphing over places such as Edinburgh, Manchester and cities in Germany. And then, the day before contracts were due to be signed, Transport for London pulled out claiming that it wouldn’t provide value for money.

Boris Johnson has now said pulling out was his call, describing it as a ‘no-brainer’.

‘I had to take a very tough decision, obviously painful. In an ideal world, you know me, my policy is to have your cake and eat it. The difficulty was we had to make a choice. £35million is an awful lot to spend on a one off when you could put that money in to long term projects. What people really want is safer cycling lanes.’

It’s certainly true that people want safe cycle lanes – something which Boris himself has been pretty reluctant to invest in until recently – but if it was such a ‘no-brainer’ why on earth wasn’t this realised at an earlier stage? What is the point of going through the whole charade of bidding for such a prestigious event when the mayor can so glibly withdraw at the last minute? 

TfL claim that the process didn't cost a penny as it was all done internally; perhaps true, but all the work done on the bid by members of staff has been completely wasted. Whatever else has gone on, there has been a massive failure of process at TfL and within the mayor’s office.

And we must look at this claim that it wouldn’t have proved to be value for money. Spending £35m on anything is certainly a hefty bill but Yorkshire, which hosted the opening stage last year, estimates it has generated £150m worth of wider benefits. There, the event attracted 4.8m spectators; it is hard to imagine it wouldn’t have attracted an even bigger crowd if the peloton had been wheeling their way through London's highways and byways next year.

In TfL’s defence, a spending review is looming and it does face cuts but Boris isn’t exactly averse to wasting money. Christian Wolmar, the transport journalist who recently tried to become Labour’s prospective candidate at the next mayoral election, put together a good little article looking at the money wasted by Boris during his tenure.

Amongst the highlights were:

£300million spent on the New Bus for London, a poorly conceived, terribly designed monster that will lumber around our streets for the next few years. Boris has also spent £10m pursuing his fantasy of an estuary airport, something which was never likely to happen in the first place

£24m on a cable car across the Thames that promised to be a great way for commuters to travel but in fact carries precisely zero commuters. Boris pledged no public money to this, but of course TfL has contributed.

Boris pursued another vanity project to rebuild the Crystal Palace; it involved handing much of a public park over to a Chinese business, apparently ignoring the conventional tendering process and hoping locals would simply be wowed. Unsurprisingly, Bromley Council ultimately walked away after fruitless talks – wasting £150,000 in the process – and Crystal Palace Park was in the sadly all too familiar position of missing out of millions of pounds from the Heritage Lottery Funding as a consequence of Boris’ misadventure.

TfL has also pledged £30m to build the Thames Garden Bridge (along with another £30m from the government) despite promises, again, that public money would not be used. Again, the whole project appears not to have gone through proper tendering processes.

In comparison to the above, therefore, spending £35m, with the likelihood of greater, and wider, benefits down the line, doesn’t seem such a bad idea.

But what makes the decision all the more inexplicable is that one of Boris’ genuine achievements as mayor has been his ability to sell London around the world. Yet this tangible success – one which has the capacity to provide a legacy for the future – has been foolishly set back by cancelling the event in such a last minute, casual fashion.

It is clear that the Tour de France owners, Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO), are angry at the withdrawal – the bidding process would undoubtedly have cost them time, money and effort – and they are hardly likely to look at future bids from London, or elsewhere in the UK, with much sympathy. And other sporting organisations too will look at London with sceptical eyes, wondering whether it’s worth dealing with the city if there is a chance it might pull out at the last minute.

Boris’ legacy has been looking flimsy for some time but a future major will not thank him for this genuine damage to London’s reputation as a city which can stage major international events with competence, confidence, success and flair.

Until Syria is rebuilt, what choice is left?

The ultimate goal, as Europe deals with the migration crisis that is suddenly sweeping the continent, must be to restore peace in Syria and help make it a country to which people feel safe enough to return.

Tragically, this country, which was so recently functional, civilised and well developed – albeit one ruled by an hereditary dictator – has disintegrated. Both ISIL and President Bashar Al-Assad are unleashing unspeakable terrors upon the people, four million of whom have fled the country and a further 10million are displaced within its borders.

And, as these refugees flee, into Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and beyond, they join other refugees fleeing other places of conflict in Libya, Eritrea and South Sudan, as well as economic migrants; a massive movement of people mostly desperate for, as Stella Creasy said in the emergency debate yesterday, ‘the chance to stay alive’.

This is the situation that David Cameron and Europe face. While Angela Merkel and others have started welcoming refugees for humanitarian and other more prosaic reasons, it’s hard not to conclude that the prime minister’s response has been directed by a contradictory mess of politics.

It can only be a good thing that Cameron’s government wants to take in 20,000 vulnerable people who have fled to refugee camps from Syria by 2020, but at 4,000 a year this is a pitifully small number, especially compared with Germany which is contemplating 800,000 migrants this year and a further 500,000 in subsequent years. Germany welcomed 18,000 refugees last weekend alone.

There seems little doubt that the prime minister and his government were caught flat-footed by the outpouring of anger and grief triggered by the decision of several newspapers – including my own – to publish the photograph of the dead Aylan Kurdi on their front pages; yet, hopes that the 20,000 pledge would be enough to see off his critics already seem misplaced. And Cameron’s stance does nothing to deal with the situation facing Europe now.

In many ways, the prime minister is in an unenviable position. On the one hand, he doesn’t want to be seen to be doing anything which might smack of co-operation with our European partners in case it provides any ammunition for those in his own party who want to leave the European Union - many of whom are also prominent campaigners against high immigration. On the other, Mr Cameron will be only too well aware that his EU partners are urging Britain to do more to alleviate the refugee disaster within Europe’s borders and he must fear that his determination to exclude this country from any shared willingness to offer a safe harbour to refugees threatens the progress of any future EU negotiations.

But, as the circumstances change, our response must change. Cameron is right when he says a solution cannot simply be achieved by taking in more refugees. And he is clearly aware that any solution has to be multi-faceted. 

The prime minister may feel sore about his failure in the last parliament to command support for attacking Assad after he used chemical weapons in the conflict in Syria. But, without parliamentary approval, we now learn that action has been taken in Syria anyway, with a fatal drone strike on British terrorists there. International co-operation is essential and enlarged military action of one sort or another – against both Assad and ISIL – now seems increasingly inevitable.

But simultaneously, Cameron might be better to try and rise above the messy political complexities, take a lead in parliament, and respond to the imperative need for human kindness closer to home now.

Those who argue against allowing more refugees into the country, have a favourite question to which they often return, 'well, how many should we take?’ It is an impossible question to answer. The British government has done much to support refugees in the Middle East, spending more there than any other European country. But the crisis has developed and moved. Ignoring the situation in Europe is not part of a solution.

Britain cannot keep on claiming to be an honourable place of refuge on account of the Huguenots who flocked here in the 16th and 17th centuries . It cannot even do that on account of the Kenyan Asians who arrived here from the late 1960s. As Robert Peston has noted, Germany’s motivation to taking so many migrants is not wholly humanitarian; their population is ageing and falling, a boost in younger workers is just what Germany needs.

Similarly, we need to take heart from the very significant benefits this country has accrued from our own, historic refugee influxes and recognise that being properly generous, now, could bring its own reward in the future. But ultimately, the demand to act, to work with our European counterparts to tackle this wretched situation on our doorstep, is a simple one; the humanitarian need is here and now.

Paying 0.003 pence a day too much towards failed asylum seekers

Failed asylum seekers have cost the country a whopping £73million in the last year; that means every person has paid the equivalent of about £1.14 a year to support these illegal spongers. Across the year, that’s just over a pocket bursting 0.003 pence a day for each of us.

The £73m figure has been released by the Home Office - and it is the first time it has been released -  to coincide with the government’s ‘consultation’ on its plans to axe benefits for those who remain in the country after their application to remain has been refused.

In the last year, this support was provided to just over 15,000 asylum seekers, and their dependents, who had their application refused, up from about 9,000 the year before.

Of that sum, £28million goes towards about 4,900 failed asylum seekers who 'would otherwise be destitute' and if they meet certain other conditions, such as a medical reason for not being able to travel.

A further £45million supported about 2,900 families who, under the current legislation, continue to receive help if they have a dependent child.

Currently, a migrant can receive a £36 weekly allowance, as well as accommodation, the moment they claim asylum in the UK and it continues for thousands after an application has failed.

Apparently, according to the government, this level of generosity is 'wrong in principle and sends entirely the wrong message to those migrants who do not require our protection but who may seek to come to or remain in the UK in an attempt to benefit from the support arrangements we have put in place for those who need our protection'.

Instead, the government wants to stop support for those who don't leave Britain after their claim is rejected, unless there is a 'genuine obstacle' preventing them from returning to their home country. Safeguards will remain for children, the government insists, but for families their benefits would cease after a grace period of 28 days.

The government believes the current system 'creates an incentive to remain in the UK unlawfully'.

As the migrant crisis continues, the government is doing all it can not to mention the word refugee; it appears to hope that no one will cotton on to the fact that many of those trying to cross the Mediterranean and the Channel, are fleeing war torn places like Syria, Libya, Eritrea, Somalia, Afghanistan and may well have genuine reasons for seeking refuge. Instead, the implication is that many of these might be making such a perilous journey for this egregious £36 a week. 

Obviously, it is right that those who fail to secure asylum return to their point of origin, if possible, but for the sake of 0.003p each a day, is it really a mark of a humane society to deny pitiful amounts of support for families and those threatened with destitution?

And, if failed asylum seekers are not deported - which would not be an enormous surprise judging from the country's long experience of our inept border services - how would they be supported? 

This effort to make 'savings' might not only be counterproductive and unpleasant, it is yet another example of the government fiddling and grasping for easy headlines rather than trying to take effective action.