Now migrants are being moved into Crowborough, who is the government really serving?

The result is the situation in Crowborough, as an expectation appears to remain that residents will have to absorb the pressure of 540 male migrants being housed in the town’s military barracks, despite months of protests.

Events in the town reflect a deeper phenomenon developing across Britain: a clash between international obligations to improve the lives of a global population and the expectations that small communities alter their own lives to deal with the pressures that this brings.

The problem for Labour is that this creates an ideological contradiction, as its desire to fulfil commitments to both national and internationalist principles leave it caught between two often conflicting outcomes. On one hand, Labour claims to exist to improve the lives of working people by creating economic stability and a fairer society. On the other, it maintains a commitment to help resolve global issues through internationalist policies.

In the small East Sussex town, local residents have spent months arguing that the cohesion of their community will be put at risk by the arrival of a significant number of males from different cultures. But the Government appears to be pushing ahead regardless. For locals, this conveys a feeling that their concerns have been superseded by a determination to solve a global problem.

It’s a conundrum that an article in the Labour member-funded Progress Magazine, handed out at the party’s conference in September, hinted at when asking: “How do we address voters’ legitimate concerns while staying true to our values of tolerance, fairness and internationalism?”

In Crowborough, this desire for balance between both ideals doesn’t appear to have been found. As by placing a global problem into their community, residents feel their lives have been negatively affected. They report increased anxiety, unwanted tension being created and according to some, even concerns about falling house prices. Yet the Government argues that the town should be used to meet its international obligations to offer accommodation to anyone claiming asylum and to deliver on a pledge to end hotel usage.

The question is then: does this align with Labour’s promise to improve the lives of working people? Living with sudden anxiety and seeing a quiet town change overnight doesn’t feel like progress to those experiencing it.

While it may be a virtuous notion that Britain can help everyone who reaches its shores, maintaining such a belief places the country’s commitments within an open-ended framework, and thus potentially unmanageable expectations. 41,472 people arrived on small boats into Britain in 2025 alone, a number that hasn't showed real signs of slowing.

Policies that derive from this mentality are no longer abstract; they are directly affecting the lives of ordinary people who already face economic and social challenges. The result of such an open-ended framework is anxiety amongst local communities. Speaking to the BBC in November, an unnamed Crowborough resident said: “It’s the unknown. They could be good people, they could be bad people. I have no idea.”

Anxiety can be defined as unease about something with an uncertain outcome. If 540 new arrivals appear in your town overnight, an array of uncertainty towards possible outcomes is a logical conclusion.

These anxieties are reinforced by reports of crimes committed by some migrants who arrived via small boats. There have been several convictions involving sexual assault in towns across the UK, with Epping and Leamington Spa being two communities affected. This isn’t to state that all arrivals pose a risk. However, when outcomes are unknown, and trends based on real-life events begin to emerge, risk is logically taken into account.

By dispersing large numbers into small towns, the Government is expecting them to take on the risk of such unknown circumstances. If outcomes are positive, it benefits the Government’s ability to say they are delivering on their obligations. Yet, if problems arise, it is often the local community that bears the cost.

This dynamic feeds into a wider sense of a loss of control, not just in Crowborough, but also in other communities watching on. If borders aren’t being respected, numbers of arrivals continue to rise and small communities are expected to directly alter their lives to deal with the problems they may bring, that loss of control begins to feel like an unrelenting wave.

The problem for Labour is that in their continued attempts to satisfy their international commitments, the question of to whom their primary interests lie increases. Even if hotel use is replaced, the core problem this clash between the expectation of regular people to alter their lives to help it solve such global problems won’t cease to exist.

But this sentiment is shared by many, especially those who want to make it easier for that undefined number of the world’s population to claim asylum in Britain. When discussing Crowborough in December 2025 with LBC’s Tom Swarbrick, Steve Valdez-Symonds, Refugee and Migrant Rights Programme Director at Amnesty International UK, said the UK should “get back to accommodating in the community, in housing.” But when asked who would pay for the housing, Valdez-Symonds stated: “Ultimately, the taxpayer.”

This is not to criticise charitable intentions. But it highlights an assumption that it is the public who should absorb the pressure of meeting obligations to an undefined number of people. On this occasion, the expectation is to provide financial assistance. In a country where a growing proportion of taxpayers are already facing financial difficulty, this assumption becomes politically and socially fraught. A recent poll by 38 Degrees and Survation found that in 92% of constituencies, more people felt worse off than the previous year. Against that backdrop, asking the public to fund free accommodation for an undefined number of arrivals raises inevitable questions of fairness.

Going by this logic, you would expect a Labour Government to understand that this may create political and societal friction. However, it was recently reported that the Home Office has allocated £100 million to a pilot scheme encouraging councils to build or renovate properties specifically for asylum seekers. This housing may help fulfil their international obligations, but what is the message sent to existing residents who feel their own economic conditions are worsening?

Would it seem fair? Or might it give the impression that Westminster’s priorities are focused elsewhere?

The problem for the party is that Reform UK is not confined to balancing such commitments. By proposing clearer limits on Britain’s international obligations, it may appeal to voters seeking certainty and reassurance. If anxiety stems from the unknown being placed into local communities, then policies that define boundaries to undefined international commitments may resonate with those looking for stability and security.

As for Labour, the events unfolding in Crowborough suggest that it has yet to find a solution to maintain such dual-commitments.

________________

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk