Andy Burnham has ignited a fresh political storm after saying Britain’s wealthier areas should do more to house asylum seekers, arguing that the burden cannot continue to fall disproportionately on poorer communities.

The intervention has immediately become one of the most contentious moments of his approach to migration, with critics accusing the Prime Minister of focusing on how to distribute the consequences of the asylum system rather than confronting the reasons why the system is under such intense pressure in the first place.

Burnham’s argument is straightforward: communities across the country should “play their part”, and asylum accommodation should not be concentrated overwhelmingly in deprived areas. The comments came as anger continues to build over plans to accommodate large numbers of asylum seekers at sites in rural and relatively affluent parts of England.

But for opponents, the message sounds very different.

They see it as another example of a government asking ordinary taxpayers and local communities to absorb the consequences of a migration system that they believe has been allowed to become unmanageable.

A NEW FLASHPOINT IN THE MIGRATION DEBATE

The timing could hardly be more explosive.

Britain is facing continued political pressure over Channel crossings, asylum accommodation and the cost of processing claims. At the same time, the government is attempting to reduce its reliance on expensive asylum hotels and move people into alternative accommodation.

That strategy has already generated fierce opposition in some communities.

In Piddington, Oxfordshire, a village of around 350 residents staged a symbolic vote to “leave” the United Kingdom in protest against plans connected with accommodating up to 1,250 asylum seekers nearby. Residents have argued that the scale of the proposed accommodation is completely disproportionate to the size of the community.

Against that backdrop, Burnham’s call for wealthier communities to share the burden has landed like a political grenade.

Supporters can argue that national problems require national responsibility. Critics, however, are asking a much more uncomfortable question:

Where does “fair distribution” end, and where does the government’s responsibility to control the system begin?

“PLAY THEIR PART” — BUT WHO DECIDES?

Burnham’s central argument is that Britain cannot have a situation in which asylum seekers are overwhelmingly accommodated in the poorest parts of the country.

There is evidence behind that concern. Recent reporting has highlighted how asylum accommodation is concentrated in a number of deprived communities, while some more affluent local authorities have comparatively few or no taxpayer-funded asylum seekers.

From that perspective, Burnham’s proposal can be presented as an attempt to correct an imbalance.

Yet the political backlash comes from the fear that “fairer distribution” could become a mechanism for imposing accommodation on communities that have not agreed to it.

That concern is particularly acute where the numbers involved are large.

A small village asked to accommodate hundreds or more than a thousand people faces very different pressures from a major city with extensive transport networks, hospitals, schools, housing stock and public services.

The question is therefore not simply whether wealthy areas should “do their bit”.