Andy Burnham leaves 10 Downing Street in central London (Image: AFP via Getty Images)

It may be the most polite revolution ever. The people of Piddington, a picturesque village in Oxfordshire, have voted to leave the United Kingdom, in protest at plans to house 1,250 asylum seekers next door. Andy Burnham plans simply to ignore them.

But he does so at his peril. Because anger at the placement of asylum seekers is only going to grow until the Government grasps the nettle and ends the chaos in our immigration system. It appears 311 villagers voted in the referendum, with 285 supporting independence. That means pretty much everyone took part, as the 2021 census recorded the parish’s population as 358.

You can perhaps understand why the idea of accommodating 1,250 asylum seekers nearby caused some alarm.

It would be a big change, no matter who the new residents were.

And the Home Office has made it clear that it believes some, at least, of the overseas arrivals have pretty unpleasant attitudes towards women and children, after it published leaflets instructing them not to commit horrific crimes.

But, of course, Piddington can’t really separate itself from the UK. And the Government has stated bluntly that it will ignore the village’s concerns.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, a member of Andy Burnham’s cabinet, said the Government would “make sure that all communities are doing their bit in order to take people, many of whom will be fleeing persecution, will need a safe haven in Britain”.

And she made it crystal clear that what Labour considers wealthy areas – such as nice Oxfordshire villages – would need to accept migrants.

Ms Nandy told Sky News: “We don’t think it’s acceptable for all of the burden of shouldering not just asylum accommodation, but also many other forms of temporary accommodation to fall on poorer communities.”

Oxfordshire Village Holds ‘Independence Referendum’ Over Plans To House Asylum-Seekers nearby (Image: Getty)

The trouble is that not every protest will be so polite.

The Piddington protest is reminiscent of the charming Ealing comedy Passport to Pimlico, released in 1949.

We’ve seen other scenes that are far less charming. There have been riots and, more recently, balaclava-clad gangs on the streets near ports.

This is not acceptable. Concern about the state of our immigration system does not justify violence or intimidation. Personally, I’m very glad to see politicians promising to ban face coverings such as balaclavas in public.

The fact is that our society is going to become more angry and more divided for as long as immigration is broken.

It makes no sense to allow people to enter our country unlawfully – deliberately evading immigration controls by taking a small boat across the Channel – and then to give them food and housing, rather than removing them.

Andy Burnham will find that voters are in no mood to be lectured by him or his Cabinet colleagues.

He will pay a heavy price at the next election for Labour’s refusal to fix our broken immigration system.

Andy Burnham Is Treating Us With Contempt Over Immigration Chaos – He’ll Pay a Huge Price

Andy Burnham’s approach to immigration is facing renewed scrutiny as the Prime Minister attempts to balance demands for tighter controls with Labour’s commitments on asylum, legal migration and humanitarian protection.

Critics have accused Burnham of failing to respond adequately to concerns in communities affected by asylum accommodation and migration. Supporters of his approach, however, point to his backing for tougher asylum rules and his repeated argument that immigration levels need to fall.

The political argument is therefore less straightforward than the language of “immigration chaos” suggests.

Since entering Downing Street, Burnham has inherited an immigration system already under intense pressure, while attempting to establish his own position on one of the issues that has become increasingly important to voters.

Burnham has already backed tougher asylum measures

One of the clearest indications of Burnham’s position came before he became Prime Minister.

In July, he voted in favour of the government’s immigration and asylum legislation, despite opposition from 14 Labour MPs.

The legislation sought to tighten aspects of the asylum appeals system while also expanding the government’s proposed framework for safe and legal routes into Britain.

The legislation has been controversial within Labour.

Some MPs have argued that tougher measures risk undermining Britain’s obligations towards refugees, while ministers have maintained that the asylum system needs fundamental reform.

Burnham’s vote placed him on the side of the government’s proposed restrictions.

That is significant because it shows that his immigration policy cannot simply be characterised as an open-border position.

He has also said immigration must fall

During his campaign to return to Parliament, Burnham repeatedly addressed concerns about migration.

ITV reported that he told voters that net migration needed to fall further, while also acknowledging that communities wanted a fairer immigration system.

He criticised the growth of what he described as “HMO Britain”, referring to the use of houses in multiple occupation to accommodate asylum seekers.

Burnham argued that communities could support refugees while still objecting to arrangements they considered unfair or poorly managed.

That distinction has become central to the debate around his premiership.

The political challenge is not simply whether Britain should accept refugees. It is also about where asylum seekers are accommodated, how local authorities are consulted, how long people remain in the system and who pays for the associated costs.

The numbers have changed, but pressure remains

Immigration became one of the most politically sensitive issues during the final period of the previous government.

According to figures cited by ITV, UK net migration fell to 171,000 in the year to December 2025, its lowest level since 2012 outside the pandemic period.

The same report said the number of people claiming asylum fell by 12% between April 2025 and March 2026.

Those figures complicate the argument that the government is presiding over an ever-rising immigration total.

But lower national figures do not necessarily mean that individual communities experience less pressure.

The concentration of asylum accommodation in particular towns and cities can create a very different local experience from the national statistics.

This is one reason immigration remains politically difficult for Burnham.

Local concerns are increasingly part of the argument

Burnham spent almost a decade as mayor of Greater Manchester before becoming an MP and then Prime Minister.

His political identity has therefore been closely associated with regional government and local decision-making.

That makes questions about asylum accommodation particularly sensitive.

The government has faced criticism from councils and community groups in areas where hotels, former military sites and other properties have been considered or used for asylum accommodation.

Critics argue that residents should have greater influence over decisions affecting their communities.

Burnham’s wider programme is based on transferring power away from Westminster.

His proposed “No 10 North”, based in Manchester, is intended to place more central-government activity outside London and support a broader programme of devolution.

That creates an obvious political question: if Burnham wants more decisions to be made closer to communities, should the same principle apply to immigration accommodation?

Reform UK has already used precisely this argument, calling for local communities to have greater power over decisions about asylum housing.

The government says the system needs both control and legal routes

Burnham’s government is attempting to combine two objectives that can sometimes pull in different directions.

The first is reducing irregular migration, particularly small-boat crossings.

The second is expanding controlled routes for people who qualify to come to Britain legally.

The asylum reforms backed by Burnham are designed around that combination.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has argued that the system needs to become more controlled, while also creating alternatives to dangerous journeys across the Channel.

The reforms have included proposals to extend the period before some migrants can obtain indefinite leave to remain from five years to ten years, alongside measures affecting asylum support.

These measures have generated criticism from different parts of the political spectrum.

Some Labour MPs believe the reforms go too far.

Conservative and Reform politicians have generally argued that the government should go considerably further.

That leaves Burnham trying to occupy a difficult middle ground.

His political problem is not confined to Reform

The pressure on Burnham does not come solely from Reform UK.

Labour itself contains sharply different views about immigration.

Some MPs want stronger restrictions because they believe voters have lost confidence in the system.

Others worry that increasingly restrictive policies could damage Labour’s traditional commitment to refugee protection and international obligations.

Burnham’s decision to support Mahmood’s legislation suggests that he is prepared to accept political disagreement within Labour in pursuit of tighter immigration controls.

Earlier in the year, his allies also indicated that he supported Mahmood’s plans to restrict both legal and illegal migration.

At the same time, Burnham has had to modify or retreat from some previous positions.

In May, for example, reports said he had stepped back from earlier calls to end restrictions preventing some migrants from accessing public funds.

The shift illustrates how his approach has evolved as immigration has become a central political issue.

The “contempt” accusation is a political judgment

Claims that Burnham is treating voters with “contempt” should be understood as political criticism rather than an established fact.

There is evidence that many voters regard immigration as an important issue.

A recent Guardian assessment of Burnham’s first months as Prime Minister said voters in his former constituency and similar working-class areas continue to raise immigration control, crime, living costs and perceptions of fair government as important concerns.

But there is no single view among voters.

The same debate includes support for refugee protection, community sponsorship and safe routes.

Consequently, Burnham faces competing demands rather than one universally agreed public position.

What could determine his political fortunes?

Immigration is likely to remain one of the issues against which Burnham’s government is judged.

Several indicators will matter.

The first is whether small-boat crossings decline substantially and sustainably.

The second is whether asylum decisions become faster, reducing the need for long-term hotel and other accommodation.

The third is whether the government can increase removals of people who have no legal right to remain while maintaining lawful safeguards for refugees and people with protection claims.

The fourth is whether local communities believe they are being properly consulted about accommodation.

Finally, the government will have to demonstrate that its immigration policies are compatible with the legal obligations Britain has accepted.

These are measurable questions.