Green Deputy Blocks Asylum Site in Her Backyard

Rachel Millward, deputy leader of the Green Party, co-signed a letter objecting to the placement of 600 asylum seekers at Crowborough Army Camp, located in her affluent East Sussex constituency where average home prices exceed £500,000. This stance directly contradicts her public declarations of support for refugees, including plans to display international flags with the message “refugees welcome here.” The discrepancy exposes a rift between national political posturing and local self-interest.

Millward’s letter to Home Office Minister Mike Tapp outlines specific risks. It cites the challenges of housing 600 men without work rights on a single site, including strains on staffing, police resources, and public services already under pressure. The document also criticizes the government’s secretive process, which leaked to the media and fueled community tensions, including threats to council leaders.

These concerns echo broader local opposition. Conservative MP Nus Ghani for Wealden has decried the lack of consultation, while residents like Simon Brown express fear over the camp’s proximity to homes. Millward, a Wealden District Councillor for Hartfield, joined this resistance despite her party’s pro-immigration platform.

Yet Millward’s earlier rhetoric paints a different picture. In a video outside the camp, she advocated for asylum seekers’ right to work, arguing it would enable contributions through skills and taxes for safer integration. She has likened anti-immigrant sentiments to 1930s Nazi fears, vowing to tell future generations of hanging welcoming flags.

This contrast highlights a pattern in progressive politics. Leaders champion open borders nationally but resist influxes in their own communities, a phenomenon known as NIMBYism—not in my backyard. Millward resides in a £1.6 million property, underscoring how affluent areas often shield themselves from policy consequences.

The Green Party’s stance amplifies the inconsistency. Co-leader Zack Polanski blames societal issues on the “greed of the super-rich,” not migrants, and labels critics like Nigel Farage as fascists. Yet the party’s local actions align with conservative objections, revealing how ideological purity fractures under practical pressures.

Government policy fuels this tension. Labour’s plan shifts asylum seekers from expensive hotels to military bases like Crowborough to cut costs, a measure inherited from prior administrations’ backlog of over 100,000 cases. No party has resolved the underlying issues: indefinite detention without work rights, which Millward herself flags as a barrier to integration.

Such policies strain local resources across the UK. East Sussex councils already face stretched services; adding 600 residents without employment amplifies demands on housing, healthcare, and policing. Similar objections have arisen in sites from Dorset to Scotland, regardless of ruling party.

Migration Policy’s Enduring Flaws

Britain’s asylum system has stagnated for decades. Processing times average two years, far longer than the 1999 target of six months, trapping claimants in limbo and inflating hotel bills to £8 million daily. Governments of all stripes—Labour, Conservative, Coalition—have expanded backlogs without addressing root causes like safe routes or work permissions.

This inertia benefits no one equitably. Asylum seekers endure isolation, locals bear unconsulted burdens, and taxpayers foot the bill. Political figures like Millward navigate this by signaling virtue nationally while protecting local status quo, eroding trust in all sides.

Critics from Reform UK’s George Madgwick to Conservative Katie Lam branded Millward’s position hypocritical, a charge that sticks across the spectrum. Tories opposed similar sites under their rule; Labour now faces the same backlash it once criticized. The cycle persists because no administration prioritizes systemic reform over short-term optics.

Ordinary citizens pay the price. In areas like Crowborough, fears of service overload translate to higher council taxes and divided communities. Nationally, unresolved migration fuels polarization, with polls showing 60% of Britons viewing it as a top concern, yet solutions remain elusive.

The episode reveals deeper institutional decay. Elected officials pledge bold ideals but default to parochial defenses when stakes hit home. This gap between rhetoric and reality spans parties and eras, widening social fractures without accountability.

Britain’s political class operates in insulated bubbles, where national advocacy clashes with local preservation. Millward’s objection, like countless others, perpetuates a broken system that warehouses people while communities splinter. The decline lies not in any single hypocrisy, but in the persistent failure to align words with workable policy, leaving citizens to navigate the fallout alone.