UK public opinion is changing. There is a tangible sense of frustration and even animosity this summer, with empathy and understanding seemingly on the decline.

There have been protests outside hotels where asylum seekers are housed, alongside a general propensity to blame them, and immigration as a whole, for pretty much every issue the UK faces.

This is not to say the UK does not face problems. Public spending is increasing, the Chancellor is making commitments without identifying the source of expenditure and there are the concurrent crises of homelessness and mental health decline.

People are extremely unhappy with the Starmer government, only a year after it won the biggest landslide election since 1997. But even so, there seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding, or dare I say it, caring, for the people at the heart of these issues.

At FPH, we have made our stance clear on the need for more social housing and better care and opportunity for people sleeping rough on the streets.

Change doesn't happen overnight, but there is no doubt that more support and better strategic decisions are needed to help stem the tide of rough sleeping and declining mental health, particularly among young males.

Now it is okay to believe that, and also not blame people fleeing wars and humanitarian crises for seeking asylum in the UK. With social media kickstarting fires and public figures stoking them, many people in the UK are absolutely sacrificing their empathetic nature and blaming asylum seekers for every issue in Britain.

Here is the quiet part that nobody wants to say out loud: Germany, France and Spain all had more people claim asylum in their respective countries in 2024, than the UK did.

Do people really think asylum seekers are getting on dingy boats to Dover, with babies in their arms, facing the possibility of drowning because they want to enjoy a 99 on Brighton beach? Or are they doing it to flee the prospect of death? Are they doing it to provide their children with the possibility to live a good life? Would most parents in the UK not do the same if they weren’t lucky enough to be born on these shores?

The Prime Minister’s mixed messaging on this problem will not help proceedings. Facing questions from the Liaison Committee, Sir Keir initially indicated that there were “lots of housing” options to support asylum seekers and homeless people, and then followed it up by emphasising the need for more housing across the board.

After The PM delivered his typical spiel of emphasising the state of the country when his party took over, he was asked what extra housing he was planning to take over to house homeless families by Dame Meg Hillier.

The PM replied: “Oh, there is lots of housing and many local authorities that can be used, and we’re identifying where it can be used.”

When asked for specific examples, Sir Keir said he would write to the committee to provide them.

Having written about the struggles local authorities have been facing to combat homelessness for a lengthy period of time, this message doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

There have been improvements in certain areas, for example Nottingham City Council, which announced last week that it is one of 20 councils chosen to take part in the Government’s Emergency Accommodation Reduction Pilot.

Positive pilot schemes and announcements are all well and good, but they are not indicative of the entire country. If they were, the UK wouldn’t be in the midst of a homelessness crisis.

Before his meeting before the Liaison Committee, the PM had been clear in his pledges for increasing social accommodation and housing across the board. It was a key manifesto pledge and something that charities like FPH, Crisis and others received well.

But this has been followed by Sir Keir saying there are lots of options at the disposal of local authorities. Later in the meeting, the PM returned back to the party line used before the election victory.

He said “I think I’d also emphasise something I touched on last time, which is, in the end, with housing, we need to build and make available more housing across the board. There simply isn’t enough and that means the price goes up.”

So which one is it? Are there plenty of options or not enough housing? While the PM is clearly indicating there are options outside of traditional houses to help rough sleepers and asylum seekers, it seems far-fetched to believe there are lots of options for councils but a fundamental lack of housing nationwide.

This blog does not in any way shape or form support the rhetoric of politicians like Starmer, Tice and Jenrick, but the PM’s mixed messaging is only going to lead other people to adopt the lazy attitudes put forward by those men.

The need to blame asylum seekers for all of the problems in the UK is lazy, self-serving and shameful. The PM needs to be clearer on the issue of housing and be prepared for questions on it. Why did he not have examples of the options ready for the committee?

This blog has previously expressed support for a lot of the decisions and ideas of the Starmer government, but it goes without saying that the country is not happy with him or his party. Polling shows a significant increase in support for Reform and a decrease in support for Labour.

Inconsistent statements and continuously blaming the Tories for their time in power is not going to help that. It will continue to breed resentment and hatred, and people will continue to vilify people fleeing wars for wanting a better life.