Refugee charities condemn the use of such bases as “inhumane,” while the right has seized on them as a poison forced on undeserving countryside communities. 

Though unlikely, ministers could still back away from Piddington, given that the village’s referendum vote fell within the consultation period during which the government must consider local objections to the proposals. But Labour MPs in the North of England, whose constituencies have long been used for asylum accommodation, are urging the government to “hold firm.”

“Yes, it could be a flashpoint. But then, so have asylum hotels been,” one of them, granted anonymity to speak candidly, told POLITICO. “So there is no perfect solution. But from a security and efficiency perspective, for both asylum seekers and settled communities, it makes sense I think to use former bases.”

Another pointed out that former mining villages in their constituency have long had asylum seekers “dumped” into their communities, helping drive up the Reform UK vote. “Now people in a lovely little village near the Cotswolds are whinging,” this MP continued. “There’s a reason why ex-military camps are happening, and it’s because communities are pissed off about hotels and HMOs — so I’m not terribly impressed.”

Even one opposition frontbencher who’s taken a keen interest in the Oxfordshire village predicted the government will have to “make an example of Piddington” — or run the risk of other MoD-adjacent villages following suit.

Plus, there’s the raw political reality that the military sites tend to be in leafier, Conservative or Liberal Democrat-voting areas, rather than the more urban sites held by Labour.