Green Party aiming to "do a UKIP"

[Mister M]

Higher population = more polution and use of resources. Greens should be in favour of reducing the population, not increasing it.

 

I guess it's how you suggest reducing the population and which priorities are more important. Controlling the population by central diktat may make sense from an enviromental point of view but would be iniquitous and contrary to this country's rights and freedoms

There are lots of freedoms that as citizens we enjoy that use up the planet's natural resources, but I suspect if they were curtailed there would be an outcry.

Politics is the art of the possible.

[Happ Hazzard]

Stopping mass immigration isn't possible?

[Mister M]

Stopping mass immigration isn't possible?

 

Would you want to stop emigration?

 

The UK doesn't exist in a vacuum, enviromentalism as suggested by the Green Party is about internationalism more than nationalism. And if I've understood it correctly it's also about how we live, as well as traditional green issues.

[I1L2T3]

They aren't opposed to mass immigration!

 

Labour, the Tories or the LibDems are not against it though. Even UKIP support immigration.

 

But anyway back to the Greens, they are not anti-migration but they do have a policy about discouraging it where possible by helping countries build sustainable economies. It should be explained better by them - they have these policies but seem scared to join the dots and spell it out to the electorate in clear terms. It does take a bit of effort to wade through the policy documents and join it all together.

[angos]

Where does it say anywhere that they want to increase the population?

 

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mg

The Green Party's long-term global vision is of an international economic order where the relationship between regions is non-exploitative, each region is as self-reliant and economically self- sufficient as practicable and the quality of life (social, political, environmental, cultural and economic) is such that there is less urge to migrate. Logically, in order to move away from the current level of immigration controls, we must create a fairer world.

 

Richer regions and communities do not have the right to use migration controls to protect their privileges from others in the long term.

 

These two policies appear to say that our currant level of immigration will not be changed by the Greens, which would imply they are happy for the population to increase.

 

Their polarities on immigration and the UK environment appear to contradict each other. They need to focus more on the UK and less on the world if they hope to get support in the UK.

 

The inadequate and inequitable provision of housing in this country today is the result of inequalities in access to resources, particularly land, the inability of the free market to meet diverse housing needs and a lack of investment in public housing spanning over two decades. To eradicate these inequalities it is essential to bring housing policies under local participatory democratic control.

 

This policy appears to suggest building more house so it must follow that they think the UK's population expansion is sustainable.

 

 

 

---------- Post added 14-09-2013 at 07:42 ----------

 

Would you want to stop emigration?

 

The UK doesn't exist in a vacuum, enviromentalism as suggested by the Green Party is about internationalism more than nationalism. And if I've understood it correctly it's also about how we live, as well as traditional green issues.

 

Stopping immigration doesn't equate to stopping emigration, many countries would still welcome the well educated British even if we didn't reciprocate.

 

Also very few British people emigrate to the countries from which most of the immigrants arrive, we could simply have a reciprocal arrangement on a country by country basis.

 

If 1000 British move to the US to work then 1000 Americans can come here to work, if we don't allow immigration from Romania they wouldn't be obliged to accept immigrants from the UK, but my guess is they would still welcome well educated British people to help their economy move forward.

[Halibut]

 

 

 

Also very few British people emigrate to the countries from which most of the immigrants arrive, we could simply have a reciprocal arrangement on a country by country basis.

 

If 1000 British move to the US to work then 1000 Americans can come here to work, if we don't allow immigration from Romania they wouldn't be obliged to accept immigrants from the UK, but my guess is they would still welcome well educated British people to help their economy move forward.

 

What a totally absurd suggestion.

[Happ Hazzard]

That's how it always used to work. When American bands toured here a British band had to tour the US.

[Halibut]

That's how it always used to work. When American bands toured here a British band had to tour the US.

 

Evidence please.

[I1L2T3]

These two policies appear to say that our currant level of immigration will not be changed by the Greens, which would imply they are happy for the population to increase.

 

Their polarities on immigration and the UK environment appear to contradict each other. They need to focus more on the UK and less on the world if they hope to get support in the UK.

 

 

 

This policy appears to suggest building more house so it must follow that they think the UK's population expansion is sustainable.

 

 

 

---------- Post added 14-09-2013 at 07:42 ----------

 

 

Stopping immigration doesn't equate to stopping emigration, many countries would still welcome the well educated British even if we didn't reciprocate.

 

Also very few British people emigrate to the countries from which most of the immigrants arrive, we could simply have a reciprocal arrangement on a country by country basis.

 

If 1000 British move to the US to work then 1000 Americans can come here to work, if we don't allow immigration from Romania they wouldn't be obliged to accept immigrants from the UK, but my guess is they would still welcome well educated British people to help their economy move forward.

 

Er no, you're putting two and two together and getting five. They are saying that people should be discouraged from economic migration by better opportunities at home. They are also saying that some migration is desirable, which it obviously is. Entirely reasonable policy.

 

Building of more houses is required anyway, even if the population stopped increasing. We have a clear crisis in housing affordability and provision.

 

Having said that I totally agree that their policies need to be clearer and better joined up.

[Happ Hazzard]

---------- Post added 14-09-2013 at 11:53 ----------

 

[/color]

Evidence please.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=18&ved=0CFgQFjAHOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iaspmjournal.net%2Findex.php%2FIASPM_Journal%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F335%2F558&ei=7j40UsnkEoSX1AXq64GICA&usg=AFQjCNGmqaOjybYN_a7_i61DSJrdxjSeZg&sig2=oEt1_S5lGaGgJRRy-f1S9g&bvm=bv.52164340,d.d2k

 

Ctrl+F "reciprocal exchange". It would let me copy and paste it.