Green Party aiming to "do a UKIP"

[angos]

The UK population will increase anyway because of increasing longevity, natural population growth and EU policies. I'm not sure what your political persuasion is but if you support any of the three main parties you will know they are in the pockets of big business and will therefore continue to be supportive some level of mass immigration over the long-term.

 

If our population is increasing anyway it makes even less sense to increase it further through immigration.

 

There are Green parties in many countries, some much more successful that our Green party, and they have pretty much the same aims on this issue in terms of improving prospects in all countries and reducing the need for economic migration. So it's not really valid to try and argue that the UK Greens if elected are seeking to single-handedly fix the world. They would be just a part of a coordinated response.

 

It's not about paying people not to come. It's about giving them opportunities. Some will still want to come here regardless, like people from other rich countries still seek to come here despite great opportunities at home. But we can play a part in improving things. It isn't just about foreign aid because that by itself will never be enough. There are other angles to it like tackling expoitative multinationals and predatory financial institutions that hold back sustainable development.

 

So the ultimate aim of the Greens is to increase the wealth of the worlds poor, as their wealth increases they will consume more of the earths resources and create more environmental problems.

 

The ultimate aims of a Green party should be to reduce the worlds population because it is human activity and over population which is destroying the planet.

 

Their policies are a paradox.

[I1L2T3]

If our population is increasing anyway it makes even less sense to increase it further through immigration.

 

 

 

So the ultimate aim of the Greens is to increase the wealth of the worlds poor, as their wealth increases they will consume more of the earths resources and create more environmental problems.

 

The ultimate aims of a Green party should be to reduce the worlds population because it is human activity and over population which is destroying the planet.

 

Their policies are a paradox.

 

As I said I don't know what your political persuasion is but if you have serious concerns about mass immigration you need to be attacking the main parties not the Greens. The Greens only have one MP but it is the other parties that have immigration hard-wired into their policies.

 

The ultimate aim is to make the world fairer and for economies to grow sustainably without undue environmental damage. Some countries will become richer. In other economies citizens will need to reduce consumption and get used to different patterns of consumption. For richer countries this decrease in per capita consumption would lead to less of a differential between improving developing economies and already established economies, making economic migration more of a choice-based option rather than the only option.

 

A lot of Greens already believe the world population is growing unsustainably and population policy is at the heart of many discussions that are taking place. It's why policies to improve eduction and healthcare are in place.

[chem1st]

More like a quick fix.

 

 

 

If UKIP do badly, why should the Greens not also do badly?

 

People tend to vote for smaller parties in by-elections and the "big three" in a general election.

 

Looking through the Green Party manifesto for the last GE, it seems to be very much tax and spend.

 

 

 

So more of the same failed approach. Whereas in successful, vibrant Hong Kong, the opposite works:

 

 

 

LINK

 

And if you're saying what about health care etc., take a look at Hong Kong's position in the world healthcare league table:

 

Hong Kong tops global health index

 

Hong Kong is ahead of us in education as well [LINK]

 

And a whopping 20 places above us in life expectancy [LINK]

 

So if people want "new answers" how about this. Instead of making the state bigger and bigger, and taxing people more and more, do the opposite. Trust people to spend their own money, to run their own lives. This is not just a theoretical concept, it works. In Hong Kong.

 

If you say it can't work here well I guess you're admitting that those industrious orientals are just plain better than we are.

 

Hong Kong has a different system of land ownership to us.

 

You don't own land, you lease it, and you pay a land value tax.

 

That is the route of their success. Unearned increases in property values created by the community are collected by the community for the community.

 

LVT is the way forwards.

 

In the UK the British disease is rentierism, politics is dominated by the red rentiers and the blue rentiers. The monarchy is made up of rentiers.

 

And rentiers make up the aristocracy.

 

In the past our rentiers have caused famine/genocide to rival those of Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler. Ireland's population has still not recovered from the actions of rentiers in the 1840s.

[angos]

As I said I don't know what your political persuasion is but if you have serious concerns about mass immigration you need to be attacking the main parties not the Greens. The Greens only have one MP but it is the other parties that have immigration hard-wired into their policies.

 

The ultimate aim is to make the world fairer and for economies to grow sustainably without undue environmental damage. Some countries will become richer.

 

In other economies citizens will need to reduce consumption and get used to different patterns of consumption.

 

 

 

For richer countries this decrease in per capita consumption would lead to less of a differential between improving developing economies and already established economies, making economic migration more of a choice-based option rather than the only option.

 

A lot of Greens already believe the world population is growing unsustainably and population policy is at the heart of many discussions that are taking place. It's why policies to improve eduction and healthcare are in place.

 

I agree and the UK is one of the countries in which consumption needs to decrease, the problem is that the Greens policies are to allow poor people from other countries to come here and share our wealth which would increase our consumption and not decrease it.

 

I'm having a go at the Greens because the topic is about them and their policies are a paradox. Unless they tackle immigration and UK over population their name is just a joke along with their policies. They are trying to appeal to people that care about the environment but have policies that will continue to destroy it.

 

---------- Post added 15-09-2013 at 22:22 ----------

 

Hong Kong has a different system of land ownership to us.

 

You don't own land, you lease it, and you pay a land value tax.

 

That is the route of their success. Unearned increases in property values created by the community are collected by the community for the community.

 

LVT is the way forwards.

 

In the UK the British disease is rentierism, politics is dominated by the red rentiers and the blue rentiers. The monarchy is made up of rentiers.

 

And rentiers make up the aristocracy.

 

In the past our rentiers have caused famine/genocide to rival those of Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler. Ireland's population has still not recovered from the actions of rentiers in the 1840s.

 

I'm sure the Hong Kong citizens living in absolute poverty and crowded into tiny shoe boxs will be happy to here that, they might want to know when they will get their share.

[I1L2T3]

I agree and the UK is one of the countries in which consumption needs to decrease, the problem is that the Greens policies are to allow poor people from other countries to come here and share our wealth which would increase our consumption and not decrease it.

 

I'm having a go at the Greens because the topic is about them and their policies are a paradox. Unless they tackle immigration and UK over population their name is just a joke along with their policies. They are trying to appeal to people that care about the environment but have policies that will continue to destroy it.

 

Their policy is to allow immigration for the right reasons and to frame the discussion in accordance with that. They are not inviting the world here, far from it.

 

They are as far as I know the only party that specifically has a policy that states that debate about population levels in the UK is needed:

 

'PP120 To promote debate on sustainable population levels for the UK - to include consideration of levels of consumption and material comfort. The aim is to increase awareness of the issues - not to set specific population targets.'

 

Note that it is possible that when the UK population levels off in years to come that with the correct policies in place it could actually be sustainable.

 

They also state:

 

'PP118 To achieve consumption and population levels that are globally sustainable and respect carrying capacity.'

 

The Greens don't want the population to grow unsustainably. It couldn't be any clearer

 

However on UK population they also recognise, as all the main parties do, including UKIP:

1. That increased longevity will fuel growth

2. That natural population growth will happen

3. That some level of inward migration is inevitable

 

These are the practicalities of the situation. They are the only party openly calling for significant changes to consumption levels and patterns of consumption in order to cope with this challnge.

[angos]

Their policy is to allow immigration for the right reasons and to frame the discussion in accordance with that. They are not inviting the world here, far from it.

 

They are as far as I know the only party that specifically has a policy that states that debate about population levels in the UK is needed:

 

'PP120 To promote debate on sustainable population levels for the UK - to include consideration of levels of consumption and material comfort. The aim is to increase awareness of the issues - not to set specific population targets.'

 

Note that it is possible that when the UK population levels off in years to come that with the correct policies in place it could actually be sustainable.

 

They also state:

 

'PP118 To achieve consumption and population levels that are globally sustainable and respect carrying capacity.'

 

The Greens don't want the population to grow unsustainably. It couldn't be any clearer

 

However on UK population they also recognise, as all the main parties do, including UKIP:

1. That increased longevity will fuel growth

2. That natural population growth will happen

3. That some level of inward migration is inevitable

 

These are the practicalities of the situation. They are the only party openly calling for significant changes to consumption levels and patterns of consumption in order to cope with this challnge.

 

The only thing fueling population expansion in the UK and most of the EU is immigration.

 

This is from the website.

 

"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 both imply that immigration will stay the same, therefor our environment will continue to suffer, meaning they put expansion ahead of their Green policies, in other words they want people to think they are Green when in fact they are no different to the other parties.

[chem1st]

I'm sure the Hong Kong citizens living in absolute poverty and crowded into tiny shoe boxs will be happy to here that, they might want to know when they will get their share.

 

HK also has a problem with housing benefit, in turn minimum rents for ever smaller property, and rentierism leading to substandard accommodation.

 

It also has large public housing waiting lists.

 

It's not perfect. And if they moved more towards citizens income, or built public housing, then the problem you mention (which also occurs here), can be tackled.