Green Party Immigration Policy: Reckless and Destructive

Feeling tempted to vote Green? Then think again. Yesterday, the Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett sought to grab the headlines by announcing that the Greens wish to increase spending on social housing from £1.5 billion to £6 billion per annum by 2017, building an additional 500,000 rented ‘homes’ by this year. ‘Homes’? What form would these ‘homes’ take? Would they be the ugly, diminutive battery-style units that have shot up in our increasingly overpopulated land over the past couple of decades, or something else? Where would they be built? Who would occupy them? In fact, if we dig a little further, it is evident that this policy, given the Green approach to immigration, is both ill-founded and grossly inadequate, revealing the Green Party to be anything but environmental in its orientation. Its policies actually veer towards communism rather than towards environmentalism, and if implemented would result in a marked decrease in both environmental and living standards in the UK, in England in particular. 

If one looks at the party’s statements on migration (note its use of the term ‘migration’, rather than ‘immigration’) which were last updated in September 2014, it is clear that these proposed new ‘homes’ would in themselves not meet the demands of the many hundreds of thousands, if not upwards of a million, immigrants who would enter the country if the Greens got their way, for they believe in a world without borders. For most people in the UK – who have not arrived here recently, or who do not who view themselves as possessing a hyphenated identity linking them to some other country – the Green approach to immigration cannot be viewed as appealing in any way. In fact, it is nothing short of recklessly irresponsible, being to the clear detriment of our national environment, way of life, and, indeed, survival. Am I lapsing into hyperbole with respect to their approach to this issue? Judge for yourself by viewing these statements taken from the ‘Migration’ section of its website:

MG102 We are aware that, in the 21^st century, there is likely to be mass migration of people escaping from the consequences of global warming, environmental degradation, resource shortage and population increase.

MG203 Richer regions [by which they mean ‘regions’ of the globe, i.e. nation-states or the EU, for example] do not have the right to use migration controls to protect their privileges from others in the long term.

MG300 We will work to achieve greater equity between the UK and non-Western countries. In step with this, we will progressively reduce UK immigration controls.

MG420 We will resist all attempts to introduce a 'barrier round Europe' shutting out non-Europeans or giving them more restricted rights of movement within Europe than European Nationals.

There are many other statements in line with the above, which make it clear that other than limiting population influxes into Antarctica (scarcely a popular destination for humans, but favoured by emperor penguins) and national parks, the Greens are seemingly open to the idea of concreting over anywhere and everywhere in pursuit of their open-bordered dystopia. Their 500,000-home proposal would not even be adequate to meet the pent-up demand for social housing, for there are currently 1.8 million people on the waiting list. All of these homes, and more, would be needed for a nigh on limitless supply of immigrants, from countries such as Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Nigeria, etc. As well as imposing massive strains upon the economy, public services, utilities, transport infrastructure and the environment, what would this do to an already intensely cleft and fractured ‘society’, lacking any cohering values and sense of identity? 

The Greens are utopian idealists who, if they were provided with the opportunity to actively influence policy, would bring about a deliberate and calculated massive decline in the living standards of people in this country, as well as a significant degradation of this country’s environment. The Green Party cannot be adjudged to be an environmentalist party, for its policies actively promote massive population expansion at the expense of the natural environment. It cannot claim to be a party of social justice, as it seeks to snuff out the existence of the peoples of Europe and to reduce the living standards of UK and European citizens.

The Green Party gives expression to a poisonous strand of masochistic thought in the UK and other European societies that sees our country, and other European and developed nations, as being the authors of all of the ills in the world. The Green Party seeks to punish us for ‘sins’ that we have never committed. Given this, who, in their right mind, if they happen to be English, Welsh, Scots or Irish, would vote for the Greens? If you genuinely care for the environment and a sustainable approach to population and resource use, do not vote Green. If you support the principles of democracy, and subscribe to the belief that politics, ultimately, should be concerned with the business of improving the wellbeing of the citizenry, then do not vote Green. If you believe that the Green Party will be different to all of the others because it is more honest and will not lie, think again. On 18 January the Guardian reported that Natalie Bennett had stated on the Andrew Marr Show that ‘the party did not have an open-door policy on immigration, but those who have a right to immigrate should be entitled to exercise that right. She also questioned why Germany had been willing to take 20,000 refugees from Syria, and the UK figure was in the low hundreds.’ How does that square with the Green Party’s clear and unequivocal policy statements on immigration? It doesn’t. The Green Party might look fluffy, but at its heart, lies something rather sinister, and fundamentally anti-progressive. Do not be duped!

Ed Miliband’s Immigration Speech: celebrating national dissolution

As with Ed Miliband’s speech on ‘Englishness’ in June, his speech on immigration at the end of last week was used as a pretext to launch into another ‘celebration’ of Britain’s, particularly England’s, newly found ethnic ‘diversity’ (i.e. Balkanisation). Whereas the first of the speeches was trailed as Miliband recognising that Labour had ‘got it wrong’ with respect to its routine demonisation of Englishness and its equation with ‘racism’, and the second as an acknowledgement that Labour had ‘made mistakes’ in its open-door immigration policy, neither in fact proved to be the case; Miliband provided his own definition of ‘Englishness’ that denied the English the right to their own identity, and ‘apologised’ for mass immigration by stating that we had not done enough to help the immigrants. So, for all of his toying with ‘Blue Labour’ rhetoric, even the substance of that strand of thinking within his party proves to be excessively unpalatable for him.

Following the Olympic opening ceremony, I noted how ‘It was not so much a celebration of national identity, as of a post-national notion of Britain as a hyper-globalised space, in which its people were depicted as being displaced by incomers at an every-accelerating pace’, and indeed, Ed Miliband picked up on this theme, but not as cause for lamentation, but for ‘celebration’. Miliband stated:

‘the whole Olympic experience reflected the diversity of modern Britain. So it was an immense achievement for our country and it reflects a crucial reality about our nation today. Social, cultural and ethnic diversity has made us stronger.’

What facts does he provide to back up such assertions? Why is it ‘crucial’? How has it ‘made us stronger’? Clearly, it is not 'crucial' and it has not 'made us stronger', and he did nothing to bolster his argument other than continue to repeat such assertions in a variety of verbal forms throughout the remainder of his speech. The reality is that the ongoing Balkanisation of Britain has helped to fuel riots, demands for special religious privileges, restraints upon freedom of speech and expression, discrimination in the workplace in favour of those of a non-indigenous background, a diminution in animal welfare standards, and increased stress upon our public services, whether they happen to be health, education or social security.

The Daily Mail was not impressed with his speech, and noted that ‘There are now around a million households where no on speaks English.’ What do these ‘million households’ add to our country, other than a deadweight? How many millions live in these households altogether? They constitute an extreme drag upon our economy, and deny homes to our young couples who wish to start families but are unable to do so because many larger dwellings are filled with non-English speaking immigrants. Furthermore, the enormous decadal increase in population brought about by mass immigration and the immigrant-descended population has assisted in inflating the property market and making homes unaffordable; it is an increase that has helped to choke our roads and to overburden our trains. All of this we must now suffer at a time when our economy is at best at a standstill. Our standard of living, whether measured in monetary terms, in the quality of our housing, in the general standard of our environment or in the services that we receive, is falling, and yet we are told that it must fall still further because of the ‘decarbonisation’ of the economy, whilst we make room and accommodation for more immigrants. And these observations of course, do not take into account the broader negative cultural impacts. Miliband, naturally, does not see let alone acknowledge any of these objections.

A thread that ran through both of Miliband’s speeches was his reference to his ‘refugee’ parents, to his family’s Jewishness and to ‘the terrors of the Nazis’. This, evidently, he perceives to be a useful means of implying that anyone who should object to mass immigration and the impact that it has wrought is somehow spiritually at one with ‘the Nazis’. It is of course a nasty and baseless insinuation, but he is happy to use it. In this latest speech, he made this incredibly explicit, by praising the Babel at a London school and claiming that ‘the British people have embraced this diversity’ before immediately launching into the observation that:

‘frankly we’ve had our fair share of doomsayers in Britain over the years. From Oswald Moseley in the 1930s, Enoch Powell in the 1960s to Nick Griffin today.’

This theme was later picked up when he asserted:

‘Division, racism and prejudice were features of everyday life for far too long in the Twentieth Century.’

So, there you have it: to object to mass immigration, globalisation and ensuing national self-dissolution is according to Miliband tantamount to fascism. Out of the three men he mentioned, Powell was the only one who was decent, and he has, contrary to Miliband’s speech, been proven correct in his observations and predictions. Whereas Miliband’s speech upon immigration will be largely forgotten in a decade’s time, Powell’s is an historical artefact that will remain.

As is customary not only for the Labour Party, but also for the BBC and UKIP amongst others, Miliband chose to emphasise Eastern European migration, omitting to mention that the majority of immigrants over the past 15 years have not come from within the EU, but from Asia and Africa. The census figures released this week confirm this.

Miliband announced that the learning of English was key for future ‘integration’ and stated that ‘We must live together across communities’. Already we have seen our capital city become not only non-English but also non-British, and if you live in a small town or in rural England, do not think that Miliband does not have plans to transform your world, for he also stated: 

‘Mixed communities are the key to making integration work. And mixed income housing is the key to creating mixed communities.’

So, if you should think that the building of social housing in our county towns and villages would be primarily to accommodate local people who cannot afford to buy their own homes, think again. Under a Labour administration – and probably under the current Condem Government – such homes may well be used to help enforce ‘mixing’, with immigrants being relocated from the globalised urban centres which were once English cities to a location near you. Will there be a Somali ‘community’ in Bridport for example? Ed Miliband would doubtless be delighted at such a prospect.

Labour's 'One Nation' is no nation at all

Nick Boles reveals meaning of Cameron’s ‘war on red tape’: farewell England!

Coming a little over a week after David Cameron delivered a speech to the CBI in which he declared his intent to wage ‘war on red tape’, Planning Minister Nick Boles has fleshed out in a Newsnight interview what this will mean in practical terms for vast swathes of English countryside: farewell! For Boles has declared that he would like to see the percentage of land built upon in England increase from 9% to 12%, some 1,500 square miles lost beneath concrete and tarmac. This, quite plainly, is the ineluctable consequence of our de facto open borders policy, and illustrates in the most stark terms why mass immigration is intensely damaging, not only to the fabric and character of our landscape, but to our flora and fauna.

A ‘war on red tape’ may well be a phrase that plays well to the ears of members of the general public who find complex aspects of Whitehall regulations a bane in many respects, but bundled up within Cameron’s declaration were clear and worrying implications for our countryside. However, a week ago the press largely ignored this aspect of his speech, with for example, the stridently self-declared advocate of environmental issues, The Guardian, becoming irate not about this threat to our countryside, but choosing to focus instead upon Cameron’s pledge to axe ‘equality impact assessments’. For The Guardian, it would matter not one whit if the entirety of England were to be concreted over and transformed into a global megacity, providing that it was of course carbon neutral, thereby being in its opinion genuinely ‘Green’.

What then, in practical terms, can be done to prevent this ‘development’ which in reality would better be described as the destruction of our national natural environment? Will the Campaign to Protect Rural England step in to champion opposition? What of the Woodland Trust? As can be seen from the picture below, it does seem a touch odd that Nick Boles (centre) should choose to have himself pictured with members of the Woodland Trust, when quite clearly he would happily see such woodland uprooted and flattened by the bulldozer, to make way for homes needed because of a population boom that has been almost exclusively fuelled by mass immigration and the higher birth-rates of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

The answer to the housing crisis lies not in covering another 1,500 square miles of English countryside with ‘development’, but rather with a combination of strict controls on immigration, and the redevelopment of genuinely brownfield sites in urban areas. Mass immigration is the root cause of this problem, and ending mass immigration will be its only solution. Migration Watch has drawn public attention to this issue for many years, and will hopefully be able to generate greater public awareness of this problem, as well as support for its position, in light of Boles's statement.

Nick Boles (centre) with members of the Woodland Trust

Nicholas Soames: more chaff for Tory voters

As perennial as the weeds that blight our gardens is the news story about the latest Tory MP to make concerned noises about mass immigration, whilst not actually intending, or proposing, to do anything about it. Today, it was the turn of Nicholas Soames to riff upon this familiar theme, with The Daily Mail honouring him with a piece entitled 'Heads must come out of the sand': Tory MP warns about scale of immigration as he predicts population will hit 70 million by 2027. Unfortunately, the heads in question would appear to be firmly wedged elsewhere, into something far less pleasant than sand, although seemingly perversely agreeable to the head wedgers.

Citing last year's petition against mass immigration initiated by Migration Watch, the Mail quoted Soames as stating:

This is a clear indicator of the very great public concern about the scale of immigration to this country.

Yes, indeed it is; but just what does he propose to do about it? Having made this attention grabbing soundbite, what said he next? As in any statement about this depressingly familiar problem, Soames immediately followed this up with the rider that immigration constituted a 'natural and essential part of an open economy', thereby rendering his initial words about this theme largely irrelevant. Does he, or do any of his Westminster colleagues, believe that members of the public any longer believe in this elaborate charade of mock concern over this issue? Perhaps so, for the Mail is certainly complicit in revving up the public mood into an impotent fury over such matters.

It is time that voters realised, that people such as Soames, or any of the other Westminster MPs, with perhaps a handful of exceptions, are not willing to do anything concrete to genuinely limit mass immigration; moreover, none of them are advocating the sustainable demographic policy that our country so desperately needs. We require a party that will put in place realistic, workable and firm measures that will bring the demographic situation under control. This is what most members of the public desire; it is what we need, and what, ultimately, we must have.

Do you recall Cameron's Munich speech about multiculturalism, and how it was made out that he was against it? How, since then, have his actions tallied with his words? Has there not been a glaring discrepancy between what was said, and that which has subsequently been done? Treat Soames's words on immigration with the same scepticism, for it is not a question of needing to remove heads from the sand, but of advocating, implementing, resourcing and maintaining the policies that will stop mass immigration permanently, and ensure that our population is eventually brought down to a sustainable level. This will ensure a better future for all of us, and for our countryside. Cameron may consider that it is worth sacrificing our greenbelt for the sake of millions of unbidden incomers by removing planning regulations which inhibit its destruction, but it is not the so-called "dithering" over housing that should be a matter for concern, but his "dithering" over mass immigration. Do not be fooled. Do not vote Conservative. 

Census indicates surge in Muslim population

Today saw the release of the first data sets from the 2011 census by the Office for National Statistics, and whereas early indications were that the population of England and Wales would have surged by more than three million, the actual figure turned out to be higher than officially expected: an increase of 3.7 million. This was the fastest rate of population increase measured since the first census was taken in 1801, and takes the average population density for England to 407 people per square kilometre. If we exclude the essentially urban microstates of Monaco, the Vatican and Malta, England is now the most densely populated country in Europe, closely followed by the Netherlands at 404 per square kilometre. This increase is alarming, and all three of the parties of government that have presided over this increase must acknowledge responsibility for this unacceptable de facto open borders policy (see a statement by David Willetts in December last year advocating an influx of labour).

The data thus far released deal only with "age and sex, and occupied households estimates for England and for Wales". The more interesting data on ethnicity and religion it would seem will not be forthcoming for quite some time. What is clear though is that the vast proportion of the population increase will have been driven by immigration and higher fertility amongst sections of the immigrant-descended population. An alarming indication of what to expect is provided by the identities of the two local authorities with the fastest population growth rates in England: Tower Hamlets and Newham. In 2001, Newham had the second highest proportion of Muslims in the UK at 24.3% of the total, whereas Tower Hamlets, according to 2010 estimates, was 36.4% Muslim. Likewise, Bradford has displayed an increase significantly higher than the national norm. What clearer illustration of demographic Islamisation could be provided?

The census has demonstrated that England has suffered disproportionately from mass immigration, with the increase in its population accounting for 3.56 million of the 3.72 million total. This is not only undesirable, but completely unsustainable and reckless. The natural dynamics of our native population can be seen in the ONS graph below, for if we look at the figures for 1971 to 1981, we see a slight decline. This is the population trajectory towards which we should be aiming, considering the gross overpopulation of our country. Irrespective of the figures contained in the census, there is one overriding certainty: they represent a significant underestimate of the true figure. Many will not have bothered to complete the census return, including obviously those who have arrived here illegally. What their numbers are, we cannot hazard to say with any degree of accuracy, but at a minimum we should reckon upon a million illegal immigrants. According to one report that appeared in The Independent in 2007, senior and reliable sources claimed that the UK population was already between 77 and 80 million. The latter figure certainly tallied with the reckoning of one of the country's large supermarket chains.

Mass immigration has contributed towards an absurd situation in which we are told repeatedly that even at a time of extensive flooding we need to cut down on our domestic water consumption, and that compulsory metering is the answer. Then there is the pressure on our housing stock, for even in Wales for example, a story ran on the BBC website two days ago revealing that planners project that Cardiff's population will rise by a quarter by 2026 and have thus allocated land for the construction of 45,000 new homes. If that is to happen in Wales, what will happen in England? Our countryside, with its distinctive landscape, its farms and wildlife are under threat from our leaders' addiction to population growth. What of the permanent phenomenon of mass unemployment that bedevils our country, and of the underemployment of many graduates? Are these concerns to be ignored as irrelevant and "unscientific", swept aside by an oligrarchic elite that cares not about the welfare of the people it claims to represent? Probably.

England, of course, is not the only country to be buckling under the weight of immigration originating predominantly from outside of Europe, for the arrival of a vast number of illegal immigrants from countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia, is in Greece placing an intense strain upon a state and people already in grave crisis.

As to the reporting of these initial census results, the BBC, as is its wont, is not referring to "immigration", but to "migration"; this difference in linguistic usage being quite intentional, "migration" being employed with a view to making this unprecedented phenomenon appear to be in the natural order of things, and to be legitimate. It is in fact, neither. The most objective reporting of these results by a well-known body is likely to be forthcoming from Migration Watch.The Balkanisation of our country continues apace.

UPDATE: For the 2011 Census results relating to the Muslim population, click here.

England's high-density housing: we deserve better

Prescott and Goldsmith in Garden Tiff

John Prescott, a man whom I suspect would rather see his garden either buried beneath decking or paved over for ease maintenance, had a verbal set-to with Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative Party’s very own Green Man, on this morning’s Today Programme. Not unsurprisingly, I wasn’t altogether sure what Prescott was trying to say (was he?), although amidst his incoherent ill-tempered ramblings I did catch phrases such as “same old Tories”, something or the other “for the privileged few” and “need more houses” (I’d hate to be the old buffoon’s ghostwriter).

Well, one of the most striking features of home ‘architecture’ in recent years, particularly under Tony and Gordon, has been the fact that as many people like Mr (oh dear, where are my manners, I meant to say “Lord” (sic)) Prescott have experienced a significant enhancement in their girth, homes have grown smaller. Such homes may be fit for people of diminutive stature, but for you and I (not that you or I are fat of course) they must surely be viewed as nothing better than desperate halfway houses between renting and real home-ownership. Nobody surely aspires to live in one of these high-density dwellings that to my mind bear all of the aesthetic appeal of a battery farm or a prison.

Goldsmith, naturally, can afford to be Green with a capital ‘G’, and enjoy a garden which I suspect may be as large as Richmond Park (maybe Richmond Park is his garden?), but he is nonetheless correct to highlight the fact that in recent years many property developers have engaged in the ruse of building on gardens and passing off such homes as having been built on ‘brownfield sites’. Where this has taken place the quality of the local environment has suffered and developers have heaved a sigh of relief that they have not had the rather less enviable task of developing genuine brownfield sites. Why clear up derelict industrial land when you can build on large gardens? Well, such is their rationale, but it is not mine, for I am all in favour of preserving gardens. The well-tended garden is after all one of the characteristics of English life, and it is a shame that so many of these delightful urban havens of birdsong have now been lost beneath Prescott’s barracks-style houses.

Goldsmith rightly stated that developers should build on genuine brownfield sites and that gardens should therefore be reclassified and protected from the predation of the property developer. Prescott, au contraire, ranted in a rambling fashion about this being a class issue (I think that was the gist of it, despite the fact that this confused portly gentleman has long since become a member of and apologist for the plutocracy) and there being a need to build everywhere because of the chronic housing shortage. Housing shortage? Yes, there is one. Why’s that then? It couldn’t have anything to do with the skyrocketing population brought about by deliberately-engineered mass immigration could it? Surely not?! I’d sooner have gardens than sheds in Slough containing Somalis, Afghans and Pakistanis. Sheds are for pottering and raising seedlings, not for nurturing suicide bombers.

Whilst on the theme of the urbanite’s desire to maintain a link with the soil and the country I thought that you might appreciate listening to the Kinks in wistful bucolic mood. Here follows their song Village Green taken from their much underrated album The Kinks are the Village Green Preservation Society.