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!

Review: 'The Great Car Con', Channel 4 Dispatches

Channel 4’s Dispatches has produced much penetrating investigative journalism over the years, and this evening’s episode confirmed what I have suspected for many years: diesel is neither good for human health nor the environment, but actually bad for both. A lungful of diesel is deeply unpleasant, as any regular cyclist or runner will attest, so it came as no surprise to learn that the particulates belched out by diesel vehicles make the emissions from their petrol-driven equivalents appear as fresh air by comparison. Still, it was sobering to learn that a diesel engine will produce 22 times as many particulates as a petrol one, as well as four times as much nitrogen dioxide. Whereas these particulates have proven links with an increased occurrence of asthma, the nitrogen dioxide poisons the blood, causing stroke, heart disease and diabetes, resulting in an estimated 29,000 additional premature deaths across the UK each year. Professor Roy Harrison of the University of Birmingham has been warning ministers of the dangers of diesel pollution for over 20 years, but he has been ignored.

These figures constitute serious cause for concern, and measurements have shown that nitrogen dioxide pollution significantly exceeds safety levels on the streets of a number of our cities. In London, Birmingham and Leeds, it is estimated that it will take at least fifteen years for its concentration to meet EU safety levels (something positive introduced by the EU in this instance). There is too much nitrogen dioxide in 38 out of 40 areas in the UK.  

Last year the sale of diesel cars outstripped the sale of petrol-driven models in the UK, with 10 million drivers now having diesel vehicles. They were incentivised, following Kyoto, as a means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, with lower car tax and claims of far greater fuel economy compared to those run on petrol. A further surprise revealed by Dispatches, was the extent to which motor manufacturers significantly doctor their emissions data and claims for fuel efficiency, with the miles per gallon being on average 22% less than what manufacturers claim when taking into account data gathered from 550 models of car; in only eight of these instances were the cars found to be as fuel efficient as claimed.  

Some politicians have now awakened to the reality of diesel vehicles and the dangers that they pose to public health. Boris Johnson, for example, wishes to introduce an Ultra Low Emission Zone in London, charging drivers of diesel vehicles even more to enter the city’s Congestion Charge Zone. Although the Government received a detailed report on the health impacts of diesel vehicles in 2010, it has not acted upon its findings, so the purchase and use of diesel cars remains incentivised. Could all this be about to change? What then, asked Dispatches, for the second-hand market in diesel vehicles? Could it be time to sell? Will we witness a move away from diesel as a preferred fuel in years to come? 

Alas, although the fuel efficiency of modern cars is improving (despite the figures being doctored), the pace of technological change is proving stubbornly slow in bringing about a clean mass-transport revolution. The long-awaited goal of hydrogen-powered vehicles has yet to be achieved, so in the interim, we are at best stuck with the inefficient, and not necessarily ‘green’, technology of electric and hybrid vehicles. They are, without doubt, an ecological improvement on what has gone before, but exclusively electric vehicles still have a short range, as well as large, heavy and cumbersome batteries, which in themselves constitute a new waste-disposal problem. Moreover, the electricity used for their recharging, more often than not is generated using fossil fuels. If nuclear fusion becomes truly viable one day, then electric vehicles – pending improvements to their range and efficiency – could be become genuinely viable and green. In the interim, the legislation privileging diesel as the fuel of choice for the motorist needs to be revisited and repealed, for the sake of improving public health, and the environment.

2012: The Year of the Slug (as predicted here!)

Getting back into a normal routine after a long break can sometimes be a little tricky owing to (please pardon the pun) a little sluggish inertia, particularly after the extended period of festive overindulgence. At the beginning of last July I wrote a brief piece on Britain’s perennial favourite topic – the weather – and in it opined that whereas I thought that September was likely to offer us the best prospect of a dry warm spell it could well turn out that the resident Chinese population might “change the designation of 2012 from ‘Year of the Dragon’ to ‘Year of the Slug’.” Unfortunately, my facetious weather ‘forecast’ for the remainder of 2012, with the exception of October, turned out to be reasonably accurate, discerning as it did much more wet weather to come. Indeed, by the end of December The Daily Mail used my very own designation for the year in its headline ‘Year of the slug: 2012 was a washout for gardeners but perfect for pests’.

The past year was, in domestic meteorological terms, the most miserable that I can recall, and few can be hoping for a repeat of the seemingly interminable deluges that have of late bedevilled us. Farmland, homes and businesses were flooded, holidays were ruined and little prospered other than the seemingly ubiquitous and quietly triumphant hordes of slugs, accompanied on occasion by squadrons of malicious mosquitoes. This week we learn that the poor weather has had a negative impact upon the nutritional content not only of our food crops, but also of the grass upon which our livestock have fed when our pastures have not lain inaccessible beneath water. As if this situation in itself was not bad enough, a story in today’s Daily Telegraph draws our attention to an unwelcome new resident that is finding our green and sodden land a highly appealing home: a five-inch long monster slug from Spain revelling in the Latin name of Arion vulgaris. This nasty pest apparently possesses a hefty appetite for carrion, and in Scandinavia, where it has also managed to establish itself of late, it is reported as having become a hazard to motorists owing to the prodigious quantities of slime that the slugs leave on the road when feasting upon roadkill.

Arion vulgaris thus joins the harlequin ladybird, the New Zealand flatworm and of course the grey squirrel as but the latest in a line of invasive species that have been displacing and replacing the native fauna (although admittedly few would own to feeling any particular affection for our domestic slugs). What with sudden oak death and ash dieback, the contemporary analogues of the Dutch elm disease of the 1970s, our natural environment, rather like our social one, is suffering from the ill consequences wrought by the mighty forces of globalisation, with genuine diversity being replaced by transnational homogenisation.

Will 2013 become a second ‘year of the slug’, or will we finally enjoy a respite from the rain? Given the saturated state of the country, it may perhaps become the year of the mosquito. Whatever the case, thus far we seem to have been experiencing a stereotypical British winter: miserably grey, damp and mild. A taste of chilly winter weather lies in the offing later this week, and possibly lasting for much of January, but will it really deliver upon its promise? The Met Office, as is oft its wont, is being equivocal, and Piers Corbyn won’t tell us that his predictions about the winter were ‘right’ until some time after the event when he can find some weather that tallies with a forecast that he had sold to his exclusive set of subscribers. Surely, 2013 must be better than 2012 meteorologically? We have not had a decent summer in over half a decade, so would it be too much to expect some fine weather for the summer of 2013?

Update
True to form, the day after this article was posted Piers Corbyn popped up in The Daily Express to warn about the coming cold spell: "WeatherAction expects snow amounts to be as bad or worse than the record-breaking December 2010." Renowned for its exuberant exaggeration of all portents of snow and chill and its cavalier disregard for facts, the Express also added:

It's the same weather pattern responsible for the bitter 2009-2010 winter, the coldest for 31 years when transport networks were crippled and planes grounded. Icy easterly winds will sweep across Britain with everywhere at risk of wintry showers from the weekend and "significant snowfall" over high ground in Wales and the North.

The statement above is simply incorrect. Glaringly so. One of the notable features of the exceptionally low temperatures in the first month of the remarkable winter of 2009-2010 was the fact that the month of extreme chill with which it began was ushered in by a front issuing from the Arctic North, not from the East. It was bitter northerlies which prevailed during the coldest first four to five weeks of that winter that began with a surge of Arctic air during the last week of November. This is why the eastern counties of Britain and areas such as the North York Moors were particularly badly hit by snow. Facts? Now, why would journalists wish to bother with such irksome details as facts? I await the Express's first heatwave headlines with bated breath (sometime in March or early April perhaps?). 

Arion Vulgaris: Spain's sluggish contribution to Britain's globalising fauna

May 2012 Forecast: Coldest for 100 Years (according to Piers Corbyn)

If you were to believe an announcement made on 17 April by Piers Corbyn, you would certainly be taking note of the old saying "ne'er cast a clout til May is out", for the unorthodox weather forecaster has recently made the dire pronouncement that "The coldest or near coldest May for 100 years" will shortly befall central and eastern England. His gloomy prognostications state that there will be "a record run of bitter Northerly winds. Snow at times especially on high ground in NE/East. Spring put in reverse." 

Corbyn's rather awkward and admonitory style of writing almost brings to mind a Nostradamus quatrain, and his forecasts could well be founded upon methods just as spurious. The contrarian weather forecaster has many devotees who swear by the accuracy of his predictions, and who also in equal measure tend to rubbish conventional forecasts produced by the Met Office. Corbyn is an astrophysicist who has for a number of years made a living through the sale of his forecasts which are said to be based upon his unique (but methodologically unexplained) "solar-lunar" method. Although Corbyn often provides very precise dates for his forecasts, the nature of the meteorological phenomena predicted tends not to be quantified, with the general descriptive language used by Corbyn thereby being not only inexact, but providing a useful get out clause should his forecasts prove to be wrong. His fans remember when his forecasts (roughly) coincide with conditions, and conveniently forget the many times when they do not. He is certainly an effective publicist, for both The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail have published pieces on his "coldest May" forecast, but have refrained from linking this to a rebuttal of mainstream climate science, although the comments sections show that their readers have not been coy about voicing such a sentiment.

In October and early November 2011 Corbyn made dire predictions relating to what he claimed would be another exceptionally cold winter in Britain, but this never materialised, with Corbyn blaming an unexpected "solar filament" for throwing his forecast off kilter. In England the winter of 2011-2012 proved to be warmer than average. So, with him having once again stuck his neck out with respect to our weather next month, it will be interesting to see what transpires. For the sake of British fruit growers, let's hope that his latest forecast turns out to be nothing more than (please forgive the inappropriate expression) hot air. Lord Summerisle would not be pleased were his crops to be blasted by chill May winds. Whatever happens, May will probably fail to live up to our expectations in one way or another, leading to grumbling about cold, drought, heat, rain, hail or wind. What can be predicted for certainty is that the British obsession with the weather will continue, and that advocates of climate change and its opponents will employ the perfectly natural variability in our weather as evidence for or against their respective positions. 

May Blossom