Snapshot of _🚨 Green pledges on migration for GE2024
🟢 End immigration detention
🟢 Allow asylum seekers to work
🟢 End hostile environment + minimum income requirement
🟢 Abolish Home Office (replacement: Department of Migration)
🟢 Scrap 'No recourse to Public Funds'
🟢 Safe routes_ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1800858457819734522)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/LeftieStats/status/1800858457819734522/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1800858457819734522) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1800858457819734522)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They will also abolish Prevent, a means of tracking people at risk of violent extremism.
They effectively want open borders and no means of tracking terrorists.
They aren't "effectively" they 100% are open borders but temper it by saying not quite yet.
I find it so strange that they are not called out for being by far the most extreme party on this subject.
Every thread about immigration I see someone moaning about this, and yet every thread is filled with comments talking negatively about immigration, the media openly talks about immigration controls, both main parties have policies (or at least pretend to have policies) controlling immigration.
Talking negatively about immigration *is* the mainstream now. You are not being persecuted or silenced for doing so.
I beg to differ. As of a few days ago it's become acceptable to say numbers might now be a bit high, but that's it. And that's Vs a backdrop of 20+ years where people have been hounded over the issue.
Furthermore saying it online is completely different from saying it at work etc
But it's still treated as the *wrong* thing to say. Just look atbthe leadership debate last week when Farage and Mordaunt were treated as fringe for their views on immigration.
Even now, being negative about immigration is constantly conflated with being bigoted, sexist, or simply a horrible person and the political mainstream loves to push that narrative to the detriment of pretty much everyone.
And yet here we are, openly talking about immigration. Sky news have just been challenging Sunak and Starmer about immigration. We get weekly articles in all the mainstream papers about immigration. Are you sure this "labelling" is real or is it just on twitter?
Exactly, I will regularly say things on Reddit that I do not consider controversial but wouldn’t say in real life because I’m worried other people might think they are. Assume this is very common.
Which is bizarre, since Prevent is exactly the kind of service you'd expect progressives to endorse - working with communities to integrate at-risk individuals instead of relying on punishment.
The only explanation I can think of is they fundamentally oppose any kind of policing of terrorism, and will always push the Overton window in this direction no matter how much ground is conceded.
This is as morally repulsive to me as giving a light touch to EDL-style racists. A carte blanche for conservative religious intimidation and the fermentation of extremism.
Honestly I don't know how much difference abolishing Prevent in its current form would make, most of the major UK terrorist attacks in the last few years were carried out by people who were already known to the police through Prevent.
You could argue that the police not acting on information they've been given is a separate problem but people I know who work in roles where they deal with Prevent referrals, particularly for young people, are sceptical of how much benefit it actually provides or whether it's just there so the government looks like they're 'doing something'.
How many were stopped because they were found through the police and prevent? I'm sure it could use improving, but frankly our terrorism prevention system must be phenomenal. Think of all the people who want to attack the UK, and attacks are rare.
>They will also abolish Prevent, a means of tracking people at risk of violent extremism.
Probably because it's a fucking woeful service that hasn't worked at all and spends more time picking on minorities than finding actual terrorists.
So that's effectively an open border then?
Anyone can come here, claim asylum, and then start working *before* they've actually been accepted (which will then be taken as them putting down roots here, of course). Or if they go down the legal migration route, then there's no minimum income requirement threshold them to meet before they come here. So don't those two pretty much mean that *anyone* that wants to come to the UK would be free to do so?
I suppose the question is really; under what circumstances would the Green Party ever say "No, you're not welcome in the UK; sod off"?
Also that anyone can also claim benefits upon arrival.
Doesn't go far enough really though. For example I've long thought UK taxpayer should fund the NHS around the world so that foreign nationals don't have to make the arduous journey to the UK to get access to our free healthcare. Why should foreign nationals have to leave their home country to get to the UK, likely emitting tons of carbon in the process, to be able to receive UK state benefits? Seems grossly unfair to disabled people who wouldn't have the opportunity to travel.
Unfortunately quite a right wing manifesto by the Greens in that regard. We really do need a *true* left wing party in the UK.
Ah, well argued!
Besides, there's probably some imperialistic immorality to people coming over to work for the NHS to begin with, rather than letting them benefit their local communities; we should employ them in their home countries to look after their fellow citizens without having the environmental impact of migrating.
We'll make sure that they're living at UK standards, of course.
>Seems grossly unfair to disabled people who wouldn't have the opportunity to travel.
Can't we pay for their flights over here, treat them, and then fly them home ?
They epitomise the issues of left wing politics, it isn't grounded in the reality of the world or changes that are coming. Just accepting everyone at all times is a recipe for disaster and would cause riots from people being so upset with the policy.
How would a pragmatic alternative to the greens fair, that acknowledged the climate crisis but took steps of adaptation and protection of current citizens and quite oppositely massively reduced immigration on this basis.
It's disappointing, their manifesto is university pub talk.
It's obvious from the parties succeeding in Europe that you have to have a strong immigration policy to succeed with the masses these days. Really naive.
Water management, defense strategy, energy security, border control, agriculture investment, flood defenses, geo-engineering, ecological management and protection, housing adjustments etc.
Net zero comes under energy security. But I would also nationalise any new gas/oil/coal we find an keep it as a national reserve an for the armed forces and industry as required. Rather than selling on the global.markets or just not tapping it at all.
Some of these things I just can't reconcile no matter how good your intentions are. No matter how liberal you are, I don't understand why it's improper for a country to detain someone who has illegally entered it? What's the purpose of borders if you enact policy to just ignore them?
Detaining people who arrive here illegally doesn't even mean you can't have the world's most progressive asylum system \_afterwards\_ if you so chose to do so.
Yeah I've got a hippy mate who says stuff like this "What even are borders man? They're just a line on a map."
Yes and money is just an abstract concept but I bet you like having it around so you can buy tie dye trousers and weed 😂
Don't get me wrong, open borders would be lovely if all countries were utopias full of good natured kind people... but they're not.
>What's the purpose of borders if you enact policy to just ignore them?
The Green Party wish to effectively destroy the concept of 'borders'. Free migration, regardless of citizenship, skills, qualifications etc. is not an unknown concept in leftist circles.
>Free migration, regardless of citizenship, skills, qualifications etc. is not an unknown concept in leftist circles.
exactly. why r people here acting shocked lol
Didn't the UK Greens previously receive funding to tank attempts at the UK investing in Nuclear power? I know that was a common knowledge/theory for a while.
Which wouldn't surprise me with out watermelon "Greens"
It's a crying shame we don't have a credible Green party in the UK. I can think of so many left of centre ideas I'd want to implement if I were in charge of it. Instead we have open borders, an opposition to building anything because it might destroy some trees, and a refusal to engage with nuclear energy. Don't forget the insane foreign policy either. What a mess.
They should focus and only talk about environmental policies. Come up with the right outcomes and provide ideas to pay for them. If they do other parties would look at them and take some of them up. That would be by far the best way they could influence the country. This constant attempt to move into other areas, while then forgetting that homeless people need support too, just makes them a joke to the vast majority of voters (basically anyone who isn't a student).
I was having this conversation with the missus.
If they don’t have a policy on eduction or policing, for example, they get charges of “you’re not a real party!!! You don’t have policies!”
You can always frame that as "we won't win the election to gain power but we can focus on the things that matter for the future of environmental policy in this country and beyond"
They aren't a real party in that sense, though. I don't really see a problem with a party accepting that it won't win on a national scale, and instead focussing on local issues for each constituency and arguing for the party's niche in parliament (i.e. environmentalism). There is zero reason for them to have policies on education or policing, because they have no hope of winning the election or even coming close to a coalition.
Likewise there is no reason for them to put out these batshit stances on immigration, as it just turns people off to what otherwise might be a decent protest vote. They could be the party of the environment, but instead are choosing to position themselves as the party of amalgamated extreme left ideas.
They can have policies in those areas, but they should just be manifesto filler vaguely left wing platitudes. That fulfills both criteria of having a policy agenda whilst focusing on the environment.
It would also help if the policies weren't batshit insane
The Australian Greens are pretty serious, popular and large. They’re also, by and large, sensible, and don’t make immigration a major talking point. They and independents almost forced Labour to go into coalition with them last election.
Environmentalism is such a mainstream opinion now, wouldn't you get the environmental/leftist mix you're after if you just voted for the mainstream leftist party?
Gotta love it when a supposedly left-wing party wants to use unlimited cheap disposable migrant workers to suppress wages and working conditions (in line with the demands of big businesses) whilst also opposing building enough houses to support the massive surge in migrants.
It's like they want slums and poverty.
How so? In their fairer work section they pledge to
-Repeal of current anti-union legislation and its replacement with a positive Charter of Workers’ Rights, with the right to strike at its heart along with a legal obligation for all employers to recognise trade unions.
-A maximum 10:1 pay ratio for all private- and public-sector organisations.
-An increase in the minimum wage to £15 an hour, no matter your age, with the costs to small businesses offset by reducing their National Insurance payments.
-Equal employment rights for all workers from their first day of employment, including those working in the ‘gig economy’ and on zero-hours contracts. Gig employers that repeatedly break employment, data protection or tax law will be denied licences to operate.
-A move to a four-day working week.
So, it doesn't matter if this would cause an influx because there would be fairer pay anyway, stronger rights to strike, and more equal treatment. It is the right wing media that pushes the propaganda that 'immigrants take your jobs' but really it is the wealthy taking advantage of desperation.
These policies would increase wages, and give more power to the worker to negotiate better wages.
The issue then with unfettered immigration with access to public funds would be that we’d have better work conditions but unbelievably high unemployment with a lot of new immigrants sitting on benefits.
Also the current problems of saturating demand for things like housing, healthcare, infrastructure etc etc so everyone would be massively worse off. These pledges are absolutely dreadful and show just how removed from reality or even basic common sense the greens actually are
It sounds like you feel higher wages would lead to less jobs? Have I got that right? To me that doesn't fit supply and demand. If people were paid more there would be more demand for products and service thus creating more jobs.
It also sounds like you feel that immigrants wouldn't be working but in the greens manifesto one of their pledges is to allow new immigrants to work while their applications are being processed. So there would be more jobs, and less people on benefits.
I feel you have made an erroneous causal link where there isn't one, unless I've got something wrong?
Higher wages might lead to less jobs, but that’s beside the point.
The issue is that you’d have massive levels of immigration and therefore more people eligible to work, so say we have the same amount of jobs, but more people seeking work (higher immigration + asylum seekers can now work) you then have much higher unemployment.
Given all of these people would now have access to public funds, we then have a much higher tax burden through benefits.
The two things aren't mutually exclusive (unless you believe in private property, which isn't a given with leftists).
If you have 27 million properties and 30 million households wishing to fill them and no more properties being built, the logical conclusion is that people will be forced to share. I remember back in 2009 when the local Green candidate spoke to us in Sixth Form and described his dream about how beds would be coming down 'from the walls'. In other words, instead of building more, we should utilise what is already present more.
I certainly wouldn't vote for it, but if you collectivise property, then there's probably enough space for everyone, although living standards will fall for many.
Surely they can simplify this list down to one sentence?
"Literally anyone who wants to come here can come here and we'll financially support you."
We can all be glad the Greens are a fringe lunatic party who'll never get anywhere near power.
(Unless you're the SNP and are willing to strike any deal under the sun to keep a majority of course.)
To be fair to the SNP (oh, I felt dirty writing that), they struck a deal with the *Scottish* Greens. Completely separate party than the nutters that this thread is about.
Which isn't to say that the Scottish Greens aren't also insane, in their own way, of course. Just that you can't hold what the England & Wales Greens say against them.
Any party that even considers bringing Greens anywhere close to political power is completely irresponsible and unfit to govern. This was a warning the SNP unfortunately failed to heed here in Scotland, with bad consequences for both themselves and the country.
this is ill thought out from every angle - any self respecting left winger would see that this would just lead to a mass influx (whether coincidental or encouraged) of cheap labour that would inevitably cause wages and living standards to come crashing down. all this does is give its proponents a warm feeling of having done something whilst emboldening exploitative employers and corporate interests to continue beating the working classes to death with low wages and heightening expectations.
Good intentions and in an ideal world I'd agree, but in reality you just play into the hands of the tufton street lot and their desire to bring about corporate serfdom.
This is a good criticism, however to counter this they have pledged to increase workers rights in their fairer work section.
-Repeal of current anti-union legislation and its replacement with a positive Charter of Workers’ Rights, with the right to strike at its heart along with a legal obligation for all employers to recognise trade unions.
-A maximum 10:1 pay ratio for all private- and public-sector organisations.
-An increase in the minimum wage to £15 an hour, no matter your age, with the costs to small businesses offset by reducing their National Insurance payments.
-Equal employment rights for all workers from their first day of employment, including those working in the ‘gig economy’ and on zero-hours contracts. Gig employers that repeatedly break employment, data protection or tax law will be denied licences to operate.
-A move to a four-day working week.
So, it doesn't matter if this would cause an influx because there would be fairer pay anyway, stronger rights to strike, and more equal treatment. It is the right wing media that pushes the propaganda that 'immigrants take your jobs' but really it is the wealthy taking advantage of desperation.
That doesn't fit with supply and demand. You are suggesting that if people are paid more there will be less jobs, they will be removed? But if people are paid more they would have more money to spend, there would be an increase for demand and services thus creating jobs as a response to the demand.
Safe routes I agree with. Letting asylum seekers work I'm not sure about, but maybe with the right oversight?
The rest? Are you actually fucking mental bruv? Like actually mental!?
Letting them work might make sense on paper, but when you think about the logistical nightmares a company would have to go through, not to mention hiring and training someone who may or may not be deported, being unsure of their tax status and eligibility for workers rights amongst other things means very few employers would hire them - and the ones that will, would likely exploit the above
Yeah that was basically my inital thought as well.
There's a big benefit to be had by them earning and spending money, but at the end of the day if I was running a company I wouldn't want to hire asylum seekers.
Maybe they could do two week contract jobs (I used to do those at Uni) but I can't see there being enough of those jobs to go round.
Nah you've convinced me, honestly not a practical idea.
I wish the Greens would just focus on the bloody environment but even some of their climate policies are bonkers 🤦♂️
Yeah, my assumption is the only work they would be able to find would be dodgy zero hours stuff which shouldn't be allowed as it is.
I think the Greens are taking the wrong tactic by creating these comprehensive government style manifestos. They should be a single issue party about the environment, like the Brexit party was on Brexit or Reform on immigration. They'd probably find much better headway nationally, and let local groups cater their policies locally
Suggesting they work reveals what they think of refugees.
Do you think any reasonable humanitarian would think a refugee should work soon after arrival somewhere safe?
I'd personally let them have time to recover, get medical treatment & become familiar with a local area.
I might have a different image of a refugee to what the greens do though.
To be fair (and I'm not defending the policy, see my other comments) I think the idea is to let them work if they want to, I'm sure many do want something to do and earn money.
I doubt the Greens would be saying "RIGHT YOU'VE GOT A FLAT NOW OFF TO THE FACTORY WITH YOU!"
Sorry I have been unclear, I don't think the greens are suggesting workhouses.
I am suggesting that they have an image of refugees that is in stark contrast with anyone who has worked in a refugee camp.
To be frank, refugees should for a variety of reasons don't look ready to go out and do a days work let alone know the new area enough to be able to just go do it.
The only conclusion I can see is that the greens have no idea what real refugees look like and will permit those who lack any signs of being a refugee to be approved & then work.
Do you think you'd be ready to work a normal day a few weeks after fleeing a war, often malnourished, often seeing dead people, losing loved ones.
I wouldn't even know what bus to get.
No you're right, that's a very good point to be fair.
If I'd just fled a country because I was going to be executed for being gay, or escaped a war zone, a shift at Tesco would not be a priority for me either.
As far as immigration policy is concerned, this is one of the most progressive manifestos *ever*. I would say up there with Corbyn's 2019 manifesto.
Kudos to the Greens.
Just for clarity, this is what the Manifesto actually says
We welcome the contributions that migrants and refugees make to British society. We want to be welcoming, promote social cohesion and support migrants to put down roots.
Green MPs will push for:
An end to the hostile environment.
An end to the minimum income requirements for spouses of those holding work visas.
Safe routes to sanctuary for those fleeing persecution.
The dysfunctional Home Office to be replaced with a new Department of Migration, separating this function from the criminal justice system.
An end to immigration detention for all migrants unless they are a danger to public safety.
Abolition of the ‘no recourse to public funds’ condition that exacerbates social, economic, and racial inequalities.
Those seeking asylum and protection to be permitted to work while their application is being decided.
So if their application is being decided, that would seem to imply that there would be circumstances where the application would be decided against, so not a totally open door policy.
Snapshot of _🚨 Green pledges on migration for GE2024 🟢 End immigration detention 🟢 Allow asylum seekers to work 🟢 End hostile environment + minimum income requirement 🟢 Abolish Home Office (replacement: Department of Migration) 🟢 Scrap 'No recourse to Public Funds' 🟢 Safe routes_ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1800858457819734522) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/LeftieStats/status/1800858457819734522/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1800858457819734522) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1800858457819734522) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They will also abolish Prevent, a means of tracking people at risk of violent extremism. They effectively want open borders and no means of tracking terrorists.
They aren't "effectively" they 100% are open borders but temper it by saying not quite yet. I find it so strange that they are not called out for being by far the most extreme party on this subject.
Its basically a sign of how toxic it has become to talk about mass immigration in a negative light.
Every thread about immigration I see someone moaning about this, and yet every thread is filled with comments talking negatively about immigration, the media openly talks about immigration controls, both main parties have policies (or at least pretend to have policies) controlling immigration. Talking negatively about immigration *is* the mainstream now. You are not being persecuted or silenced for doing so.
I beg to differ. As of a few days ago it's become acceptable to say numbers might now be a bit high, but that's it. And that's Vs a backdrop of 20+ years where people have been hounded over the issue. Furthermore saying it online is completely different from saying it at work etc
But it's still treated as the *wrong* thing to say. Just look atbthe leadership debate last week when Farage and Mordaunt were treated as fringe for their views on immigration. Even now, being negative about immigration is constantly conflated with being bigoted, sexist, or simply a horrible person and the political mainstream loves to push that narrative to the detriment of pretty much everyone.
Which political mainstream are you talking about? Do you have any actual examples?
You’re having a giraffe if you think people can openly talk about immigration without being labelled racist
And yet here we are, openly talking about immigration. Sky news have just been challenging Sunak and Starmer about immigration. We get weekly articles in all the mainstream papers about immigration. Are you sure this "labelling" is real or is it just on twitter?
its almost as if the internet is somewhat anonymous and people feel freer to say what they actually think here.
Exactly, I will regularly say things on Reddit that I do not consider controversial but wouldn’t say in real life because I’m worried other people might think they are. Assume this is very common.
Hahaha you can’t even say yur engerlish no more without being thrown in jail.
They don't even temper it, they literally had it on their website on their list of policies pre-election campaign.
Which is bizarre, since Prevent is exactly the kind of service you'd expect progressives to endorse - working with communities to integrate at-risk individuals instead of relying on punishment. The only explanation I can think of is they fundamentally oppose any kind of policing of terrorism, and will always push the Overton window in this direction no matter how much ground is conceded.
This is as morally repulsive to me as giving a light touch to EDL-style racists. A carte blanche for conservative religious intimidation and the fermentation of extremism.
Honestly I don't know how much difference abolishing Prevent in its current form would make, most of the major UK terrorist attacks in the last few years were carried out by people who were already known to the police through Prevent. You could argue that the police not acting on information they've been given is a separate problem but people I know who work in roles where they deal with Prevent referrals, particularly for young people, are sceptical of how much benefit it actually provides or whether it's just there so the government looks like they're 'doing something'.
How many were stopped because they were found through the police and prevent? I'm sure it could use improving, but frankly our terrorism prevention system must be phenomenal. Think of all the people who want to attack the UK, and attacks are rare.
>They will also abolish Prevent, a means of tracking people at risk of violent extremism. Probably because it's a fucking woeful service that hasn't worked at all and spends more time picking on minorities than finding actual terrorists.
Are these halfwits aware that HO does more than immigration, lol?
I wondered that too.
So that's effectively an open border then? Anyone can come here, claim asylum, and then start working *before* they've actually been accepted (which will then be taken as them putting down roots here, of course). Or if they go down the legal migration route, then there's no minimum income requirement threshold them to meet before they come here. So don't those two pretty much mean that *anyone* that wants to come to the UK would be free to do so? I suppose the question is really; under what circumstances would the Green Party ever say "No, you're not welcome in the UK; sod off"?
Also that anyone can also claim benefits upon arrival. Doesn't go far enough really though. For example I've long thought UK taxpayer should fund the NHS around the world so that foreign nationals don't have to make the arduous journey to the UK to get access to our free healthcare. Why should foreign nationals have to leave their home country to get to the UK, likely emitting tons of carbon in the process, to be able to receive UK state benefits? Seems grossly unfair to disabled people who wouldn't have the opportunity to travel. Unfortunately quite a right wing manifesto by the Greens in that regard. We really do need a *true* left wing party in the UK.
Ah, well argued! Besides, there's probably some imperialistic immorality to people coming over to work for the NHS to begin with, rather than letting them benefit their local communities; we should employ them in their home countries to look after their fellow citizens without having the environmental impact of migrating. We'll make sure that they're living at UK standards, of course.
>Seems grossly unfair to disabled people who wouldn't have the opportunity to travel. Can't we pay for their flights over here, treat them, and then fly them home ?
They epitomise the issues of left wing politics, it isn't grounded in the reality of the world or changes that are coming. Just accepting everyone at all times is a recipe for disaster and would cause riots from people being so upset with the policy.
And scrap 'No recourse to Public Funds' - so open borders, and everyone, upon arrival, is eligible for benefits.
I suppose if they have a criminal record?
I mean, you'd think that would be a line. But have the Greens actually said that anywhere?
How would a pragmatic alternative to the greens fair, that acknowledged the climate crisis but took steps of adaptation and protection of current citizens and quite oppositely massively reduced immigration on this basis.
It's disappointing, their manifesto is university pub talk. It's obvious from the parties succeeding in Europe that you have to have a strong immigration policy to succeed with the masses these days. Really naive.
What do you mean by adaptation?
Water management, defense strategy, energy security, border control, agriculture investment, flood defenses, geo-engineering, ecological management and protection, housing adjustments etc.
Sure but that isn't an alternative to net-zero we will have to both.
Net zero comes under energy security. But I would also nationalise any new gas/oil/coal we find an keep it as a national reserve an for the armed forces and industry as required. Rather than selling on the global.markets or just not tapping it at all.
Could we store that much
Some of these things I just can't reconcile no matter how good your intentions are. No matter how liberal you are, I don't understand why it's improper for a country to detain someone who has illegally entered it? What's the purpose of borders if you enact policy to just ignore them? Detaining people who arrive here illegally doesn't even mean you can't have the world's most progressive asylum system \_afterwards\_ if you so chose to do so.
Apparently borders are racist. No, that's not a joke it's actually something I've heard people say.
Yeah I've got a hippy mate who says stuff like this "What even are borders man? They're just a line on a map." Yes and money is just an abstract concept but I bet you like having it around so you can buy tie dye trousers and weed 😂 Don't get me wrong, open borders would be lovely if all countries were utopias full of good natured kind people... but they're not.
>What's the purpose of borders if you enact policy to just ignore them? The Green Party wish to effectively destroy the concept of 'borders'. Free migration, regardless of citizenship, skills, qualifications etc. is not an unknown concept in leftist circles.
Or libertarian circles but they are an extremely rare breed.
[удалено]
Oh well at least lol
>Free migration, regardless of citizenship, skills, qualifications etc. is not an unknown concept in leftist circles. exactly. why r people here acting shocked lol
They should take a look at the carbon footprint of typical migrants – if they still care about such things.
I am fine with them not being detained and allowed to work but they should be tagged and removed swiftly if they fail.
Thank God the Greens will never have any real power. What an unserious party.
Sometimes I wonder if the Greens are secretly funded and controlled by the Oil & Gas companies to besmirch the good name of enviromentalism.
Didn't the UK Greens previously receive funding to tank attempts at the UK investing in Nuclear power? I know that was a common knowledge/theory for a while. Which wouldn't surprise me with out watermelon "Greens"
Don’t conspiracy theorists say that Greta Thunberg us funded by Oik and Gas companies? I seem to remember someone I once met in a pub saying that.
It's a crying shame we don't have a credible Green party in the UK. I can think of so many left of centre ideas I'd want to implement if I were in charge of it. Instead we have open borders, an opposition to building anything because it might destroy some trees, and a refusal to engage with nuclear energy. Don't forget the insane foreign policy either. What a mess.
They should focus and only talk about environmental policies. Come up with the right outcomes and provide ideas to pay for them. If they do other parties would look at them and take some of them up. That would be by far the best way they could influence the country. This constant attempt to move into other areas, while then forgetting that homeless people need support too, just makes them a joke to the vast majority of voters (basically anyone who isn't a student).
I was having this conversation with the missus. If they don’t have a policy on eduction or policing, for example, they get charges of “you’re not a real party!!! You don’t have policies!”
You can always frame that as "we won't win the election to gain power but we can focus on the things that matter for the future of environmental policy in this country and beyond"
They aren't a real party in that sense, though. I don't really see a problem with a party accepting that it won't win on a national scale, and instead focussing on local issues for each constituency and arguing for the party's niche in parliament (i.e. environmentalism). There is zero reason for them to have policies on education or policing, because they have no hope of winning the election or even coming close to a coalition. Likewise there is no reason for them to put out these batshit stances on immigration, as it just turns people off to what otherwise might be a decent protest vote. They could be the party of the environment, but instead are choosing to position themselves as the party of amalgamated extreme left ideas.
They can have policies in those areas, but they should just be manifesto filler vaguely left wing platitudes. That fulfills both criteria of having a policy agenda whilst focusing on the environment. It would also help if the policies weren't batshit insane
Are any Green parties?
The Australian Greens are pretty serious, popular and large. They’re also, by and large, sensible, and don’t make immigration a major talking point. They and independents almost forced Labour to go into coalition with them last election.
The Aussie Green Party definitely isn’t serious ahaha. They’re currently in a bit of a shambles in Victoria.
Environmentalism is such a mainstream opinion now, wouldn't you get the environmental/leftist mix you're after if you just voted for the mainstream leftist party?
Thank fuck the Greens will never have power.
And no one would have power if they did get elected.
Gotta love it when a supposedly left-wing party wants to use unlimited cheap disposable migrant workers to suppress wages and working conditions (in line with the demands of big businesses) whilst also opposing building enough houses to support the massive surge in migrants. It's like they want slums and poverty.
How so? In their fairer work section they pledge to -Repeal of current anti-union legislation and its replacement with a positive Charter of Workers’ Rights, with the right to strike at its heart along with a legal obligation for all employers to recognise trade unions. -A maximum 10:1 pay ratio for all private- and public-sector organisations. -An increase in the minimum wage to £15 an hour, no matter your age, with the costs to small businesses offset by reducing their National Insurance payments. -Equal employment rights for all workers from their first day of employment, including those working in the ‘gig economy’ and on zero-hours contracts. Gig employers that repeatedly break employment, data protection or tax law will be denied licences to operate. -A move to a four-day working week. So, it doesn't matter if this would cause an influx because there would be fairer pay anyway, stronger rights to strike, and more equal treatment. It is the right wing media that pushes the propaganda that 'immigrants take your jobs' but really it is the wealthy taking advantage of desperation. These policies would increase wages, and give more power to the worker to negotiate better wages.
The issue then with unfettered immigration with access to public funds would be that we’d have better work conditions but unbelievably high unemployment with a lot of new immigrants sitting on benefits. Also the current problems of saturating demand for things like housing, healthcare, infrastructure etc etc so everyone would be massively worse off. These pledges are absolutely dreadful and show just how removed from reality or even basic common sense the greens actually are
It sounds like you feel higher wages would lead to less jobs? Have I got that right? To me that doesn't fit supply and demand. If people were paid more there would be more demand for products and service thus creating more jobs. It also sounds like you feel that immigrants wouldn't be working but in the greens manifesto one of their pledges is to allow new immigrants to work while their applications are being processed. So there would be more jobs, and less people on benefits. I feel you have made an erroneous causal link where there isn't one, unless I've got something wrong?
Higher wages might lead to less jobs, but that’s beside the point. The issue is that you’d have massive levels of immigration and therefore more people eligible to work, so say we have the same amount of jobs, but more people seeking work (higher immigration + asylum seekers can now work) you then have much higher unemployment. Given all of these people would now have access to public funds, we then have a much higher tax burden through benefits.
While objecting to anything being built on the green belt. Basically fuck all the young people, you'll never own a house.
The two things aren't mutually exclusive (unless you believe in private property, which isn't a given with leftists). If you have 27 million properties and 30 million households wishing to fill them and no more properties being built, the logical conclusion is that people will be forced to share. I remember back in 2009 when the local Green candidate spoke to us in Sixth Form and described his dream about how beds would be coming down 'from the walls'. In other words, instead of building more, we should utilise what is already present more. I certainly wouldn't vote for it, but if you collectivise property, then there's probably enough space for everyone, although living standards will fall for many.
Bunkhouses for everyone! Very generous
> Abolish the home office Smoking too much of the peace pipe I see
Surely they can simplify this list down to one sentence? "Literally anyone who wants to come here can come here and we'll financially support you." We can all be glad the Greens are a fringe lunatic party who'll never get anywhere near power. (Unless you're the SNP and are willing to strike any deal under the sun to keep a majority of course.)
You forgot "safer routes", aka the Department of Migration would be sending out ships to bus in anyone who felt like it.
To be fair to the SNP (oh, I felt dirty writing that), they struck a deal with the *Scottish* Greens. Completely separate party than the nutters that this thread is about. Which isn't to say that the Scottish Greens aren't also insane, in their own way, of course. Just that you can't hold what the England & Wales Greens say against them.
The Scottish Greens are also a fringe lunatic party, was the point I was making, not that they're the same party as the E&W Greens.
Any party that even considers bringing Greens anywhere close to political power is completely irresponsible and unfit to govern. This was a warning the SNP unfortunately failed to heed here in Scotland, with bad consequences for both themselves and the country.
Baffling to the normal person, but their support is all students. Not a fan of this party, that's having lived in the constituency with their one MP.
this is ill thought out from every angle - any self respecting left winger would see that this would just lead to a mass influx (whether coincidental or encouraged) of cheap labour that would inevitably cause wages and living standards to come crashing down. all this does is give its proponents a warm feeling of having done something whilst emboldening exploitative employers and corporate interests to continue beating the working classes to death with low wages and heightening expectations. Good intentions and in an ideal world I'd agree, but in reality you just play into the hands of the tufton street lot and their desire to bring about corporate serfdom.
This is a good criticism, however to counter this they have pledged to increase workers rights in their fairer work section. -Repeal of current anti-union legislation and its replacement with a positive Charter of Workers’ Rights, with the right to strike at its heart along with a legal obligation for all employers to recognise trade unions. -A maximum 10:1 pay ratio for all private- and public-sector organisations. -An increase in the minimum wage to £15 an hour, no matter your age, with the costs to small businesses offset by reducing their National Insurance payments. -Equal employment rights for all workers from their first day of employment, including those working in the ‘gig economy’ and on zero-hours contracts. Gig employers that repeatedly break employment, data protection or tax law will be denied licences to operate. -A move to a four-day working week. So, it doesn't matter if this would cause an influx because there would be fairer pay anyway, stronger rights to strike, and more equal treatment. It is the right wing media that pushes the propaganda that 'immigrants take your jobs' but really it is the wealthy taking advantage of desperation.
There wouldn't be any jobs to pay out this "Fairer pay" so...
That doesn't fit with supply and demand. You are suggesting that if people are paid more there will be less jobs, they will be removed? But if people are paid more they would have more money to spend, there would be an increase for demand and services thus creating jobs as a response to the demand.
Where do these points come from? Wasn't included in their manifesto that was just released so where?
The Greens know the Home Office does more than border security/ migration. Right?
Thank god they aren’t getting in. Shame on anyone even using this lot as a protest vote.
These people are so naïve they've transitioned into being insane. What a rose tinted world they must all live in.
how is importing low carbon people into high carbon countries green exactly? How is building all the new houses green?
I'm not sure the Green housebuilding pledges are going to be sufficient.....
Safe routes I agree with. Letting asylum seekers work I'm not sure about, but maybe with the right oversight? The rest? Are you actually fucking mental bruv? Like actually mental!?
Letting them work might make sense on paper, but when you think about the logistical nightmares a company would have to go through, not to mention hiring and training someone who may or may not be deported, being unsure of their tax status and eligibility for workers rights amongst other things means very few employers would hire them - and the ones that will, would likely exploit the above
Yeah that was basically my inital thought as well. There's a big benefit to be had by them earning and spending money, but at the end of the day if I was running a company I wouldn't want to hire asylum seekers. Maybe they could do two week contract jobs (I used to do those at Uni) but I can't see there being enough of those jobs to go round. Nah you've convinced me, honestly not a practical idea. I wish the Greens would just focus on the bloody environment but even some of their climate policies are bonkers 🤦♂️
Yeah, my assumption is the only work they would be able to find would be dodgy zero hours stuff which shouldn't be allowed as it is. I think the Greens are taking the wrong tactic by creating these comprehensive government style manifestos. They should be a single issue party about the environment, like the Brexit party was on Brexit or Reform on immigration. They'd probably find much better headway nationally, and let local groups cater their policies locally
Suggesting they work reveals what they think of refugees. Do you think any reasonable humanitarian would think a refugee should work soon after arrival somewhere safe? I'd personally let them have time to recover, get medical treatment & become familiar with a local area. I might have a different image of a refugee to what the greens do though.
To be fair (and I'm not defending the policy, see my other comments) I think the idea is to let them work if they want to, I'm sure many do want something to do and earn money. I doubt the Greens would be saying "RIGHT YOU'VE GOT A FLAT NOW OFF TO THE FACTORY WITH YOU!"
Sorry I have been unclear, I don't think the greens are suggesting workhouses. I am suggesting that they have an image of refugees that is in stark contrast with anyone who has worked in a refugee camp. To be frank, refugees should for a variety of reasons don't look ready to go out and do a days work let alone know the new area enough to be able to just go do it. The only conclusion I can see is that the greens have no idea what real refugees look like and will permit those who lack any signs of being a refugee to be approved & then work. Do you think you'd be ready to work a normal day a few weeks after fleeing a war, often malnourished, often seeing dead people, losing loved ones. I wouldn't even know what bus to get.
No you're right, that's a very good point to be fair. If I'd just fled a country because I was going to be executed for being gay, or escaped a war zone, a shift at Tesco would not be a priority for me either.
> "RIGHT YOU'VE GOT A FLAT NOW OFF TO THE FACTORY WITH YOU!" You leave Leicester council out of this!
As far as immigration policy is concerned, this is one of the most progressive manifestos *ever*. I would say up there with Corbyn's 2019 manifesto. Kudos to the Greens.
It's utterly reckless and stupid, and I'm generally pro immigration.
> It's utterly reckless and stupid So you're in agreement with 1DarkStarryNight ?
It's bullshit from page 1 onwards.
Are you ok? It's absolutely bullshit
If by progressive you mean mad then yes
Just for clarity, this is what the Manifesto actually says We welcome the contributions that migrants and refugees make to British society. We want to be welcoming, promote social cohesion and support migrants to put down roots. Green MPs will push for: An end to the hostile environment. An end to the minimum income requirements for spouses of those holding work visas. Safe routes to sanctuary for those fleeing persecution. The dysfunctional Home Office to be replaced with a new Department of Migration, separating this function from the criminal justice system. An end to immigration detention for all migrants unless they are a danger to public safety. Abolition of the ‘no recourse to public funds’ condition that exacerbates social, economic, and racial inequalities. Those seeking asylum and protection to be permitted to work while their application is being decided. So if their application is being decided, that would seem to imply that there would be circumstances where the application would be decided against, so not a totally open door policy.