again, whatever the Watermelons (and other lefties like Labour) said about population growth in the 70s was not sincere, because they now support unsustainable population growth in the form of mass immigration. "The Green Party works for a significant reduction in immigration control"
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/m...ifesto2004.pdf

They believe in a global population reduction, but not in limiting population in western countries that are fuelling the greatest economic problems. They want to have their marxist cake and eat it.
[Rep]

What you're arguing here is that the immigration policies of the Green party undermine their environmental credentials, but that wasn't the issue we were discussing. We were talking about economic growth and your assertion that the BNP were the only party who push for limits to growth for environmental and social reasons. Pointing out that the Greens have a liberal immigration policy isn't a response to that argument, it's a completely separate issue.

Now if you want to discuss that issue then we can. Personally, I don't think a liberal immigration policy undermines environmental policies. The Greens don't support population growth within the UK, they explicitly argue that Britain is already overpopulated. However they also have ideological positions which lead them to support liberal immigration policies. The problem here is that the BNP's concern isn't with population levels per se, it's with maintaining some level of ethnic and cultural homogeneity within the UK. They would never support an open border policy even if it had the net effect of reducing the British population by a substantial margin, because it wouldn't address what they perceive as the real problem of multiculturalism. It's no surprise that the two parties, whilst both explicitly supporting the same thing (protecting the environment within the UK) have completely opposing ideas when it comes to immigration, because the two parties have completely separate ideologies (which have little to do with environmentalism) which govern their attitudes to immigration.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by TonyG:
Child benefit should be restricted to two children only. "Social housing" should have no more than three bedrooms.
That would stop a lot of the welfare scroungers making a good living out of having 10 kids.

All the council would do is to give them more than 1 house, which is what they do now in places.
[Rep]

One house per TWO parents. Still no benefits for 3rd child onwards.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by ModernUKIP:
How about we all have 12 kids each, get a council house, not bother with a job and just live on benefits?

If it's good enough for chavs...

It also happens to be good enough for Pakistani immigrants and Roma Gypsies. I don't suppose it is long till those Poles who live 18 to a house start breeding too. Why not mention them in the same boat as well?

Are you just a typical Tory who likes spitting on British people poorer than you?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
Are you just a typical Tory who likes spitting on British people poorer than you?

No, but I happen to find louts who like sitting on the dole reprehensible. The welfare state is great for people who genuinely need it, but I have no time for spongers.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Suthers:
I believe ive read somewhere that the maximum sustainable population in the UKis supposed to be c.30million.

I put it at about 40 million.
That's how much food we can grow before having to import from elsewhere.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by John Carter:
I put it at about 40 million.
That's how much food we can grow before having to import from elsewhere.

That'll go down because of house building and land lost to the sea and other environmental reasons
[Rep]

Why should self-sufficiency in food be a determinant of a country's population? Has no one ever heard of comparative advantage, the basis of international trade?

If you do not believe in trade, fine, but it has been a great benefit to us over many years.

Any measures to reduce the population beyond established demographic trends inevitably involve authoritarian measures. I am surprised to find people coming to Malthusian conclusions long after Malthus was shown to be wrong.
[Rep]

Trade is great when times are good, but when times are bad (EG war), then you have problems.

I'd personaly have open borders if the world was all equal. Until that day though I think it's as dumb an idea having open doors as it would be having open doors to the FA cup final.
[Rep]