Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

The Green Party - A Communist Party with a Designer Green Label

Skip to first unread message

St Georges Day April 23rd

May 1, 2008, 6:36:14 AM5/1/08
The Green Party is green on the outside and red on the inside like a
water melon. It is only green as far as the Body Shop is green - it's
a designer label.

Do you think the folk of the countryside alliance are urban
socialists like the Green Party is? No they aren't! Don't fall for the
designer Hemp labels of the communist Green Party.

Immigration plus more immigration equals urban spread.

Imagine, if you will, the casualty department of a city centre
hospital. Also imagine a badly fitted paving slab in the pavement
immediately outside its front door. Then visualize a steady stream of
injured pedestrians, nursing bruised knees and gashed elbows, seeking
treatment within - having failed to successfully negotiate the
delinquent item of “road-ware” installed outside. Not too difficult to
imagine is it?

Then, if you will, try to get your mind around this - the Head of
the said casualty department, fed up with the situation, puts pen to
paper and writes to his local Health Authority in despair. Bizarrely
he implores them to build him a new and larger casualty department
with more staffing so that he may be better equipped to cope with the
increased workload arising from the badly fitted slab!

Sounds unbelievably doesn't it? But unfortunately this analogy is
not so wide of the mark! Read on and see if you agree.

One morning recently, whilst reading my copy of the Guardian over
a bowl of cornflakes, I noticed that the Campaign for the Protection
of Rural England (CPRE) have apparently written to “the prime
minister, Tony Blair” urging him to “make dramatic changes to the
government's house building plans to avoid urban sprawl in Britain's
countryside.” The letter, according to the Guardian, claimed that the
CPRE also wanted the government to raise the target for development on
brownfield land from 60% to 75%”.

Quite right on both counts I thought. Well done the CPRE.

The essence of the letter apparently is that the CPRE want the
government to increase building densities in London and the South East
to “at least” 80 homes per hectare, from the present 30 to 50, to
protect our countryside from the effects of urban sprawl – a
suggestion that will have property developers everywhere rubbing their
hands in glee I suspect!

However the problem with the letter isn’t what it allegedly said
but rather what it singularly FAILED TO SAY!

In the same way as the Head of our anecdotal casualty department
avoids any mention of the cause of his problem – so apparently do our
friends at the CPRE!

To illustrate this point let’s examine its background in a little

London and the South East of England, in particular, are in urgent
need of additional housing because the population is increasing at a
rate that is outstripping availability. Changes in lifestyle, with
many more people choosing (divorce/separation) or having (pensioners)
to live alone, is considered a secondary factor.

But why is the population of London and the South East rising so

Well, as everyone acknowledges (except, apparently, the CPRE) it’s
largely, although not entirely, due to never ending immigration into
that corner of our country.

So, to ask the obvious, why isn’t the CPRE vigorously campaigning
against the primary cause of the problem rather than its consequences?
Indeed, one may ask with much justification, what is the point of
campaigning against urban sprawl at all if you choose to ignore its
root cause? None at all that I can see!

So come on you people at the CPRE, if you are really serious about
protecting our rural heritage from urban sprawl, join us in
campaigning against the ruinous effects of mass immigration on our
rural environment. It’s not a matter of race but a matter of space –
space being something we are rapidly running out of.

0 new messages