Raping the countryside to attempt to boost the economy is vile political short termism

This article illustrates the stupidity of destroying our precious countryside for the sake of a short term fix for the UK economy

The coalition feels they have the right to rape the countryside to stimulate growth in the flagging UK economy. They should remember we are the custodians of our beautiful green land and building development on green belt sites is an irreversible process.

The coalition's argument mirrors the foolish notion of encouraging immigration as a short term measure to deal with pensions crisis in an ageing population in an already heavily overpopulated country. It is a short term fix that will need to be re-fed once the immigrants brought in for that fix themselves retire and require money for their own pensions. The natural answer then is to increase the population further.

The analogy is that of bacteria multiplying rapidly in a Petri dish. The bacteria multiply very quickly and appear to flourish in vast numbers. There comes a time when the food source in the Petri dish suddenly comes to an end and then the bacteria die in their billions.

We need to see sensible custodianship of our country by our politicians and not quick fix policies like raping our rural assets and costly PFI public service developments that are designed to show the public how wonderful our politicians are. The costs of this political narcissism are just too high on us all.

Green Party's Breathtaking Confusion of Purpose

This post discusses my observation of the confusion of purpose of the Green Party and how they avoid the elephant in the room - overpopulation.

I had a long discussion with a Green Party (GP) activist over a beer or three last night. He confirmed the Greens are a socialist group that concentrates on the environment and therefore wasn't a single issue focus group. He felt that the environment would be best served through socialist policies.

I am old enough to remember the 1980's when the GP actually really stood apart as a focussed concern for the environment. I was impressed that a political group cared for something that was dear to my heart and even considered voting for them. The policies on the GP website now have the main headings of banking system, health and NHS, pensions, housing, jobs and living wage, transport and young people. While some of what they say on housing seems to make sense, one cannot help wondering if the GP is primarily a socialist party that puts the needs of socialism before the needs of the environment. In other words, any of their green policies are based on an indirect approach to ecology and conservation based on the foundations of socialism and not through any primary concern for the environment. In this way, they will prioritise socialism above any policies that might improve the environment. Where there is a conflict in between these policies, socialism will always be put first.

I raised the point with my beer drinking partner that the subject of human overpopulation was studiously avoided in published statements of GP policies. While it is within the socialist mindset to never even discuss the subject of reducing the planet's human population explosion, it is more acceptable to let the environment suffer the needs of the population if need be by humanity's given right to expand as it seems fit. Instead, the GP would rather concentrate on the more cosy subjects of wind farms and other techniques to reduce carbon emissions while conveniently forgetting that the more humans there are on the planet, the more carbon will be emitted.

My beverage sipping companion agreed that a major GP policy was one of redistribution of wealth in the UK. Also it is interesting and perhaps not surprising that when one scours the GP website for its foreign policy, the only subject that seems to come up is that of criticism of Israel. No mention is made of the hungry, dying masses of Darfur or countless other countries that have such appalling records of sordid violations of human rights. Of course redistribution stops at the borders of the British Isles. As with so many other socialist intellectual groups that pride themselves on their bleeding hearts, redistribution only concerns the people of one country, foreign policy concerns centre around the plight of Palestinians and the rest of the abused, hungry, raped and murdered world can go hang.

After I made these points to my redoubtable companion of the brew, I asked what the GP really stood for. The answer was not easily forthcoming.

I concluded that the Green Party was not a party for the environment but a home for socialists disaffected with New Labour and the Lib Dems. It is about time they changed their name to make it clear to all what they really stand for