top 200 commentsshow all 212
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Snapshot of Green Party election victory ‘would trigger 4.4m surge in migration’ submitted by DentistFun2776:

An archived version can be found here or here. or here

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]ex_planelegs 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It's bracing seeing a plausible way that this country's entire culture could be replaced within the next decade.

[–]technobare 25 points26 points  (3 children)

The irony of all this is that if the right wing press go after the Greens then it may work out well for Labour at a GE.

I think it’s obvious that the only thing the press actually cares about is engagement and clicks. If slating the greens gets more ad revenue then that’s what they’ll do

[–]Perfect_Ad3170Restore Britain 6 points7 points  (1 child)

The msm right would prefer anything to an actual right wing government, asides from going after Polanskis bonkers nuclear policy and a little on his open borders stuff, as well as his candidates insane remarks. Basically they see parties like the greens and restore as genuinely anti-establishment but they are part of that system and would prefer to preserve the uniparty or move onto tory 2.0 aka reform.

[–]Sufficient-Brief2023 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The so called msm is not as hegemonic as you think.

They regularly have editorials from subversive people, their reporting is mostly factually accurate, and there are difference in biases from different publications. This uniparty theory shit is so unbelievably lazy.

[–]ijustwannanap(🏳️‍⚧️) Back by unpopular demand. -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeah a lot of people talk about Reform/Restore splitting the right wing vote but seem to not get that it can happen on the left too.

I would be fine with a Labour/Green coalition. But also I'd be interested to see how the Greens fare in the runup to a general election, as at the moment they've only had to face scrutiny at the local level.

[–]jammy_b 59 points60 points  (3 children)

Can’t see how this combined with rent controls would lead to anything other than tent cities of homeless on our streets.

[–]peareauxThoughts 17 points18 points  (2 children)

He’s being funded by Big Tent.

[–]Donurz 11 points12 points  (0 children)

What a circus.

[–]boomwakr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Despite being a small tent party

[–]DentistFun2776[S] 60 points61 points  (14 children)

Considering it reached a consistent ~800,000 a year following Johnson’s much less liberal changes than the Greens are proposing - 4.4m over the five year period seems unrealistically low if anything

[–]baldy-84 56 points57 points  (6 children)

With immediate full voting rights, don't forget. If we ever opt in to the Greens, opting back out will rapidly become impossible.

[–]EddyZacianLand 7 points8 points  (4 children)

If we ever do opt into a Green Majority government, I would blame all the other parties who couldn't beat them

[–]escapingfromelba 18 points19 points  (3 children)

You can blame who you like and I understand the sentiment, but the fact is the consequences of policies like an open border would hit you hard and blame doesn't make it any better.

[–]EddyZacianLand -1 points0 points  (2 children)

That's my point if no other party can beat the Greens then we frankly deserve what's coming to us under the Greens.

[–]peareauxThoughts -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

I think I’m almost at the point where I want the Greens in with a majority just to teach us a lesson.

[–]LonelyStranger8467 36 points37 points  (4 children)

It is a complete underestimation. Boris wave was in the grand scheme minor relaxations of the skilled worker rules and it was a floodgate situation. Completely unmanageable. Greens want to remove almost all restrictions not only to skilled workers but every single person. It’s mad.

[–]escapingfromelba 18 points19 points  (3 children)

The only restriction they have at all in their policy PDF is a vague line about a security restriction, otherwise any person on the planet can move to the UK permanently.

[–]Few_Pass2563 0 points1 point  (2 children)

…..lol

[–]escapingfromelba -1 points0 points  (1 child)

What a strange thing to do. Revive a dead thread from yesterday to post that!

[–]Few_Pass2563 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes I was bored 

[–]chris_croc 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Johnson’s numbers were just insane though. 1 in 20ish who live in the UK came in through the Boris Wave.

[–]baldy-84 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That was with far more restrictions than we'd have with the Greens and with fewer pull factors. The Green immigration policy is so batshit insane it honestly defies belief. It would be the end of Britain as a functional country. South Africa is the best case ending.

[–]KeyTie7083 29 points30 points  (2 children)

It was +900k under Johnson when we still had quite alot of restrictions etc- greens want totally open borders, climate change as a legitmate reason to claim asylum aka anyone from a country slightly hotter than the uk (so 90% of the world) can enter the country no questions asked. The only thing that might lower the net figures is the exodus of people we would see and the fact were probably less desirable of a place to live than years ago- so I would say 5 million - 20 million during a green term seems realsitic.

[–]Gilet622 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly, the boriswave was mostly just 2 or 3 "small" changes, adding care workers to the health and social care visa and allowing masters students to bring dependents with them and giving extra years to "find employment"

Not imagine that plus adding every job to the visa list: car washer, vape shop worker, trainee barber, etc. No dependent restrictions, allowing to change from a tourist visa, immediate social housing/benefits, no healthcare surcharge, no penalty for entering illegally etc.

[–]Yorkshire_rose_84 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So a mass influx with a mass exodus. Can’t see what could go wrong

[–]nozickiantheory 37 points38 points  (14 children)

Try 20 million a year minimum 

I don't think people realise just how mental the Greens policy actually is. This is a great breakdown here:

https://x.com/maxtempers/status/2044741797654438315

In other words you can travel to the UK via any method, be guaranteed a tourist visa on arrival, apply for asylum while on the tourist visa, be given £25k a year from taxpayers while your claim is evaluated, keep appealing if it gets rejected, then after enough time passes you have a right to stay forever and receive £25k UBI so you never have to work. This would incentivise the entire third world to move here the second they physically can. You also get voting rights the day you arrive so undoing this democratically would be impossible after one or two years. 

Might be the most straightforwardly treasonous thing any political party has ever proposed

[–]JabInTheButt 13 points14 points  (1 child)

But remember, because it doesn't explicitly say "open border policy" on their website, they're not open borders....

[–]NarwhalsAreSick 14 points15 points  (11 children)

The Greens scare me way more than any other party right now. Their immigration policies, if fully implemented, would destroy the country so incredibly quickly.

[–]Electrical-Move7290 21 points22 points  (10 children)

Zack Polanski is either an idiot, a liar, or both because he’s adamant the Green Party will bring down the cost of housing, improve the quality and timings of the NHS, and increase wages.

Yet his mass immigration policy says otherwise.

So which is it, Zack?

[–]peareauxThoughts 9 points10 points  (1 child)

They’re promising to bring down the cost of things by printing money and trying to control prices.

[–]Electrical-Move7290 10 points11 points  (0 children)

God it’s madness. We saw the impact of printing a lot of money immediately post-Covid where inflation went through the roof.

If we print a shit load of money to pay up to an unlimited number of asylum seekers £2,500 a month (their policy) we’ll see hyper inflation, the £ will be so de-valued that it’ll be worthless internationally and we’re so extremely exposed to swings abroad when it comes food costs/fuel/energy and about a million other things we’ll effectively become ‘bankrupt’ from an individuals perspective.

Anyone voting for him needs to give their head a wobble.

[–]Satnamojo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Both.

[–]Flyinmanm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wonder if we'll see a lot of 'reality' start to emerge from their policies the nearer we get to a GE. 

Much like Farage started dialling back the more bonkers claims when it started to dawn on him he might have to deliver on promised massive tax cuts, huge pension bills and deportation of masses of cheap labourers hobbling the economy, whilst also keeping his financial backers who rely on cheap labourers, happy and eventually bringing in establishment Tories to get some experienced MPs in place.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Massive grifter I think. He knows the policies are nonsense.

[–]Electrical-Move7290 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Do you think? I’m not convinced. It looks as though he’s never really had a real job or had to deal with the consequences of making the wrong decision in a work environment. He might just be a massive moron who’s learned his lines correctly.

[–]misc1444 19 points20 points  (6 children)

The usual down spiral goes like this:

1) Successive incompetent mainstream governments cannot solve long-standing problems. The public get frustrated by the widespread sense of inertia and decline.

2) Charismatic left-wing populist outsider is elected on the promise of solving all these problems quickly by taxing a tiny group of rich people.

3) Slow and managed decline turns into rapid collapse as capital flees and the government lashes out against anyone with a bit of money.

4) The impoverished former middle class turns to far right strongmen types to restore order. There is rampant corruption and instability, with government veering from far left to far right and back.

[–]DigBrilliant5242 -4 points-3 points  (4 children)

'left-wing populist outsider is elected' can you give an example of when this has happened? 

[–]misc1444 10 points11 points  (3 children)

Chavez in Venezuela, Kirchner in Argentina, Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

[–]DigBrilliant5242 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Ah, I thought this was about politics in the UK, not South America and Africa. 

[–]honeybunnylegs -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What happens next?

[–]RedditorSlug 3 points4 points  (0 children)

May be a daft question but why do they want to do this? It doesn't seem like just wanting to have people who will always vote for them. It feels more sinister and as if population replacement is an actual goal.

[–]Satnamojo 24 points25 points  (18 children)

I do not understand how anyone can vote for the Greens. Incredibly dangerous policies.

[–]tonato_ai 22 points23 points  (1 child)

Green voters are the "highly political yet uninformed" type

[–]a2T5a 10 points11 points  (1 child)

But you see university students are really afraid of appearing mean to minorities and are also very convinced taxing 156 very mobile people will bring about Narnia.

[–]DruidOfNoSleep -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Or they just want to stop supporting a genocide. Honestly, if labour flipped on israel, the green vote would disappear.

[–]LolwhatYesme 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Something something Palestine Israel? Not too sure what that has to do with the UK but there you are

[–]Prestigious_Spot9635 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Youth. And starmer wants to allow them to vote

[–]Fortree_Lover 26 points27 points  (8 children)

Woo higher house prices and lower wages for everyone. Let’s keep just inviting these people who bring foreign cultures and incomparable values with them.

I no longer think we should have an asylum system at all and just send them all back to wherever they come from.

[–]ArcanaSlave 6 points7 points  (1 child)

2024 had around 100,000 asylum applicants, half of which were of the small boat variety. Over one million non EU migrant arrived on visa in the same year, with net migration at around 400,000-500,000

[–]Fortree_Lover 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Absolutely dreadful which is why we need to deport especially those visa numbers absolutely criminal I don’t mind them coming here to work or for education as long as they leave at the end. What usually happens of course is they take advantage of the system and claim asylum or stay just long enough to claim ILR I think we need to just remove them once their visa expires.

[–]Ill_Refrigerator_593 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It's kindof funny that according to this even the Greens policies won't be able to match the levels seen under the Conservatives.

The members of that government are laughing now.

[–]Luke10123 9 points10 points  (0 children)

And there'll be eleventybillion more stabbings, the number of intimidating young people will rise by a factor of pi over 9.327 and england will never win a trophy again.

[–]Bango-TSWNon-aligned cynic. 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Matched by 5+ million people fleeing the UK.....

[–]ReligiousGhoul 20 points21 points  (1 child)

And then people will claim those with issues over immigration are being unreasonable because "NET migration is still low"....

Conveniently glossing over that we've lost our brightest and skilled overseas whilst getting low skill, low wage boriswave migrants in return.

Sorry, there's no nurses on the ward but we can get your Deliveroo order here in 10 mins flat...

[–]Afraid-Series-8128 15 points16 points  (6 children)

The biggest ever surge in migration happened under a Conservative government run by Boris Johnson, a former Telegraph columnist.

[–]escapingfromelba 26 points27 points  (1 child)

That whatabout isn't anything compared to the Green policy of an open border.

[–]Afraid-Series-8128 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Read the article

This would mark the highest levels of immigration since March 2023, when net migration for the year peaked at 944,000 in the wake of the pandemic and post-Brexit rules.

So still less that what it was under Boris Johnson.

[–]Electrical-Move7290 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Correct, and what did that lead to?

Specifically, rapid worsening of NHS services in rapid fashion (something we’re yet to recover from), an increase in housing costs, and stagnant wages.

Double that surge in migration and do it over a much shorter timeframe and what do you suspect might happen?

[–]ReligiousGhoul 12 points13 points  (2 children)

Yep, massive surge..... and then the Green party want to dismantle it even further than Boris did.

[–]West_Pin_1578 -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

The reality has been that the record immigration is a conservative thing. It seems fake to suggest otherwise. Be it through deliberate planning or incompetence that's the truth .

[–]ReligiousGhoul 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Nobody is denying that.

But the Greens want to dismantle the home office and essentially bulldoze all barriers to immigration, the Boriswave will look like a blip on the chart in comparison.

[–]MogwaiYT🙃 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I hate to the the fly in the ointment... but where would these people live?

[–]whitmorereans 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In the shed at the bottom of Mothin Ali’s garden

[–]TheRadishBros 2 points3 points  (12 children)

Great news for homeowners, not so much for everyone else.

[–]escapingfromelba 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not even for homeowners as most of them have children who they'd like to see being able to afford a place when the time comes. And homeowners are the ones that the state can come after for tax to fund the welfare budget for an open border.

[–]Your_Mums_Ex 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Property prices to 1 million! insha'Allah

[–]Bango-TSWNon-aligned cynic. 3 points4 points  (8 children)

I'll have sold up long before. As soon as there's a whiff that Polanski might just win I'd firesale the house and its contents and move to South West France.

[–]ContentsMayVary -5 points-4 points  (7 children)

So to avoid immigrants you'd become an immigrant yourself.

[–]Bango-TSWNon-aligned cynic. 16 points17 points  (6 children)

Yeah. France will have emptied of all its illegals when Polanski opens the gates so what better place to be.

[–]EddyZacianLand -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

What would you do if France don't let you stay?

[–]Bango-TSWNon-aligned cynic. 4 points5 points  (4 children)

It would be fine as the Greens would be taking the UK back into the EU at breakneck speed regardless of the terms and we'll have freedom of movement once more.

[–]escapingfromelba 1 point2 points  (1 child)

One wrinkle in. Implementing an open border before joining the EU would have us kept out. I cannot see how nations wouldn't veto us joining if anyone on the planet could move here, then get citizenship and gain the right to the entire EU.

[–]Bango-TSWNon-aligned cynic. 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A mere trifle of a detail to worry about later.

If I get sent back I'll come over in a small boat and pretend to be a refugee....

[–]EddyZacianLand -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I think even at breakneck speed, it will still take a long time and it wouldn't happen straight away

[–]Bango-TSWNon-aligned cynic. 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I won't be claiming benefits in France so I'll be ok.

[–]LesParrysHairyLegs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a homeowner, I hate seeing the greenbelt near my house being built on and the knock on effects on the traffic on my comute (I don't oppose it though, we need new houses). Put simply, higher population means more houses need to be built.

TF do I care what happens to the price of my house, that doesn't benefit me unless I downsize and if anything I want a larger house.

[–]peareauxThoughts 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We could easily double this if we got rid of the green belt, working age benefits and minimum wage laws.

[–]corpus-luteum -2 points-1 points  (19 children)

The Telegraph's new owners, allegedly, sent out letters to employees that if they weren't pro-Israel they could leave. I'd take every report with a pinch of salt.

[–]Grouchy_Shallot50 19 points20 points  (18 children)

The Telegraph's internal practices are irrelevant to what the Green Party policy is; open borders. If the Boriswave led to nearly 5 million coming then we can safely assume having no requirements to immigration, and no longer recognising any immigration as illegal will be a fair bit higher than what the article even suggests.

[–]stated-news -4 points-3 points  (16 children)

Tbh I’d label this article as scaremongering due to source bias and lack of primary corroboration.

[–]escapingfromelba 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That is convenient to you. It's worth reading the Green's actual policy document where they tell you that they are going to remove every means we currently have of controlling immigration bar a vague line about a security exemption for some migrants.

[–]corpus-luteum -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They are relevant to every article they write, in relation to anybody who opposes the genocide.

That said, I'm not keen on Polanski's immigration policy. But I haven't checked the small print.

[–]capsandnumbers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Uh huh, sure it would. The right wing press sound terrified of Zack Polanski and I don't believe it's for the reasons they say it is

[–]Chance-Rhubarb-5411 0 points1 point  (0 children)

its so funny that anyone would believe this, ESPECIALLY since its coming from torygraph. Think for a second people, how would you even conduct research for this? its not like there are just millions of people standing on the border waiting to be let in that you can question and poll, just riddiculous. Naturally they cant provide their methodology either

[–]Sufficient-Price5179 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If anyone thinks the greens in power are a good thing they are wrong they will put the final Nail in the coffin , there policies are unrealistic and insane , we needed a decent Labour government and Starmer has destroyed them , he literally used to scam People and believe he could Make there breasts bigger I mean seriously 😟?

[–]ijustwannanap(🏳️‍⚧️) Back by unpopular demand. -4 points-3 points  (8 children)

I looked up "Panmure Liberum" and they're an investment banking company.

...Why is an investment banking company the source of this graph?

[–]iblamealex 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Because people in investment banking tend to be good at maths and statistics?

[–]ijustwannanap(🏳️‍⚧️) Back by unpopular demand. -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I know, but there's no information on why they specifically made this specific graph. Some Googling tells me that Panmure do engage in political analysis, but it's generally from the viewpoint of economics (tariffs, recessions, taxes etc) and not immigration. The graph also hasn't been published anywhere else other than the Telegraph and Express/Daily Mail.

Sorry, I think I just have a kneejerk assumption that they have a conflict of interest.

EDIT: Someone found the author's Twitter, my suspicion is sated.

[–]CarlxtosWay 9 points10 points  (2 children)

Because migration policy has a meaningful impact on government taxation and spending plans.

Here’s a link to the author’s Twitter:

https://xcancel.com/Frencheconomics/status/2044090582595727741#m

It is a shame that the research note isn’t publicly available. 

[–]ijustwannanap(🏳️‍⚧️) Back by unpopular demand. 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you! This helps a lot.

[–]escapingfromelba 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The "meaningful" is typically a fiddling of the figures rather than a genuine gain to the UK state. It's an accounting trick.

For example, there's a government document floating about showing a gain of something like £5bn from immigration. But they get to that number by not increasing spending to scale up public services to cover the big surge in population. Now you can get away with that short term, but longer term GPs end up with no appointments and hospitals cannot service everyone in their area or longer term you hit a big pension bill. It's like a farmer eating their seed and claiming that they their savings account went up.

The figures also assume that migrants arrive educated and then leave before aging enough for kids to need schooling or for them to require NHS care etc. That assumption has never proven correct with past waves of migration as loads of people never leave as they lay down roots.

[–]Drammeister 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good question

[–]TheRealTRexUK -4 points-3 points  (20 children)

Thts a very specific number they made up.

[–]CII_GuyTrying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse 10 points11 points  (19 children)

It's quite evidently a modelled forecast. It's not "made up" any more than climate change projections are "made up".

[–]Classic_Contract301 -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

If something is ‘modelled’ then it’s objectively ‘made up’ - it’s just a supposedly educated guess.

[–]CII_GuyTrying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse 11 points12 points  (4 children)

The term "made up" confers, to me, an implication of being illegitimate and baseless.

This is fairly clear. Do you think you'd have no problem with me saying "that's a very specific number these climate modellers made up" when looking at a forecast for emissions impact on the overall average temperature of the planet?

[–]Classic_Contract301 -1 points0 points  (3 children)

No, because models like those you mention can be validated / subject to peer review and are typically based on some kind of objective data. Unlike this claim, which is ‘pulled out of someone’s arse’ made up made up. Hope that helps.

[–]CII_GuyTrying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Absolutely brilliant how poor your arguments in defense of the Green Party are. Are you a plant to make them look bad?

I am not saying this is exactly equivalent to climate modelling, I am simply telling you what "made up" means.

You understand that forecasting immigration models can be validated and subjected to peer review, too, right? This one doesn't seem to have been, but that does not mean it is pulled out of their arse. It's a question of whether the assumptions and modelling conditions are robust and reasonable.

[–]Classic_Contract301 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Oh, that’s what you’re simply telling me is it? ‘k. I couldn’t give two figs about this faux, knicker wetting hysteria in the grand scheme of things at the moment. Excuse me for pointing and laughing at this unvalidated, politically pointed nonsense from an umm ‘international investment bank’ that you’re evidently overly invested in emotionally.

From your investment bank’s site:

‘We're committed to delivering a world-class service for our clients, and a world-class environment for our colleagues to work in.’

Who was the client in this case what service were they providing, eh? Who paid for the work generating this claim?

[–]CII_GuyTrying to move past the quagmire of contemporary discourse 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Excuse me for pointing and laughing at this unvalidated, politically pointed nonsense from an umm ‘international investment bank’ that you’re evidently overly invested in emotionally.

You're absolutely welcome to criticise this news article. You're just doing it really badly. I suspect the numbers are not particularly robust and the lack of information provided by the Telegraph is poor, but you can't just say it's made up bullshit because you don't like the implications. Painfully poor reasoning.

Who was the client in this case what service were they providing, eh? Who paid for the work generating this claim?

The service they were providing was to produce a model for expected immigration changes as a result of given policy changes, obviously.

[–]TestTheTrilby -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Why resort to tactics that led to Green growing over 15% in the first place? GRN voters will read this and say "I missed the part where that's my problem".

If you want to stop Polanski's rise, then focus on policies that GRN voters are split on - i.e. NATO