Full Analysis Summary
Leaked Green Party proposals
Leaked internal Green Party papers, reported by the Daily Mail and summarized by GB News, describe a package of highly permissive immigration proposals said to be backed by leader Zack Polanski.
The proposals include immediate NHS access for people who arrive without authorization, the right to work without restriction, free accommodation, and a Universal Basic Income-level wage with no work requirement.
The proposals also include the abolition of immigration detention and the end of deportation after appeals.
Both outlets state these measures are drawn from internal documents rather than the Greens' costed 2024 manifesto.
The Greens are quoted as saying the proposals are long-standing, member-approved and differ from their formal manifesto.
The reporting is framed as a set of policy prescriptions originating in internal party papers rather than an already adopted manifesto pledge.
Coverage Differences
Tone
Daily Mail (Western Tabloid) presents the papers as a scandalous "leak" emphasising controversial elements and linking them to other contentious Green proposals, while GB News (Western Mainstream) frames the documents as outlining a coherent "vision" and reports more of the policy detail (housing breakdown, UBI, and the phrasing that "migration is not a criminal offence"). Each source is reporting the internal documents rather than claiming the proposals are presently the party's costed manifesto, and both quote the Greens saying the leaked papers differ from the party's 2024 manifesto.
Housing and support proposals
The leaked papers, as reported, include detailed housing proposals and living-support arrangements: GB News quotes the documents as calling for free accommodation with 'families a whole home; single men rooms in shared properties; separate housing for those identifying as LGBT,' alongside a Universal Basic Income-level wage and unrestricted right to work.
The Daily Mail’s summary likewise lists housing and an immediate right to work and NHS access among the key measures.
Those specifics are presented as elements of the internal policy pack rather than a currently costed manifesto commitment.
Coverage Differences
Details
GB News (Western Mainstream) provides granular descriptions of the housing arrangements (families, single men, separate LGBT housing), while the Daily Mail (Western Tabloid) lists the broader package (housing, wage at UBI levels, NHS access) without the same itemised housing breakdown. Both sources attribute the content to internal documents and note Greens say these differ from the party’s formal 2024 manifesto.
Proposed immigration reforms
Both sources report the documents call for scrapping immigration detention, ending deportation after appeals, granting amnesty to migrants whose asylum claims are rejected and treating migration as non-criminal.
GB News quotes the papers saying "migration is not a criminal offence under any circumstances" and that new arrivals should be treated as "citizens in waiting."
The Daily Mail reports the documents would allow applicants to remain and have claims considered regardless of route or false documents, and notes a proposal to accept asylum seekers’ accounts "in the absence of contrary evidence."
Coverage Differences
Narrative Framing
GB News (Western Mainstream) quotes the document language framing migrants as "citizens in waiting" and explicitly records the assertion that migration is never a crime, emphasising the legal and philosophical framing. The Daily Mail (Western Tabloid) emphasises operational consequences — admissibility regardless of route or false documents and acceptance of accounts absent contrary evidence — and pairs that with reminders of other controversial Green ideas, creating a more alarmed narrative.
Political reactions to proposals
The Daily Mail records condemnation from the Conservatives, Reform UK and Labour over the package.
Opponents described the proposals as "open borders", "financially reckless" and unsafe.
The Daily Mail also notes Reform UK contrasted the plans with the Greens' drug‑legalisation agenda.
GB News likewise records sharp criticism but also reports Green sources defending the proposals as long‑standing aims.
GB News points to polling where the Greens have performed strongly.
Both sources portray the story as politically explosive ahead of local by‑elections.
Coverage Differences
Tone
Daily Mail (Western Tabloid) and GB News (Western Mainstream) agree there is strong political backlash, but the Daily Mail foregrounds the linking of these immigration proposals with other controversial Green policies (drug legalisation, alleged cartel links) to amplify alarm, whereas GB News balances the criticism with the Greens’ defence and mentions polling strength and internal framing as a broader vision.
Reporting on leaked policies
Limitations and unresolved questions are apparent in the reporting, because both the Daily Mail and GB News base their pieces on internal leaked papers rather than on an official costed policy platform.
Both outlets cite Greens saying the leaked proposals differ from the party’s costed 2024 manifesto.
The two sources differ in emphasis: the Daily Mail stresses controversy and links to other contentious policies, while GB News presents the policy language and housing detail and reports the Greens’ defence.
There is no independent verification in these snippets that the measures have been adopted or fully costed, and the full leaked text is not reproduced here.
Readers should note the coverage comes from a Western tabloid (Daily Mail) and a Western mainstream source (GB News), which affects tone and focus.
Coverage Differences
Missed Information
Neither source provides the full leaked document text or a costed fiscal analysis; both report the Greens' response that the papers differ from their costed manifesto. The Daily Mail (Western Tabloid) pairs the leak with broader allegations about other Green policies to raise alarm, while GB News (Western Mainstream) publishes more of the policy wording and the party's contextual defence — but both leave open whether the proposals would be enacted or how they would be funded.