The Green Party's internal war
Photo byAlthough Zack Polanski's decision to run to be the next leader of the Green Party may have been unexpected, it certainly wasn't a surprise to party insiders. The current deputy leader and Member of the London Assembly unveiled his zeitgeisty, attention-grabbing campaign for 'eco-populism' only a few days after the May local elections – but he has been on manoeuvres for some time.
While the Greens made a net gain in May, increasing their number of councillors to 859 in 181 councils, the party did not quite cut through nationally in the way many inside the party had hoped, off the back of their unprecedented performance in the general election last year, when the party won a record four MPs. With Labour moving rightwards to directly fend off the threat of Reform, the Greens have the opportunity to put pressure on the government from the left.
Polanski's platform of 'eco-populism' is designed to fill the void – and he has chosen an opportune political moment. Disaffection is beginning to take root among members of the Labour left who are unhappy with Number 10's direction of travel. Keir Starmer's use of the phrase an 'island of strangers', cuts to disability benefit and the winter fuel payment have all contributed to growing irritation among left-wing MPs and party members. The outcome of the Green Party leadership election could therefore prove to be equally as significant for Labour.
Speaking at the Compass Conference in central London on 31 June, in which the soft-left of the party looked to be beginning to mobilise – the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester said his party should be looking increase collaboration with other parties, including the Greens.
But things could get more serious than increased collaboration. As one Labour MP, and stalwart of the soft-left told me, several Labour MPs could defect to the Green Party if Polanski is elected in September. Though they did add that in their opinion, the current deputy leader is not the person to lead the Green Party to a more seismic victory ('he's too student-politics' they said). Another insider suggested to me that as many as 15 could move over if Polanski wins. No one has given Polanski a concrete commitment yet – though he has hinted at having had conversations with potential defectors.
Polanski's decision to run – though precipitous – wasn't an outright challenge to the current co-leaders, Adrian Ramsay and Carla Denyer. The Green party was already due to hold a leadership election this year, after members voted to postpone last year's scheduled race due to the general election. Ramsay and Denyer are also two of the party's four MPs. Nominations for the race opened today (Monday 2 June) and voting will commence in September.
Denyer has announced she will be stepping down from the leadership to spend more time in her Bristol constituency but Ramsay (who is the MP for Waveney Valley) has decided to defend his position, running to be co-leader with Ellie Chowns, the MP for North Herefordshire. Chowns is the only of the party's four MPs not to have taken on the leadership – Sian Berry, who replaced Caroline Lucas as MP for Brighton Pavillion, was co-leader with Jonathan Bartley between 2018-2021.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Though Polanski fired the starting gun, his calls for 'eco-populism' don't seem to have initiated a civil war in the Green Party – yet. But the nature of this race certainly exposes the party's ongoing identity crisis; does want to choose Polanski and offer a radical, left-wing, alternative for voters disillusioned with the Labour party? Or will it decide to remain moderate and nice, continuing to sweep up a wider pool of voters, including those who may previously have voted Conservative or Lib Dem? (Chowns and Ramsay, often described as 'establishment' Greens, would take the Greens in this direction).
To some senior party members, choosing Polanski – and thereby choosing a more radical style of leadership – could lead to even more success. Stuart Jeffry, the leader of Maidstone Borough Council thinks Polanski's direction is exactly where the Greens should be going – though he told me he is uncomfortable with the phrase 'eco-populism'. 'It's about the media coverage that we get,' he told me when we spoke over the phone, 'I've been a member for 40 years and our media coverage has never been particularly good'. Jeffry thinks that's 'mostly because we say things that don't resonate – or which people frankly don't have time to understand the complexities of'.
When I ask whether he means the party needs a leader with more charisma, Jeffry hesitates: 'I'm not going to say that, because Adrian is a good friend of mine. I think I'd use the word energy.' He adds that Polanski, who was grilled by Laura Kuenssberg on the BBC last week, has got 'more on-screen presence than perhaps some of the others'.
Polanski, who is a former actor (and a former Lib Dem), has clearly learnt to use this ability to communicate to his advantage. As deputy leader, he is regularly out on the broadcast rounds representing the Greens. Polanski's call for 'eco-populism' has cut through on the cultural left. During his campaign, he has appeared on PoliticsJoe's YouTube Channel and in conversation with Novara Media's Aaron Bastani. He has also been endorsed by The Guardian columnist, Owen Jones, who left the Labour party and backed the Greens during the election campaign last year.
Polanski has failed to garner the support of Green party grandees such as former leader Caroline Lucas and house of Lords member, Jenny Jones, who have both endorsed Ramsay and Chowns. Polanski is clearly not seen as the establishment candidate; this is primarily channelled into criticism that, unlike Ramsay and Chowns, he is not an MP.
Catherine Braun, who is the deputy leader of Stroud Borough Council, told me that being an MP gives the party leader 'more of a platform' and more exposure. 'They have more opportunities to be invited on Question Time, to be out on stage and to make their points in parliament,' Braun said. She has publicly endorsed Ramsay and Chowns. 'I do think it's time for us to continue to have our co-leaders from the parliamentary party,' she added. (It should be noted that neither Ramsay nor Denyer were MPs when they were elected co-leaders, nor was Sian Berry).
To some members, however, Polanski's lack of a seat in parliament isn't an issue. Anthony Slaughter, the leader in the Green Party in Wales told me: 'Zack is what we need to make the next step,'. He added: 'People seem to have forgotten Zack is a member of the London Assembly and has been for several years.' When I suggest to Slaughter that having an official leader and a leader of the parliamentary party may cause trouble if the pair disagree, he explained: 'it's one of the challenges of success. We're not a whipped party, so as we have more success and get more people elected, there is more scope for disagreement.'
Rumours over a split in the party leadership over trans rights triggering Denyer's decision to step down have already been swirling (this followed Ramsay's failure to say whether he still believed 'trans women are women'). Could this split worsen if Polanski – who has said he will 'rebuild consensus on trans rights'– takes the leadership, with Ramsay potentially taking control of the parliamentary party?
The next leader of the Green Party will be announced on 2 September. If the choice is Zack Polanski, the Green Party will do more than steal votes from Labour – it could take its MPs too.
[See more: The British left is coming for the government]
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
8 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour's 'war-ready' plans will be blown apart by Nato's demand for 3.5% spending on defence and cause £40billion funding shortfall... and tax hikes might be the only way to plug the gap
Voters were warned last night to brace for further tax rises after Nato spending demands blew a £40billion hole in Labour 's plans. Nato chief Mark Rutte has told Keir Starmer and other leaders that the alliance later this month will raise its minimum spending target from 2 per cent of GDP to 3.5 per cent by 2035 to deter Russia 's Vladimir Putin and placate US President Donald Trump. Military sources said it would be 'unthinkable' for Britain to refuse the demand given its leading role in Nato. But experts claimed the bill could eventually run to £40billion a year – the same amount raised by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her controversial Budget last year and equal to 5p on the basic rate of income tax. Defence Secretary John Healey refused to rule out tax increases to help fund the push to move Britain to a position of 'war-fighting readiness' but said ministers would 'set out how we'll pay for future increases in the future'. The Prime Minister has committed to raising defence spending from 2.3 per cent of GDP to 2.5 per cent by 2027. And he has said the Government will move to 3 per cent at some point in the early 2030s 'subject to economic and fiscal conditions'. But he repeatedly refused to set an 'arbitrary date' for meeting it or set out how it would be funded. Sir Keir was holding emergency talks with advisers in Downing Street about how to respond to the demand. He said this week there were 'discussions about what the contribution should be going into the Nato conference'. This week's Strategic Defence Review said Britain must be ready 'to step up, to lead in Nato and take greater responsibility for our collective self-defence'. Whitehall sources cautioned the Nato target may not have to be met in full for a decade, although intermediate goals could be set along the way. The increased spending demand comes at a time when Ms Reeves is already struggling to meet her own fiscal rules and ministers are in retreat over welfare cuts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies warned 'chunky' tax rises would be needed even to hit 3 per cent spending on defence. Professor Malcolm Chalmers, of the Royal United Services Institute, claimed meeting 3.5 per cent by 2035 would cost an extra £40billion a year and said this was equivalent to raising overall income tax receipts 'by 10 per cent'. Former Army chief Lord Dannatt said: 'I would make the case that we have got to tighten our belt. And if we can't borrow more, which we can't, if we can't grow the economy, which we're struggling to, then we've got to put some taxes up.' Official figures show Labour's current plans would see spending on sickness benefits rise faster than that on defence. Despite planned cuts to disability benefits, spending on sickness and disability is forecast to rise from 2.4 per cent of GDP to 3.1 per cent by the end of the decade, reaching almost £100billion a year by 2030. Former Tory chancellor Jeremy Hunt said yesterday that welfare reform was the 'only way' to square the circle. Mr Rutte is expected to set the minimum defence spending target when Nato leaders gather in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 24. The target will be supplemented with an additional goal of spending 1.5 per cent on security- related activity, taking the total to the five per cent demanded by Mr Trump. But former Nato chief Lord Robertson warned that many countries would struggle if the aims are set too high. The Labour peer, who led the Government's review, said: 'I can see why Nato is giving targets but whether they are realisable is a different question altogether.'
South Wales Argus
10 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Rhun ap Iorwerth accuses Labour of 'actively hurting Wales'
Rhun ap Iorwerth criticised Labour's promise that having two governments of the same party would benefit Wales. The Plaid Cymru leader said: "Almost a year since Labour came into power in Westminster, their so-called 'partnership in power' is actively hurting Wales." He pointed towards a £70 million shortfall to fund the rise in employers' National Insurance Contributions affecting public sector organisations, Labour's decision to vote against calls to scrap the two-child benefit cap, the cancellation of the only in-person consultation in Wales on cuts to disability benefits, and the lack of further rail funding. Mr ap Iorwerth added: "Every time we call out these damaging policies, Labour in Wales put party before country." He concluded: "The people of Wales deserve a government that will always stand up for them."
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Why is Labour's pick to be football regulator leading to cries of foul play?
L isa Nandy, secretary of state for culture, media and sport (DCMS), has decided to recuse herself from the final decision on the appointment of the first official football regulator, David Kogan, the government's preferred nominee. At a relatively late stage in proceedings, Kogan revealed in his confirmation hearing at the DCMS select committee that he had donated 'very small' amounts of money to both Keir Starmer and Nandy. This has led to allegations about a conflict of interest and, now, Nandy's unusual decision to stand aside from the decision-making process. Much more than the 'freebies scandal' in Labour's first days back in power, this is the most prominent case of anything like 'sleaze' or ' cronyism ' touching the Starmer administration. How did this happen? It's not entirely obvious. Had Kogan found a way to make his financial support for Starmer and Nandy clear at the earliest possible opportunity, then his embarrassment, and that of ministers, might have been avoided. Or perhaps Starmer and, more apposite, Nandy might have done so. Why didn't she? We don't know. Arguably, leaving it so late made it look like he had something to hide, but there's no reason to think that he's been given any special treatment by the Labour government. Indeed, Kogan was first 'tapped up' for the transfer by the Conservatives, who first proposed creating such a post. Who is David Kogan? He's well qualified to be the football regulator, to be fair. He's had a long career in the media, having worked for the likes of the BBC, Wasserman Media Group and Magnum Photos, and was later the chief media rights adviser to the Premier League between 1998 to 2015. He has also worked with the English Football League, the International Olympic Committee and the US National Football League. The select committee, despite their misgivings, saw fit to endorse his nomination. The committee chair, Caroline Dinenage, however, noted that: '[His] past donations to the Labour Party will inevitably leave him open to charges of political bias in a job where independence is paramount.' In response, Nandy delegated final approval of Kogan to Stephanie Peacock, a junior DCMS minister. How 'Labour' is Kogan? Very. As a young man, he was co-author of The Battle for the Labour Party (1982). The book, written alongside his uncle Maurice Kogan, is one of the best contemporary accounts of the party's traumas during the Thatcher ascendancy. He has made nine donations to the Labour Party, totalling some £33,000 since 2022, including a payment of £5,000 for Rachel Reeves's activities. He was also chair of LabourList until last month. What are the opposition parties doing about it? Making a small fuss. The Tory spokesperson, Louie French, says that it is a 'potential breach of the Governance Code on Public Appointments' that 'must urgently be investigated' and 'represents a clear discourtesy to both this House and the DCMS select committee'. What does it mean for Nandy? It's not ideal. A few months ago, she was rumoured to be up for the sack by Starmer for her performance, or else dropped if her sprawling department is dismantled in some future reshuffle. She's already been demoted by Starmer while in opposition; she was once shadow foreign secretary after finishing third in the 2020 leadership contest (also behind Rebecca Long-Bailey). Never on the hard left – she was Owen Smith's campaign manager for his futile bid to usurp then-leader Jeremy Corbyn in 2016 – the MP for Wigan has consistently acted as a bit of an advocate for the soft left/northern interests within the party. It's probably fair to conclude that she and her leader have gradually drifted away from one another. On the backbenches, she could easily become an informal leader of dissent and a bigger problem for the leadership than some in Downing Street seem to consider her now. Will Kogan get the job?
