Green Party leadership candidates accuse Polanski of using ‘polarising' language
The co-leadership contenders did not give specific examples of 'polarising' language he had used.
Former Green Party leader and MP Caroline Lucas said Ms Chowns and Mr Ramsay's membership of the House of Commons gave them more authority compared with Mr Polanski.
They represent North Herefordshire, and Waveney Valley in East Anglia, respectively.
They are standing against Mr Polanski, the party's deputy leader and a member of the London Assembly. He has previously told the Guardian his bid would be focused on transforming the Greens into an 'eco-populism' mass movement.
The Green Party had four MPs elected in July 2024, its highest number. Meanwhile, the party has more than 850 councillors after May's local elections, also a record total.
Voting in the leadership contest will open on Friday. The result will be announced on September 2.
The election was called after Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) announced her decision not to stand again in May.
Ms Chowns said: 'As the current Labour government balances the books on the backs of the poorest, and backslides on its commitments to counter climate breakdown, it's crucially important that the Green Party keeps its distinctive identity as the only party in British politics with climate and environment front and centre.
'To win under first-past-the-post, we have to connect with a wide range of voters. We do that not through polarising language that appeals only to a narrow segment, but with the language of fairness, compassion and hope for a thriving, sustainable future.'
She added voters had indicated they would be more willing to back the Green Party than the new party which is being set up by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and ex-Labour MP Zarah Sultana.
'Polling by YouGov shows that people who voted for all the other parties in 2024 are much more likely to consider voting Green next time than for a Corbyn-led party, and our ability to keep winning over voters from every other party is a huge strength in an increasingly crowded political landscape,' she said.
Ms Lucas, who represented Brighton Pavilion for 14 years until last year, said: 'It's a huge advantage for our party to be led by people who are holding the Government to account every day of the week in Parliament, with the mandate that comes from being an elected MP.
'It reminds voters that the Green Party is a serious political party winning power at every level, as well as being part of the wider environmental and social justice movement.'
Mr Ramsay, who has been co-leader with Ms Denyer since 2021, said: 'In recent years we've had unprecedented success, doubling our councillor numbers and winning four new Green MPs.
'This has come from a laser-like focus on elections, and from successfully building trust and sustained support in communities all across the country.
'Building that level of trust with voters is a massive achievement and, with the two-party system now clearly finished, it puts us in an excellent position to make much bigger gains.
'Ellie and I are hugely ambitious for the future of the party. We can't be complacent about the Green Party's hard-won credibility.
'As more and more people align with our values and vision, that credibility and wide appeal is what will enable us to play a central role in the future of British politics.'
Mr Polanski has been contacted for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Live
a few seconds ago
- North Wales Live
DWP pension changes that could mean people retire later
Sweeping changes to both state and private pensions, overseen by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), have been announced. The modifications form part of extensive reforms to the pensions sector by the Labour government. Among the most significant alterations is the prospect of a substantial rise in the state pension age, which could force people to postpone their retirement. Last week, the government revealed a wide-ranging review of the UK pensions system. An independent commission has been formed to examine a series of controversial matters and put forward recommendations for reform. The Government plans to increase the State Pension age from 66 to 67 between 2026 and 2028, affecting those born on or after 6 April 1960. For money-saving tips, sign up to our Money newsletter here. There are proposals for a further rise, lifting the State Pension age from 67 to 68 between 2044 and 2046, though this timeline could be brought forward, reports Birmingham Live. "A faster increase is definitely on the cards," says Rachel Vahey, the head of public policy at investment platform AJ Bell. Sign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox The Institute for Fiscal Studies thinktank caused a stir when it suggested that the State Pension Age may need to climb to 69 by 2049 and 74 by 2069 if the triple lock safeguarding its value remains in place. Australian employers are presently obliged to pay 11.5% of workers' salaries into their pensions, with this figure set to rise to 12% in 2025. In comparison, whilst the overall minimum contribution in the UK sits at 8%, employers need only provide 3%. Pension firms and sector specialists have repeatedly lobbied for this amount to be raised to 12%. Nigel Peaple, director of policy and advocacy at the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, has continually maintained the minimum pension contribution should rise from the current 8% of earnings to 12%. He said: "To minimise the impact on savers and employers, the increases should happen gradually, as they did in Australia, with employers paying more so that, by about 10 years from now, both employers and employees would pay the same. "This approach of a 50/50 split between employers and employees would strike a fair balance; it would involve higher contributions for employers compared to the current UK rules but much lower ones than traditional UK pensions in which the employer usually paid around two thirds of the cost." One concept attracting attention is the "sidecar savings" method. There are different ways to structure a "sidecar account". Two proposed models are the dual account and integrated plan frameworks. Within the dual account structure, the worker keeps a workplace pension whilst simultaneously joining a separate savings account via a savings provider. The saver sets a savings ceiling for the sidecar account, and the savings provider directs the employer to contribute to this sidecar until the limit is reached. Once the threshold is achieved, any extra funds are channelled into the pension alongside the standard pension contributions. Should funds be withdrawn from the sidecar, the individual recommences saving into it until the cap is attained once more. In the in-plan model, employees opt to save via their employer. Employers then remit the total sum contributed by an employee to both a workplace pension and an emergency savings account to a pension provider. The pension provider allocates the contribution between the pension pot and the emergency savings account. Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the UK's Financial Conduct Authority, remarked: "Australia, New Zealand, the US, Singapore and South Africa all permit citizens to leverage their pension savings to buy a first home. "Some have suggested we consider, carefully, similar approaches in some circumstances here in the UK." This week, the government announced its dedication to "committed to both monitoring and narrowing" the gender pensions gap. Recent Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) figures have revealed that the gender pension gap has escalated to a "stark" 48%. The figures, unveiled as the government declared a 'revival' of the Pensions Commission amid concerns about undersaving, showed that in 2020 to 2022, women aged 55 to 59 had a median wealth of £81,000 compared to £156,000 for men. Approximately 20% of self-employed individuals are contributing to a private pension, with many pointing to the Lifetime ISA as a potential solution. There's talk that ministers may tweak the rules to let over-40s open a Lifetime ISA and boost its appeal by cutting the 25% withdrawal charge. Helen Morrissey, head of retirement analysis at Hargreaves Lansdown, commented: "The 25% government bonus acts in the same way as basic-rate tax relief, and any income can be taken tax-free." She added, "There is also the ability to access money early if needed, subject to a 25% exit charge."
New Statesman
a minute ago
- New Statesman
The special relationship that wasn't
Photo by Tolga Akmen/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images What a week for Britain's 'special relationship'. Keir Starmer headed to Scotland to sit in near silence at a press conference with President Trump, as the US leader attacked implicitly or overtly his policies on energy and tax as well as tearing apart his 'friend' the mayor of London. Starmer delayed his announcement on the recognition of a Palestinian state until his visit was over. Unlike Macron, Starmer's declaration came with conditions attached, partly in the hope of staying as close as possible to Trump. Even now No 10 hopes to be a 'bridgehead' between the US and the countries recognising a Palestinian state. Starmer's moves are made with the US in mind. Why do so many prime ministers set such store by the so-called 'special relationship' with the US? They seek out the presidential embrace, while aware of the darkness that swamped their predecessors who did the same. One of the great posthumous commentators on contemporary politics is the former foreign secretary, Robin Cook – a figure with whom I suspect Starmer would have had considerable affinity in his former role as a human rights lawyer. In Cook's diaries, published in his book, The Point of Departure, the then cabinet minister exposed brilliantly the shallow evasiveness of the 'bridgehead' role: 'Tony Blair's favourite image of Britain's relationship with the US is that we are its bridge to Europe…The concept of a bridge is perfectly tailored for New Labour as a bridge cannot make choices, but by definition is in the middle'. The observation is illuminating on many levels. In some respects, Starmer has been unfairly criticised for lacking the clear sense of purpose and direction possessed by Blair on all fronts. It was Cook's view, at least, that Blair also avoided hard choices until he had to make them. At which point he went for the least daunting option. When he was forced to choose between Europe and the US over Iraq, he sided with President George Bush, with the full support of the Tory leadership and Conservative newspapers – his comfort zone. When the war went horribly wrong a lot of the fickle admirers turned on him. The special relationship did not lead to a comfort zone for Blair. It never does for British prime ministers. When Clement Attlee won in 1945 the country was broke and urgently needed huge investment in public services, as it does now. Attlee found a way of raising the cash by negotiating a loan with the US, Britain's recent wartime ally. The terms Attlee secured were brutally punitive for the UK and hugely beneficial to the US. It is the reason why Britain's change making Labour government lasted nowhere near as long as the Conservative's equivalent elected in 1979 – the toll taken on the economy was great, as Attlee and his colleagues addressed the huge costs of repaying the loan. A deeply divided Labour Party was in opposition for 13 years after losing the 1951 election. A main source of the division was Attlee's final attempts to reassure the US on its ambitions for defence spending. Attlee greatly increased expenditure on arms. The party split over the introduction of prescription charges to pay for some of the spending. Fast forward to now: what services will be hit as the current government meets its plans to increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP, partly to please Trump? A few years after Attlee left No 10, Anthony Eden became the next prime minister to fall, partly over assumptions about the US. When Egypt's President Gamal Abdel Nasser seized the Suez Canal, Eden's immediate instinct was to respond with force. He was a brief hero for the summer of 1956, as he outlined his plans for war. By the end of the summer President Dwight Eisenhower made it clear he would not back Eden. The British prime minister was taken aback but dared to hope for neutrality from his partner in Washington. Eisenhower was not neutral. He opposed the prime minister's military plan. The then chancellor, Harold Macmillan, also discovered that the US would hit the fragile British economy if Eden went ahead. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Without the US, he could not do so. He was gone by January of the following a year, a fall in some ways more dramatic than that of Liz Truss. Eden could not survive after his misplaced faith in the special relationship destroyed him. After this, British foreign policy became a little more realistic. Macmillan had seen first hand that the US could not be relied on. He sought and failed to join what was then the Common Market. In the 1960s, Harold Wilson also tried to sign up, again without success. But he demonstrated Britain could be independent of the US when he did not offer military support in Vietnam. President Lyndon B Johnson was furious, but Wilson held his ground. The current government's ministerial historian, Nick Thomas-Symonds, cites Wilson's decision as the bravest foreign policy move of any Labour prime minister. Wilson's successor, Edward Heath, was not remotely bothered by the special relationship, and instead negotiated Britain's membership of the Common Market. As with domestic policy, Margaret Thatcher changed all assumptions. Her friendship with President Ronald Reagan was part of her image as the Iron Lady, bestriding the world stage. In the 1980s Blair and Gordon Brown watched her on a TV screen in their cramped shared office as she was feted in Washington. In contrast their leader, Neil Kinnock, was treated dismissively when he made to the US. Blair concluded that a Labour leader could never win elections if at odds with a US president. The seeds of Iraq were sown in the 1980s. But there was a twist. When Thatcher turned to Reagan for support at the start of the Falklands War he hesitated. Even when the 'special relationship' was based on genuine rapport, Reagan did not deliver when Thatcher needed him. There are good reasons to want the special relationship to work. Intelligence sharing is of mutual interest. The US has agency and economic might as no other. When it is possible to work with presidents it is obviously best to do so. But why do so many prime ministers, with the exception of Macmillan, Wilson and Heath, become victims of their hunger to be at one with the US, whatever the circumstances and characters in the White House? Part of the answer lies in Britain's equivocal attitude to Europe. Another has to do with the sheer glamour as prime ministers head for the White House compared to, say, the hard grind of an EU summit. For Labour prime ministers being 'shoulder to shoulder' with a US president is a short term way of getting approval from right wing British newspapers. But they do not dare to see that the 'special relationship' traps them as they move knowingly towards their political incarceration. [See also: A Trump shaped elephant] Related
BBC News
a minute ago
- BBC News
Controversial south Norfolk council HQ demolition plan approved
A former council headquarters will be demolished despite strong opposition to the Norfolk Council's planning committee decided on Wednesday that South Norfolk House, in Long Stratton, could be torn building was previously home to the council's offices, but has sat empty since the authority relocated to the edge of people felt the site should be repurposed and one local Labour councillor said "this is a disgrace". South Norfolk House opened in 1979 and was designed by Michael Innes, the architect behind Norwich's Castle Quarter and the redesign of Norwich Market, the Local Democracy Reporting Service council agreed to sell the building to its own housing development company, Big Sky, after it moved to a new office at Broadland Business Park in 2022 - which it shares with Broadland District deal stalled, as campaigners tried and failed to give the building protection from demolition through listed Stratton Town Council - which also opposed the demolition - said "it could be repurposed to provide much needed infrastructure". Daniel Elmer, the Conservative council leader, said the authority had spent about £660,000 on utility costs, insurance fees and business rates since the building was at the meeting, residents argued the building was not old enough to be knocked down and was needed as a community centre in the fast-growing Rochester said: "We feel we have been ignored and overlooked throughout this process."This project risks creating a derelict and fenced-off void in the heart of Long Stratton, and a scar on our community."Labour's Georgina Race said: "I think this is a disgrace. This building is too important to demolish."We will never be able to get the likes of this in the heart of the town again."It was meant to be a jewel in south Norfolk's crown and now it is being torn down." The committee also heard complaints the proposals had not been discussed more openly and councillors were interrupted by shouts of "shame on you" from the were considering whether the demolition required prior majority voted against this, meaning that planning permission is not required for demolition and works can get under way council has already set aside £370,000 to pay for demolition and the site is expected to be redeveloped for housing. Follow Norfolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
