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
Spectator
25 minutes ago
- Spectator
Online Safety Act: are Labour or the Tories worse on free speech?
Is the Online Safety Act protecting children – or threatening free speech? Michael Simmons hosts John Power, who writes the Spectator's cover piece this week on how the Act has inadvertently created online censorship. Implemented and defended by the current Labour government, it is actually the result of legislation passed by the Conservatives in 2023 – which Labour did not support at the time, arguing it didn't go far enough. Michael and John joined by former Conservative MP Miriam Cates who defends the core aims and principles at the heart of the Act. They debate the principles of Big Tech, the risks of government overreach and whether freedom of expression is under threat. Produced by Megan McElroy and Patrick Gibbons.
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
India rejects UK parliament report on transnational repression
India has launched a blistering counterattack against a UK parliamentary report that accused it of waging 'transnational repression' on British soil and misusing global policing tools like INTERPOL to silence political dissidents. In a strongly worded statement on India's foreign ministry denounced the allegations as 'baseless,' 'politically motivated,' and 'drawn from dubious and discredited sources.' 'The deliberate reliance on unverified inputs from proscribed entities with a long record of anti-India hostility calls into question the credibility and objectivity of the entire report,' said MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, dismissing the claims as an orchestrated smear. The rare diplomatic rebuke was triggered by the release of a hard-hitting report titled 'Transnational Repression in the UK' on July 30 by the UK Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights — a powerful cross-party body comprising lawmakers from both the House of Commons and House of Lords. The report accuses multiple foreign governments of targeting exiled dissidents, activists, and journalists who have sought refuge in the UK, creating what it describes as a 'chilling effect' on diaspora communities. India was named among 12 countries, including China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, allegedly involved in such practices. While the report reserves its sharpest criticism for what it terms the 'three most flagrant perpetrators' — China, Russia, and Iran — India's inclusion, particularly the accusation of abusing INTERPOL's Red Notice mechanism for political ends, has sparked sharp pushback from New Delhi. The committee's findings draw heavily from evidence submitted by UK-based Sikh advocacy groups, including the Sikh Federation (UK) and Sikhs for Justice. These groups allege that Indian authorities have sought to weaponise international policing tools to harass and intimidate diaspora voices, especially those supporting the Khalistan separatist movement — a claim India has long dismissed as misinformation propagated by extremist elements. While the report has reignited debate within Britain over how to protect residents from foreign interference, India's sharp reaction signals a potential diplomatic flashpoint — particularly amid already sensitive ties following the killing of Sikh separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada last year, which also raised questions around cross-border intelligence operations. As both countries navigate a delicate relationship shaped by strategic partnerships and domestic political pressures, the fallout from this latest allegation is likely to echo beyond Westminster and Raisina Hill.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Miliband refuses to publish details of green energy deal with China
Following the decision, the Ministry of Defence raised concerns that the Chinese could use the turbines as spy sensors – but the Treasury was said to be resisting attempts to block the deal because of a desire to encourage inward investment. In Freedom of Information disclosures, the Government revealed that while Mr Miliband had been in China from March 13 to 17, Ofgem officials stayed until March 21. The officials, including Mr Brearley, used four temporary 'burner' phones while in the country, a standard security precaution government visitors are advised to take while in China. An Ofgem spokesman said: 'We always seek to keep expenditure as low as possible to deliver the best value for money and we regularly review our business travel and expenses policy in order to minimise the number of flights Ofgem staff take.' The group's food, local transport, and accommodation costs were paid for by the Foreign Office, the British embassy in China and the UK Integrated Security Fund, they added. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero insisted it was 'misleading' to suggest memorandums signed with other countries are made 'publicly available'. A spokesman said: 'The MoU is not about encouraging Chinese investment or involvement in the UK critical national infrastructure. 'Instead, it renews a partnership that has been in place for over ten years, and which facilitates the sharing of research and ideas to support the global clean energy transition.'
