Are the Greens heading left?
Polanski fired the starting gun on this race when he announced his surprise (although not so to most party insiders) decision to run shortly after this year's local elections. His platform of 'eco-populism' has, in some ways, defined the campaign and its place in the wider political moment. Polanski, who is the party's current deputy leader, said in his leadership pitch that the Greens should occupy a more progressive, populist space on the left in order to confront the infectious populism of Nigel Farage's Reform. He has called for a wealth tax, a better approach to net zero and a more robust left-wing position on immigration.
In doing so, he has captured the imagination of the former Corbynite left, some of whom have ditched their former Labour allegiances and become paid-up members of the Greens. The commentator and former NS columnist Grace Blakeley announced her defection to the party in order to vote for Polanski in June. This, insiders in his campaign believe, is reflective of wider increases in membership of the party: people have signed up to Green Party membership in order to vote for Polanski. (This mirrors those who took advantage of Labour's £3 membership deal to vote for Corbyn's leadership in 2015). 'I'm delighted,' Polanski told me, 'there's been a lot of focus on all the new members that have joined to vote for me.' He added: 'I'm feeling confident, but not complacent. I will be campaigning until the very last day of voting for every single vote.' (When asked, the Green Party said they would not share membership data during the election campaign.)
Though it was clearly obvious Polanski was on manoeuvres, he did not inform Ramsay of his decision to run. Nor was Chowns aware of her now-opponent's intentions. The pair stepped forward as candidates shortly after Polanski's announcement, with Chowns stepping in to run as a co-leader, replacing Carla Denyer, the MP for Bristol Central who has been leading the party alongside Ramsay since 2021. Their campaign has focused on their ability to win first-past-the-post elections, and the pair have made clear the damage they think having a leader sitting outside of parliament would do to the progress the Green party has made. 'People really want a professional party that can win elections,' Chowns told me when we spoke over the phone shortly before voting opened. 'That's what Adrian and I are standing for. Members can vote for a leadership who knows how to win elections.'
This has been a perennial criticism thrown at Polanski throughout the campaign: that as a London Assembly Member and not an MP, his leadership would provide a stumbling block for the Green Party's enduring progress. Jenny Jones, a party grandee and former deputy mayor of London, who is backing Ramsay and Chowns told me: 'I get on well with Zack, he's an excellent campaigner.' But she added: 'The reason I am voting for [Ramsay and Chowns] is because they are good at getting not only themselves elected, but getting other people elected'.
But this is a moment of flux in British politics. As Labour has moved rightward in order to face-up to the ongoing threat of Reform, it has become more exposed on its left flank. Analysis by Stack Data Strategy and shared with the New Statesman found that Labour is losing more votes to its left than to the right. The founding of Corbyn and Sultana's party, and the increasing anger and frustration from left-wing voters over Gaza, has provided an opportunity for the Green Party. James Schneider, Corbyn's former director of strategic communications, said in a recent interview with the New Left Review that Corbyn and Sultana's party should be open to some form of red-green cooperation. Chowns and Ramsay have all but turned their backs on this idea: 'We have a really distinct identity as Greens,' Chowns told me. On the eve of voting opening, they criticised Polanski's eco-populist platform as 'chasing the next headline, the next set of likes, rather than real substance'.
This has been an unprecedented campaign for the Green Party, not least because of the volume of media attention it has courted. But the outcome also bears wider political significance. A party led by Ramsay and Chowns would likely mean business as usual for the Green Party (beefed up local campaigning, and a focus on winning more seats). A victory for Polanski, however, would mark a new era for the party and more widely, for the left. In partnership with a new left party led by Corbyn, the Greens could do some serious damage to Labour's left flank. In just over four weeks' time, the future of the Green Party may finally begin to take shape.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here
[See also: One year on, tensions still circle Britain's asylum-seeker hotels]
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
35 minutes ago
- New Statesman
It's time for angry left populism
Illustration by Rebecca Hendin / Ikon Images 'Populism, I'm very sceptical of,' said Adrian Ramsay in the New Statesman's Green Party leadership hustings. 'I… don't want to see the kind of politics you get from populism which often brings about a divisive, polarising approach: Green politics is about bringing people together, respecting different views, having respectful discussion,' added the MP, and current party co-leader. On the contrary, countered Zack Polanski, the party's current deputy and London Assembly member, who's running for the top job promising 'bold leadership' and 'eco-populism'. 'Populism just means the 99 per cent vs the 1 per cent,' he said. He was reviving the old slogan of the Occupy movement. But he was also stating a clear position on a debate which has wracked the intellectual left for more than a decade. If Polanski's right, and if he wins, then there's more at stake than the leadership of England's fifth party. Should they adopt the attitude of their insurgent new political star, then the Greens have an opportunity to change the political climate in Britain, pointing the way to a durable populism of the political left. It's not just the Green Party; a similar phenomenon is emerging across civil society. Under newish, millennial co-directors, Greenpeace UK have adopted an angrier, anti-elite tone. 'Did you know that one of the richest billionaires in the UK is destroying our oceans with plastic?' the NGO asked in one recent online post, linking a traditionally soft-focus issue to spikier class politics. The most significant academic advocates of left-populism have been the Belgian political scientist Chantal Mouffe and her late husband and academic collaborator, the Argentine philosopher Ernesto Laclau. They saw populism as 'a political strategy based around constructing a frontier' between the privileged and the downtrodden, and 'appealing to the mobilization of the 'underdog' against 'those in power''. Mouffe argued that neoliberalism has impoverished not just the working class, but also the middle class, has depoliticised the bulk of the population, and produced what she calls 'oligarchisation' – that is, both radical wealth inequality, and also the political dominance of a growing international billionaire class. This context, she argued in 2016, produced a 'populist moment', one which led to radical political changes on right and left: as well as Trump, Brexit and (later) Johnson, there were Corbynism, Syriza, Bernie Sanders, Podemos, and Jean Luc Mélenchon. Even the more successful centrists of that era – Emmanuel Macron (during his first election) and Nicola Sturgeon – painted themselves as direct opponents of 'those in power'. Nearly a decade later, much of that post-2008 context remains, to which we could add the surge in anxiety about the environmental crisis in 2019, the anger with elites which emerged from the pandemic, and the daily nausea millions of us feel watching a Western-backed genocide livestreamed through our phones. In this context it's absolutely vital, as Mouffe argues, that the left try to mobilise the overwhelming majority of people together against that oligarch class and those in power who protect them. Doing so will require telling clear political stories about the world, which express the tension between 'us' – the majority of people – and 'them' – the oligarchs and their allies. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This is not a time to tell citizens to 'calm down, dear'. It's a time to focus righteous rage into change. This will require rhetorically 'constructing a boundary' between 'the 99 per cent' and 'the 1 per cent' and their outriders on the right. It's drawing this boundary to which Ramsay and, in another debate, his running mate Ellie Chowns, object when they describe populism as 'polarising'. But any good story needs conflict and villains, and the real world has plenty for Polanski to point to. Oligarchs and their allies must be curtailed, and we're not going to do that by 'having respectful discussions' with them. Anger has to be focused upwards, or the political right will channel it down. In the context of environmental crisis, economic inequality becomes even more urgent. As Oxfam calculated in 2024, billionaires emit more carbon every three hours than the average British person does in a lifetime. The richest 1 per cent of humanity are responsible for more emissions than the poorest 66 per cent, and are increasingly insulating themselves from the impact of the disaster they've created, flitting around between air-conditioned mansions in private jets while the rest of us swelter. Despite this, Reform's fossil fuel financed anti-environmental populism has managed to rhetorically spin action on climate change – framed as the technocratic sounding 'net zero' – into an 'elitist' project, one which they can blame for rising energy bills, neatly deflecting blame from the fossil fuel industry and energy companies. As Polanski himself pointed out during the New Statesman debate, Ramsay is happy to call for a wealth tax, and clearly wants to curtail the oligarch class. So what's he's afraid of? Perhaps the most articulate intellectual opponent of populism is the Dutch social scientist Cas Mudde, who defines it as an ideology which divides society into two groups, 'the pure people' and 'the corrupt elite', and which regards politics as 'an expression of the general will of the people'. While he sees it has a role in bringing issues that elites don't want discussed to the fore, he worries that it ultimately undermines systems of liberal democracy. And it's this that Ramsay and Chowns really fear: if you channel anger at elites and the system which sustains them, you risk attacking those systems of democracy that we have, and replacing them not with more democracy, but less. But to me – certainly in Britain and the United States – this fear is itself dangerous. Britain has astonishingly low levels of trust in our political system for a simple reason: Westminster stinks. Too often, in Britain (as in America), the left ends up defending that system from right-wing attacks, because the right wants to replace it with authoritarianism, or market rule. Which means voters see us propping up an obviously rotten system, and turn to the right to replace it. This is how Trump won twice, it's how Johnson crushed Corbyn in 2019, and it's why Farage is ahead now. For an alternative strategy, look across the Channel. In France's 2024 legislative elections, the left-wing New Popular Front came first after making radical constitutional change a central message, promising an assembly to write a new constitution, and launch a sixth Republic. Progressives – including Greens – shouldn't fear hatred of our politics any more than we should worry about anger at our economic system, rage at rising bills, or horror at genocide in Gaza. We should express that collective fury, and channel it into serious ideas for the radical change we need. [Further reading: Are the Greens heading left?] Related
New Statesman
38 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Kemi Badenoch's position on Israel is discrediting the Conservative Party
Photo byandWhen Kemi Badenoch became leader of the Conservative Party, she very sensibly aimed not to rush into early statements of detailed policy. Unfortunately, her appointment of Priti Patel as shadow foreign secretary was its own statement. Following her unauthorised 2017 trip to Israel while secretary for international development, Patel has been a disgraced figure. While there, accompanied by the peer Stuart Polak of the Conservative Friends of Israel, she met the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu without UK government officials or the British ambassador. Afterwards, she advocated a change in UK policy which, in breach of long-established humanitarian practice, would have included the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) in its aid delivery. This episode could not have been a starker example of impropriety. It merited her dismissal but Theresa May was too weak to wield the axe. Instead, Patel was allowed to resign. And yet, Badenoch saw fit to appoint her to the shadow cabinet. Patel is now in a position to perpetuate her views at a critical moment in world events. Badenoch has shown no indication of knowing anything about Israel and Palestine, and has not made any profound statements on this, the one foreign issue, other than Ukraine, that has dominated global news since she was elected. All she utters is uncritical support for Israel. The Conservative Party used to have a world-view. It supported enlightened international cooperation, and institutions such as the UN along with its accompanying treaties, rules and conventions. More broadly, it was the UK that pledged to support a homeland for the Jewish people, and a future for the Palestinians next door. To their shame, while successive governments have forever delayed implementing that commitment, the Israelis each and every day have violently stolen ever more Palestinian land. Palestine is the only populous legally undisputed land in the world not allowed to call itself a state. It does not belong to Israel, and Israel's determination to annex it does not mean it is disputed. The illegality of Israeli encroachment is cast-iron in international law, a belief that has been the policy of Conservative and Labour governments for decades. Badenoch, however, seems to share the view of those like Patel who do not believe in their own policy. They can never bring themselves to say explicitly that settlements are illegal. The charge sheet against Israel is growing every day: disproportionate force, indiscriminate bombing, mass displacement, food deprivation, the replacement of the Palestinian relief agency UNRWA with mercenaries, the killing of tens of Palestinians each day as they desperately scramble for food, state-backed support for settler terrorists, and the banning of journalists from Gaza. Badenoch and her front bench have done nothing to condemn any of it. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Jonathan Sumption on Israel and Gaza: A question of intent] Amid all this, Priti Patel has refused in the Commons to condemn settler violence – all she would say was that settlers are a barrier to a two-state solution. And when extremist Israeli ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir were sanctioned in June, she declined in her response even to mention their names. The likes of Suella Braverman, meanwhile, have branded pro-Palestine demonstrations 'hate marches'. Contemptibly, any pro-Palestinian voice within the Conservative Party is almost systematically accused of anti-Semitism and put into its complaints procedure, which silences and bullies. And as Michael Gove increases his hold on appointments to the leader's office, what could be more warped than his recent recommendation that the IDF be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? It has now reached the point where Conservative comment has become so extreme it has discredited their entire foreign policy and is making them despised more widely. The party is increasingly becoming defined by its lack of humanity. The world is watching the extermination of an entire country. Palestine is being annihilated. Meanwhile the Conservative Party is covering itself in shame, and will stand no chance of re-election unless it states a clear policy based on international law, and promotes the UK's historic understanding of the region. This issue is and always has been about land. Israel's extremist government has only one objective, and that is to make all of Palestine theirs. All other talk, horrendous though the facts may be, is second to that. As leader, Kemi Badenoch could redeem herself speedily by stating loudly what all should be saying to Israel: 'Get out of Palestine, it isn't your country.' [See also: Keir Starmer alienates left and right on Gaza] Related
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Small boat migrant deportation scheme to begin this week
The process of deporting the first Channel migrants under a new deal with France will begin within days, Sir Keir Starmer has announced. The Prime Minister disclosed that Britain had ratified a treaty with France which means those entering the UK on a small boat can now be detained on arrival and returned across the Channel. It is believed that around 50 migrants will be returned to France each week, with the numbers expected to climb by the end of the year. Migrants will be detained for deportation in the coming days before being deported. Sir Keir is facing continued public dissent over mass migration, with protests outside hotels housing migrants across Britain, prompted in part by reports of crimes by asylum seekers. As it tries to quell mounting anger and show it is taking the concerns seriously, on Monday, Downing Street said that the police should be able to release information on the ethnicity of criminal suspects, after demands for more clarity. Sir Keir's deal with France will mean that about 800 people will be taken back by France by the end of the year, compared with tens of thousands of migrants who have arrived since Labour won the election last July. The 'one-in, one-out deal' means that a similar number of asylum seekers with family connections to the UK will be accepted by Britain. British authorities are now said to be 'operationally ready', with detentions expected to begin within days. Sir Keir said: 'This Government has been fixing the foundations of the broken asylum system we inherited and today we send a clear message – if you come here illegally on a small boat you will face being sent back to France. 'This is the product of months of grown-up diplomacy delivering real results for British people as we broker deals no government has been able to achieve and strike at the heart of these vile gangs' business model. 'The days of gimmicks and broken promises are over – we will restore order to our borders with the seriousness and competence the British people deserve.' Plans for the one-in, one-out deal were signed by the Prime Minister and Emmanuel Macron last month. It had been expected that the scheme would not come into operation until the end of the month, but it has now been brought forward. As part of the quid pro quo with France, the UK will take an equal number of migrants from France if they have not attempted an illegal crossing before. These will be subject to full documentation and security and eligibility checks. The EU Commission, Germany and other EU members have given the green light to the plan. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, said: 'This is an important step towards undermining the business model of the organised crime gangs that are behind these crossings – undermining their claims that those who travel to the UK illegally can't be returned to France. 'It is also right to make clear that – while the UK will always be ready to play its part alongside other countries in helping those fleeing persecution and conflict – this must be done in a controlled and managed legal way, not through dangerous, illegal, and uncontrolled routes.' Immigration Enforcement has set aside space at immigration removal centres, while Border Force has an operational strategy ready to identify and process groups of inadmissible migrants for removal. The treaty governing the pilot scheme will remain in force until June 2026, and over this period both countries have committed to continually review and improve the process and effectiveness of this innovative approach. As part of the deal, the French authorities have agreed to increase their enforcement activity to prevent small boat crossings, disrupt supplies of equipment to the French coast, and arrest members of the criminal groups behind the trade. A new Compagnie de Marche of specialist enforcement officers, supported by increased local policing, has been put in place and a specialist intelligence and judicial police unit has been established in Dunkirk to speed up the arrest and prosecution of people-smugglers. A review of the French maritime approach has been undertaken to allow greater interception of boats in shallow waters. Migrants in France who want to come to the UK legally, will be able to submit an Expression of Interest application for the new legal route online and the Home Office will make a decision. France long resisted signing the treaty because the Dublin returns agreement was scrapped after Brexit. They also argued that new agreement would have to be EU-wide. Separately, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said that law enforcement agencies and governing authorities 'should always be as transparent as possible' about criminal cases. He spoke after two male asylum seekers in Warwickshire were charged in connection with the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton last month. Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, said that the migration status of suspects should 'absolutely' be released in order to quell online conspiracy theories.
