Right, so in the early hours of this morning, Zack Polanski tripled the Green vote in Holborn and St Pancras, so of course the first logical thing to do is demand his head on a platter. In this country, there’s nothing like a kick in the teeth for daring to succeed when you happen to be on the left.
But as the mainstream media is dutifully informing us all in what passes for their coverage of all of this - let’s not call it news when it’s anything but – according to them, this has all grown out of the row over Green conference passing the Zionism Is Racism motion, with opponents attacking his handling of it, a leader of Jewish Greens demanding he go as one example and former leader Caroline Lucas leaving the resignation question hanging in a televised interview. Polanski supports the substance of the motion and won't overturn a decision made by the members. It’s not his place to, it’s not how the party works, so the question of removing him was already running before the election result ever arrived, it was simply the trigger many were waiting for to pounce, it was always a big ask to overthrow Labour in a seat only Labour have ever held. The Labour Party did indeed, but its majority has been reduced from eleven and a half thousand, already half of what it once was thanks to Keir Starmer, to a figure so small the seat can hardly be regarded as a safe seat any longer. Holborn & St Pancras is now a Labour-Green marginal. But no, before the votes were even counted, Caroline Lucas was last night fielding questions about whether Polanski should go.
The question of the timing of it all is what has annoyed me most about all of this. The knives were drawn over the handling of the Zionism Is Racism motion, so it was only natural that the leadership question should be dragged out before the scores were in, snatching the election result before the returning officer even got the kettle on, as if elections were to settle personal vendettas. She was the party’s first MP, and even those who are not very familiar with the Greens know who she is; and what she says carries weight, though arguably given her opinion, possibly more with the broadcasters than the party membership; if she merely leaves the resignation question hanging, broadcasters will go on harping on it; there was no need for her actually to say the words. Just let them talk about leadership, and they would all swoop in like seagulls on a fallen chip. But thousands of people have just voted Green; campaigners have been canvassing for weeks, talking about rents and about housing, trying to persuade people that Labour can be challenged here, where their last leader, lousy as he was, had his seat. And Lucas would do well to remember, given the result of Zacks bid for this seat, that under her leadership the Green vote was just 2.7%.
Sagal Abdi-Wali won for Labour with 12,292 votes, 45.17 per cent. Polanski received 8,928, 32.81 per cent.
Compared with 2024, Labour's vote share fell by 3.75 percentage points, while the Greens' rose by 22.37 percentage points; the majority fell from 11,572 under Starmer, to just 3,364, all amid a supposed Burnham bounce. The Conservatives, Reform, and the Lib Dems were nowhere to be seen and you had to look for George Galloway with a magnifying glass. But it’s one thing to lose an election, and quite another to drag your party into the abyss; and this result doesn’t give the doomsayers much room to manoeuvre, despite the media’s gleeful attempts today. Even Sky’s analysis recognised what Labour now faces.
Here’s a little background: back in 2024, Andrew Feinstein stood as an independent and got 18.9 per cent to go with the Green Party’s 10.4 per cent. This time, he endorsed Polanski, and his Camden People’s Alliance campaigned for him, so Polanski had the support of an established local campaign and a built-in left-wing, pro-Palestine vote.
Together, those two previous shares totalled 29.3 per cent, while Polanski reached 32.8 per cent. Many thousands of Labour voters did not suddenly go Green, but Feinstein’s backing no doubt helped unite some previously divided support. But an endorsement does not automatically mean all the votes will change hands like that. Much of the Green advance came from voters who had previously opposed Labour uniting behind one candidate. However, Polanski still had to persuade them, and the result exceeded the combination of the two anti-Starmer 2024 results. And while the Greens were being bashed for their conference vote, Labour was circling the wagons around the former Prime Minister's seat, and Andy Burnham still radiated the aroma of a fresh-out-of-the-box Prime Minister. It’s hard to quantify how much that may have helped Labour, but not being Keir Starmer no doubt helped Labour hold onto the seat as people still want to give him a chance. And yet despite that clearly being part of the campaign, Labour's majority was cut substantially. For locals, that means that Labour has a challenger breathing down its neck in this seat going forwards now, and the Greens have something to wave in front of people who think voting for them is a waste of time. It’s not a golden ticket, but it’s much better than a pat on the head from a political commentator. Burnham, meanwhile, had advice to give the Greens about that conference decision.
Go on Andy, explain to me how that is supposed to work in practice then, I could do with a good laugh. Burnham is basically asking the leader to tear up a decision made by the members, in a party where conference actually means something, and saying something that means something is a bit of an alien concept to Andy, who’s apparent answer to the fuel price crisis in this country right now, is to put petrol station prices on google maps so you can shop around a bit more. Very handy Andy. Polanski can argue for another position and try to convince members to change their minds, but he cannot simply substitute his own instruction for their vote; if he tried, there would be an uproar; members didn’t elect a leader to be a dictator every time a journalist gets grumpy and that isn’t the structure of the Green party, he doesn’t have that power. Lucas knows this perfectly well, which makes the leadership sniping all the more irritating. This is a real difference of opinion, but apparently the solution is to pretend the party's democracy is only a recommendation. You can imagine how that would go down with people who joined precisely because they were tired of being treated like voting fodder elsewhere.
Polanski was asked about the kind of party he leads though.
Members fork out for train tickets, submit motions, propose amendments, listen to endless debates, and endure procedural wrangling so mind-numbing it makes watching paint dry look like a rave. They do it because the decision is supposed to count; but if a former leader's frown or the prime minister's sulk can wipe it away, what is the point? Polanski didn’t write this motion or lead its debate; he was campaigning in the by-election when the vote took place. You can criticise that choice, or his decision not to vote, without pretending it gives him the power to undo the outcome. And yes, members can disagree with Lucas. She did a lot for the party, but that does not mean she keeps the keys forever, or should be wheeled out by the media like an eco version of Tony Blair. The same applies to its MPs and its current leader. Their arguments matter, their votes matter, and so do the votes of the people who put them there. Controversy was everywhere, and anyone with a pulse and a Twitter account heard that the Greens had supposedly made themselves unelectable. Conference passed the motion days before polling, but Polanski’s vote increased substantially. And obviously I’m not going to sit here and claim that every Green vote supported the motion, because people worried about rent may have voted for the housing offer, someone else for Gaza, public ownership, climate policy, or because they are fed up with Labour. What we can say is that the figures do not show the apocalypse the media is seemingly hell-bent on portraying. The critics bleating that the sky is about to fall have to explain why it is actually exactly where it is supposed to be; this is a whole lot more complicated than saying they're shocked by the Zionism policy, which, obviously, is what they have been doing nonstop for days.
And then you get something like this headline: a leader of Jewish Greens calling on Polanski to resign after his by-election loss; you could read that headline without the figures and think that the Greens had been driven out of town by an angry mob. This is the same old Corbyn-era rehash isn’t it? A left-wing controversy immediately reverts to an endless leadership inquest. At the same time, the actual politics that got people interested in the first place gets shoved offstage. The defeat and the demand for Polanski’s resignation lead the story, while the actual surge in support is conveniently omitted. Obviously there are differences, and Polanski being Jewish does not place his arguments beyond challenge. Jewish people disagree about Zionism, despite so much of today;’s coverage being about Jewish safety and Jewish fears the Jewish state; all ignoring those jews who are not Zionist and who do not want or need a state, or those deeply offended by that state and what it claims to do in their name, or in the name of their faith. They are broad group of people, not a single constituency of opinion waiting for a broadcaster to appoint its spokesperson. Polanski has distinguished between opposition to Zionism and antisemitism, while acknowledging that antisemitism is obviously, real and dangerous. His detractors may challenge his reasoning or the wording of the policy, but they may also be addressing what he actually said. Refusing to cancel the vote does not mean he has nothing to say about antisemitism or that he suddenly lost the ability to make decisions. He made a decision they oppose, which is a different complaint, and it requires a proper argument, not a borrowed election result that doesn't even support the complaint. Radio 5 Live today of all days, as the result of the by-election was being digested, decided to have a post-election phone-in bout Zionism Is Racism. What convenient timing! But there was also an election to discuss, and an obvious question for Labour as to why its lead shrank so sharply. Instead, the conversation kept going back as to whether to measure Polanski up for a political coffin and hand him a shovel to dig his own hole. George Galloway received 314 votes in this by-election, just 314; but I haven’t seen anyone agonising over whether Galloway should keep his job at the Workers Party. Perhaps I blinked and missed it, but the double standard is hard to miss. Polanski won nearly nine thousand votes and gets a public dissection; Galloway, with a vote count you could do during a long lunch, gets a sudden collective blindness from the press, which is quite unusual for Galloway, I’m sure he’s quite offended. Viewers hear that the Green leader lost and is on the ropes, but they may never learn how close the party came, or what it actually offered voters who used to back someone else. That is editorial choice and it’s a choice that has today decided to close ranks it seems: they don’t have to fudge the numbers to mislead people; they keep hammering the same question, facts optional.
So look, lets move to a point the media refuses to and the question of what the Greens now do with the support the campaign has built.
For a start, don't close the campaign by thanking people and then reappear six weeks before the next election. Instead, keep going with the help of volunteers, follow up on the problems raised on doorsteps, and make Labour answer for what happens next-what council homes are being built? What is happening to rents? What did the winning candidate promise, and has she delivered?
Nationally, the Greens have much to offer and keep talking about. Public ownership of water, for example, makes sense when it is tied to a water bill somebody just opened, and a rent cap becomes harder to dismiss when Labour has to explain what it would offer instead. Keep Palestine central, but also show the range of what the party wants to change here.
Then build the organisation to match the ambition. Train candidates, support local branches, and sustain effort in seats where the Greens can compete. An enthusiastic crowd needs somewhere useful to put its enthusiasm and people are still enthused, there is so much that is positive to take away from this..
Labour’s got more to worry about than personalities. The policies that Labour has pursued give dissatisfied voters reasons to look elsewhere, and talk of removing Polanski is a blatant attempt to talk up the crowning of another bland and boring Green leader who will no doubt know their place and return to the land of vegan sausage rolls and hemp socks. Burnham’s big chance is to answer those arguments, but every action he takes, is just continuity Starmer. Swapping Prime Ministers will not shrink anyone’s rent, or build a council house, or knock a penny off the bills, and Labour voters need those things actually to happen, just like the Greens voters do, just as any party’s voters do and I get that people still want to give him a chance, but I fancy they’ll rue the day they bothered. To deliver, the government needs to offer something real, and that's where the government’s latest masterstroke shows where they are really at: putting petrol prices on Google Maps, which one minister breathlessly called a game changer. Stop the presses, alert the Nobel committee. Sure, it will help you compare prices, but it will not actually make them any less eye-watering. I like useful info, but you would think the minister had just split the atom. When people are drowning in energy bills, the government must offer more than a handy map to the cheapest available misery pit, especially if it’ll cost them more to get there, than just putting up with the local price offering.
The Greens are proposing public ownership of the big energy suppliers and water companies, shifting policy costs off electricity bills and onto taxation, and taxing concentrated wealth to help fund the alternative. On housing, Polanski has proposed a three-year emergency brake: rent increases limited to inflation, wage growth, or 2 per cent, whichever is lowest.
He didn't invent the whole Green Party programme. He brought these demands together around an attack on “Rip-off Britain”, making ownership, profiteering and household costs central to his pitch. The rent brake is a concrete new proposal he unveiled at conference.
That gives Labour and indeed all of those internal Green Party critics something more awkward to answer than whether they like Zack Polanski: who should own essential services, and whose pockets should the money end up in? Labour won the seat and yet those questions still remain. The Greens have homework too of course there is much to learn here. A strong second place is nice, but it must be followed up by campaigning between elections and by giving people a reason to come back. Some of the Green-bashers would much prefer a party that merely talks about recycling, wins the odd seat, and politely ignores anything messy like ownership, wealth, or Palestine. Still, members are choosing to take those arguments to the ballot box. Challenge them, beat them if you can, but judge them on what actually happened, not the fantasy result you wish you’d seen.
In terms of British politics, the question is whether the Greens can turn this into a challenge Labour has to reckon with across the country, and this requires more than a good reception for Polanski on television, though his strong pushback on the TV rounds this morning will have stood him in good stead too; it also requires local organisation, credible candidates and people who see some reason for voting Green that is not just to thrash Labour. If leaders went every time they lost an election, we’d have been rid of Nigel Farage donkeys years ago after all, instead he got 8 attempts to become an MP and nobody questioned it.
Labour can’t keep assuming that voters unhappy with its position on housing, public ownership or Palestine will eventually come back because the alternative is worse. They lost ground again, they just managed to hold on. If voters have a convincing place to go as they now do, that calculation gets a lot more uncomfortable, and Burnham now has to deliver enough to keep them, rather than look more approachable than his predecessor, which isn’t exactly hard.
Calling Polanski’s leadership a failure because he won’t override his members reveals how little the resignation campaign depends on the election itself or indeed understands the Green Party. It’s member led. Polanski lost the seat, yes, but the problem every critic cannot provide an answer for as they throw every dead cat they can lay their hands on at him at this time, is that the Greens emerged stronger than they were before, while Labour’s lead shrank. They wanted voters to punish the Greens for stepping out of line, for bucking the establishment order; and frankly it deserves to fall flat for how weak their arguments truly are. Labour still holds the seat, but it has been given notice on it: the votes to its left aren’t theirs to take for granted anymore, and telling the challenger to resign won’t bring them back either.
For more establishment face plants as the attempts to own Polanski and Corbynate him if we can put in such terms, roll on, do stick with the channel for more, such as this story right here as your next watch.
Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you haven’t done so already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content, as well as spreading the word and helping to support the channel at the same time, which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working-class people, and I will hopefully catch you on the next one. Cheers folks.