In the aftermath of a narrow by-election defeat in Holborn and St Pancras, Green Party leader Zack Polanski finds himself navigating a crisis not of votes lost but of trust fractured — caught between a grassroots membership that passed a motion defining Zionism as racism and a parliamentary wing, Jewish members, and former leaders who see his absence from that vote as a failure of moral courage. The numbers told one story — a 22-point surge in vote share — but the deeper reckoning is about what kind of party the Greens wish to become, and whether Polanski can hold together a movement pulling i
Polanski defies calls to resign as Green leader after by-election loss and Zionism row
He leads a party whose policy he disagrees with
Mark
So Polanski lost the by-election and people want him gone. Is that the story?
Mimi
It's part of it, but the by-election itself wasn't a disaster—the Green vote share actually went up 22 points from the last general election. The real crisis is the Zionism motion his party passed while he was away campaigning.
Mark
What does the motion actually say?
Mimi
It defines Zionism as an ideology supporting an ethnonationalist Jewish state and backs a single democratic Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine—which includes modern-day Israel. Polanski didn't vote for it, and he's been dodging questions about whether he agrees with it ever since.
Luke
Has he actually said whether he thinks Israel should exist?
Mimi
Not directly. When asked point-blank on Radio 4, he said he doesn't believe any state has the right to oppress or commit apartheid or genocide, and that he wants equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians. But he wouldn't say yes or no to the basic question.
Mark
And the Jewish Greens leader wants him out?
Mimi
Vivien Lichtenstein said he should resign. She's been with the party for nearly thirty years and she's now considering leaving over this. She says she has no confidence in his leadership.
Luke
But is Polanski actually in danger of losing his job?
Mimi
Probably not soon. He's popular with the grassroots, and the next leadership ballot isn't until summer 2027. But a former co-leader thinks he'll face a challenger then.
Mark
So he's stuck in the middle?
Mimi
Exactly. He leads a party whose official policy he disagrees with, but he won't publicly say so. That's frustrated both the people who support the motion and the people who oppose it.
Luke
What about the other Green MPs?
Mimi
Four of the five opposed the motion. One deputy leader resigned. The European Green Party distanced itself. It's a real split.
Mark
And outside the party?
Mimi
The Prime Minister called the motion completely wrong. Labour's chair compared it to her party's antisemitism crisis. Polanski says anti-Zionism and antisemitism are different things, but the damage to the party's reputation is already done.
O Pulso
- Polanski lost the by-election he needed to win, but the more dangerous wound came from inside the party — a conference motion declaring Zionism a form of racism that he neither attended nor endorsed, leaving him exposed on all sides.
- Jewish Greens leader Vivien Lichtenstein, two former party leaders, and four of the five Green MPs publicly withdrew confidence or expressed sharp disappointment, creating an unusually visible internal revolt.
- Polanski's refusal to give a direct answer on Israel's right to exist and his description of the motion as 'imperfect' satisfied neither its supporters nor its critics, deepening the sense that he was governing from a position of strategic ambiguity rather than conviction.
- The party's grassroots membership — the base that elected him — remains largely behind him, making an immediate leadership challenge unlikely and insulating him until at least the summer 2027 ballot.
- External pressure mounted too, with Prime Minister Andy Burnham calling the motion 'completely wrong' and Labour drawing uncomfortable parallels to its own antisemitism crisis, threatening the Greens' broader electoral credibility.
In the aftermath of a narrow by-election defeat in Holborn and St Pancras, Green Party leader Zack Polanski finds himself navigating a crisis not of votes lost but of trust fractured — caught between a grassroots membership that passed a motion defining Zionism as racism and a parliamentary wing, Jewish members, and former leaders who see his absence from that vote as a failure of moral courage. The numbers told one story — a 22-point surge in vote share — but the deeper reckoning is about what kind of party the Greens wish to become, and whether Polanski can hold together a movement pulling in opposing directions. Leadership, in moments like these, is less about winning seats than about being present when the hardest questions are asked.
Zack Polanski lost Thursday's Holborn and St Pancras by-election to Labour, coming second with 33 percent of the vote against Labour's 45 percent. The Green vote share had nonetheless risen 22 points since 2024 — a sign of genuine momentum in a seat once held by Keir Starmer. But the defeat was almost beside the point. The real crisis had arrived the Sunday before, when Green Party conference passed a motion declaring Zionism a form of racism. Polanski had not been in the room. He said he was campaigning. When asked whether he would have backed it, he called it 'imperfect' and said he would not have voted for it unamended — while also declining to say whether Israel has a right to exist.
The response from within the party was swift and damaging. Vivien Lichtenstein, leader of the Jewish Greens and a member for nearly three decades, said plainly that Polanski should resign and that she had lost confidence in him. Former leader Caroline Lucas said leadership had been 'frankly missing' and called the motion 'dangerous' and 'flawed from top to bottom.' Former co-leader Jonathan Bartley said Polanski needed to apologize and warned the party now carried 'a certain toxicity.' Green MP Adrian Ramsay, himself a former co-leader, said Polanski had not shown the leadership he would have expected and was working to reverse the motion.
Four of the five Green MPs had opposed the motion. One of the party's deputy leaders resigned over it. The European Green Party distanced itself. Yet Polanski declared on Friday morning that he would 'absolutely' stay on — and his position, for now, appears secure. His grassroots support makes an early challenge unlikely, and the next scheduled leadership ballot is not until summer 2027.
The bind Polanski faces is structural as much as personal. He leads a party whose official Middle East position he does not share, and his careful non-commitment has frustrated both wings simultaneously. One party figure warned he risked 'losing the confidence of both sides.' Outside the party, Prime Minister Andy Burnham called the motion 'completely wrong,' and Labour drew pointed comparisons to its own antisemitism reckoning. Polanski insists anti-Zionism and antisemitism are distinct — but the question of whether the party can hold itself together around that distinction remains very much open.
Zack Polanski lost a London by-election on Thursday night and faced immediate calls from within his own party to step down. He refused. Speaking to BBC Breakfast on Friday morning, the Green Party leader said he would "absolutely" stay on, dismissing suggestions that he might reconsider his position after the defeat in Holborn and St Pancras.
The by-election itself was not a catastrophe by the numbers. Polanski came second to Labour's Sagal Abdi-Wali, who took 45 percent of the vote to his 33 percent. But the Green vote share had climbed 22 percentage points since the 2024 general election, suggesting the party had mobilized support in a seat previously held by former Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The Greens had hoped to win it outright. They did not.
But the election loss was not the main problem. The real pressure came from a party conference motion passed the previous Sunday that declared Zionism a form of racism—specifically, an ideology supporting "an ethnonationalist Jewish state." Polanski had not attended the vote. He said he was campaigning in the North London constituency. When pressed on Friday about whether he would have voted for the motion, he called it "imperfect" and said he would not have backed it without amendments. Yet he also said that "the displacement and genocide of the Palestinian people is clearly underpinned by a racist ideology." He would not give a direct yes-or-no answer when asked whether Israel has a right to exist, instead saying he believed in equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians and that Palestinians currently lacked those rights.
Vivien Lichtenstein, leader of the Jewish Greens and a party member for nearly three decades, said on Friday that Polanski should resign. She told Times Radio: "No, I think he should resign." Earlier in the week, she had suggested she might leave the party altogether over the Zionism row. When asked if she had confidence in Polanski's leadership, she said flatly: "At the moment, no I don't." She was "very disappointed" in him. She called on him to apologize, though she added that she did not believe Jewish members faced physical danger—only that some would encounter "unpleasant comments" from party members.
Two former Green leaders echoed her criticism. Caroline Lucas, who previously led the party, said Polanski should have attended the vote on the motion and that leadership "was frankly missing" during the controversy. She called the motion "dangerous" and "flawed from top to bottom," though she stopped short of demanding Polanski's resignation. Jonathan Bartley, who co-led the party from 2016 to 2021, said Polanski should "put his hands up" and apologize, describing the vote as "a failure of leadership." He warned that the party now carried "a certain toxicity" and needed to be "detoxified." Adrian Ramsay, a Green MP and former co-leader, declined to back Polanski on Friday, saying he had "not shown leadership I would have been looking for." Ramsay said he was working to reverse the motion.
The internal fracture was stark. Four of the five Green MPs had opposed the motion. One of the party's two deputy leaders resigned over it. Some local members and the European Green Party distanced themselves from it. Yet Polanski's position appeared secure in the short term. He retained significant support among the party's grassroots membership, making a leadership challenge unlikely in the near future. The next scheduled leadership ballot was not until summer 2027, and Bartley predicted Polanski would face a challenger then.
Ellie Chowns, the Green MP for North Herefordshire, said she "unequivocally" backs Israel's right to exist and is "passionately opposed to the actions of the current Israeli government under Netanyahu." She argued that both Israelis and Palestinians should decide their own constitutional future and that both peoples have the right to exist—a position she said was shared by most Green Party members and most British people.
Outside the party, the motion drew sharp criticism. Prime Minister Andy Burnham called it "completely wrong" and urged Polanski to reverse it. Labour chair Bridget Phillipson drew a parallel to her own party's antisemitism scandal, saying the Greens now faced a "serious problem" with antisemitism. Polanski responded that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are distinct and that nobody would be excluded from the party on the basis of faith or religious affiliation. Behind the scenes, according to party figures, Polanski was caught in an impossible position: he led a party whose official Middle East policy he disagreed with, and his refusal to publicly back the motion had now frustrated both supporters and opponents of it. One critic said he was "in danger of losing the confidence of both wings."
Citações Notáveis
No, I think he should resign.— Vivien Lichtenstein, leader of Jewish Greens, on whether Polanski should remain as party leader
I don't believe any state has the right to oppress or to commit apartheid and certainly not genocide on another people.— Zack Polanski, when asked directly whether Israel has a right to exist
Quer a matéria completa?
Leia o original em BBC News ↗
Politics & Governance