I’ve known Zack since his days as a Liberal Democrat, so I was curious to read the email he sent out after he was elected leader and how he would present himself in his new role. The email he sent out (text below) was certainly polished. But it focused on bills, childcare, public ownership of water, and taking on Reform. All important issues, but none of them are why people join the Greens. It was remarkable for what it left out: not a single mention of the environment or climate change – the very issues the Green Party exists to champion.
Looking at his statement when he was elected, climate and environment barely feature and his Twitter feed tells the same story: the Green Party has chosen a leader who doesn’t seem especially interested in green issues.
This raises an obvious question for long-standing Green members and supporters. If the Green Party leader won’t put climate and environment front and centre, then what is the Party’s reason for existing? It starts to look less like an environmental movement and more like another version of ‘Your Party’ – right down to the “In solidarity” sign-off.
For those who care passionately about the climate, there is a political home: the Liberal Democrats. Ed Davey has made environmental action a central priority, from investing in renewable energy to protecting nature. The party’s record – and its leader’s repeated focus on these issues – makes clear that tackling the climate crisis is not an afterthought but a core mission.
Those who want a Party which treats the environment as a core priority won’t find it in Zack Polanski’s Greens. They will in Liberal Democrats.
Text of the email
Simon
This is it.
Our country is crying out for leadership, and it’s an immense privilege to be writing to you as the new leader of the Green Party of England and Wales.
While we celebrate this moment, I’m aware of how much work there is ahead of us, for me, and our entire Party. With Reform on the rise, our country is on a dangerous precipice, but we know we have the solutions to the crises we’re facing. Together, we can rise to this moment.
For the last 3 years, as Deputy Leader, I have travelled across England & Wales campaigning alongside our talented and dedicated members. I will continue to do so as our next leader, and I look forward to getting more Greens elected. Together, we are working to lower people’s bills, take back control of our water, and make childcare free for every family.
But our movement needs you, Simon. Our Party is at record membership, but we need to build a mass movement if we’re to take the fight to Reform. If you’re not yet a Member of the Green Party, join us today.
I’ve talked a lot about bold leadership. And I intend to demonstrate it. But leadership isn’t just one person – it’s our whole party, leading the way to a better future. This is our collective moment, and we want you alongside us.
Together, we can prove that bold, compassionate leadership isn’t just possible – it’s unstoppable.
In solidarity,
Zack
* Simon McGrath is a Councillor in Wimbledon and represents Lib Dem Councillors on the Party’s Federal Board
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
14 Comments
I confess to not having read the manifestos of those putting themselves forward as Green Party Leader(s). Perhaps that would shed light on the mystery. It is not unknown for people who were once in other parties to flourish as Lib Dem Leader. The reverse does not seem to be true – unless you see Liz Truss as wondrously successful!
I’ve just looked through Ed Davey’s social media and can’t find any mention of electoral reform there. Did he mention it in his first email to members and supporters, and if not can we assume that Lib Dems don’t care about that any more?
“Did [Ed Davey] mention [Electoral Reform] in his first email to members and supporters”
This argument only works if the Lib Dems’ primary and overriding objective is electoral reform. It isn’t. The party’s purpose is to promote liberal democracy, as explained in the preamble to the party’s constitution.
We are supposed to know, I suppose, that the Green Party’s objective is to save the world from environmental disaster. There is of course no doubt that the UK and world faces the threats the Green Party’s new leader mentions in his email but I agree with Simon that it is strange that what ought to be the Green Party’s core mission – dealing with climate change and biodiversity loss – doesn’t get a mention.
Not that long ago I poked around the Green Party website looking for a statement of political philosophy/principles akin to the Preamble. I couldn’t find anything. The Greens are just as much a brand as Reform Ltd.
`
Seems a bit daft for us to try telling other parties what they’re priorities should be or how often they get mentioned in emails to their members. If we want to spend time criticizing the greens we ought to go with something more substantive.
similarly, amongst general political rhetoric with which most Liberal Democrats would agree, in his first articl3e in the Guardian after his smash election victory Mr Polanski mentions only three concrete proposals: a wealth tax; public ownership of water companies, and universal free child care.
Few economists favour a wealth tax; wealth is too difficult to calculate and too easy to avoid, not least by moving it abroad. The other two proposals are hugely expensive, so how are they to be paid for?
In short, Mr Polanski is as much a “pie in the sky” populist as Nigel Farage.
However, just sniping at the Greens is not a good tactic for Liberals. there’s too much of that already. We need to be very clear what our own priorities are, and how our policies are to be financed (taxation of capital gains and profits at least equal to taxes on earned income, LAND TAXATION, employment of more staff in HMRC so that existing taxes are actually collected, etc.) Richard Murray of the Tax Justice Network has a long list from which we should choose.
So, this article claims “..not a single mention of the environment or climate change..”
I then read the actual statement which states in the second paragraph,
“Launching his leadership, Polanski promised action on the overlapping social and environmental crises”
Did the author of the article really miss this?
I suppose Mr Polanski felt that the Greens’ image as concern for the environment was so strong and readily recognised that it barely needed restating. So he emphasised the increasing inequalities of wealth and income, which is also an important issue. I see this as parking his tanks primarily on Jeremy Corbyn’s lawn, and also on the lawns of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.
@ Brenda Will “Did the author of the article really miss this ?”
It would also help, Brenda, to know whether the omission was an oversight or deliberate.
The moral high ground requires high standards from those who seek it.
Might it be that Mr. Polanski’s attitude and practical policies relating to Austerity/Neoliberalism
are no less important than those relating to environmental matters?
Dito the L. D.s?
Any Liberals have not really come out against the very illiberal Online Safety bill…..pot kettle I believe.
@Brenda: Simon McGrath’s statement, ‘not a single mention of the environment or climate change‘ is referring to the quoted email from Zack, which does indeed not contain a single mention of the environment or climate change.
About Zack’s statement on the website, Simon wrote, ‘climate and environment barely feature‘ Looks to me on reading the statement like that is also correct.
I agree with Simon M – this seems a great opportunity for us to attract those people who have in the past voted Green because they are concerned about the environment and climate change. We just need to start talking about those topics more.
By the way, the full result was 20 411 votes for Zack Polanski, 3705 to his rivals. That seems an extraordinarily small number of total votes for a national political party – makes me wonder how many (or how few) members the Green Party has. Wikipedia claims 68 500, but I can’t see where they got that figure from, and it would imply an implausibly low turnout.
Yes the Online Safety Act, besides being illiberal, won’t actually achieve its stated aim. And it’s not the Facebooks and Xs that will be hurt, it’s the non-profits and community forums that are being caught up in the net.
If we regulate the entire Internet as if it were Facebook, then soon Facebook (and the rest of Big Tech) will be the only thing on the Internet.
thanks for the comments. In his profile in the Observer today Zack doubles down on this theme. It says “he advocates playing down the environmental message” and “He would focus on “redistributing the wealth from the super-rich to fund public services, and calling out the genocide in Gaza”. https://observer.co.uk/news/profile/article/profile-zack-polanski-green-party-leader