Agree with your overall position but not sure this is fair on polanski. Have seen him say multiple times that eco-populism without a mass movement base won't work. That seems to commit to a theory of change to me.
That is a fair challenge and worth engaging with properly.
You are right that Polanski consistently stresses movement-building alongside electoral politics, and that he has explicitly said eco-populism without a mass movement base will not work. That is a more developed position than pure electoralism, and the article should credit it as such.
The question is not whether he has a theory of change. He does. The question is what kind of theory it is and where its limits lie. Saying that movements and elections must work together is a starting point, not a conclusion. The harder questions are: movements doing what, exactly? Organised around what class forces? With what relationship to the trade union movement and working-class institutions? Aimed at what structural transformation?
Polanski's eco-populist frame, the caring majority against the 1%, is genuinely useful for building broad coalitions. Grace Blakeley's argument, which the article is really about, goes further: it says that the only force with the structural power to confront capital is the organised working class, and that the climate movement and the labour movement have to become one thing rather than two movements in occasional alliance. That is not just a difference of emphasis. It is a different theory of where power comes from and how it changes hands.
The German Greens had movement credentials too, before they took office and found themselves approving arms exports and managing austerity. The Irish Greens in coalition delivered less than promised on climate and took the electoral hit. The pressure that comes with office, and with the aspiration to office, tends to moderate precisely the movement energy that got you there. Blakeley's analysis, rooted in the Lucas Aerospace story, names why: capital responds to threats to its interests with structural pressure that reformist parties typically accommodate rather than confront.
None of this means Polanski is wrong to build movements. It means the article is asking what theory of power underlies the movement-building, and whether that theory is sufficient for the scale of the transformation required. That seems like a fair question to put to any political leader, Polanski included.
Zack Polanski often says the right thing in both domestic and international issues but at the same time he can sometimes come out with total bullshit. One such example is his recent pronouncement that food was too cheap. In a Britain which has seen food banks proliferate in recent years because many people cannot afford to feed themselves adequately it just beggars belief that he can come out with such a statement. Of course some food is cheap, ie junk food full of sugar and additives causing ever higher rates of diabetes, obesity etc but healthy nutritious food is anything but cheap. For someone who was once a member of the Liberal Democrats it is hard to work out whether or not Zack Polanski is someone who has genuinely moved to the left or is simply an opportunist riding a leftward moving wave. I doubt if even Zack Polanski himself knows the answer to that.
That would be bullshit if he had said it. But that's a misleading Telegraph headline. Polanski has argued that ultra-cheap supermarket food is a sign of exploitation in the food system rather than a healthy market. As far as that statement goes, it's correct: food-bank use remains high and healthier foods are often more expensive than less healthy options. Whether his shift from the Liberal Democrats to the Greens reflects principled evolution or political opportunism is a matter of interpretation, of course.
But there is exploitation in the food system irrespective of whether or not the food for sale in shops and supermarkets is cheap or expensive. Zack Polanski completely missed the point in that respect.
Not really. In that Bakers’ Union speech he explicitly linked the food system to workers’ rights, low pay, exploitation, and the need for a fairer deal for farmers and workers. He also tied cheap food to climate breakdown, supermarket power, and the fact that the system is squeezing both workers and consumers. You can disagree with his framing, but it’s not true that he ignored workers’ rights.
The story of Lucas Aerospace really is a crying shame! Such a missed opportunity…
Great article, as ever Duncan!
Agree with your overall position but not sure this is fair on polanski. Have seen him say multiple times that eco-populism without a mass movement base won't work. That seems to commit to a theory of change to me.
That is a fair challenge and worth engaging with properly.
You are right that Polanski consistently stresses movement-building alongside electoral politics, and that he has explicitly said eco-populism without a mass movement base will not work. That is a more developed position than pure electoralism, and the article should credit it as such.
The question is not whether he has a theory of change. He does. The question is what kind of theory it is and where its limits lie. Saying that movements and elections must work together is a starting point, not a conclusion. The harder questions are: movements doing what, exactly? Organised around what class forces? With what relationship to the trade union movement and working-class institutions? Aimed at what structural transformation?
Polanski's eco-populist frame, the caring majority against the 1%, is genuinely useful for building broad coalitions. Grace Blakeley's argument, which the article is really about, goes further: it says that the only force with the structural power to confront capital is the organised working class, and that the climate movement and the labour movement have to become one thing rather than two movements in occasional alliance. That is not just a difference of emphasis. It is a different theory of where power comes from and how it changes hands.
The German Greens had movement credentials too, before they took office and found themselves approving arms exports and managing austerity. The Irish Greens in coalition delivered less than promised on climate and took the electoral hit. The pressure that comes with office, and with the aspiration to office, tends to moderate precisely the movement energy that got you there. Blakeley's analysis, rooted in the Lucas Aerospace story, names why: capital responds to threats to its interests with structural pressure that reformist parties typically accommodate rather than confront.
None of this means Polanski is wrong to build movements. It means the article is asking what theory of power underlies the movement-building, and whether that theory is sufficient for the scale of the transformation required. That seems like a fair question to put to any political leader, Polanski included.
Zack Polanski often says the right thing in both domestic and international issues but at the same time he can sometimes come out with total bullshit. One such example is his recent pronouncement that food was too cheap. In a Britain which has seen food banks proliferate in recent years because many people cannot afford to feed themselves adequately it just beggars belief that he can come out with such a statement. Of course some food is cheap, ie junk food full of sugar and additives causing ever higher rates of diabetes, obesity etc but healthy nutritious food is anything but cheap. For someone who was once a member of the Liberal Democrats it is hard to work out whether or not Zack Polanski is someone who has genuinely moved to the left or is simply an opportunist riding a leftward moving wave. I doubt if even Zack Polanski himself knows the answer to that.
That would be bullshit if he had said it. But that's a misleading Telegraph headline. Polanski has argued that ultra-cheap supermarket food is a sign of exploitation in the food system rather than a healthy market. As far as that statement goes, it's correct: food-bank use remains high and healthier foods are often more expensive than less healthy options. Whether his shift from the Liberal Democrats to the Greens reflects principled evolution or political opportunism is a matter of interpretation, of course.
But there is exploitation in the food system irrespective of whether or not the food for sale in shops and supermarkets is cheap or expensive. Zack Polanski completely missed the point in that respect.
Not really. In that Bakers’ Union speech he explicitly linked the food system to workers’ rights, low pay, exploitation, and the need for a fairer deal for farmers and workers. He also tied cheap food to climate breakdown, supermarket power, and the fact that the system is squeezing both workers and consumers. You can disagree with his framing, but it’s not true that he ignored workers’ rights.
https://greenparty.org.uk/2026/06/12/zack-polanski-calls-for-action-to-protect-food-system-from-collapse/