LONDON — Zack Polanski’s Green Party is still feeling the heat from a controversial policy branding Zionism a form of racism. But the outfit’s intense focus on internal democracy is making it hard to move on.

Polanski has sought to challenge Britain’s governing Labour Party from the left since he swept to the top last year. But he fell short in a recent by-election test, failing to get a seat in the U.K. parliament after a race dominated by internal Green bickering over the party conference motion.

The motion has triggered a wave of internal soul-searching — and last week saw the collapse of several local government deals with Labour, which has spent years stamping out any hint of softness on antisemitism.

The leader has since sought to regain the initiative — promising an overhaul of party democracy which aims to give its upper echelons more responsibility in setting the Greens’ strategic direction.

But that’s already testing the limits of his role in a Green Party constitution that’s meant to put members in the driving seat.

POLITICO spoke to 10 Green Party officials past and present to try and map out the difficulties Polanski will now face. Some were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive internal party matters.

They painted a picture of a party caught between parliamentary representatives who want to shut down what they see as a vulnerability — and a rank-and-file membership keen to defend the right to set binding policy. Some described a leadership caught in a bind — heeding concerns from MPs while wanting to avoid over-riding party structures.

“The rules that are written were meant to avoid flip-flopping,” said Doug Rouxel, former deputy chair of the Green Party’s executive committee (GPEX).

“If we effectively decide every motion can be revisited, we will have to repeatedly debate motions over and over, any contentious issue where people are uncomfortable at the position we arrive at,” he said. “It’s about the general principle of undoing.” 

In a bind

Polanski has made the Greens’ opposition to Israel’s post-October 7 campaign in the Gaza Strip a key selling point of his leftist force, tapping in to disillusionment with Labour.

But the party’s stance on the Middle East was thrust into the spotlight in October when its annual conference passed a motion — backed by just 0.4% of the party’s overall membership — taking aim at Zionism as an ideology.  It defined Zionism as supporting “an ethnonationalist Jewish state.” Party members also backed a “single democratic Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine.”

The blowback in SW1 was swift. The party’s Westminster leader, MP Ellie Chowns, said the Greens need to make sure they are not “vulnerable to capture by extremists and racists.” The Equalities and Human Rights Commission, an official watchdog, wrote to the party after receiving complaints about possible discrimination. The chair of the Jewish Greens called on Polanski to resign.

Green members of parliament who believe the motion is a mistake are already trying to work out how they can U-turn on or amend it.

That’s easier said than done, and people familiar with the party’s internal governance have told POLITICO doing so could be near-impossible.

Under the Green Party’s constitution, members cannot bring forward a motion or amendment that “significantly amends” a policy for two years after it is voted through.

The people who decide whether this criteria is met are the five members of the Standing Orders Committee — a group which acts as the “Supreme Court” of the party, as described by one previous member. Of the current membership of this body, three are backed by Greens for Palestine, which proposed the successful motion.

“Not a single one” of the committee would allow a motion or amendment to the Zionism is racism motion be put forward, the former SOC member said. A members’ ballot — where all Green Party members could vote on re-litigating the motion — would also have to pass the same test. “There’s simply no way round it,” they added. “It is cast-iron.” 

Faced with that dilemma, Polanski has discussed reform — but only in general terms.

Party leaders issued a joint statement in October saying that a structural update was needed to deal with the Greens’ ballooned membership. It has grown from roughly 60,000 to more than 200,000 under Polanski’s leadership.

“This will be an iterative process with the first stage of improvements expected to be brought for a vote at Spring Conference and a delivery plan in place for longer term actions,” the statement from party leaders read.

A Green Party spokesperson insisted this was not a direct response to the Zionism row. “The party has long needed to consider how members can engage effectively, and with membership at a record level, that work is now a priority,” they added.

Polanski meanwhile told the BBC in October that he would not seek to overturn the motion himself — and that he would not be able to even if he wanted to.

Polanski’s current stance — making amendments to the motion at the first available opportunity in 2028 — remains unchanged, a Green Party official told POLITICO. They stressed that his support for governance changes is geared towards a long-overdue rule update rather than this specific policy.

But Green MPs hope to use the pressure of public interventions to get results sooner. Adrian Ramsay, a former leader of the party, has said Polanski’s “strong communication and motivational skills” have shifted the dial on the climate and cost-of-living — and implied they could do so here.

That has, in turn, prompted pushback from defenders of the Green Party’s structure. “Some of these people wrote the job role of leader, and now they’re expecting someone to do it very differently from how they designed it,” said Rouxel, the former deputy chair of the party’s executive committee. Polanski, he said, simply does not have the power to intervene in democratic processes. 

Pressing for an overhaul

MPs are forging ahead anyway. Ramsay told POLITICO the proposals set out by a working group on party governance had a “good chance” of being heard at the party’s next conference in spring.

“I’ve spoken to some of the people on the working group who are determined to do that. The bigger question is whether there can be movement on the motion itself in that time period, which is harder but essential,” he added.

This could theoretically include an attempt to change the rules around how the SOC functions so that an amendment to the Zionism is racism motion is heard sooner.

The former SOC member said, however, that it would be “a miracle” if a motion to change party governance gets heard at spring conference.

“It would brazenly be an attempt to subvert conference, and it is also boring,” they said. “Any motion that gets proposed at conference has to get prioritized by members, and historically members don’t rank governance motions highly. Essentially, it would be a miracle.” 

Meanwhile, Rouxel warned that changing the processes this time would set a tricky precedent.

“If the MPs didn’t want this to be passed then they should have thought about that before conference,” Rouxel said.

“The fact they didn’t is concerning. The only way they can get what they want is organizing enough people in the [conference] room to vote for what they want — and that is what they failed to do.” 

The working group on overhauling party governance — which counts Polanski and the CEO amongst its members — is not open to rank-and-file members. And that decision is already coming under fire from some quarters for not being democratic. 

“They have absolutely no power to bring motions that are any different to what a member can propose,” the former SOC member said. They added that Polanski needs to “stop telling people he is going to do stuff he is not in a position to actually do.” 

Artificial intelligence is fundamentally reshaping Europe’s job market. The Commission is hoping to do something about that.

Today on the show, Zoya Sheftalovich and Sarah Wheaton discuss the unveiling of Commissioner Roxana Mînzatu’s Education and Skills Package. In it, the EU executive sets out plans to boost vocational education and training for jobs that require physical presence and manual expertise — jobs that AI won’t be as likely to snap up in the future.

Next, the culprit behind this week’s cyberattack on supermarket freezers across Europe remains a mystery. But we explain why cybersecurity experts are looking toward Moscow.

Finally, some MEPs have AI doing their homework — and European Parliament President Roberta Metsola is not happy about it.

Are you a young person nervous about your future job prospects? What is your game plan when it comes to finding a job in the age of AI? Let us know on WhatsApp here or at +32 491 05 06 29.

Articles mentioned in this episode:

• Supermarket Chain Thaw Massacre: Russia suspected in Europe’s fridge attacks.
• Fridge hacks also hit French blood banks.
• Metsola tells MEPs not to rely on AI when drafting laws.
  

Ask a 22-year-old and a 70-year-old in the UK today whether they use digital tools to manage their money, and the answer is increasingly the same: yes. Ask them whether they feel confident doing so, and you get two very different answers.

Financial empowerment is the term we use to refer to the knowledge, skills, tools and opportunities that allow an individual to take control of their financial life and improve their financial wellbeing over time.

Britain increasingly banks, budgets and borrows online — a shift made possible at scale by advances in digital technology and the data and analytics behind it. But how confident people feel doing it is the real story of financial empowerment in Britain right now, and it offers valuable insight for policymakers and industry alike.

Different lives, shared financial ambitions

For a decade, Lloyds Banking Group’s Consumer Digital Index has tracked how people across the UK engage with digital technology and the confidence they have in doing so. Its analysis shows that more than 75 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds have used artificial intelligence (AI) for personal finance in the past year — the highest adoption of any generation. Yet they’re also the least confident using the tools they’ve adopted: just 64 percent of 18- to 24-year-old digital tool users feel confident using them, rising steadily to 85 percent among 65- to 74-year-olds.

Britain increasingly banks, budgets and borrows online — a shift made possible at scale by advances in digital technology and the data and analytics behind it.

Look across the UK and the picture shifts again. According to the index, London is the UK’s AI finance capital — 49 percent of digitally engaged respondents use it weekly, reporting the nation’s highest average savings of £562 after following AI-powered recommendations.^* Yet Londoners who use digital tools feel less confident doing so than anyone else in the country. Wales leads the UK on financial engagement and knowledge — how actively people manage their finances and how well they understand them — with the highest proportion nationally of those surveyed saying digital tools have helped them grow their pensions and investments. Yorkshire and the Humber leads on digital budgeting, and Northern Ireland shows some of the lowest adoption alongside some of the strongest outcomes among those who do engage.^** How people use digital tools to manage their money across the UK is as varied as the lives, places and ambitions behind it.

These insights insist that financial empowerment should be a national priority. While people across different generations and in different places are engaging with digital money tools differently, the ambition is the same — to have confidence, capability and control over their financial future.

It can’t be enabled in the same ways to everyone. A 20-year-old in Croydon, a 45-year-old in Leeds juggling debt and family costs, and a 70-year-old in Cardiff drawing down a pension will need different things to feel confident in managing their money online.

While people across different generations and in different places are engaging with digital money tools differently, the ambition is the same — to have confidence, capability and control over their financial future.

But strip away the age and the postcode, and what people want is remarkably consistent: the confidence to decide, the capability to act, and the control to plan ahead without being derailed by the next bill.

That’s the common connection between a Gen Z Londoner testing an AI budgeting tool and a Boomer in Edinburgh checking her pension pot on an app before bed.

Financial access is only the starting point

The UK has made big steps toward building digital access — nearly nine in ten digital tool users across the UK (88 percent) now manage their money online weekly. That’s a real achievement, but access was never the finish line and cannot be taken for granted.

A second goal is to turn that access into outcomes, in ways that reflect how differently people actually experience money. That means building financial education into schools and workplaces earlier and closing the trust gap around AI-generated advice for the younger users adopting it fastest. Places with the least developed financial habits should be given support designed for their circumstances, not advice scaled down from somewhere else.

As the UK’s largest digital bank, with around 22 million customers now managing their money through our apps, we have as much reason as anyone to get this right — and a role to play in doing it. Our ambition is to make finance simpler, smarter and more connected for every moment that matters, which is why we’re using AI, data and digital tools in practical, purposeful ways to help customers make better financial decisions and protect themselves from harm. By using our reach, technology and connectivity, we can help more people and businesses build stronger financial futures and realise their ambitions.

Financial empowerment is a national economic opportunity

The size of the prize is substantial. Independent research commissioned by Lloyds Banking Group and led by the University of Nottingham puts the value of turning digital access into financial confidence at up to £100 billion for the UK economy over the next decade — roughly £3,500 per household.

Our ambition is to make finance simpler, smarter and more connected for every moment that matters, which is why we’re using AI, data and digital tools in practical, purposeful ways.

Confidence changes what people do with their money. Instead of just getting through the week, they start to plan, adapt and invest in what comes next. Multiply that across millions of households, and the effect stops being personal and starts being national.

Digital access got the UK this far. Confidence, capability and control are what will get it the rest of the way — and building them should be a national priority.

---

Notes:

^*Savings figures are self-reported estimates and are not verified against transactional data. They should be interpreted as perceived impacts rather than guaranteed outcomes.

^**The Northern Ireland outcome findings are based on a small sample, n<100, and should be interpreted as indicative rather than statistically representative of the wider population.