Polanski's election raises concerns that he could push away recently attracted Tory switchers and conservationist voters, altering the Green Party's electoral coalition. He is variously labelled eco-populist and hard-left, and his immediate Instagram victory post signals an organised, assertive approach. His plain-spoken rhetoric — calling problems "shit" rather than using milder terms — appeals to voters who value directness. Media double standards treat anti-immigration bluntness as charismatic while anti-corporate bluntness is deemed divisive. Attacking corporations struggles to fracture communities, whereas contempt toward immigrants can deeply divide families and neighborhoods, with wider political consequences.
What risk could the election of Zack Polanski as leader pose for the Green party? That's what journalists wondered aloud on one current affairs format after another, on Tuesday evening. Would he alienate the party's new-found Tory switchers, conservationists who'd given the party a chance after a decade of disaffection with their tribe? Surely, by peeling off the leftwing elements of the Labour party, Polanski was simply strengthening Reform, whose path to victory through this division would be assured?
Sometimes the mystery of why party members vote for the values candidate over the putatively electable one is not that mysterious: maybe rightwingers aren't the only people yearning for someone to stand up and talk normally. Straight talking is valorised on the right, and generally deplored on the left. A hardline anti-immigration candidate is charismatic, a hardline anti-corporate one is divisive.
It makes no sense at the level of the vocabulary very few of us feel an emotional allegiance to corporations. It would be extremely hard to divide a community by slagging off Thames Water. Of immigrants, the opposite is true. Communities, even individual families, are riven when human beings are spoken about with contempt, and yet somehow that's charisma, fun, music-hall politics.
Collection
[
|
...
]