It’s not the old two-party politics – but Labour and the Tories now know they can shun their populist challengers | Gaby Hinsliff

Andy Burnham drew a boundary around Labour’s relationship with the Green Party. He said Labour could not partner with the Greens while the party remained committed to its members’ newly endorsed “Zionism is racism” motion. The issue mattered because Labour has previously faced serious criticism over antisemitism.

The immediate question was whether Burnham meant future coalitions, existing council arrangements, or both. Labour party chair Bridget Phillipson supplied the answer nearly 24 hours later. She said Labour would end any local arrangement unless the relevant Green group disowned the motion. That directly affected councils where Labour and Greens share power.

Green groups in places such as Sheffield and Lewes therefore face a choice between preserving influence and angering their members. The decision could also shape future national cooperation if an election produces a hung parliament. Burnham’s comments suggest Labour is willing to set limits rather than assume it must accept any coalition partner.

Zionism is the political belief that Jewish people have a right to national self-determination in a homeland, commonly understood as Israel. Zionists can also support the creation of a Palestinian state. The term therefore does not automatically describe opposition to Palestinian statehood.

The article says Labour figures viewed the Green motion as antisemitic because it described “Zionism as racism” and condemned every Jew who believes in a Jewish homeland. It also says the motion advocated turning historic Palestine into one Palestinian state. That would remove Israel as a state, according to the article’s interpretation.

This distinction matters politically because Labour is still recovering from its own battle with antisemitism. Burnham treated the Green position as a boundary Labour could not ignore. The Green Party was already divided, with four out of five elected Green MPs opposing the motion, making the issue a major internal and coalition problem.

The article gives a striking figure: four out of five Green Party elected MPs opposed the anti-Zionism motion. It does not provide the total number of elected MPs, so the exact number of MPs cannot be calculated from the text alone.

Their opposition matters because the motion was not simply an issue raised by outside critics. It divided the Green Party’s own parliamentary representatives. The article says the party was openly agonising over the motion, while Burnham argued that Labour could not overlook it.

The split could influence both local and national politics. Green representatives in councils may have to choose between rejecting the motion and keeping Labour cooperation. More broadly, internal opposition may strengthen Greens who believe the party should focus on the climate crisis rather than repeatedly answer questions about Israel’s right to exist.

The immediate consequence could be the collapse of Labour-Green power-sharing arrangements in local government. Labour party chair Bridget Phillipson said Labour would bring any such local arrangement to an end unless the local Green group disowned the “Zionism is racism” motion.

The mechanism is straightforward. A local Green group must choose whether to reject the position adopted by its party members. If it refuses, Labour’s national leadership has said the cooperation agreement should end. The article names Sheffield and Lewes as places where elected Greens are currently sharing power with Labour.

That creates a difficult political choice. Greens could preserve local influence by distancing themselves from the motion, but risk angering their members. Alternatively, they could keep the position and lose access to shared council power. The episode is also described as a rehearsal for the pressures of a future hung parliament.

A hung parliament occurs when no political party wins enough parliamentary seats to command a majority. The government may then need a coalition, a formal agreement, or issue-by-issue support from smaller parties. This explanation uses general knowledge because the article refers to a hung parliament but does not define it.

The key mechanism is arithmetic. If the largest party lacks a majority, smaller parties can hold the votes needed for legislation or confidence decisions. They may demand policy concessions in return. The article connects this possibility to Labour’s relationship with the Greens and to the Conservatives’ possible relationship with Reform.

The political consequences can be significant. Leaders may need partners even when they disagree with them on fundamental issues. Burnham’s firm stance suggests Labour may refuse some alliances despite the electoral maths. Badenoch’s position similarly signals that the Conservatives would rather compete with Reform than automatically make a deal.

The article presents Reform and Restore as populist challengers on the Conservatives’ right. It says some people associated with them argue that someone must be white to be properly English. Badenoch attacked rivals who debate whether her mixed-race children are English, making national identity central to the conflict.

The Conservatives’ strategy is to compete rather than cooperate. The article links Badenoch’s approach to a Bright Blue proposal: adopt draconian immigration policies, make the economy the campaign’s main focus, and insist citizenship can be earned rather than fixed by ethnicity. The mechanism is electoral differentiation.

Polls still suggest the Conservatives cannot win without some kind of Reform deal. Yet Badenoch’s conference message was that such an agreement would be unacceptable. The article says this stance looks stronger after reports involving extreme Reform councillors, including one who allegedly wanted King Charles decapitated.

Under first-past-the-post, voters choose a candidate in a constituency, and the candidate with more votes than any rival wins that seat. A party’s national vote share does not translate directly into parliamentary seats. This is general electoral knowledge; the article mentions electoral maths but does not explain the system.

The key mechanism is geographical concentration. A smaller party may finish second in many constituencies and win few seats, while another party wins more seats by narrowly coming first across many areas. Even a small parliamentary group can become important if no larger party has a majority.

That is why the article discusses possible deals with Reform or the Greens. In a hung parliament, smaller parties may hold enough seats to support or block a government. Their influence can therefore exceed their seat total, especially when the main parties need votes for legislation or wider political survival.