Green party must avoid being taken over by hard left, says former leader

“Hard left” refers to strongly radical left-wing politics. It can involve hardline positions on issues, sharp opposition to mainstream parties, and a more confrontational political culture. The article contrasts this approach with the Greens’ emphasis on consensus, the environment, and broad appeal.

A takeover would not necessarily mean one group formally seizing control overnight. It could mean organised activists joining, influencing internal debates, shaping policy votes, and changing the party’s direction. Ramsay says some members may have roots in hard-left organising and may be more at home in the SWP, George Galloway’s politics, or Your Party.

Ramsay says a small number of people are seeking to change the Greens’ direction. He wants the leadership to reassert the party’s core values and improve internal democracy. His concern is that factional politics could displace climate, nature, and cost-of-living issues that he believes unite a wider membership.

Adrian Ramsay is the former Green party leader and the MP for Waveney Valley. He remains in the party and says he has no intention of leaving. His intervention follows a dispute over a conference motion declaring “Zionism is racism” and criticism of how the party handled it.

Ramsay wants the Greens to change their internal rules. He says policy should be decided with greater involvement from the wider membership, not mainly by the smaller numbers attending annual conference. He also wants the motion reviewed or rescinded before the current two-year waiting period ends. He believes a ballot or survey could test members’ views.

He is not calling for Zack Polanski to resign. Instead, he wants the leadership to restore consensus-building and the party’s core values. Ramsay also says the Greens should refocus on climate, nature, and the cost-of-living crisis, which he believes could unite members and preserve broad appeal.

Ramsay says only 0.4% of Green party members voted for the “Zionism is racism” motion. That is the article’s key measure of scale. It shows that the decision involved a very small share of the party’s overall membership, rather than a vote by everyone who belongs to the Greens.

The article does not give the party’s total membership at the time of the vote or convert 0.4% into a headcount. Ramsay links the figure to the party’s conference process, where comparatively small numbers attend and participate. He argues that this makes conference decisions potentially unrepresentative of members as a whole.

Ramsay wants the wider membership consulted through a ballot or survey. He also wants the motion changed or rescinded before the two-year review period allowed by party rules. Greens Organise points instead to more than 150,000 members joining under Polanski’s leadership and the party’s electoral success.

The concern is about who gets to participate in policy decisions. The Green party’s annual conference attracts only a portion of its membership, while conference votes can still produce formal party policy. Ramsay says this weak link between participation and membership size allows small groups to exert disproportionate influence.

His example is the “Zionism is racism” motion. He says only 0.4% of members voted for it, yet the policy can remain in place for up to two years before being reviewed under current rules. He argues that organised activists attending conference can therefore shape policy without the wider membership being asked directly.

Ramsay proposes a ballot or survey of all members and changes to the internal rules. He says wider participation would make policy more representative. The dispute also exposes a broader choice for the party: rely mainly on conference decisions, or give the full membership a stronger role in setting and revising policy.

If internal divisions continue, Ramsay believes the Green party could become more factional and tribal. That would matter because he sees the party’s strength as a broad coalition built around consensus, environmental action, and practical concerns such as living costs. A narrower political identity could make it harder to attract and unite members.

He says some hard-left activists are pushing divisive tactics and seeking to change the party’s direction. Ramsay contrasts that culture with consensus-building. He also argues that the disputed motion conflicts with the 2024 manifesto’s support for equal rights and self-determination for Palestinians and Israelis.

The future direction remains contested. Greens Organise says more than 150,000 people joined under Zack Polanski and credits his leadership with unprecedented electoral success. Ramsay says the party must address the dispute while refocusing on climate and nature. He believes those issues, alongside the cost-of-living crisis, can preserve wide appeal.

A wider-membership system would move policy decisions beyond the people able to attend annual conference. The party could hold a ballot, allowing every member to vote on a proposal, or run a survey to measure members’ views. These methods would give the leadership clearer evidence about whether conference decisions reflect the whole party.

Ramsay specifically suggests a ballot or survey after saying just 0.4% of members voted for the disputed motion. A ballot could produce a formal decision, while a survey could show the strength and range of opinion before leaders act. The party could also use wider votes when policies are controversial or when members request a review.

The article does not set out a final replacement system. It does say current rules allow two years before the motion can be reviewed. Ramsay wants that restriction changed, alongside stronger membership control. Any new process would need to balance broad participation with workable decision-making and clear rules.

Political parties need both direction and participation. Leaders often set priorities and respond quickly to events. Conference delegates debate and amend ideas, while the wider membership can provide a broader mandate. A balanced system gives each level a clear role, so leaders are accountable without making every decision slow or unwieldy.

The Green party dispute shows the tension. Ramsay says a motion passed at conference after a vote involving only 0.4% of members. He argues that conference participants can therefore determine policy for the wider party. His proposed remedies are a membership ballot or survey, stronger rules for reviewing policy, and clearer leadership positions during controversial debates.

The article does not describe the Greens’ complete governance model or prescribe one final arrangement. It does show Ramsay’s preferred balance: leadership should defend core values, conference should support consensus, and the wider membership should have more control. Zack Polanski’s supporters instead stress membership growth and electoral success under his leadership.