1. Mainstream media spinning the wrong story

Today the media are framing he whole result around Zack Polanski, the Zionism is racism conference motion and his leadership. They are exaggerating the extent of Labour’s victory and announcing the immediate outbreak of a leadership struggle against Polanski. Commentators repeatedly relay the words of an anonymous political source who is saying Polanski has created a monster that is out of control. Apparently the huge surge in membership since he became leader is just a bunch of hard left pro-Palestine activists who are now calling all the shots.

Although there are legitimate questions about how Zack responded to the Zionism is Racism motion (see below point 4) it is unlikely there will be any challenge to him any time soon. Membership has soared from around 70,000 to more than 220,000 and the party continues to win councilors and has added a new MP in Manchester. On the ground in Camden you could see hundreds of members coming into to join the campaign. It is its second best by-election result. Despite that motion the Green Party conference was the largest ever and has the youngest demographic of any party.

Often with the first past the post system the pundits see it as a zero sum game, not analysing the percentages or changes from the past. Everything is focused on the fact that Labour beat Polanski by around 3000 votes. They assume that Holborn and St Pancras was a winnable seat for the Greens in the first place.  People in the Greens and on the left always thought it was a long shot and some even counselled against Zack standing since he would register a defeat.

The figures also reveal a 13% swing to Greens from Labour, a 3% drop in the Labour vote,  more than than tripling of the Green vote and the establishment of  a new Green/Labour marginal. This was no Labour landslide.  Some commentators like Peter Kellner also downplayed the Green vote because it absorbed the left pro-Palestinian votes of Andrew Feinstein’s candidature in 2024. Surely it is a sign of the Green Party’s growth in popularity that is able to win over all those votes? Kellner also minimises the shift from Starmer to Burnham which obviously was affected by the Green surge.

For the mainstream media the focus is always around personalities so rather than looking at the continued growth and resilience of the Green party vote it focuses on the fortunes of Zack Polanski rather that analyse the demographics or trends.

2. The Burnham bounce is continuing

Labour has shown that it can stop the haemorrhage of votes to its left. Some people on the left who refuse so see the reality in front of them point to the 39% turnout being 15% lower than in 2024 at the general election. But by-elections often have a lower turnout.  A lot of voters knew the polls were showing for some time that Labour would hold the seat. In both Gorton and Makerfied by-elections people had a chance to vote in such a way as to change the government. That was not the case here.

Imagine how a similar by-election might have turned out now if Starmer was still in charge and the various changes Burnham has made had not taken place. Sagal Abdi-Wali, the victorious Labour candidate made quite a deal in her victory speech about the positive changes Ed Miliband had made on Labour’s policy on Israel and Palestine  – accepting Palestine protest was legitimate, denouncing settler violence and sanctioning them.  Certainly this must have helped her campaign.  How likely too would McSweeney (Starmer’s former chief of staff) have selected a child refugee as candidate when his line was to tack towards the Reform narrative?  Burnham spoke about refugees and Sagal in  a way that Starmer (‘island of strangers’) and his cabinet never did as it chased Reform’s reactionary voters.

Clearly the moderate but real proposed reforms on a number of issues like housing, cost of living and care contributes to a sense in which this is a new government.  Indeed Polanski correctly recognises that competition from the Greens has influenced Labour policy.  Sagal Abdi-Wali went further than Burnham during the campaign as she argued against more North Sea drilling and for a clear nationalisation of water.

John Curtice, the electoral guru, said that the Greens have lost 4 or 5 percentage points and are back down to 10% in the polls. Polanski’s personal approval ratings are also down. He also said the Labour bounce is not that high and does not yet indicate a clear government majority if an election were held soon. 

3. Should the left adopt the ‘pressurize Burham’ line that Polanski has aired?

One thing is to accept that the Green surge has influenced Labour, another it to erect that into a strategy.  Electoral pressure is useful and sometimes vital but it cannot substitute for building an ecosocialist alternative to Labourism in workplaces and communities .  Momentum’s statement on the result correctly calls on Burnham to deliver public ownership, build council homes and genuinely reverse austerity.

However its enthusiasm clouds a realistic analysis of what Burnham will actually do when it blithely suggests the electoral win proves ‘our movement is gaining traction’ again and that ‘Labour remains the only serious vehicle for progressive and socialist change in Britain’. A movement to bring socialist change cannot be confused with an electoral result or the Labour Party as it works today.  For a start it excludes the 35% vote for the Greens who at least have as valid a role as Labour in any movement for progressive and socialist change.  Change for Momentum seems to be limited to the horizon of Labour party meetings, conferences and government policies.

The ecosocialist alternative that we need will include people currently active in Labour and Burnham may  reactivate some of them – although there is currently no sign of a Burnham surge in membership. However it will include people outside Labour in the Greens, left currents, community independents and the unions.  It needs to develop self-organisation and through struggle impose a relationship of forces that can challenge the rule of capital and impose change against its power and state. That is the strategy of Anti-Capitalist Resistance.

4. How significant was that Zionism is racism motion?

Polls taken though the campaign suggest Labour already had the seat in the bag before the controversy about the motion on Zionism and Polanski’s position on it. Maybe some later polling analysis will show it had an impact but the jury is still out on this.

On the other hand has the debate weakened the Greens? I think you need to separate out the effect on the Greens support in general and the way it may affect Polanski’s leadership.

There are different positions on the left and among ACR members on whether the Zionism is racism motion was the best way the Green Party could have continued to take forward its principled support for the Palestinian people.

Many people on the left, including myself, would support the analysis that racism was an integral part of the Zionist project since the state could only be established in 1948 as an ethno nationalist entity which forced the removal of the Palestinian people already living there. It was a colonial settler state from the start.  Also many of us think a two state solution is less credible than a democratic secular state where current Israelis and Palesinians could live together.

However the problem is that we cannot speak for the Palestinians over what they decide. Many  Palestinians support a two-state solution.  At the same time the Zionist who is ethnic cleansing the West Bank or cheering on the genocide in Gaza is the not the same as someone who denounces the genocide today, opposes the annexation of the West Bank, denounces Netanyahu’s apartheid regime and argues for a two state solution under UN management. The Labour Party is for a two state solution and so too are many governments globally.

One problem with the motion is that it comes down for a one state solution and at the same time lumps all Zionists with the same racist label.  Some Jewish Green members are two staters so already that creates a difficulty,  Also is it not clear how far the 200,000 or so members not in the hall supported the motion.  I would suggest there might not be a majority.

Socialists may agree a motion is theoretically good but may not think it correct tactically to get an organisation (usually broader than their own current) to adopt it as policy. For example in previous attempts at building broad left parties nearly everybody agreed it was not a priority to adopt a motion abolishing the monarchy or replacing the army with armed militia. You are not selling out if you agree a motion that is short of your full programme but will take the movement to the next step.

If the motion had prioritised the battle around Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS), ending all arms sales to Israel, called for the right of return, condemned the genocide and so on it would have allowed the Greens to continue their excellent work on Palestine without getting into what we could say are more abstract debates on Zionism. 

Whatever it had decided the party would have taken flak from the Zionists, but why make it easier for them?  For some people on the left passing a motion with ‘pure’ line is more important than assessing what its real impact will be on building solidarity. I can understand how some people feel it gives clarity at last and conference has adopted it democratically, finally our line has won. Yet this is performative – it makes us feel good and defines us against all those compromisers and liberals. The problem is to build an effective solidarity movement. You need to build alliances on the crucial issues such as BDS with people to your right.

Today Polanski made a clear argument. He said genocide and displacement is a form of racism and repeated the need for policies that keep an effective campaign going but he said he would have argued for amendments that would have taken out the one state position and the Zionists are racists line. If the amendments had fallen he would have voted against.

Unfortunately he decided not to lead at conference on this and instead went campaigning in Camden. Probably this is the worse misstep of his leadership so far.  He has pledged to change the policy on Zionism through the democratic structures of the party.  

Polanski should make a public call to support Saturday’s National Palestine march and join the anti-austerity protests in Budget week.

5. Does the result mean the threat of a Reform or a Reform/Tory government has gone?

Everything depends on how much change and reform a Burnham government can bring about.  We will see in the Budget at the end of the month how far it will go in funding its polices. Will there be any new taxes on the banks, oil companies or the wealthy in general? How will they deal with soaring fuel and food prices? Trying to find money by cutting welfare payments, ‘reforming’ Special Needs Support  or weakening the triple lock could lead to the Burnham bounce petering out and a revival in the Tories and Reform fortunes.

The mobilisations around housing in the Spanish state and the huge youth uprising in France show how we can begin to develop struggles that could turn Burnham’s  vibes of Hope into a real change.