Party Structures Under Review Amid Membership Growth
Senior members of the Green Party are exploring potential reforms to the party’s internal structures to enhance effectiveness and representation following a significant increase in membership since Zack Polanski assumed leadership.
The party currently operates a direct-democracy model where policy decisions are made exclusively by members attending one of its two annual conferences. Some within the Greens express concern that this system may disproportionately empower organised fringe activists who are able to attend these events in person.
While no formal decisions have been reached, proposals under consideration include allowing local party branches to nominate delegates to vote on behalf of members or maintaining the one-member-one-vote principle but introducing online voting options.
Membership Growth and Its Impact
When Polanski became leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, membership stood at approximately 68,000. This figure has since risen to over 230,000.
“There is a conversation in the sense that a lot of people are saying: the party has changed a lot, and the structures haven’t changed with it,” one Green official said.
The official further noted the challenges posed by the current in-person voting system:
“At the moment, the system of in-person voting means it just involves the members who can afford to book a hotel and take some days off work – it’s quite self-selecting. This has always been the case, but it’s more disproportionate now it’s not 1,000 people out of 68,000, but 1,000 out of 230,000.”
Another party member acknowledged growing recognition of the need for change:
“When you have 0.05% of members making the policy decisions, things need to change. We all know that.”
Policy Controversies and Member-Led System
The Greens maintain that their member-led system enables a broad range of perspectives to be represented. However, this inclusiveness can lead to contentious proposals, such as a motion at the spring conference in March which aimed to adopt the position that “Zionism is racism.”
This motion was postponed due to procedural and technical issues but may be reconsidered at the autumn conference scheduled for October.
Resource Constraints and Organisational Challenges
Party officials attribute many current difficulties to limited resources for managing the expanded membership, although improvements are underway as the Greens’ financial situation strengthens.
Notably, the organisation of conferences has been managed by a single individual for approximately two decades, with a support team only recently established this year.
Leadership Focus and Internal Structure Improvements
Some senior Greens argue that Polanski has concentrated heavily on external communication, potentially at the expense of internal structural development, which they consider essential for electoral success at local and parliamentary levels.
“The leader is traditionally a spokesperson rather than the sort of leader you get in other parties, and I think Zack sometimes hides a bit behind that in not making decisions,” one said. “But at the same time, it is a big task, and there is only one of him.”
Leadership Model and Party Size
There is also discussion about whether the current leadership model remains appropriate given the party’s increased size and polling strength, which has reached as high as 19% nationally.
Historically, until 2008, the Greens employed “principal speakers” instead of a leader. Presently, the leader holds limited authority, possessing a single vote among approximately two dozen members of the party’s executive body.
Some Greens contend that this arrangement restricts the leader’s ability to make timely policy decisions, even with a strong mandate such as Polanski’s, who secured nearly 85% of members’ votes.
“There has to be a balance in terms of the policies set by conference, and some trust and leeway given to the leader, along with ways to hold them to account if needed. It would help the party be more agile.”
Others disagree, noting Polanski’s frequent public commentary:
“Polanski, who routinely expresses opinions on broadcast interviews and social media, has the ability to make an interpretation of core values while responding to events as they unfold,” said one party official. “Green members would object if he went too far.”
Strategic Positioning and Political Context
The Greens are also considering their strategic response to Andy Burnham’s position as prime minister, especially in relation to the Labour leadership of Keir Starmer and the Scottish National Party’s Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond.
“We have to think properly about this, and how we continue to make ourselves distinctive. We have done well from being a more personable and hopeful option to the left of Keir Starmer, and that role might be about to be filled by Burnham.”
