Mass membership growth means something real is happening in the Green Party in England and Wales. People - who I call the watermelons, as they're red inside and green outside - are choosing commitment to that party over despair. But, critically, movements can outrun institutions.
In this video, I set out the opportunity facing the Greens, the risks they must avoid, and the hard truth that values alone are not enough. If plausible, deliverable, policy does not follow, and fast, the consequences will be severe.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
The watermelons are coming. These are people who are red on the inside and green on the outside, and their numbers are on the rise, and they're becoming very visible. And that tells us something extraordinary about what is happening to left-wing politics in the UK right now.
The Green Party is on the rise.
Labour is collapsing.
But all of this carries a serious warning. The Greens have to get this right, or the cost will be very high indeed.
Let's just look around us. It's obvious; thousands of people are joining the Greens. The numbers are almost overwhelming. They've got about 200,000 members now, when only a few months ago, it was around 80,000.
But these new joiners are not traditional environmentalists. They're people whose politics include climate concern largely because they're young enough to have always lived with that concern in their backgrounds. But they want something more from green politics. They want politics for people. And the rise of the Greens means that for the first time in a long while, people with left-wing instincts have somewhere to go.
Labour is no longer that place. The watermelons either left Labour long ago, when Corbyn departed the scene in the party, or they never arrived there in the first place. Labour did not just disappoint these people; it long ago ceased to speak their language, and that happened, most particularly, when Starmer appeared. They do not see Labour as having fallen from grace now; they just see it as having become totally irrelevant, which it had, as far as they were concerned, been for some time.
These people are not, therefore, trying to revive an old left, which they also see as part of history. They're not trying to go back anywhere. Instead, they're responding to climate breakdown, inequality, and the growth of insecurity in our society as the things that they find unacceptable. They're bringing morality, ethics, empathy, care, and concern back into politics, and that makes this different, because what they are doing is creating a forward-looking politics when the vast majority of our politics has for decades been backwards-looking, harking back to an era that probably never existed, but which the politicians liked to refer to as if they were the glory days that they were recreating.
For these watermelons, the Greens have become the vessel, not because the Greens are perfect - they know, full well, they're not - but because they are available. The Greens are filling a space that already existed, but which was depopulated. The watermelons were around, let's be clear, of course, they were: these people were out there looking for a political home, but hadn't found one. But now they're out in the open, and that has been made possible by a Green party that is now capturing their imagination.
When people join a political party in their thousands, something real is happening. This is not protest; it is commitment. And let's be clear, people do not join parties lightly anymore. There was a time in the UK when there were millions of people who belonged to political parties, almost entirely the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, but each of them literally had millions of members. That is deepest darkest history. People are, however, now joining the Greens in large numbers, in the way that they joined Labour when Corbyn arrived. But we should take note, because large numbers of enthusiastic supporters can transform the political climate. They don't just sing songs at Glastonbury. This lot could make a difference because difference is what they're looking for.
So what do these new supporters want?
They want a politics of care.
They want to look after people.
They want to know that needs will be met.
They want power to be constrained.
They are instinctively hostile to big-business dominance and wealth capture, but they're not instinctively hostile to business. They just hate the corruption that has gone with the big business environment that now controls too much of politics, too much of our country, and too much of our society. And they expect the state to act to deliver freedom from fear, a promise that Labour has long abandoned.
They're comfortable with the social safety net; they want it.
They want decent benefits.
They want social housing.
They want a job guarantee, in the sense of a government that wants to prevent unemployment.
They understand collective provision as normal, and they grasp something crucial. They realise that we can afford whatever we are capable of doing. Lord Keynes provided that description of an economy during World War II; he was right. And on the basis of what he said then, Lord Beveridge, a liberal, planned the Welfare State based on this logic. And the claim that Keynes made is as true now as then. We can afford whatever we are capable of doing, and that is why the rise of the watermelons matters, because they want to deliver on that promise. They don't want to recreate the old left. They want a new one. They want it based in reality and not theory, and that could be transformative.
But, I have to add a word of warning because clearly there are dangers in this. Movements can run ahead of institutions, and the Greens have never had to scale serious deliverable policies at speed before now, and they must, and that is not what they're good at. Their processes have been slow and have been far from reactive to the situations that they face.
So, now the risk begins, most especially because the Greens' promises must now be both recognisably deliverable and plausible, and that has not always been a feature of their policies in the past. The watermelons are pinning their hopes to the Green label, but the Green label has to respond to them, and the old guard must recognise that change is part of their own agenda as well.
This means that there has to be, in particular, a rejection of everything to do with neoliberal economics, fiscal rules, the household analogy and the idea of austerity to keep markets happy. But do remember that in their place, at one point, the Greens did put in place the idea of 'positive money' and 'positive money' decreed that all money should be created by the state and none by banks, and the consequence would've been austerity and fiscal collapse. So there is a massive challenge implicit in everything that is now happening.
Change at the scale that is now demanded of the Greens is a tall order. It's possible, but it is a challenge .
And the Greens must avoid the trap that Labour fell into. Labour in 2024 defined themselves as 'not being the Tories' and they won on that basis; let's be clear. It worked for them. But the negative identity that they had adopted hollowed the party out. When they reached power, it was very clear that there was nothing behind the claim that they were not the Tories. In fact, they were nothing at all, and the Greens cannot do that. The Greens cannot survive or be elected or deliver change by not being Labour. There must be policies that are deliverable, and soon, if they are going to succeed.
The watermelons do however, bring something important of their own. They bring values. They bring energy. They bring competence. Just look at the candidate standing in Gorton at the moment: she is something quite exceptional. A plumber standing for parliament, speaking the truth as she sees it from up a ladder. That is fundamentally important. This is a real person representing real people in the place that she wants to go to - the real parliament that should be delivering change for this country, but which hasn't been to date.
That means that there is something exciting about what is happening, but values are not enough. Policy has to follow, and fast, and it has to meet the watermelon's needs, or they will rumble fakery. Labour taught them how to do that.
So, even with the risk, this moment is real. Let's be clear about it. There is every reason to think that we are watching a genuine political phenomenon at present. The Greens are literally shaking the parliamentary left to its roots, and they are going to displace Labour. I have no doubt about that. But, whilst people are choosing engagement over despair, this also creates the issue that once Labour is over, and it almost certainly will never rise again, and Zack Polanski is the new offering, there is risk.
Hanging on Zack Polanski's shoulders is a massive burden of responsibility. He has to deliver. If he does, the left is back in action. If he doesn't, we're in trouble, and I can't put it more bluntly than that. I've met the guy. I like him. He's clearly honest. He wants to deliver. I think he has the calibre to deliver. The charisma to persuade. But nonetheless, let's not understate the challenge that he faces. This is a monumental moment, and it is right now hanging on one person for that process of transformation.
The watermelons will join him. There will be vast numbers of people in that group who can become members of Parliament, who can become councillors, who can do the organisation, and who believe that ethical, moderate values should be driving politics again. All of that is possible. All of that can be built. All of that can be built differently from anything Labour did for decades. But that is hard. This has to succeed, and if it does, it changes everything. But if it fails, the damage will be profound.
We are not out of the woods as yet, but we have to live in hope, and we have to care, and most of all, we must have ideas; the Greens need them. I've spoken to Zack Polanski about them. You can see the podcast we did together. He clearly enjoyed what we were talking about. And that is what this channel is all about, and this is the contribution I intend to make.
The Greens could transform politics in the UK, but they need the right ideas. I'm going to be talking about what I think is deliverable as politics for people to fund the future, to deliver a politics of care. That matters to me; I suspect it matters to you. That's what I want the Greens to do. As I say, we have to live in hope.
What do you think? There's a poll down below. Tell us, do you think the Greens are now going to deliver? Are you a watermelon? Do you want to work for something better, and have you now got the opportunity? Either in the comments or in the poll, please let us know.
Poll
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
A much needed post.
I have set quite a high bar for the Greens to meet in order for me to find them credible. This bar contains much of what you write about above. And I am waiting.
But they must also be prepared to be courageous and remind the Civil Service how and why they got into power (if that ever happens). Fundamental to that is a form of ‘taking back control’ with government as an active participant in a pluralist economy and markets that is anti-monopolistic in flavour.
Hope? That’s not for me. All I have is that I know what I want and what I don’t want.
I wish the Greens well.
I hope they can poach the unions from Labour.
Unions have been one of the most major and consistent economically progressive forces in our modern history, and the only other major controller of capital outside of the upper class. They have resources and clout.
I think the ALP provides a good case study for how unions can act as a good compass for a party, if they are given decisive influence within. Half the delegates at the Australian Labor Party’s National Conference are union delegates. They have decision making power. They set the party’s preferred policies.
To my knowledge, while Labor (with one O) may have had its faults in the past (the White Australia policy for one), they have never ever thought about austerity. The Australian unions are a suspicious lot. They preferred to elect party leaders that originated from within the unions (like Hawke) or demonstrated loyalty to them (such as Whitlam).
It surprised me that British unions weren’t displaying the same jealousy within British Labour, but it seems they exert much less decision making power comparatively. Or perhaps British union culture is just different.
@ TM
The British Trades Unions have been greatly emasculated by years of neoliberal attacks from the Tories and New Labour.
But, rather surprisingly to me, LINO has recently brought in The Employment Rights Act which, assuming it comes into force largely unamended, will restore a significant proportion of the rights that trade unions enjoyed before their emasculation by Margaret Thatcher.
No one believes it will happen.
Yes there is a sea change. Greens have been around for a long time and have a Manifesto for a Sustainable Society which spells out policy which is decided at annual conferences. Policy depends on members wishes in a democratic process. There is already a base of MPs and councillors and before that MEPs. Clearly the mass media will try and destroy them but the public now is waking up, especially with the Epstein revelations showing how rotten the present system is.
I have a strong left-wing history. I’ve been a member of the Green Party for ten years. In fact for as long as I have been following this blog.
I ask readers to consider joining the Party. It’s far from perfect but it’s good and getting better. It needs thoughtful people.
If, in general, you like our ideas and our determination to have a planet with a fair chance of being habitable for coming generations, please help with funds! We are up against big money. Investment in the future now could be critical.
I have voted Green in local elections since moving to the West Midlands in 2019. We have a Green opposition to a Tory Council. My three ward councillors are all Green. One is excellent, the other two less so.
The Green group leader on the council sees them as critical friends to the Tories.
I like Zack Polanski very much but I am hanging fire for now.
Had my fingers burned very badly in Labour 2015 to 2019.
I might make a similar comment about the Lib Dems who seem somewhat rudderless at a time when the chance of forming a Government or at least being part of one is dangled before them
Richard, I found your podcast with Zack Polanski and was greatly encouraged by it. When will be the promised follow up podcast?
I don’t know. I think he has one or two things on.
When asked how are they going to pay for XYZ they must blow up the orthodox fiat money story. That is the key to explaining how change to a care economy is possible.
Card carrying doctrinaire Volume 1 Marxists don’t agree that descriptive MMT is the reality and they know best. The Gary Stevensonians will be there too and clamouring for taxing the rich as a first step instead of first improving the lives of the indigent to precariat to demonstrate the fiscal reality of a fiat currency. Those noisy cohorts that don’t (want to) understand fiat will be a huge problem to overcome.
In May last year I attended a regional greens conference in Brum on policy development, and it was very encouraging. In a conversation with one influential figure, I stressed the point that you frequently make (echoing Keynes) that a sovereign government with its own currency is perfectly capable of creating or obtaining all the money it needs to provide whatever level of public investment and range of public services it wishes. The issue is, it has to be taxed back over time and the questions are how, who pays, and how much – that’s where the politics come in. She whole-heartedly agreed and thought this was commonly understood across the movement.
Thanks!
I voted maybe – but policy must improve fast in the poll
I note that the Greens advocate for a radical shift from a criminal justice approach to drugs toward a public health-led, regulated, and legalised model for all drugs. Zack Polanski has called for a “public health approach” that would ensure that someone who had a “problematic relationship with drugs” could get help from a medical professional. The party proposes ending the “war on drugs” by legalising and regulating all drugs, including Class A substances like heroin and crack cocaine, to take control away from criminal gangs.
This policy is being used as an attack line by Labour with Keir Starmer accusing Zac Polanski of being “high on drugs” and that h was making “an important point about the recklessness and irresponsibility of the Green Party”.
As someone who volunteers with a homelessness charity I see the terrible effects of drug addiction so I welcome the focus on treating addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal one.
However I worry about the focus simply on legalisation which sounds like a libertarian “leave it to the markets approach” and would like to hear more on their regulatory proposals if drugs are allowed to be sold. Would the market be as controlled as with alcohol and tobacco or more restricted? What would the penalties be for not complying with market regulations? How would regulations be enforced?
I also worry about this proposal being promoted by the Green party with the economic rationale which suggests that legalised drug markets could generate significant tax revenue (estimated at £8 billion per annum in 2019) to fund harm reduction and other public services.
This is like Gordon Brown proposing significantly increasing taxes on the gambling industry to fund the removal of the two-child benefit cap and tackle child poverty.
The taxation policy with regard harmful products like tobacco (80%) and alcohol (70%) is designed to deter usage for the public good not to primarily raise funds to mitigate their negative effects on society.
My comments are not just about this particular issue which is being used by those who are attacking the Greens and the credibility of their social and economic policies but also as an example of how a politics of care might interact with social good, personal liberty and the market regulation.
Thanks
You get my point on deliverable policy
It’s not just policy – vital though that is. The upcoming May elections are going to proof a stretch and a test of many (probably most) local Green Party groups. Generally they have been run by a dedicated longstanding activists and an even smaller number of organisers. Limited recourse has often meant few seats have been targetted. Local membership my have increased threefold since Polanski was voted leader and, at least as importantly, since Your Party offered a brief disruptive moment of hope, before losing the plot. The Green Party caught the wave. In many areas the local party with the most members is now the Green Party.
Harnessing that new membership and enthusiasm is another thing. Tactics can and should change. More seats tartetted. Effective campaigning will require the early selection of candidates, allowing longer campaigns and the effective co-ordination and targeting of neglecting, door-knocking and organisation. Response to support may be patchy, Green Party organisations is very bottom up, rather than top down. The ability to form strategic alliances with other parties will be essential to win against reform in many wards.
What is clear is the level of volatility and existing politics is failing people. Media coverage and result of the Gorton and Denton by-election assume unusual significance.
Much to agree with.
Richard,
In the context of your post on the Greens I would like to introduce you to an idea I have been working on for some time: the concept of conditional ownership.
Conditional ownership is the idea that property rights are not absolute natural rights but socially granted privileges, held under conditions defined by society. Ownership is legitimate only so long as the asset is used in ways consistent with its social purpose and the collective framework that protects and enables it. In a democratic society — where sovereignty rests with the people — ownership is granted and protected on the condition that it is exercised in ways compatible with societal interests, accountability, and sustainability.
This conditional ownership can be a conceptual seed — it is not a finished doctrine — but a generative principle that has the potential to grow in the right institutional and moral direction. It does not presume that our current institutions are already fit for this task; on the contrary, it only becomes meaningful where institutions are capable of defining, monitoring, and revising such conditions democratically over time.
The line “we can afford whatever we are capable of doing” is doing heavy conceptual work in your text. It quietly re-anchors economics away from financial scarcity and back toward real capacity — skills, labour, materials, energy, organisation. Once you accept that premise, a number of inherited assumptions fall away very quickly.
________________________________________
Why conditional ownership fits that line
Conditional ownership slots into this logic almost naturally:
If society is the sovereign, then ownership is not a natural right but a delegated privilege.
If ownership is delegated, then it can be conditional on use, behaviour, and contribution.
If we can afford whatever we are capable of doing, then the binding constraint is not money but how productive assets are deployed.
In that sense, conditional ownership is not a moral add-on, nor a punishment mechanism aimed at business. It is a governance interface between real productive capacity and social purpose.
Ownership becomes less about exclusion and more about allocating scarce productive capacity to those best placed — and willing — to use it in ways aligned with societal goals. It is a way of matching capability with responsibility.
to be continued
________________________________________
… continued
Crucially, conditional ownership is not expropriation by stealth, nor a licence for day-to-day political interference in economic decisions. It is not about micromanagement. It is about defining the terms under which socially consequential assets may be held at all, not about directing every action taken with them.
________________________________________
Why this matters politically
One of the core tensions in your text is this:
values are not enough; policy has to follow, and fast
Conditional ownership has an advantage here that many left-of-centre ideas lack. It does not require abolishing markets, nor does it require total state control. Instead, it reframes a more fundamental question: what ownership is for.
That makes it:
• compatible with pluralism,
• compatible with entrepreneurship,
• compatible with democratic accountability.
Just as importantly, it avoids the trap of state micromanagement. Society sets the conditions under which ownership is legitimate; execution remains decentralised. Innovation, initiative, and operational decision-making stay where they belong — with those actually doing the work.
In this sense, conditional ownership could form part of the institutional grammar the Greens currently lack: a way of translating values into durable, scalable policy without collapsing into either neoliberal entitlement or centralised control.
A seed, not a silver bullet
Seeing conditional ownership as a seed is important for another reason: it acknowledges scale, evolution, and institutional learning.
Seeds:
• do not dictate final form,
• need the right soil (institutions),
• grow differently in different climates.
Conditional ownership could grow into:
• use-it-or-lose-it land regimes,
• time-limited or purpose-limited corporate charters,
• stronger social obligations tied to monopoly, scale, or systemic importance,
• clearer separation between personal property and socially consequential property.
What matters is not the exact mechanism, but the direction of travel:
from absolute entitlement → to socially situated stewardship
________________________________________
The deeper alignment
At a deeper level, conditional ownership aligns three strands that are often kept separate:
• MMT’s realism about capacity versus money,
• democratic sovereignty (society as grantor),
• an engineering view of systems: roles, constraints, and accountability.
And yes — conditional ownership is not the answer.
But it is very plausibly one idea that can grow into answers, precisely because it starts from how societies actually function, not from ideology.
The open question, of course, is whether our existing democratic institutions are capable of carrying such conditionality without collapse — and that, I suspect, is the real test the Greens now face.
I do not get it, at all.
Who sits in judgement over us all? Please explain? How? And who removes the asset, with what compensation?
Sorry, but this is completely in conflict with the universally recognised human right to hold property. Make it conditional on compliance with regulation, of course, but this is far too judgemental and discretionary to possibly win any support in the wider population.
ichard,
I think I’ve failed to explain this clearly, so let me try again very briefly.
There is no proposal for moral judgement by individuals, parties, or governments, and no discretionary confiscation. “Judgement” here means only what already exists: rule-based decisions by legislatures, regulators, and courts under the rule of law.
Property does not exist outside that framework. Ownership is already conditional everywhere — through planning law, licensing, environmental regulation, company law, insolvency, and compulsory purchase with due process and compensation. I am not proposing a new principle, but making explicit what is already implicit.
The human right to property has never been absolute; it is explicitly subject to law and the public interest. Conditional ownership does not negate that right — it explains why it is legitimate in the first place.
If anything, making this conditionality explicit and rule-based reduces discretion, rather than increasing it.
OK
So what is it that you are now saying that is different?
I am now confused again.
Of the main political parties in England, the Green Party are surely the best party political hope we have of moving toward the economic changes that Richard has pointed to. Zack Polanski’s Bold Politics podcast with Richard indicated good alignment, and Zack seems to be a good listener so will have noted the differences. That doesn’t mean the broader Green Party reflects that position. I think the task is for as many of us as possible, who agree with Richard’s points, to be sufficiently fluent in economics and the changes needed, whether MMT and more, so that we can convince others. I am both a Green Party member and work within a regional network of community groups, and will do what I can. How to upscale and spread this knowledge might be a question to discuss at the Cambridge conference on 28th February, which I am attending.
Many thanks, and noted.
The growing influence of Peter Thiel and Palantir in this country makes me fearful for anything other than minority, establishment rule being allowed in this country. Carol Cadwalladr has been right for so long, but no one is listening to her.
I am
Does the red bit of the watermelon come with factionalism built in?
(Been there, seen that in Labour, as a 2018-2020 member, and as a YourParty non-member early supporter, they are continuing the destructive Labour factional tradition – I was sent several emails last weeks all from slates urging me to join and vote on their instructions).
I hope not. And we don’t need national level prolonged diversionary political spats about gender and toilets either. Just like we don’t want them about small boats.
The May elections will be important in England for getting Greens onto/controlling councils. In Scotland & Wales it will be about national governments without Labour around, and learning about PR in a new era.
From May 2026 onwards, the Greens need to attend urgently to their party infrastructure and get policies and priorities and campaign strategies in place within 12 months, so they have a full 2 years to prepare and campaign for 2029. Whatever the result of Gorton & Denton later this month, it needs quickly leaving behind, because the local work on the ground, will be more important.
And of course, Fa***e”‘s lies and crimes must be exposed relentlessly. Get Mandelson OFF the headlines, and get Reform into the full disorienting glare of the spotlight, not swilling beer or standing on Kent beaches, but answering awkward questions (in press conferences, in front of Select Committees and of course IN COURT) about corruption, undeclared donations, dodgy party treasurers, links to hostile foreign powers, private jet flights, divided national loyalties and paid lobbying.
As I type, I hear the MacRudder just fell off Starmer’s boat. Oh dear. And Starmer had “full confidence” in him only 48 hours ago…
Much to agree with. You are right.
It worries me that the Greens are always referenced to the English party. In Scotland, the Greens seem to be a different animal altogether, without the credibility brought about by Zack Polanski. I don’t know if they are two parties, or one party with two sets of leaders. Some clarity, from them, would seem to be essential before the forthcoming elections.
The Greens in Scotland are a separate party from that in England and Wales. Zack Polanski is willing to let the Welsh party be independent if it wants to be so, and the party decides.
As a non resident I don’t keep up with Brit politics on a day to day basis but what I’m reading about the rise of the Greens is heartening but I agree that if they actually win power it will be very difficult if for no other reason than the other parties waiting for every stumble to make sure voters know the down side of electing someone without a deep historic experience of wielding power. maybe they should co-opt Jeremy Corbyn who made a very good speech the other day about the general corruption revealed in the Epstein files ( to a largely empty house whose few attendees were all busy scrolling on their phones.. were they even listening?) I don’t know what the current fate of Your Party is… but it sounds like they’d make good partners. The Canadian PM ‘s speech at Davos laid out some parameters of where we should be going but has done nothing since to steer things along in that direction… wouldn’t it be great if the Grand Revulsion initiated by Trump/Israel/ Putin/ Epstein and the general state of world politics could start something new! With hope!!