Green MP warns party must resist 'capture by extremists and racists' after Zionism vote
Ellie Chowns says the Green Party's conference motion on Zionism, passed by just 0.4% of members, shows internal processes are not working and warns against the party being captured by extremists and racists.
A Green Party MP has warned that her party must not become «vulnerable to capture by extremists and racists», as the political fallout continues from a conference vote that treated Zionism as a form of racism. Ellie Chowns said the decision, taken by a small fraction of the membership, demonstrated that the party's internal processes are not functioning properly.
The motion, approved at the Green Party's annual conference, called for Zionism — the movement supporting a Jewish state — to be regarded in the same category as other forms of racism. It also backed a single Palestinian state in place of a two-state solution. According to Chowns, the vote was carried by just over 1,000 members, approximately 0.4% of the party's total membership.
Chowns, who represents North Herefordshire, said the narrow participation raised serious questions about how policy is made. She argued that a decision of such significance should not rest on such a small proportion of the party. Her intervention places her among the most prominent internal critics of the conference outcome, which has triggered a political storm for the Greens.
She also directed criticism at Zack Polanski, the party's deputy leader, saying there had been a «lack of leadership» from him over the motion. Polanski, who has been a high-profile figure in the party, has faced calls to clarify his position since the vote. The dispute has exposed divisions within the Greens over foreign policy and the handling of contentious debates at conference.
The row has drawn wider attention because the Green Party has been seeking to present itself as a credible alternative in British politics, with ambitions to expand its parliamentary presence. A controversy over antisemitism and racism risks complicating that effort, particularly as other parties have faced similar scrutiny in recent years. The vote has also prompted debate about whether conference motions passed by a small activist base can bind the party as a whole.
Chowns framed her concerns in terms of protecting the party from outside influence. She said she wanted to ensure the Greens were not «vulnerable to capture by extremists and racists», language that suggests she sees the conference decision as a warning sign rather than a settled policy. Her comments imply that the party needs to review how motions are debated and approved, and who gets to decide on issues that carry significant reputational risk.
The leadership question remains unresolved. Polanski has not publicly addressed the criticism from Chowns in detail, and the party has not indicated whether it will revisit the motion or change its internal procedures. For now, the Greens face a period of internal tension, with MPs and members divided over both the substance of the policy and the process that produced it.
The episode also raises broader questions about how political parties manage contentious international issues at a time when public attention to the conflict in the Middle East remains intense. The Green Party's experience mirrors challenges faced by other organisations attempting to balance member-led democracy with the need for coherent, widely supported positions. How the party responds in the coming weeks is likely to shape its public image and its ability to focus on the domestic agenda it has prioritised.
3
