Why Zack Polanski keeps making the same mistake

Just months after leading the Green Party to record membership and a surge in the polls, Zack Polanski is once again defending his social media activity.

The Green leader has come under fire after sharing an Instagram image of a T-shirt featuring a guillotine alongside the words “We’re Only Making Plans for Nigel”. Reform UK accused him of “inciting murder”, while Nigel Farage called for his arrest. The Metropolitan Police later confirmed it would not be investigating.

Appearing on Newsnight, Polanski described the post as an “inadvertent mistake”, but stopped short of apologising.

It’s the latest in a string of online controversies. In April, he apologised after sharing criticism of the Metropolitan Police in the aftermath of the Golders Green terror attack, in northwest London, saying he had posted “in haste”.

So why do the Greens keep finding themselves in this position?

On the latest episode of the In The Room podcast, Helen MacNamara argued the party’s rapid rise has left it struggling to adapt to the scrutiny that comes with becoming a serious electoral force.

“They haven’t adjusted to the responsibilities that come with being in the political mainstream,” she said. “They’re now going to get much more scrutiny.”

Cleo Watson said Polanski’s response on Newsnight only compounded the problem.

“It was agonising,” she said. “He admitted he’d made a mistake but wouldn’t apologise.”

She also questioned the Greens’ explanation that the slogan referred to the 1979 XTC song Making Plans for Nigel.

“It really just made me think: guys, you’re not going to get taken seriously as a party if this is the kind of stuff that’s happening,” she said.

“Are you really telling me no one in Zack Polanski’s team is triple-checking the things he’s reposting? And why wouldn’t you just apologise and draw a line under it?”

Watson compared the row to Reform UK’s handling of controversial comments made by candidates during the Makerfield by-election campaign, arguing that refusing to shut down the story simply prolonged it.

Helen agreed.

“We’ve said this a few times: if you have to give a seven or eight sentence explanation of why you haven’t just done the simple thing, then that’s never going to work.”

She suggested the repeated controversies reflect a deeper tension inside the Green Party itself.

“There are almost two Green parties,” she said. “The old Greens were practically helpful, earnest local campaigners focused on environmental issues and community politics.”

The newer generation, she argued, has embraced a more confrontational, online style of politics.

“They’re extremely online and hyper-focused on the high-oxygen, sugar-rush stuff: national politics and election victories. It does feel like a party of at least two heads.”

Watson questioned whether the strategy was paying off.

“If you look at YouGov, for example, the 18-to-24 vote for the Green Party has gone from 46 per cent to 26 per cent. They’ve gone to Labour,” she said.

“It’s just not smart politics. People don’t like it.”

Listen to the full episode of In The Room on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or watch on YouTube.