Zack Polanski faces Ellie Chowns at Green party leadership hustings – UK politics live

Hi, I’m Andrew Sparrow, picking up again from Nadeem Badshah, and blogging from Hoxton Hall in north London, where chairs are being set up into a handsome auditorium for leadership hustings for the Green party of England and Wales. (The Scottish Green party is a separate entitity.) It is due to start at 6.15pm.

There have been quite a few hustings already, and four more are scheduled, but we have not covered the contest much on the Politics Live blog, and we certainly have not reported from a hustings. So tonight it is going to get full attention for two hours.

The Greens are a smallish party, they normally hold leadership contests every two years, often it ends up as a co-leader job share and, because members have much more control over policy and other matters then they do in other parties, the leader or leaders have surprisingly little power. “The primary purpose of the Green party leader is to provide visionary leadership and direction for the party,” is how the party explains it.

But this contest is attracting more interest than most previous Green party leadership elections have. That is partly because the party is stronger than it has ever been before. It has four MPs at Westminster, more than 800 council seats and it is regularly picking up about 10% support in opinion polls.

Where do they go next? That is the other reason why the contest deserves more attention, because the choice facing members is sharper, and spikier, than it normally is in a party with collegiate, herbivore instincts.

On the one side, Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns are running on a ‘more of the same [success]’ platform. They are both MPs, Ramsay is a current co-leader and they say they can “can inspire teams, grow trust and deliver results”. They were both meant to be here tonight, but Ramsay can’t be here because of a family reason. And it is a job share; they have not always appeared together at hustings.

And they are up against Zack Polanski who is running on an “eco-populist” platform promising what is crudely seen as out-Faraging Reform UK from the left. He is a skilled social media performer, and is also widely seen as the favourite – although, because the Greens are a small party (around 65,000 members), they are hard to poll, and no one knows for sure.

Reform UK has announced that another former Tory MP, Adam Holloway, is joining the party.

Holloway, who was MP for Gravesham from 2005 until 2024, said he was joining Nigel Farage’s party because he thought it was best placed to rescue Britain.

A former soldier, Holloway said:

There comes a moment for many soldiers — and most politicians — when you realise the battle you think you’re fighting isn’t the one your leaders are waging. Many in Britain feel we may already have passed the point of no return. Our cities grow less cohesive, the country effectively bankrupt.

That moment came for me watching Kemi Badenoch tell Trevor Phillips there are real differences between Reform UK and the Conservatives. She was right. The difference is the Reform leadership and voters grasp the scale of our national peril and back a party serious about addressing it.

I joined the Army to serve the country, not the institution. The same applies now. If we want to rescue Britain, we must be honest about who’s still willing to fight for her.

Holloway joins a growing group of former Tory MPs who now support Reform, including Jake Berry, a former Tory chair, David Jones, a former Welsh secretary, and Andrea Jenkyns, who is now Reform’s mayor for Greater Lincolnshire.

Responding to the news, Farage said:

I’m delighted to welcome Adam Hollway to Reform UK. His bold move shows that we are the only serious option in Kent and is testament to the fantastic work our councillors are delivering across the region.

Nadeem Badshah is taking over the blog now for a bit. I will be back before 6pm, when I will be covering the Green party leadership hustings.

The co-founder of Palestine Action can bring a legal challenge to the home secretary’s decision to ban the direct action group under anti-terrorism laws, a high court judge has ruled. Haroon Siddique has the story.

Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has urged the BMA to resume talks with the government early next week in the hope of averting a further strike by resident doctors.

Their five-day strike in England ended at 7am this morning and, in an open letter to the co-chairs of the BMA resident doctors committee, says:

I was critical of my predecessors when they closed the door to the junior doctors committee. My door remains open to the hope that we can still build the partnership with resident doctors I aspired to when I came in a year ago and, in that spirit, I am happy to meet with you early next week.

He says he is replying to a letter inviting him back to the negotiating table, which is says “is ironic because I never left”.

In the letter, Streeting also restates his line that, while the government is not prepared to increase its pay offer, it is willing to offer other concessions that would benefit doctors.

I came into office hoping to reset the relationship between government and the resident doctor profession. Through this government’s actions working with the BMA, we have improved pay, conditions and career progression. I am serious about improving the working conditions of staff working in the NHS and restoring value after over a decade of neglect. I have been clear that while we cannot move on pay, this government is prepared to negotiate on areas related to your conditions at work, career progression and tangible measures which would put money in your members’ pockets.

Donald Trump has delivered an unprompted attack on former Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon, describing her as a “terrible first minister”, PA Media reports. PA says:

Trump made the comments on Air Force One as he travelled back to Washington following his five-day visit to Scotland.

During his stay, he had a two-hour dinner on Monday with current first minister John Swinney, alongside Keir Starmer.

Swinney, who also met Trump on Tuesday morning, said he had used the talks to push the president to exempt Scotch from US tariffs.

Speaking to reporters on his flight home, the president was asked if he offered to drop the levy on Scotland’s national drink.

He replied: “No. We really didn’t discuss it much. But I have a lot of respect for him [Swinney].”

Journalists began asking questions again before Trump interjected: “I didn’t have a lot of respect for the woman that preceded him – I thought she was terrible as a first minister of Scotland. But I think John is doing a very good job of first minister.”

A source close to Sturgeon responded: “Trump’s lack of respect for women is hardly news. That said, the feeling was entirely mutual.”

Sturgeon added on her Instagram account: “Feeling was mutual, Donnie. Forever proud to represent all the things that offend your view of the world.”

According to new polling from More in Common UK, 39% of people believe that Britain is in a bad state now and “worse than at any other points in our past”. Only 23% of Labour supporters think this, but amongst Reform UK supporters it’s 59%.

The polling was carried out for the New Statesman and, in an article featuring it, George Eaton says general pessimism about living standards, the state of the public services and immigration is making some figures in the Labour party increasingly convinced of the need for radical change.

The divide inside Labour is partly a classic left-right split: the biggest rebellions in this parliament have been over welfare cuts. But it is also increasingly a conservative-radical one. Conservatives argue that, given time, Starmer’s patient, incrementalist strategy will work: higher living standards, shorter NHS waiting lists and lower immigration will pave the road to a second term. Radicals, by contrast, argue that something fundamental must change if Labour is to succeed. From the left, figures such as Andy Burnham, who has undergone a Tony Benn-like reinvention, champion electoral reform and a multi-party future. From the right, heterodox cabinet ministers privately favour a dramatic overhaul of the state and the welfare system – with the latter shifted from need towards contribution.

Intriguingly, Eaton says Tony Blair is in the radical camp.

There is one figure whose name recurs with surprising frequency during discussions of Labour’s fate: Tony Blair, still immersed in the minutiae of British politics and regularly receiving groups of MPs at his institute’s office. Those who have recently met Blair say he believes “the country wants someone to take it by the scruff of the neck, lead it and shake things up” as Donald Trump has in the US. Should Starmer prove incapable of doing so, the warning was clear: things will only get worse.

Rowena Mason is the Guardian’s Whitehall editor.

Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, has been put under investigation by the standards commissioner over the registration of a financial interest.

It is not clear what the complaint is about, but a spokesperson for Farage said: “Following a complaint from a member of the House of Lords, the commissioner for standards is doing his job.”

A number of other MPs are facing similar inquiries including Clive Lewis, James McMurdock, Peter Prinsley, Diane Abbott and Cat Eccles.

Labour MPs have generally been positive about Keir Starmer’s position to put the UK on a path towards recognising Palestinian statehood in September. And that is no surprise; the Tories are right to argue that, at least in part, Starmer was motivated by internal party politics. With France committed to recognition, and the situation in Gaza getting increasingly catastrophic, Starmer was under increasing pressure from his ministers and backbenchers to shift.

But the decision has not impressed commentators. Here is a roundup of what some of them are saying.

• Hussein Agha and Robert Malley argue in an article for the Guardian that recognising a Palestinian state won’t help Palestinians. They say:

Having defied Israel, ignored its protestations, alienated its people, offered a prize to its foes, France and European governments that follow in its lead – as France hopes they might at a UN conference this week – might conclude that, for now, their work on behalf of the Palestinians is done. They will expect from them deep gratitude. They might feel relieved of any obligation to exert pressure on Israel where it really hurts and really matters – to impose tangible consequences, demand accountability, or enforce sanctions if it does not stop the war, end the siege, halt its settlement enterprise. Instead, the pressure will turn on the Palestinians to prove they are worthy of this munificent offering.

All this for what? The most absurd part of this endeavor is that it is taking place on behalf of what has become an imaginary goal. Worthy as it was, the quest for a two-state solution has come to an end. It succumbed to Israeli intransigence, Palestinian ambivalence, American fecklessness, and the rest of the world’s impotence. It failed under far more auspicious circumstances – when settlements were significantly fewer, Israel’s territorial encroachment less intrusive, Palestinian and Israeli politics more promising, popular backing on both sides greater. It failed when it might have had a chance and today it has none. Starmer illustrated the nonsense of his position even as he argued for it, justifying recognition of a Palestinian state by pointing to dwindling prospects of its coming about. The recurrent recitation of support for two states, whether by Joe Biden yesterday, Macron and other European officials today, Arab leaders at all times, is an empty lie that will not become truth by virtue of repetition.

• Patrick Wintour, the Guardian’s diplomatic editor, says on social media the logic of the announcement is a mess.

Recognition of a state is normally an acknowledgement of the rights of a people to nationhood not a bargaining chip. But Starmer has ended up with a presentational mess. Eg Starmer it seems will not recognise Palestine if Israel met the conditions required by Starmer including the requirement that “Israel commits to a long-term peace process that delivers a Two State Solution.” [and as a result a Palestinian state]. ????

• Jonathan Sacerdoti in the Spectator says this announcement creates “perverse incentives”. He explains:

If recognition is contingent on Israel achieving a ceasefire, then Hamas has every reason to prolong the conflict rather than agree to the proposals already agreed on by Israel. In fact, in recent rounds of negotiations, it has been Hamas, not Israel, that has rejected US- and Egypt-brokered proposals for truce. Britain’s move risks reinforcing the calculus that terrorism and intransigence are politically productive strategies. Why compromise when war advances your diplomatic standing? If Hamas holds out until September Britain will reward them recognition. If they agree to a ceasefire, then that recognition will most likely fall away.

• Jake Wallis Simons, a former editor of the Jewish Chronicle, said this was “the darkest day in British foreign policy since the invasion of Iraq”. In an article for the Daily Telegraph, he says:

Ramallah has repeatedly turned down offers of a state that satisfied 100 per cent of its demands. In 2008, for instance, Ehud Olmert offered 94 per cent of the West Bank with land swaps for the remainder, East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital and the Old City turned over to international control, not to mention a tunnel between the West Bank and Gaza and the right of return for quotas of diaspora Palestinians.

The Palestinians missed the opportunity. Why? Because their government was playing a long game to destroy the Jewish state using both the bullet and the ballot, both the suicide bomb and international diplomacy.

I’m not just talking about Hamas. Even the regime in Ramallah pays monetary rewards to anybody convicted of terrorism and failed to condemn October 7 until last month.

• George Eaton at the New Statesman says Starmer may derive little benefit from his decision to shift on Palestine.

Keir Starmer found himself politically cornered on Palestine. More than a third of the cabinet, including Angela Rayner, David Lammy, Yvette Cooper and Shabana Mahmood, privately – and in Wes Streeting’s case, publicly – pushed for faster recognition of statehood. Over 130 Labour MPs signed a letter to the Prime Minister demanding the same. Only a month after the welfare vote debacle, Starmer could not afford to become isolated from his party once more (recall how Tony Blair’s support of Israel’s 2006 war in Lebanon hastened his downfall) …

Not for the first time in Starmer’s premiership, it’s a nuanced position that has managed to upset both sides for different reasons. “Starmer rewards Hamas’s monstrous terrorism & punishes its victims,” Netanyahu declared last night, a critique echoed by Nigel Farage and much of the British right …

Meanwhile, a striking array of left and liberal figures, including Ed Davey, Jeremy Corbyn and the Greens’ likely next leader Zack Polanski all level the same charge at Starmer: that he is treating Palestinian statehood as a “bargaining chip”.

• John Woodcock, the former Labour MP who is now a crossbench peer, says in the Sun this is a mistake. He says:

As a former chair of Labour Friends of Israel, I have long campaigned for a “two-state solution” to replace the perpetually unstable, messy situation that has developed since the establishment of Israel in 1948.

But right now? Definitely not.

Sir Keir must urgently think again, or he will squander what little influence Britain has on this dire situation.

• Adrian Blomfield in the Telegraph says the UK recognising a Palestinian state is not likely to have much impact. He says:

Britain and France once planned to recognise Palestine only after a peace deal. Officials now hope unilateral recognition will press Mr Netanyahu into negotiations and bolster the moderate Palestinian leadership of Mr Abbas against Hamas.

That outcome seems doubtful. Britain’s already modest influence over Mr Netanyahu will likely shrink further; Israel might even retaliate by expanding settlements or even annexing parts of the West Bank.

Relations with Washington could also suffer. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, called French recognition “a slap in the face to victims of Oct 7”.

Donald Trump was even more dismissive, saying Emmanuel Macron’s pledge to recognise Palestine “won’t change anything”.

The US president is likely to view Sir Keir’s move similarly: a gesture that appeases Labour’s left and signals virtue, but ultimately carries none of the weight that the Balfour Declaration did when Britain wielded far greater global influence.

The Green party risks going into reverse if they elect Zack Polanski as leader, his two opponents have said, arguing that his promised brand of “eco-populism” would prove polarising, divisive and likely to put off more moderate voters. Peter Walker has the story.

Harriet Sherwood is a senior Guardian journalist and former Jerusalem correspondent.

Lawyers representing the British families of hostages held in Gaza by Hamas have warned that the UK government’s intention to recognise a Palestinian state risks disincentivising the release of captives.

In a statement, they say:

The UK has said that it will recognise a Palestinian state unless Israel agrees a ceasefire. But the risk is that Hamas will continue to refuse a ceasefire because if it agrees to one this would make UK recognition less likely.

Families represented by the lawyers have asked the prime minister to “confirm, unambiguously, that Hamas will not be rewarded and that the UK will not take any substantive steps until all the hostages are free.”

A British-Israeli woman who was held hostage by Hamas for more than a year has said that Keir Starmer is “not standing on the right side of history” after his pledge to recognise the Palestinian state, PA Media reports.

In a post on Instagram, Emily Damari said:

Prime Minister Starmer is not standing on the right side of history. Had he been in power during World War II, would he have advocated recognition for Nazi control of occupied countries like Holland, France or Poland?

This is not diplomacy — it is a moral failure. Shame on you, Prime Minister.

As a dual British-Israeli citizen who survived 471 days in Hamas captivity, I am deeply saddened by Prime Minister Starmer’s decision to recognise Palestinian statehood. This move does not advance peace —it risks rewarding terror. It sends a dangerous message: that violence earns legitimacy.

By legitimising a state entity while Hamas still controls Gaza and continues its campaign of terror, the Prime Minister is not promoting a solution; he is prolonging the conflict. Recognition under these conditions emboldens extremists and undermines any hope for genuine peace. Shame on you.!!!

In a statement today, the Hostages and Missing Families Forum, which has been representing the families of people held hostage by Hamas since the 7 October attack, said recognising Palestine before all the hostages were returned would be a mistake. It said:

Recognizing a Palestinian state while 50 hostages remain trapped in Hamas tunnels amounts to rewarding terrorism. Such recognition is not a step toward peace, but rather a clear violation of international law and a dangerous moral and political failure that legitimizes horrific war crimes.

Here is the statement from the Palestinian Mission to the UK on Keir Starmer’s announcement yesterday. Husam Zomlot, head of the mission, says the announcement “represents the first meaningful step in addressing the deep injustice rooted in the colonial-era Balfour declaration and the decades of systematic denial of Palestinian rights that followed”.

That is a reference in particular to what David Lammy, the foreign secretary, said in his statement to the UN about this yesterday. He said:

108 years ago, my predecessor as British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, signed the Declaration that bears his name.

It helped lay the foundations for a homeland for the Jewish people.

And Britain can be proud of that.

Our support for Israel, its right to exist and the security of its people is steadfast.

However, the Balfour declaration came with the solemn promise “that nothing shall be done, nothing which may prejudice the civil and religious rights” of the Palestinian people as well.

Colleagues, this has not been upheld and it is a historical injustice which continues to unfold.

Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, was doing a media round this morning. The Conservatives have been strongly critical of Keir Starmer’s decision to recognise Palestinian statehood (unless Israel meets conditions which would be near impossible for Benjamin Netanyahu to accept) and Patel’s comments in part echoed what the Israeli government has been saying. (See 10.50am.) But the Tories are also claiming that this shows Starmer is too weak to stand up to his own MPs.

Patel told GB News:

We’ve just seen the government just really appease its back benches, saying that they will recognise Palestine, but do so without a plan, and that is why this is a very serious issue.

I think it’s a major problem for the British government and also for Britain’s standing in the world. We’ve seen this terrible situation of humanitarian crisis in Gaza for months upon months now, and Britain simply hasn’t been leveraging its influence.

It hasn’t been at the negotiating table. It’s not really done anything in terms of making sure that we’re stepping up to release the hostages, ensure that Hamas has no future role to play.

All the British government has done is effectively issue condemnations to Israel, which I think has emboldened Hamas, and that has not helped anybody. It’s certainly not helped the people in Gaza. It’s not helped aid get into Gaza.

For the record, here is the full text of what Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, posted on X last night in response to Keir Starmer’s announcement about recognising the state of Palestine.

Starmer rewards Hamas’s monstrous terrorism & punishes its victims.

A jihadist state on Israel’s border TODAY will threaten Britain TOMORROW.

Appeasement towards jihadist terrorists always fails. It will fail you too. It will not happen.

Health secretary Wes Streeting has said talks between the government and the British Medical Association (BMA) could lead to improvements in the working lives of resident doctors but he has repeatedly said there is no more money for pay.

The comments come after the five-day strike across England, which ended at 7am on Wednesday.

BMA leaders have said that there must be some pay discussions during talks and launched a “linked dispute” with the government over a lack of places for doctors in training, which could lead to common ground during future talks.

Mr Streeting said:

We made the decision to cancel as little planned care as possible this year, and thanks to their tireless work it’s clear that far more patients have got the care they need than in previous years.

That said, all industrial action comes with a level of disruption, and I feel angry and frustrated on behalf of those patients who didn’t get the service they expect due to these strikes.

That is why my door is open to the BMA leadership to resume the talks we were having last week, before they walked out.

After a 28.9% pay rise over the last three years, we simply cannot go further on pay this year, but there are real improvements to resident doctors’ working lives we can work hand-in-hand to make – from training positions to career progression and beyond.

After over a decade of being let down, resident doctors deserve better than their current working conditions, ebbing support from the public, and a seemingly intractable position from the BMA leadership, especially given a majority of them didn’t vote for this strike action.

I stand ready to continue our discussions. Our shared ambitions will reap rewards for both patients and staff but they can only be achieved if we work together.”

Hospitals were ordered to press ahead with as much pre-planned care as possible during the strike.

Details on the number of appointments, procedures and operations postponed as a result are expected to be published later this week.