Edwin Hayward is an author and political commentator, probably best known for his book ‘Slaying Brexit Unicorns’, in which he debunks many of the myths surrounding Brexit. 

His work has appeared in Byline Times and The New European/World and many other publications. Edwin is also active on Bluesky and X, where he comments regularly on British politics and Brexit, with his own brand of sarcasm and gallows humour.

Steve Wilson : Is a switch to Proportional Representation a realistic goal in the next 5 years?

There’s a rational answer, and then there’s a realistic one. The rational take is that everything lines up in favour of PR. Labour delegates voted in favour of PR at their 2022 party conference. The LibDems, Greens, Reform, SNP and Plaid Cymru all support PR. There are tentative positive rumblings within the Tory party. A symbolic backbench bill in support of PR passed first reading in January 2025. The 2025 British Social Attitudes survey found majority support for electoral reform in every party’s voter base. The drumbeat has never been louder.

Here’s when reality intrudes. All that counts for nothing if the Labour government won’t play ball. Their overwhelming Commons majority leaves them in absolute control. Parties in power tend not to rush to change the system which put them there. Backbench bills wither and die without government support. Other parties can say what they like; they’re in no position to enact anything. And Labour are past masters at ignoring the will of Conference.

So, is PR a realistic goal within the next five years? Not before the next election, and snowballing events may well see the 2029 GE fought on other grounds.

Anon : What do you regard as Starmer’s best results and worst mistakes?

Carrying on where the Tories left off, Starmer showed exemplary support for Ukraine. This stance, though internationally vital, is likely undervalued at home. Labour ended VAT exemptions on public schools and abolished non-dom status. They raised the minimum wage, created millions of extra NHS appointments, and are bringing the railways back into public ownership. Though their list of achievements goes on, they so far lack a flagship success to catch the public’s imagination.

Labour have also made very high-profile mistakes. The winter fuel debacle saw them tread on an obvious rake early on. Their stance on Gaza and Israel has been catastrophic. It is barely alleviated by very belated recognition for a Palestinian state. Planned welfare reforms, watered down from grizzly heights, will still bite deep. Aping Reform on immigration has been a catastrophic error. The Overton window shifts most when parties move it together, and Labour have shoved it Right. Their endless repainting of harsh Brexit red lines leaves no room for meaningful change. This, despite Brexit being by far the biggest drag on a tottering UK economy.

But for me their biggest mistake is one that rarely makes the headlines. Labour do not appear to understand why they are in power. The 2024 GE was cathartic, a chance for the country to purge itself of 14 miserable Tory years. But it was not a widespread embrace of the Labour manifesto and Labour values. Starmer and Labour misinterpret their huge Commons majority. They take the support of millions of non-traditional Labour voters for granted. Come 2029, the exhortation to “Stop Reform” will resonate far more weakly than “Get the Tories Out” ever did. It is hard to see how Labour can win the next election without a significant change of attitude. They need to pivot politically towards their broader base.

Helen Johnston : Following the latest reshuffle, what are your thoughts on the new cabinet?

Uninspiring. Most of the same faces remain on the front bench, albeit some now in different roles. There has been a loss of key expertise, like David Lammy at the Foreign Office. And for what? It is not as if subject matter experts replaced those moved to other positions. All that happened is that people who were starting to get to grips with their jobs now have to begin all over again. The whole exercise smacked of panic, forced by external events. A chance for Starmer to appear decisive for the sake of appearing decisive. Pure performative politics.

Lisa Burton : Do you envisage any party standing at the next election with a manifesto promise of trying to rejoin the single market (at least) if they get into power?

Yes, with caveats. It feels like the most obvious move for both the LibDems and the Greens. They should go further and put rejoining the EU on the cover of their manifestoes. Would that it were so. But with the best will in the world, it is hard to see how they end up in a position to enact their pledges. That’s the problem with smaller parties, even surging ones. If you’re not in power, none of your commitments mean anything. But perhaps an unprecedented 5/6/7 party bun fight will deliver a surprise. When coalitions are on the table, nothing is off it. We should also remember that all they can do is pledge to negotiate. It is up to the EU to decide the outcome of those negotiations.

Matt Burton : What’s the one Brexit myth that you think has persisted the most?

That we had to leave the EU to get control of immigration. We always had complete control of non-EU migration. And as an EU member, we could have done more than we did to control immigration from EU states. Various EU countries took tougher stances than Britain did. Our huge failure was never showing any real interest in tracking who was entering the UK. If you don’t know who’s coming in, there’s very little you can do to stop any given group from doing so. The abject failure to repeal this myth gives Farage cover to keep taking potshots at Europe. An honorable mention goes to “Brexit was for tax reasons”. This notion continues to circulate on social media like a cockroach that refuses to die. The Leave camp is not alone in persisting Brexit myths.

Michael Soffe : Which “Brexit Unicorn” was the MOST important to slay and which “immigration unicorn” is the most important to slay given the current political climate?

It has to be the idea that Brexit could be cost-free, even positive for the economy. Most of Brexit’s biggest boosters now concede that it has hurt the UK financially. (Many still insist the damage was worth it for the nebulous stuff we got in return, like More Sovereignty.) Much like sticking your hand in a fire, the only way to understand the real damage of Brexit was to experience it. Now we’ve got blackened fingers, and one less Brexit unicorn.

On the immigration front, it’s a tie between two unicorns in equal need of culling. One is that illegal immigration is significant, even a national emergency. In truth it is a mere fraction of irregular migration, which itself is a tiny fraction of all immigration. The other is the way immigrants get taken for granted, despite the huge positive role they play. This attitude is writ large in Labour communications. In August 2025, Starmer, the Home Office, and the official Number 10 Twitter account, tweeted 76 times in total about immigration. That was nearly half their combined social media output for the month. Only one tweet made even passing reference to the positives of immigration. The other 75.5 could have been straight from Reform’s playbook.

Susan Scarrott : Reform are currently flying high in the polls focusing on immigration issues in exactly the same way as the Brexit campaign. Do you think this can be turned around by the next GE or has nothing been learned from the past?

We’re back in rational vs realistic territory. Reform should not be doing as well as they are. They are a one trick pony, and that pony is immigration. For some bizarre reason, Labour and other parties insist on riding it too. In theory, Reform should be beatable. Many of their headline policies crumble under scrutiny. Their only strength is immigration, but it is a superpower. Nobody else can win the immigration fight. Every attempt strengthens Reform further, like some perverse judo reversal. So, what should Labour do? Insist on a different battleground. Imagine for example that the next election were about rejoining the EU. Immigration becomes a small part of that much louder conversation. And other aspects of Brexit are much, much harder to defend. The consequences of Brexit have never been properly interrogated. This would serve to shine a blinding spotlight onto them.

Now for the bucket of ice water: Labour seem set on sticking to the wrong path. They will continue to advance on Reform territory, and in doing so lose more votes than they gain. The ballot box will be their ultimate reckoning. But by then, it will be too late.

David Eldridge : Why do you think Labour are doing their best to copy Reform when all polling evidence suggests Reform’s rise has come from ex-Tory voters/non-voters, and Labour’s losses are to the Lib Dems and Greens?

It beggars belief. As you point out, all the evidence contradicts Labour’s stance. The only answer I can think of is unpleasant and hard to swallow. The issue stems from the very top. Starmer appears to prize being consistent over being right. Once his mind is set, it’s bedrock. Like a supertanker, his turning circle is immense. We have seen this play out many times before. Belated u-turns, coming only after events forced his hand. That’s why Labour are dancing to the wrong tune on immigration. That’s why they’re so far out of whack with the electorate on Brexit. To borrow from Mastermind, Starmer’s motto could be: “I’ve started so I’ll finish”. But many things do not deserve finishing because they were the wrong choices to begin with.

Ruth Woodhouse : What is your opinion of the recently-agreed “one-in-one-out” migrant deal between the UK and France?

Cooperation with France – and the rest of Europe – is absolutely necessary in order to resolve the small boats issue and manage the arrival of refugees in the UK safely and humanely, so it is a necessary first step that Starmer has entered into serious negotiation with Macron. The positive side of this is the acceptance on the UK side that not only are there refugees in France with ties to the UK who need to make their way here, but also that they need a safe and regulated way to make that journey, which they have lacked until now. That is the bare minimum that needs to be accepted and used as a basis for developing a safe route for asylum seekers.

However, unfortunately that’s where the good news stops. I fear that, in their haste to produce something that looks tough for the British news cycle this summer, they have jumped the gun on announcing this inadequate deal. The ‘one-in-one-out’ part is an immediate red flag – anybody coming safely to the UK therefore depends on another person risking their life and being detained and deported, which makes the whole thing a circus. If it ever were to fully work, then it would immediately stop working again, because if no one were crossing the Channel anymore, there would be no more safe routes available either, leaving us back where we started. The safe route to the UK must be put in place on the basis of need, not a reciprocal trade in human beings. The Dublin Regulation, when we were a part of it, suffered from problems too, which meant that the numbers of people sent back and forth essentially always stayed quite low – administering these schemes in line with the law is difficult and time consuming, and the numbers we’re talking about for this ‘pilot’ are simply not going to touch the sides of the issue.

How significant has Brexit been in the increase in “small boats”?

Brexit is both the cause of the small boats’ arrival, and also not! Before we left the EU, people entered the UK irregularly from France in significant numbers, provoking a great deal of political opposition. However, since Brexit, the preferred route for making that journey has changed to small boats, and the numbers have somewhat increased.

Pre-Brexit we were part of the EU-wide Dublin Regulation which meant that anyone apprehended making an irregular crossing from France could be returned there from the UK and anyone with family ties to the UK in other parts of Europe could apply to rejoin them here through safe means. The system was clunky at best, operating slowly and depending on the good will and cooperation of many different border force and asylum agencies across different countries. Essentially, only a couple of thousands of people per year at most were ever sent back and forth in and out of the UK through the Dublin mechanism. Mostly, people who arrived here had their claims processed here, despite irregular arrivals, similarly to now.

However, with Brexit, there was no longer any need to conceal the crossing itself from UK authorities – being “caught in the act” of entering from France no longer meant you would be subject to return to France because with Brexit we left the Dublin convention. This meant asylum seekers and smugglers abandoned the use of lorries and trucks and adopted a much more visible way of travelling to the UK – the small boats. Ironically, although still very dangerous, this is actually a somewhat safer way of making the crossing than travelling in trucks and lorries, because you are guaranteed to come to the attention of the authorities quickly and likely to be rescued – less likely to suffocate in the back of a lorry.

The fact that the crossings are now so much more visible has been a disaster from the political perspective, because asylum seekers in a boat create a visceral image, whereas asylum seekers milling around Calais lorry ports do not in the same way.

In addition, now that we are no longer a part of the Dublin system, we have become a destination of last resort for asylum seekers if they have their claim refused in another European country. If you are refused asylum in one Dublin Regulation country, you cannot apply in any other. But you still can in the UK, so there are families seeking to reach us now because they have exhausted their application rights in the rest of Europe and know that we will at least have to assess their claim individually again. In this way, Brexit has increased the numbers of asylum seekers in the UK somewhat, which is clear in the fact that numbers here are still very high, while they have been dropping in the rest of Europe over the last few years.

Rejoining the EU would be good for a lot of reasons, but it would not make asylum seekers in the UK disappear, and would not simply allow us to immediately remove everybody back to the first EU country of entry – the system is more complex and poorly managed than that. And the EU very much has its own significant failures in how it manages the arrival of refugees. We would need to take the lead in changing the European approach to one of solidarity, compassion and responsibility-sharing, whether from within or without.

Steve Wilson : Which countries – if any – have an immigration policy that you respect and would recommend as a model for the UK?

Tragically few. Although looking across other systems, there are areas where some countries do things better, and other areas where they perhaps do things worse.

Spain has a very poor approach to managing the border and the accommodation of child asylum seekers, but they have a very positive overall outlook towards immigration and work. Asylum seekers in Spain are given Spanish language and integration classes and matched with training opportunities in areas of the economy that are struggling to recruit workers. Spain has significantly increased immigration into work in the last several years and is reaping the economic benefits – its economy growing much faster than any other European country including the UK. Even in far more immigration-sceptical Italy, visa pathways for migrant workers are being expanded significantly to meet the demands of their ageing population.

The Spanish government also has a clear and morally robust rhetoric around immigration, explaining how Europe’s ageing populations cannot continue to support themselves without immigration and refusing to bow to pressures of racist rhetoric, as so many other European leaders have.

Spain has also pursued a number of regularisation programmes to bring undocumented migrant workers into the formal economy and give them the paperwork to allow them to stay legally and contribute to the country. This has been a huge success.

Both Spain and Portugal also have citizenship systems that recognise the ties created by their colonial pasts – immigrants from ex-colonies have faster pathways to settlement and citizenship in recognition of their cultural ties to the country.

France still has a system that recognises those born on French soil who have never lived anywhere but France as automatically eligible for French citizenship. We in the UK abandoned that sensible approach for racist reasons in the 1980s.

While Germany is not an example at the current time, the efforts they made to welcome large numbers of Syrian refugees a decade ago are having positive impacts today, with a significant majority of them in work and well-integrated, especially in areas where support for integration and language learning was provided, bringing in a positive contribution to the German economy according to latest economic reports.

These are all ideas the UK could benefit from considering.

Valerie Chaplin : How can the Government speed up the asylum process?

Instead of fast-tracking refusals – which will inevitably clog up the appeals process and risks sending people from largely safe places where they may have been individually targeted back to situations of danger, we should fast-track acceptance of asylum claims from people from manifestly unsafe countries like Syria, Sudan and Afghanistan. Let these people start rebuilding their lives quickly, after some light touch formal checks rather than a two-year process of limbo.

David Eldridge : Despite evidence to the contrary, the right wing media still repeat the same tired lies about refugees and immigration. How do we get the truth out there and stop the constant repetition of lies and misinformation?

They are extremely well funded, with money coming into the likes of GBNews and Reform UK from the world’s richest men. On the other ‘side’ we have volunteers, charitable foundations, and the dust where progressive political voices ought to be. We should take heart that despite this incredible discrepancy in resources, the British public is still decent in its politics around immigration – our side is punching above its weight.

But at a time like this, where we face the very serious threat of a descent into extremism, with the abandoning of all the post-war international treaties that protect our human rights, we all have a responsibility to do everything we can.

Every time and every way that we have to raise our voices we must do so, especially those of us who are protected from much of the immediate danger by our white skin and British passports. A lie can be repeated enough times that it starts to sound true, it is our job to repeat the truth even more times than that.

Helen Johnston : Do you have confidence in any of the major political parties to change the debate on migration and freedom of movement?

I have lost faith in Labour under this leadership. The Greens, LibDems, Plaid Cymru, SNP, and potentially the new left party being cobbled together by Corbyn and Sultana are all places where progressive politics on migration are still being heard. We must not give an inch in those spaces and continue to show politicians the example of what a brave, principled position that can push the Overton Window back away from the far-right looks like.

Every one of those parties is still lacking the bravery to take a stand, cut through the noise and seize control of the narrative on immigration, although if Zack Polanski wins the Green leadership I believe we’ll have a better shot than before with that.

Anonymous : When faced with so much hate, delusion and misinformation in debates on immigration, how do you manage to stay so calm and in control?

I seethe on the inside, even during interviews where I appear pretty calm. My friends, colleagues, and family are there for me to express my emotions and give me support in particularly difficult times. But it’s important for me to remember that I am speaking on behalf of so many people – not only the migrants who are subjected to such an onslaught of lies but also the good people all over this country who support a humane and realistic approach to managing immigration. I am not the one under attack, I am one of the people standing shoulder to shoulder to protect those who are, and that gives me strength.

I have been doing interviews on this topic for a long time, it is difficult to shock me, and very difficult indeed to come up with an argument on immigration that I have never thought about before. I am very much convinced that the side of humanity is the right one, and that we can and will create a system of immigration that respects people’s rights and works well for the UK. It is a fantasy to believe we can stop people from moving, no matter how awful we try to be – people have always and will always move. Our only choice is how to manage it, and so I’m unflustered by politicians and commentators who are selling fairy tales about making it stop. The important thing is to keep trying to get our message across.

Barbara Leonard : What do you suggest is the best way (and place) for us to challenge the strong wave of ‘othering’ that drives sales of papers like the Mail and clicks on social media? 

This will be different for everyone, but there are ways each and every single one of us can and must try to make a difference. Writing to your MP is something we should all get used to doing. If you are part of a church, mosque, synagogue or other, a community group, or sports team, or a school or university community, there are resources available to help you start a conversation about the political times we live in and what can be done to help.

In almost every town in the UK there are befriending and welcome groups of volunteers who are helping to make newcomers feel safe and at home. These networks and communities and the love and solidarity we show one another through them are something that cannot be taken away by right wing rhetoric or even the seizing of power by the right in politics.

We are stronger and more numerous than the forces that seek to divide us and each one of us taking small actions in our own ways is everything we can and must do.

When it comes to taking action, don’t ever think even just a conversation with a family member, or a tiny donation, or whatever it may be, is too small. The only thing that is unacceptable in these days is to do nothing at all. Every time we do the small things we can do in our families, friendship groups, communities or on the national stage if we have it, we are fighting for the world that is more equal that is coming and shaping the future that we are going to all live in.

Those of us who feel able must also make our voice heard in protest. I have been participating in a number of protests over the last months but I am hoping that we will have a really big opportunity to make the voice of decency heard against all the far-right politics that are represented by Donald Trump: I hope everyone reading this will join the demonstration against his state visit, gathering at 2pm at Portland Place in London on Wednesday 17th September!

Susan Scarrott : You’ve had some amazing special guests on SMR over the years. Is there anyone you are still longing to interview?

Hey, Susan – great question and one which I often end up asking myself! You’re right, some truly exceptional people have agreed to let me quiz them: Sir Tony Robinson, Ken Loach, Anna Soubry among others – but there are still so many people I’d love to talk to.

The list changes regularly, often according to news events and who I feel might have something worthwhile to say about them, but my Top 5 right now would be as follows:

Actor Eddie Marsan, who always speaks so thoughtfully on topics such as diversity, background and immigration; Armando Iannucci (the writer, director and satirist); former Liverpool Manager Jurgen Klopp about how to maintain principles in the face of vehement opposition; ‘Dragon’s Den’ legend Deborah Meaden, because I just love everything about her, and Ursula von der Leyen – I’d ask her all about the prospect of a fast track back! And right now, she’s the one to ask!

Steven Wilson : What, if anything, do you think Keir Starmer has done well, and what have been his worst mistakes?

I totally get why you’re asking that one, Steven! Disappointment runs deep with Labour right now, but perhaps my hopes were too high, eh? I think it’s important to remember, the contrast between the organized crime syndicate of the Tories and what we have now can’t be overstated – the vast majority of the Labour front bench and certainly their MPs are decent, principled people who care… and that’s a great starting point really, isn’t it?

But you’re right (I’m guessing from the “if anything” that you’re not exactly impressed!) Labour appears to have forgotten its root and branch principles and the reason it was elected, not to mention those in the Cabinet who previously held such passionate views on Brexit and Europe suddenly having so little to say (David Lammy? Whatever happened to him?). But aside from his refusal to fess up and face the Brexit music by reversing it pronto, Starmer’s obvious missteps thus far have to be the Winter Fuel Debacle, the optics over Benefit Reform and his obvious kowtowing to the multimillionaire press barons who “allowed him” to win the election!

But there is hope! Votes for 16- and 17-year-olds is a manifesto commitment I applaud heartily, provided (as I mentioned on last week’s show) substantial education reform takes place to prepare our young people for their new responsibility!

Lisa Burton : Which politician do you admire the most and which do you loathe the most?

Seriously, Lisa? You want me to whittle that list down to just one of each? Near impossible! But since it’s you – I’ll do my best…

But before I do, some honourable mentions: Anna Soubry (despite her Tory “ethics” on a number of issues) always impressed me with her straight talking, no nonsense approach to Brexit and still does to this day – but she’s no longer an MP, so I guess she doesn’t count!

I have tremendous respect for a number of former Tories who stuck to their guns over Brexit and were ejected from the party by Johnson in 2019, but again – they’re no longer serving.

So, right now, I’d have to say Lib Dem, Daisy Cooper. In my view, she’s a model MP. She publishes weekly a diary of how she’s spent each day, is principled, clear and able to take on anyone in a debate since she’s prepared to actually do her homework and know her stuff! Few others come anywhere near, but I also like Zack Polanski right now too!

As for the worst? Do you REALLY have to ask? It would have been a toss-up between Lee “30p” Anderson and some still serving vile Tory detritus like Robert Jenrick – but now the Nicotine-Stained Man Frog and Bollock Brained Foghorn of Ignorance has finally slithered into the Commons – there’s simply no competition!

I hate very few people. He’s one of them.

David Eldridge : Why do you think Farage’s Reform UK is so popular at the moment? Do you think they can keep it up till the next election?

Do you want me to be honest, David? I’m guessing you do…

Well, it’s no mystery really. Farage is adept at getting the hard of thinking onto the same page and dancing to his tune. In fact, he’s bloody good at it and right now, no-one does it better!

Promise big (forget about workable policy!), tell them EXACTLY what they want to hear and then bugger off down the pub to laugh at how stupid they all are with his multi-millionaire mates!

By tapping into what he knows are easily exploitable fissures in the public’s deep-rooted nationalistic tendencies, he expertly manipulates first the facts (into downright lies!) and then his base into fearing, then hating minority groups who pose them no threat whatsoever.

This both distracts from the REAL enemy (billionaires!) and helps cement his “cult of the ill-informed” (idiots?) who will follow him anywhere but off the cliff…

…which is a crying shame, isn’t it?

As for their chances in 2029? Who’s to tell? But Femi is right to take the threat seriously, as should we all – everything we can do to debunk his lies is 100% worthwhile! More power to the wonderful army of TikTok rebels who do it daily!

Valerie Chaplin : After one year in office, what advice would you give the Prime Minister?

Crikey, I’d love a chance to sit down with him, armed with a laptop and all the footage of him demonstrating his former principles! I’d make him squirm… or maybe I wouldn’t!

In his defence, I think being in Government means compromise to some extent and there will be things he has discovered that he genuinely didn’t know when in opposition. Plus, it’s easy to over-promise in an election campaign, they all do!

What’s harder to defend is his apparent void of understanding over how much damage Brexit is doing to the country, our reputation, trade, the economy, families – you name it!

I’d remind him that, when he took office, he promised to put “country before party” – what happened to that one? Rejoining the EU would fix 80% of our woes in one fell swoop and most of the population supports it – so what’s the REAL issue here?

I’d ask him to consult more widely before taking whatever daft advice his inner circle dream up! And I’d ask him to check his conscience before recycling the kind of rhetoric that came out of his mouth re: “island of strangers!”

Seriously, did no-one even think to check that?

Helen Johnston : As a long-standing campaigner what, if anything, do you think the anti-Brexit campaign could have done differently and what else can we do now?

Aha! The Billion Dollar Question, Helen!

Well, as we all acknowledge, the Remain Campaign was fatally flawed in that its leader was an arrogant Tory Prime Minister who assumed he had the charisma to knock Farage and Johnson into second place. Whoever made him think that?

And, as we also now accept, this was a campaign that lacked a positive case for the EU, assumed everyone knew all about it anyway and only ever reacted to the lies from Vote Leave, rather than setting the agenda themselves. What a mess!

Then there was People’s Vote, with their lukewarm, overly cautious approach which, although it managed to get boots on the street, failed to change a thing and then publicly combusted on social media!

We were a “gift” to the other side, really!

What we need to focus on far more now, in my view, is building positive arguments, linking our exit from the EU to the lack of cash in everyone’s back pockets and explaining how easy rejoining the Single Market and Customs Union would make everything for small and medium sized businesses trading with the continent.

We need to maintain our presence on the public stage (National Rejoin March have that covered, God Bless ‘em!) and work TOGETHER rather than seeing this as a multitude of smaller battles organizations and individuals can fight alone!

They can try, but alone they’ll achieve far, far less than alongside each other!

Next Month : Zoe Gardner

Zoe Gardner is an independent researcher, campaigner and commentator on immigration and asylum policy in the UK and Europe. She regularly contributes to political and media debates and appeared recently on BBC Newsnight. She has worked for the European Network on Statelessness, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Asylum Aid, the Race Equality Foundation and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles.

If you would like to submit a question/s for Zoe, please email us no later than Thursday 7 August.

Ruth Woodhouse : Could you explain your suggestion that the UK should leave NATO?

There’s important nuance here – and it was completely missed in the headline!

Donald Trump has talked about annexing Greenland – one of our allies. That confirms how unpredictable, unstable and dangerous he is. Rather than relying on a nuclear alliance dominated by the US (and a President who says that he “admires Putin”), we should be building alternative international partnerships based on diplomacy, peace, and cooperation – especially with our European neighbours and the global south. That’s what global leadership should look like.

Peter Corr : In 2023 at National Rejoin March you spoke strongly in favour of Rejoining the EU. Will you firmly make that Green Party policy if you become party leader?

Green Party policy isn’t decided by the leader – it’s decided democratically by our members at our national conference. We’re a one member, one vote party.

But my personal view is clear: no version of Brexit could ever be better than remaining in the EU. And yes – I’ve always supported rejoining – as does the party!

Helen Johnston : Would the Green Party support joining forces with European Movement UK to campaign on environmental issues?

We already do! In fact, Caroline Lucas is President of the European Movement.

Michael Soffe : Do you have a vision of how you should strengthen your relationship with other green parties that have representation in the European Parliament?

Yes – and I’m going to Brussels tomorrow (at time of writing!) for an annual meeting with Green Party leaders from across Europe. I’ve attended many times before and will continue to build those links – even though a lot of the conversation understandably still centres on the European Parliament. I find it most helpful that the challenges facing our colleagues across the continent often have very obvious parallels to challenges we face in the UK too. And often we even have solutions!

David Eldridge : Would you favour an electoral pact between the Greens and Lib Dems? 

No. The Green Party received nearly 2 million votes in our best election ever. We’ve shown that even under First Past the Post, when we focus our efforts, we win.

I’m elected under Proportional Representation in London, so I work across party lines every day – but that’s different from electoral pacts. Cooperation with other politicians is essential but voters deserve a clear Green choice on the ballot.

We offer a unique platform: environmental, social, racial, and economic justice – and I’m confident many more people will choose that at the next election.

Steve Wilson : How would you tackle the issue of the mainstream media giving so much airtime to Reform UK and so little to the Greens, despite the comparable number of MPs?

I’ve been working with the Media Reform Coalition – and gave the keynote speech at their event last month. Our media system is broken. We urgently need more transparency, regulation, and accountability.

That said – since announcing my leadership bid, we’ve seen a major spike in Green Party media coverage. I’ve done a huge number of broadcast interviews, and you can find many of them here.

When we speak clearly about what we stand for – and against – we cut through. I plan to do a lot more of that!

Lisa Burton : What would you say were the benefits of Starmer’s ‘reset’ deal and where does it fall short?

Honestly, I don’t think it was much of a deal. It was encouraging to hear some recognition that we need a better relationship with Europe – but he missed the most obvious next step. Rejoining the customs union would be a straightforward, sensible move that would immediately benefit us all.

Of course, the long-term goal should be to rejoin the EU.

Valerie Chaplin : Can the two-party system ever be overcome without PR, and what would you regard as a reasonable timescale for fighting the battle for electoral reform?

Absolutely. The two-party system wasn’t always the status quo – and it doesn’t have to be the future either.

The Green Party has made net gains in local elections every year for the last eight years. We’ve shown we can win – and as Labour loses trust and credibility, a hung parliament is entirely possible at the next general election.

If we do find ourselves with influence, Proportional Representation will be central to our demands. It’s not just about fairness – it’s about making politics work better for everyone.

Steve Wilson : How effective is art – and satire in particular – at alerting the public to the dangers of far-right extremism?

I feel that art – of any form – has always been very powerful at highlighting the threat posed by the far-right. I am hugely influenced by John Heartfield, an artist who made anti-Nazi photomontages in 1930’s Germany. He was a pioneer of using art as a weapon and, in doing so, placed himself in immense danger; he had to evade capture by the SS and escaped to what was then Czechoslovakia. His work was visually striking, carrying the gravest of messages, but also highly satirical and funny.

Even today there is something gratifying in laughing at the absurdity of some of narcissistic sociopaths we have to endure. That is what I try to do with my photomontages; create something that stands out and grabs people’s attention as they scroll through social media. Art alone will of course never be enough and there are very brave people who take to the streets to stand up to nazis and the far right. 

Valerie Chaplin : What do you think of Labour politics and the state of the UK at present?

Starmer has been a huge disappointment so far. Yes of course, they inherited a skip full of shit (that was on fire) after 14 years of the Conservatives, but it seems he is more concerned with winning over Reform voters than sticking to election promises. It’s obviously a tough job, especially in the circumstances, but it’s awful to see the Labour government lurching ever further right, with the poorest and most vulnerable in society being punished. 

I was never a massive fan of Starmer, but I didn’t think that I would have to focus on him in my work quite so much, quite so soon. 

David Eldridge : Who are your favourite politicians or personalities to depict?

It is a blessing and a curse to be doing what I do at this point in history. On the one hand I am desperately worried for the future of my three daughters – and would give up my career as Cold War Steve in a heartbeat to go back to pre-Brexit, pre-Trump times. On the other hand, I have so much material to work with and my anger will drive my work for years to come. 

There is also an abundance of grotesque characters with which to work. I don’t have a favourite, but I do enjoy creating naked Trump and Ketamine guzzling Musk. 

It is important to take a break from all of them when I can to be honest. Boris Johnson’s face became too much for me after a bit. Literally looking at him all day long for months. I was grateful to see the back of him on every level. 

Anon : When many are leaving Musk’s ‘X’ to avoid the extremism, what would you recommend? Leave the platform for woker waters or stay and fight back?

I did toy with the idea of abandoning Twitter last year. However, I thought fuck it. Fuck him. Twitter is where I made my name, where my art first broke through with an audience. It always had unsavoury elements, but it gave me the opportunity to share my work and gain an audience – bypassing the impregnable and unfathomable ‘artworld’. I guess I think it is important that I still post on there, even though my work gets a fraction of the views it used to get pre-Musk algorithms. Feels like a small form of resistance I suppose. 

What I do miss is the interaction with my audience. I built up so many friends over the years and always enjoyed reading their comments. During the dark days of post-Brexit referendum and then Covid, it was so comforting to hear from like-minded individuals, who were equally as dismayed and angry as I was. I do not read comments on Twitter anymore. It’s too distressing. People with actual ‘British Union of Fascists’ logos as their profile picture. I mean, WTF? 

Helen Johnston : If you were PM with a large majority, what would be your priorities in the current political climate?

This is going to sound ridiculously idealistic and simplistic, but I would do whatever it takes to make a fairer society; tax the rich, reverse Brexit, stop the demonising of immigrants, the elderly and disabled. I don’t think it is too much to ask. 

Trying to rebuild some of the damage done to politics. To reestablish faith in good politicians, political parties and democracy. I hear from too many people how they have given up hope completely, I worry people feel that the whole system should be inherently distrusted and at worst completely demolished. The status quo is shit, but how do we start to build something different? I suppose that is the big one.

Terry Haines : There are a lot of artists who do photo montage satirical work. Do you and they worry about AI being used by non-artists making your efforts redundant? What is the solution?

I am a staunch ‘non-AI’ artist. I use actual photographs, taken by a human being. The advancements in AI imagery are insane, but I find they all lack any detailed nuance. It’s a realistic picture of Trump crying, holding a cat or something. I always feel an image is more powerful if it has a sort of punk ‘DIY’ human quality. Or a background of a 1970’s Working Men’s Club!

Zack Polanski is Deputy Leader of the Green Party and a member of the London Assembly. Before politics, Zack was a former theatre actor and worked on Erasmus with young activists from all over Europe. Zack is currently running to be the next leader of the Green Party.

If you would like to submit a question(s) for Zack, please email us no later than Monday 9 June.

Caroline is Co-President of the European Movement, having previously served as the UK’s first Green Party MP between 2010 and 2024. Caroline also served as Leader and Co-Leader of the Green Party, and for 10 years as an MEP in the European Parliament.

She is a writer, campaigner and keynote speaker, who has won numerous awards for her work. Her latest book – ‘Another England: How to Reclaim our National Story’ – is a Sunday Times bestseller.

Michael Soffe : How can the Green Party overcome the voting system in the UK without PR? Is there something that you feel should be done differently?

Our democracy is broken. Nearly two million people voted Green at the General Election last year, and under a system of PR, that could have delivered us over 40 MPs – which would have been transformational! Instead we have four – a result that’s not only unfair, it’s a democratic crisis that leaves so many people’s voices unheard. The current system reflects an outdated political paradigm that serves the two big establishment parties and stifles the real change this country desperately needs. My hope is that, before the next election, the Labour leadership finally realises this – and recognises that it’s also in their interests to embrace electoral reform. 

Labour’s members have already made their views known, when Conference voted three years ago in favour of changing the system – but Keir Starmer ignored them. It’s time he listened. But even with just four MPs, Greens are making a real difference – putting issues high on the political agenda that simply wouldn’t otherwise be there, like more ambitious climate and nature policies, bringing public services into public hands, introducing a wealth tax and – of course – much closer ties with the EU. And at a local level, Greens are going from strength to strength, with over 800 councillors, and serving as members of the administration of 40 councils.

Ruth Woodhouse : What was your greatest “takeaway” from your time as an MEP?

That the European Parliament does some really important and effective things – but we need to communicate about them so much better! During the Brexit referendum, it became clear that the vast majority of the British public had no idea that British politicians were co-legislators in Europe – which allowed the Leave campaign to claim that that EU policy was being ‘imposed’ on people. That said, the EU also needs to be more transparent and accountable so that people can genuinely see how decisions are made, and know how to influence them.

Tracy Rolfe : What effect has Brexit had on the environment and green initiatives?

A very damaging one! It’s been said that, post Brexit, environmental legislation in Britain is facing death by a thousand cuts. For example, a number of toxic chemicals that are banned in the EU can still be used in the UK. As a result, over 100 food items are allowed to carry more pesticide when sold to the UK public. It also means our waters are dirtier, and our consumer products are more likely to contribute to global deforestation. 

I’m pleased that the European Movement is now doing more to campaign on the environmental impacts of Brexit and, in particular, is calling on the Government to seek to rejoin the European Environment Agency as a first step: a practical way of working more closely together on shared common problems over shared species and habitats, and also a practical way of building trust and confidence. 

Steve Wilson : The Government insists that the US remains a valuable ally. Should the UK speak out against Trump as Canada, France and others have done, and what would be the ramifications of doing so?

I believe the UK should stand up to bullies. And if we did so in close cooperation with our European neighbours and others who share our values, like Canada, we’d likely be in a much stronger position than we are right now. At the moment we face the worst of both worlds – the so-called ’special relationship’ hasn’t shielded us from US tariffs, and being outside the EU means greater trade friction with European partners too. Trump had to back down over his latest round of tariffs, and is now weaker. We should capitalise on the opportunity to work together in all of our interests, rather than each suing for the most advantageous deal possible for our own individual ’national interest’.

Anon : Is Labour’s determination not to break their manifesto promises – even if harmful to economic growth and stability – ensuring they’ll be a one-term Government?

I imagine you’re talking specifically about their totally arbitrary ‘fiscal rules’ and their inflexible red lines over Europe? If so, I’d agree that it puts their re-election chances in real jeopardy. Worse, they could well be making it more likely that Reform UK will do well. People didn’t vote Labour to see more cuts to welfare and public services. I’ve been horrified to see how Labour’s response to the rise of the populist right has been to shift in their direction, rather than standing up to them. Their recent Facebook ads advertising tougher migration policies, deliberately branded as if it were from Reform, were a particularly low point. Both Starmer and Reeves keep saying the world has changed. I agree with them. So why haven’t they changed their policies to align with this new reality?

Trevor Andrews : If you were in charge of the EU, what change would be your key priority?

Properly funding the European Green Deal policies, and making them more ambitious, alongside a genuinely just transition for affected workers. That way the EU could be a real beacon of best practice and could demonstrate that Green policies tackle both social injustice and environmental degradation.