The Romiley Gazette

19th April 2026

A political storm has erupted just weeks before local elections after controversial remarks from a senior Green Party figure sparked accusations of intolerance, drawing fierce criticism from opponents and raising fresh questions about the tone of public debate.
Comments made during a recent podcast appearance by Zack Polanski have triggered a wave of backlash across the political spectrum, following the circulation of a short edited clip on social media.

Speaking on his “Bold Politics” podcast on April 15, Polanski questioned whether individuals on the political right—particularly those seen as promoting division—could be persuaded to change, or whether society should instead be built “without them.” His guest, Zakia Sewell, urged a more cautious approach, warning against broad labels and encouraging dialogue to find common ground.

However, once shared online, the clip quickly drew strong reactions. Conservative MP Kevin Hollinrake criticised the remarks, suggesting they echoed exclusionary thinking associated with authoritarian regimes. Meanwhile, comedian John Cleese dismissed Polanski as a “silly exhibitionist,” adding to the growing chorus of condemnation.

Supporters of Polanski have pushed back, arguing that his comments were taken out of context and were aimed only at a small minority of entrenched extremists or propagandists, rather than broader sections of the public. They say the discussion was intended to explore the limits of dialogue, not to advocate exclusion.

The controversy comes at a sensitive time for the Green Party, as it prepares for local elections on May 7. While Polanski has not issued a direct response to the criticism, the episode risks becoming a distraction during a crucial campaigning period.

The incident also highlights the growing influence—and risk—of short-form clips on platforms like X, where complex discussions can quickly be reduced to a few seconds of content, often stripped of nuance.

As the debate continues, it underscores a broader tension in modern politics: how to confront extreme views without deepening division—and whether attempts to do so can themselves become flashpoints for controversy.

This story is based on reports and social media posts and may develop further as more information emerges.

17th April 2026

A controversial proposal attributed to Green Party leader Zack Polanski has ignited strong reactions across the political spectrum, after details emerged of a plan to extend Universal Basic Income (UBI) payments to migrants living in the UK. The reported proposal suggests that individuals without settled status, or those residing in the country on non-visitor visas, could receive payments of up to £1,600 per month, with estimates placing the potential annual cost at around £19 billion.

Polanski has described the concept of Universal Basic Income as “simple yet transformative,” arguing that it could provide financial stability, reduce poverty, and streamline welfare systems. Supporters of UBI more broadly say it offers a fairer, less bureaucratic safety net in an increasingly uncertain economy.

However, critics have reacted sharply, particularly to the suggestion that such payments could apply to non-citizens. Opponents argue that extending UBI in this way could place a significant burden on public finances and risk acting as an incentive for increased migration. Some have labelled the proposal unrealistic, especially at a time when many households are facing rising living costs.

Concerns have also been raised about how such a programme would be funded, with sceptics questioning whether taxpayers would ultimately bear the cost during a period of economic strain. The debate highlights a wider divide in UK politics over immigration, welfare, and economic priorities.

While proponents see bold reforms like UBI as necessary to address systemic inequality, critics argue that such policies must be grounded in fiscal and practical realities. As discussions continue, it remains to be seen whether proposals of this scale gain broader political traction or remain part of a more theoretical vision for reform.

17th April 2026

A Green Party election candidate has found herself at the centre of online ridicule after social media users mocked her unconventional name.

Cinnamon Noakes, who is standing in upcoming elections, became the subject of a wave of posts on X (formerly Twitter), where some users compared her name to a list of spices. Others questioned the party’s choice of candidates, with comments referencing similarly unusual names such as “Rainbow” as examples of what they described as eccentric selections.

The online reaction has sparked debate about the tone of political discourse on social media, with some users criticising the mocking comments as unnecessary and personal, rather than focused on policies or qualifications.

Supporters of the Green Party have also pushed back, arguing that a candidate’s name has no bearing on their ability to represent constituents effectively. They say the attention should remain on key issues such as the environment, local services, and community concerns.

The story, which originated from trending discussions on X, reflects how quickly personal details can become the focus of political conversation online. However, as with many social media-driven stories, details may continue to develop, and readers are advised to treat early summaries with caution.

As the election period progresses, it remains to be seen whether the online attention will have any lasting impact on the campaign.

This article is based on summaries of social media posts and may evolve as more information becomes available.