Or could it make you question the party?
I’ve always had a lot of sympathy for the Greens, but Zack Polanski has more than once”embellished” his background
The Green Party leader said on his official campaign website in 2020 that he was “currently working at the Ministry of Justice on their training & diversity programmes
However the MoJ has no record of Mr Polanski ever working for the department. When asked about the claim, a spokesman for Mr Polanski said he had worked for the “justice assessment committee”, which he described as “a programme to improve the diversity of justice appointments based in the MoJ”
Aye, right
When challenged over the discrepancies, the Green Party leader eventually admitted that, rather than working at the Ministry of Justice, he had been hired through an agency that supplied actors for role-play scenarios to a quango responsible for interviewing would-be judges. As part of the recruitment process, judicial candidates take part in mock courtroom exercises in which actors play criminals, prison guards and lawyers
Does that qualify Hugh Grant to be Prime Minister? (Love Actually)
Then there was his British Red Cross claim
On the eve of the local elections, Mr Polanski admitted that, despite repeatedly claiming otherwise while campaigning for elected office, he had never in fact been a “spokesperson” for the British Red Cross.
Not to mention all that obscurity over Rachel Reeves background as an Economist at the Bank of England when BBC2 revealed
Rachel Reeves's banking background has faced scrutiny following claims of exaggerated CV details and an alleged investigation into her expenses at HBOS (2006–2009). Investigations suggest she worked as a retail banking manager rather than an economist during that time
Are they taking us for mugs?
I remember a candidate for a teaching post many years ago. When we found that his CV did not stack up, he was politely shown the door.
But not our political leaders it seems.
There's slight embellishment on a CV and then there's downright lies as in the case of Polanski and in answer to your question MawsRosie I would say it would definitely stop me voting for him as he's proved himself to be completely untrustworthy.
Jodieb
I heard on the radio that Zak Polenski's name is not his real name.
It’s Zack Polanski , not Zak Polenski, while I have no great time for him, we can at least get his name right ?
He was born David Paulden on 2 November 1982 in Salford, Greater Manchester,where he also grew up.His Jewish ancestors had moved to the UK from Poland to escape the occupation by Nazi Germany, but originated from Latvia which they fled to escape pogroms (initially to Ukraine, then to Poland) in the early twentieth century. The family adopted the surname of Paulden hoping to evade antisemitism.His parents divorced when he was 11.
At age 18, he changed his name, restoring his familial name of Polanski, later saying it was important for him to take pride in his identity.He also changed his first name, selecting Zack in homage to the Jewish character of the same name from the novel Goodnight Mister Tom, and to differentiate himself from his stepfather, also named David, whom Polanski states that he didn't get on with.
Still don’t like him, he has told too many porkies about his experience and /or qualifications.
Tooyoungytobeagrandm
a GrannyGravy13
Good and valid points 👏👏👏
(I would let Hugh Grant have a shot at PM 😹😹😹)Me too 😉
While we’re at it can we have Martin Sheen as POTUS?
I think most of the political leaders have been covered now.
I was shocked reading about this NHS nurse today though who lied about her qualifications to get a job heading a neo natal ward. Scary stuff! Equally shocking that she has to pay back so little.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62r5rk4e8eo
One wonders what else Polanski has lied about, it just confirms my existing opinion of him before the local elections.
Jaxjacky
One wonders what else Polanski has lied about, it just confirms my existing opinion of him before the local elections.
He didn’t pass the sniff test from the off.
Apparently,Zak Polanski has not paid his council tax for years .What an objectionable creep.
He claimed he was a spokesman for the Red Cross then a few days later he said he was a hypnotherapist affiliated to the National Council of Hypnotherapy and even adding MNCH after his name. He also wants us to believe that he did not think houseboat owners paid council tax. And he wants to have a say in running our country? No thanks.
He has, I understand, had political ambitions for a long time, but was too stupid to realise that his silly make-believe was bound to be found out and used against him sooner or later.
He is a mental lightweight and cluless into the bargain. The Green party surely deserve better than that.
Why is he so unpopular? He seems like a decent enough bloke.
He's probably a very decent, principled and honourable man but he's also weak, indecisive, doesn't listen to what the electorate are saying and has made too many errors of judgement leading to too many U turns. He's made promises that he just couldn't keep and given important jobs to people who don't have either the experience or knowledge to make sound, rational decisions which has led to inner party mutiny on too many occasions. He's made decisions that are in the national interest but then allowed his back benches to talk him out of it. He acted swiftly and decisively when dealing with angry protest demonstrations and riots but didn't pay enough attention as to why people had resorted to angry demonstrations and riots leading them to feeling marginalised and ignored.
As an overseas ambassador he'd be fabulous but as a firm leader, he's just not good enough.
*Cardamom, we were discussing Polanski, not Starmer.
Estrallita read the three posts above yours and then let us know whether Polanski's behaviour is in accord with being a 'decent enough bloke'
My apologies M0nica
Estrellita
Why is he so unpopular? He seems like a decent enough bloke.
Who - Polanski?
I think, if you read some of the exaggerations on his CV then perhaps decent might not be quite the appropriate word.
You don't need a CV to get elected. If we had to read all candidate's CVs before voting no one would vote Reform, or maybe some people's lies are worse than others?
I didn't say you did need a CV to get elected.
I just said, in answer to another poster, that his CV might be exaggerated so perhaps decent might not be an appropriate adjective to use for him.
keepingquiet
You don't need a CV to get elected. If we had to read all candidate's CVs before voting no one would vote Reform, or maybe some people's lies are worse than others?
But you do need a CV to be selected eg by your constituency party. Having sat in selection committees many years ago it is not unlike shortlisting and interviewing candidates for a job.
Election literature back in the day would contain a potted biography of each candidate , background, achievements and aims.
As an overseas ambassador he'd be fabulous but as a firm leader, he's just not good
Don’t make me laugh!
He’d be a total liability of a Mandelsonian magnitude.
Do you know many ambassadors?
Well, politicians - especially in Central Government - have an appalling reputation for lying but plenty still take their chance to claw their way to the Westminster Village, even if it means being tarred with the same brush.
It clearly pays in the long run.
Or the very short run, taking Liz Truss as a perfect example.
And the hope that things might get better went out of the window when it turned out that Chancellor Reeves had 'discrepancies' within her CV, whilst still being handed the authority to give pensioners a good kicking.
A good kicking?? Pensioners lost £200 a year, but were encouraged to claim PC if they hadn’t paid in enough to get a full state pension - hardly a ‘kicking’, particularly as on here many pensioners kept saying that they would gladly give it up as they didn’t need it.
I don’t think it was wise to discontinue the WFP in the first budget, but it was manna from heaven for Starmer’s detractors, which he should have foreseen. He should also, IMO, have capped energy costs, or charged suppliers and shareholders a windfall tax on profits.
He kept us out of an illegal war.
That's a big achievement to me.
Another carefully framed OP.
It is fair to say that exaggeration or embellishment of educational achievements is not unique to one politician or one party. Public figures across countries and parties have sometimes overstated qualifications, elite university connections, military records, or professional achievements because those claims carry status and authority.
Badenoch has said several times that, as a teenager, she was offered a place to study medicine or “pre-med” at Stanford but could not afford to go. In 2025, reports questioned whether this was accurate because Stanford does not offer undergraduate “pre-med” degrees in the way she described, and medical programmes normally require a prior degree. Her team later clarified that she had not formally applied through the standard route, but had received interest or offers from several US universities based on exam results. Badenoch maintained that the core of her story was true, although she said she no longer had the paperwork.
There have also been earlier political disputes about comments she made regarding universities and education policy, but the Stanford claim is the main case where people accused her of saying something untrue about her own education.
People are perfectly free to start a thread about Polanskis failings. I am delighted the green party are being subjected to scrutiny. I disagree with Caroline Lucas on a number of things but I think she has been interesting to watch lately, I suspect she has concerns about what is happening to the green party.
keepingquiet
You don't need a CV to get elected. If we had to read all candidate's CVs before voting no one would vote Reform, or maybe some people's lies are worse than others?
True. But if every question is framed as an attack on opponents, discussion gets replaced by factional balancing exercises; people stop analysing politics.
I do understand that for many this is just entertainment and they have little interest in our country or politics.
Galaxy
People are perfectly free to start a thread about Polanskis failings. I am delighted the green party are being subjected to scrutiny. I disagree with Caroline Lucas on a number of things but I think she has been interesting to watch lately, I suspect she has concerns about what is happening to the green party.
The OP is NOT "the green party are being subjected to scrutiny". Where, in the OP is there any mention of policies?
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
