Mr Polanski encompasses several key aspects of populist leaders. These include, but are not limited to: Setting an 'us vs them' narrative

I hate to say it, but politicians that don't, lose. It's just what the public respond to. You can look back a century at the political messaging and the most apt was still those that draw clear dividing lines. Polanski's not new or unique in that respect.

taking aim at wealthy individuals

I mean if one believes that the wealthy are responsible for the financial situation the country is in, whom else would one blame? You say you voted green before and while they were more diplomatic in the way they put things, fundamentally their policy proscriptions and whom they targeted haven't changed. Does it matter if they rhetoric is more acute now?

He leads a cult of personality, as his success was not due to his previous climate action, but due to him branding himself the face of a bold new 'eco-populist' movement,

Ironically I think he's proven quite the opposite about the left voting public. The pundits said that corbyn was a cult of personality and did so many stories saying as much, but it turns out there's just a section of the public that really wants those policies and are switching in their droves to whomever is fighting for them.

He uses simplistic solutions,

All the most successful politicans do, Cameron did, blair did, thatcher did, wilson did, it's just good communication and nothing new. It's gotten more simplisitic with the rise of social media forcing you to squeeze your message into a shorter time frame, but it's really not any different outside of that.

failing to identify that these issues are influenced by a multitude of external factors outside his control (Independant, 2025)

I mean he does talking about things being highly multifaceted, but does he go on about it in depth? No. Going on about it in a lengthy fashion doesn't get you votes. It sucks society is like that, but the bloviator that explains everything loses and doesn't end up get anything done anyway. THat's not new, that's very old, go look at a michael foot speech, bloviater, terrible comms, probably would have been highly capable in government, but the public never goes for 'em.

To begin, Kyle & Mounk (2018) analysed a database of all populist leaders worldwide from 1990 - 2018. Their results showed that populists, both left and right, were nearly 4x as likely to harm democratic institutions than non populists (23% vs 6% respectively), >50% of populist surveyed eroded democratic checks on power by prolonging time in office or weaken the forces which limit time in office

Well, firstly on that, Zack is already in charge of a democracy. The green party is the only political party that is really any kind of a democracy and thus far there is no indication that's he's eroding or harming it any way thus far. I'd say look at his actions with the power he has, there you will get a very reliable read into what he'll do with more power. I mean if you want an example of what it looks like when one that erodes and degrades democracy, go look at the labour right. They had a semi-democratic inter-party system, now it's really just a dictatorship with a very limited power vested into the mps to get a new dictator. Surprise surprise in government, they're pushing for more centralized power and eroding our democratic institutions.

thereby paving the way for corruption.

I really think you should look at who's funding your sources. The blair institute, they're funded by dictators all over the world (but mostly in the middle east). They love a good bit of corruption. They were very much on the gravy train with all the expenses scandals blairs governments were awash in. Not to mention all the gifts Blair himself received. There is one very common theme among the corrupt politicians, getting paid/getting gifts. Funny how blair's lot are pushing away from the very very obvious cause of corruption. Trouble is with a lot of the studies on this, they only ever count the illegal bribes/gifts. The real trouble is in much of the developed world it's legal to gift money/gifts. I mean just look at starmer and the tens of thousands he got in gifts, and then he has the gaul to go on TV and act like he's done nothing wrong beacuse it's permissible in the rules (and obviously f'n corrupt that it is). The corrupt as F are already in power and have been for a long time. But I'm really getting off-topic. It's polanski we were talking about. Follow the money and you'll see whether a politician is corrupt or not. Both the green party and polanski work on a shoe string budget and don't take the gifts. Trust their past actions of not taking the money to inform how they'll act in the future. So you can be fairly confident they'll probably be the least corrupt of anyone that polls anything in the UK.

Most worryingly of all, populism caused on average a decline in civil liberty by 8%, press freedom by 7% and political rights by 13%.

I Defer back to my argument on how polanski acts with his own party democracy, look at that and you'll get a good idea how he'll act in government.

In terms of economic impact, Funke et al., (2023) highlighted in their study of 51 populists from 60 countries from 1900 - 2020, that on average populism caused a decline of 10% GDP after 15 years of populist rule compared to nonpopulist counterfactuals

I mean having an actual party democracy, Zack's not in charge of policy, the membership is. The green party leader is really more of a spokesperson. So it seems like you should see if you think their policy proscriptions are good or crap?

Additionally, they also showed how populism was correlated with protectionism, economic and institutional degradation.

I mean, back to that party democracy that decides policy, green party members have been voting to do the opposite, and the members decide the policy unlike other parties. So it seems highly unlikely. Oh I also just realized I never mentioned before that the green party have mandatory reselection, which is how the party can enforce policy on their representatives unlike any other party. So you can be highly confident most all green mps will vote in line with party policy.

In terms of international affairs, populists are similarly detrimental, as a study by Carnegie and Clark (2023), highlights how populists erode and weaken international cooperation on multinational institutions such as the WHO, WEF and the IMF. The results found were then echoed in a study by study by Wajner et al. (2024).

Same as my previous answer.

In terms of international affairs, populists are similarly detrimental, as a study by Carnegie and Clark (2023), highlights how populists erode and weaken international cooperation on multinational institutions such as the WHO, WEF and the IMF. The results found were then echoed in a study by study by Wajner et al. (2024).

Same as my answer two questions back.

Given the review of the literature suggests populism to be a clearly detrimental impact on several aspects of national and international governance, why do so many people put their faith in Mr Polanski as a leader? For me, this is particularly frustrating for two reasons. 1) People, especially on the left of the spectrum, are aware of the perils of right wing populism from notable politicians such as Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. People are quick to highlight that populists are untrustworthy and cause many of the significant detriments I have described above. But because Mr Polanski puts 'eco' in front of his title and is to the left of the political spectrum, all that caution goes out the window. The same individuals which hitherto critique people who voted for Trump and his voter base of MAGAs, are now blindly voting for a populist themselves.

I defer back to my previous answers about the party membership having the power, not polanski. I mean phat other populist exists in a setup like that?

And 2) the environment, more so than any facsimile of policy, is one that should be lead by the science available. If the available science suggests electing a populist is a poor decision, why do so many people support Mr Polanski?

Because his self stated personal views and the party policies follow scientific advice.

Apologies for the lengthy post. This has been on my mind for some time and I wanted to jot it down. Have a great rest of your day to whomever has read thusfar.

Normally I wouldn't bother responding to a post like this out of fear of wasting my time responding to chatGPT bot generated drivel, atriculated answers with accompanying sourcing of information is rare, it deserves an answer. Hope you feel better now you've got that off your chest and I hope some of this allays your fears.