The Green Party of England and Wales faces the prospect of being barred from its traditional conference venue after Brighton & Hove City Council signalled it may refuse future bookings in response to a motion passed last month declaring Zionism a form of racism.
The threat, issued by council leader Bella Sankey, marks a sharp escalation in the fallout from the party’s autumn gathering at the Brighton Centre. It pits the Labour-run authority against a political movement that has held its annual conference in the city for years, raising questions about the boundaries of political discourse on council-owned property.
A motion that crossed a line
Delegates at the Green Party conference in October voted to adopt a motion characterising Zionism — the movement for Jewish self-determination and a Jewish homeland — as “racism”. The decision was celebrated by some activists as a necessary critique of Israeli state policy. For others, it represented a dangerous conflation of political ideology with Jewish identity.
Sankey, who leads the Labour administration at Brighton & Hove City Council, did not mince her words. In a statement to the BBC, she described the motion as “divisive, discriminatory and wrong”, arguing it “dangerously” blurred the distinction between the right to Jewish self-determination and the actions of the Israeli government.
“The Brighton Centre is owned by all of us in the city and should never be a place where people feel excluded due to their religion or beliefs,” she said. Sankey added that she was “deeply concerned at the prospect of the Green Party returning to Brighton for future conferences” and confirmed she was actively considering refusing the venue for future events.
Polanski pushes back
Zack Polanski, the Green Party’s co-leader, rejected the council’s characterisation of the motion and the implied threat. Polanski, who is Jewish, argued that the party’s position draws a necessary line.
“Antisemitism and criticism of the Israeli state are, and must always be, completely distinct,” he said. “Blurring the line between the two is not only wrong but antisemitic, and makes Jewish people less safe.”
He framed the party’s stance as one of dual protection: safeguarding Palestinian rights while defending Jewish communities in the UK. “It’s our role as a movement for justice to protect both,” Polanski added.
Green Party sources have privately dismissed Sankey’s interpretation of the motion as a wilful misreading. They insist the vote was a statement on political ideology, not an attack on Jewish people.
A venue with history
The Brighton Centre has long served as a neutral ground for British politics. It has hosted Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Party conferences in rotation for decades. The council’s ownership of the venue gives it unusual leverage: unlike privately owned conference centres, the Brighton Centre is a public asset, managed by elected officials accountable to local residents.
This is not the first time the venue has become a flashpoint. In 2017, the council’s then-Labour leader, Warren Morgan, threatened to block his own party from using the centre over concerns that antisemitic views had been aired at its conference. The threat was never enacted, but the precedent lingers.
For the Greens, losing access to the Brighton Centre would be a significant logistical and symbolic blow. The venue’s capacity, location and infrastructure make it one of the few sites in the region capable of hosting a major party conference.
The wider context
The row arrives at a moment of heightened sensitivity over the definition of antisemitism and the limits of criticism directed at Israel. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition — adopted by the UK government, the Labour Party and numerous councils — includes “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” as a contemporary example of antisemitism.
Critics of the IHRA definition argue it stifles legitimate advocacy for Palestinian rights. Supporters say it provides a necessary shield against hatred disguised as political critique.
Brighton & Hove City Council has adopted the IHRA definition. Sankey’s intervention suggests she views the Green Party motion as a direct violation of the council’s own commitments.
Why it Matters
This dispute transcends a simple booking row. It tests whether a local authority can — or should — police the political resolutions of parties hiring its facilities, and where the line falls between safeguarding inclusion and enforcing ideological conformity. If Sankey follows through, it could set a precedent for councils nationwide to veto events based on conference motions, chilling debate on one of the most fraught issues in modern politics. The outcome will signal how Britain’s public institutions navigate the collision between anti-racism commitments and the right to political expression.