Nigel Farage’s brand of patriotism has pushed Reform UK to the top of the polls (Image: Getty)

Concern about national security has soared since the war in Iran with leading military and political figures making the case for urgent increases in defence spending.

When voters are asked whether they trust a party – as opposed to a leader – on defence, the Conservatives had a slight edge on 34%. This was ahead of Reform (32%), Labour (30%), the Lib Dems (29%) and the Greens (26%).

Green Party leader Zack Polanski is struggling to win trust on defence (Image: Andrew Milligan/PA Wire)

Arguing that measures including restoring the two-child benefit cap would unlock more than £20billion of extra spending, he said: “Conservatives are proud of what we did in Government to stand by Ukraine, and help keep that country in the fight, avoiding a military disaster for Europe that could ultimately have threatened our shores.”

Former Conservative MP Danny Kruger now leads preparations for a. Reform UK government (Image: Jonathan Buckmaster)

Reform UK’s Danny Kruger said: “After decades of chronic underinvestment in our armed forces by successive governments, it is no surprise that voters no longer trust the Conservatives or Labour and have chosen Nigel Farage as the most trusted party leader on defence. A Reform UK Government will finally put the defence of this country first.

“We will significantly increase defence expenditure by cutting the ballooning benefits bill and ensure our brave armed forces are finally well-equipped and properly funded.”

The Greens were invited to comment.

Nigel Farage Crushes Zack Polanski in Battle to Win Britons’ Trust on National Defence

The question of who Britons trust to protect the country has become an increasingly important dividing line in British politics. As Nigel Farage’s Reform UK and Zack Polanski’s Green Party attempt to expand their support beyond their traditional bases, defence and national security have emerged as areas where the two parties offer markedly different political approaches.

A headline published by the Express on May 2, 2026, described the contest as one in which Nigel Farage “crushes” Zack Polanski in the battle for public trust on national defence. The accompanying report said that fewer than one in four voters trusted the Green Party leader on defence.

The wording reflects a political interpretation of polling rather than an objective measure of who would provide better national security. Nevertheless, the underlying figures highlight an important challenge for the Greens as they seek to establish themselves as a broader political force.

Defence Is a Difficult Test for the Green Party

For decades, defence has generally been associated with political parties that emphasise military strength, NATO, national sovereignty and Britain’s role in international alliances.

The Green Party’s political identity has traditionally been centred on climate change, environmental protection and social policy. Under Polanski, however, the party has attempted to broaden its appeal through what he describes as “eco-populism”, linking environmental concerns with economic and social questions.

That approach has helped the Greens attract attention well beyond their traditional environmental base. Al Jazeera reported in May that the party had expanded its agenda considerably under Polanski and that its political profile had become increasingly associated with progressive and socialist policies.

But broadening a party’s agenda also creates new questions. Voters who may agree with the Greens on housing, inequality or climate policy can still ask how the party would respond to military threats, international crises or attacks on the United Kingdom.

That is particularly significant at a time when European governments are debating defence spending, Russia’s actions and the future of NATO.

Farage Has Built a Different Political Identity

Nigel Farage approaches national security from a very different political starting point.

The Reform UK leader has spent much of his political career discussing sovereignty, borders, military affairs and Britain’s relationship with international organisations. His political communication frequently places national security alongside immigration and control of Britain’s borders.

That background gives Farage a political identity that is more naturally associated with defence than Polanski’s.

In February 2026, for example, Farage publicly argued that Britain should reconsider its position on the use of military bases in the context of the conflict involving Iran. His public statements have also repeatedly focused on NATO, Russia, Britain’s armed forces and the country’s relationship with the United States.

The distinction is therefore not simply about individual policies. It reflects two competing understandings of what constitutes security.

For Farage and Reform, national security is closely connected to military capability, borders and national sovereignty. For Polanski and the Greens, security is more frequently presented through a wider framework that includes climate change, economic inequality, environmental collapse and social resilience.

Polanski Has Tried to Redefine National Security

Polanski has nevertheless argued that the traditional definition of national security is too narrow.

In September 2026, he called for the government to publish an unredacted intelligence assessment concerning the potential security consequences of ecosystem collapse. The report, according to the Guardian, warned about possible food shortages, increased migration, political destabilisation and even armed conflict resulting from the deterioration of ecosystems overseas.

Polanski has used this argument to say that climate and environmental policy should be treated as national-security issues rather than merely environmental questions.

The argument represents a significant attempt to broaden the meaning of defence.

Instead of focusing exclusively on tanks, aircraft, warships and military personnel, the Green approach places food security, climate adaptation, biodiversity and economic resilience within the same wider security framework.

Whether voters accept that definition is another matter.

The polling referenced by the Express suggests that defence remains an area where the Greens have not yet established the same level of public confidence associated with more traditional security-oriented parties.

The NATO Question

One of the most important issues surrounding Polanski’s leadership has been the Green Party’s approach to NATO.

Earlier in 2026, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper accused both Reform UK and the Greens of weakening Britain’s commitment to NATO. The Guardian reported that Polanski had left open the possibility of Britain eventually leaving the alliance, although the political circumstances and conditions surrounding such a position have been debated.

For critics, NATO membership is central to Britain’s security because the alliance provides collective defence arrangements with other European and North American countries.

For parts of the Green movement, however, questions about militarisation, international intervention and Britain’s foreign-policy choices have historically been more complicated.

That difference creates a substantial contrast with Farage, who has generally presented defence through a more conventional national-security lens.

Farage’s Own Trust Problem

However, the defence issue should not be interpreted as evidence that Farage is broadly trusted by the British public.

Recent polling demonstrates why.

YouGov reported in September 2026 that 69% of Britons had an unfavourable opinion of Farage, compared with 24% who viewed him favourably. That was the highest unfavourable rating recorded for him by YouGov’s tracker at that point.

This is an important qualification to the defence debate.

A politician can be comparatively more trusted than another politician on one specific subject while still having weak overall favourability.

The distinction matters because national defence is only one part of the political relationship between voters and party leaders.

Farage may possess greater recognition and a longer political history on questions of sovereignty and security, but that does not automatically translate into general public confidence across every policy area.

Polanski Faces a Different Challenge

Polanski’s difficulty is almost the reverse.

The Green leader has helped make his party considerably more visible. The Greens achieved a strong result in the 2026 local elections, and Polanski has become one of the most recognisable figures in the party’s history.

But increased visibility also exposes him to questions that previously received less attention.

The May 2026 YouGov figures showed that 50% of Britons viewed Polanski unfavourably, compared with 23% who viewed him favourably. His negative rating had increased substantially after controversies surrounding his social-media activity and the Golders Green stabbing.

Those figures came from a wider favourability survey rather than a specific defence poll, but they demonstrate that Polanski was already facing questions about public trust.

The defence debate therefore forms part of a larger challenge: convincing voters that a party traditionally associated with environmental politics can also provide credible answers on military security and international affairs.

Britain’s Changing Security Environment

The debate is taking place against a rapidly changing European security environment.

The war in Ukraine has transformed discussions about military readiness across Europe. NATO members are debating defence spending and military capacity, while governments are also considering cyberattacks, drones, artificial intelligence, disinformation and other forms of hybrid warfare.

In September, Farage criticised the British government for what he regarded as an insufficiently urgent response to Russian threats. The Guardian reported that he questioned whether Britain was doing enough after French President Emmanuel Macron publicly warned about Russian hybrid attacks.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch expressed similar concerns, arguing that European allies were responding with greater urgency.

These developments demonstrate why defence has become increasingly prominent in British political debate.

Two Very Different Definitions of Security

Ultimately, the Farage-Polanski contrast is about more than personalities.

Farage’s political model emphasises military capability, NATO, borders, sovereignty and conventional deterrence.

Polanski’s model seeks to expand the definition of security to include climate change, environmental degradation, food supply, economic resilience and social stability.

Both approaches raise different questions for voters.

A conventional defence strategy requires decisions about military spending, recruitment, equipment and alliances. A broader security strategy requires decisions about climate adaptation, infrastructure, food production and environmental resilience alongside traditional defence.

The challenge for both politicians is demonstrating how their respective priorities would work in practice.

The Broader Political Contest

The defence debate also reflects the wider competition between Reform UK and the Greens for voters dissatisfied with the established political parties.

The two parties occupy very different positions on many major questions, but both have benefited from a political environment in which voters are increasingly willing to consider alternatives to Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

Recent polling has shown that Reform’s support has faced challenges from competing parties, while the Greens have continued to attract attention, particularly in urban areas.

That makes questions of credibility increasingly important.

For Farage, the issue is whether his long-established political profile on sovereignty and security can translate into broader public confidence.

For Polanski, the issue is whether his expanding political agenda can persuade voters that environmental and social policies can coexist with a credible approach to national defence.

A Debate That Is Unlikely to Disappear

The headline that Farage has “crushed” Polanski on national defence captures one side of a much broader political argument.

The available evidence does show that defence has historically been a difficult area for the Greens, with earlier YouGov research finding that only 17% of Britons trusted the Greens on defence, while the Conservatives led that particular field at 35%.

But public trust is not fixed.

Political parties can change their policies, leaders can change their positions, and voters’ priorities can shift rapidly in response to international events.

Polanski’s attempt to connect climate and environmental collapse with national security illustrates one possible way the Greens could broaden their argument. Farage’s emphasis on conventional defence, sovereignty and borders represents a markedly different route.

For British voters, the central question is therefore not simply which leader wins a political headline. It is what definition of national security they find most convincing, and whether each party can translate its principles into detailed, credible policies for protecting the country in an increasingly uncertain international environment.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.