I'm excited to announce this new study, published in The Lancet Planetary Health, which explores public support for degrowth and ecosocialist transformation. The findings are quite surprising. We surveyed more than 5,000 people in the UK and US, using demographically representative samples and two separate study designs. Here I'll report results for the UK, but the US is similar. First, we presented people with a full proposal for degrowth-ecosocialist transformation, but without using any label. This included: -scaling down damaging and unnecessary production/consumption -cutting the purchasing power of the rich -establishing universal public services and a public job guarantee to reorganize production around needs -democratizing control over finance and the means of production -ending imperialist appropriation from the global South through unequal exchange We found that 82% of people supported it. Next, we presented people with various labels - including "degrowth", "ecosocialism", and "well-being economy" - without any description. We found that "degrowth" was supported by 20-26%, depending on the study, but also attracted a lot of opposition (16-34%). "Ecosocialism" had higher support, at 36-58%, and much lower opposition (11-16%). "Well-being economy" had even higher support (51-81%) and very minimal opposition (more on this later). Next, we gave people the full proposal but this time together with various different labels. We found that support was high regardless of the label, with very strong majorities. So what can we make of all this? For me, here are the main takeaways: First, the transformative vision and policies advanced by advocates of degrowth-ecosocialism are extremely popular and can form the basis of a winning political campaign. Second, the word "degrowth" is a crucial analytical and scientific term, but - depending on the context - perhaps less useful as a public-facing political slogan, as it is easily misunderstood.... ...UNLESS you have the capacity to educate people about what the term means and what such a transformation would entail. Third, the term ecosocialism is substantially more popular and I think can create broader political support (we didn't test related terms, like socialism or democratic socialism or communism... but this would be interesting!). What about "well-being economy"? It's popular and very useful in certain contexts, but it is also apolitical and can easily be co-opted by capitalists. To me it's important to be clear about the political antagonism that is at stake: this is a class war. Ecosocialism does this job (but other terms may work just as well or better). But ultimately, what this study shows is that we don't necessarily need a single term; it's the political substance and the concrete policies that matter. And we must remember that the struggle does not consist in deciding on the right terminology and framing. It consists in building power. This must remain front and centre. The paper is open-access, and I'll put a link in the reply.