This isn’t political critique, it’s dehumanisation.
A creep isn’t a nice word. It conjures something seedy, furtive, vaguely contaminated, a person out of step, not merely with polite society but with the moral order itself. It’s not analysis but a character assassination in a single syllable.
So when a veteran columnist in a national newspaper brands the leader of a political party “the biggest creep in British politics,” it deserves more than a raised eyebrow. It demands a red pen.
That is precisely how Sarah Vine chose to describe Zack Polanski, leader of the Green Party, in the pages of the Daily Mail ahead of the Gorton and Denton by-election. The timing wasn’t subtle. Nor was the intent.
Vine opens with a familiar tirade against the PM and his “financially illiterate” chancellor, supposedly plunging Britain into a “growth-stifling tax-and-spend abyss.” The country, she suggests, is already circling the drain. How, she wonders, could things get any worse?
Enter Polanski, likened not to a flawed politician with arguable ideas, but to a wasps’ nest in the roof or a dead rat beneath the floorboards – literally.
This isn’t political critique, it’s dehumanisation.
The ‘creep’ case collapses
Having established the mood music, Vine proceeds to outline Polanski’s supposed duplicity. She notes his down-to-earth persona, his “hope not hate” aspirations, his appeal to younger and minority voters, only to mock it all with heavy sarcasm.
There are the predictable jabs at his appearance. There’s the insinuation that his Jewish identity somehow sits uneasily alongside his support for Palestinian rights, and the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” refrain.
But where’s the evidence of wrongdoing? Of corruption? Of abuse of power?
The crux of the column rests on the Gorton and Denton by-election campaign of Green candidate Hannah Spencer. A campaign video voiced in Urdu and aimed at Pakistani Muslim residents is presented as proof of sinister “double personas” and sectarian intent. The video criticised the Reform candidate and referenced Gaza. Vine brands it “naked propaganda” designed to stoke fear.
Since when did speaking to voters in their own language become evidence of moral degeneracy? Since when did criticising a political opponent qualify as uniquely toxic behaviour in an election campaign?
Campaign messaging targeted at specific communities is neither novel nor inherently nefarious. It is, in fact, routine, expected.
Selective outrage
Noticeably absent from Vine’s indignation is any mention of controversy surrounding Reform’s campaign materials. Leaflets circulated by supporters of Reform UK candidate Matt Goodwin reportedly failed to include legally required imprints identifying who was responsible for the material, a basic requirement under the Representation of the People Act 1983. One leaflet featured a faux handwritten letter from a purported local pensioner urging lifelong Labour voters to switch allegiance.
Yet the moral panic is reserved for a Ramadan solidarity post and a multilingual video.
Spencer’s comment that she fasts in solidarity with Muslims during Ramadan is presented as sectarian grandstanding. One might equally interpret it as a gesture of cross-community empathy in a climate where Muslims are routinely vilified by the right-wing press. That possibility receives no ink space.
Perhaps the most troubling element of the column is its treatment of Polanski’s Jewish identity. Vine suggests he deploys it as a shield when criticising Israel because it “plays well” with his supporters.
But what if a Jewish politician holds sincerely critical views of the Israeli government? What if those views arise from conscience rather than choreography?
To reduce identity to strategy is to assume bad faith by default. It’s an argument that closes down debate rather than engaging it.
By the time Vine compares Polanski to a “love-bombing” narcissist and alludes darkly to his supposed interest in prostitution, pornography and drugs, the piece has drifted far from public policy and deep into personal smear. Voters deserve rigorous scrutiny of economic plans, environmental targets, taxation proposals and foreign policy positions. That’s the job of serious journalism.
When commentary descends into name-calling and caricature, the temptation is to answer fury with fury. But politics, and journalism, are meant to be better than playground taunts.
In the end, it’s not Polanski who is diminished by being called a “creep.” It’s the standard of commentary itself.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.