Recently, a Speaker’s Conference interim report was published on the safety of MPs and candidates. These reports are often used to find cross-party agreement on a subject and to provide independent advice for the UK Government on electoral reform. The report included surveys of MPs and their staff, which contained alarming statistics, including how 96% of MPs have experienced abuse in their role.
Nearly half have faced anxiety or depression as a result, with a similar proportion feeling unsafe. Just as worryingly, one in five participating MPs said they “have hesitated about debating or voting on an issue because of the abuse they expected to receive” which feels like a direct assault on democracy.
The level of abuse has also led to one in three MPs considering not standing for re-election, and one in six contemplating resignation from public office. Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP, the Speaker of the House of Commons, while acknowledging the privileges and necessary scrutiny that come with being a candidate or MP, said: “Abuse, threats and intimidation should never be part of this job. It threatens the health of our democracy, and forces people to choose between the public good and their own safety and wellbeing.”
Unfortunately, the statistics did not cover parliamentary candidates who have never been MPs, and who often have even less support and experience than sitting members. Candidates are largely dependent on support from their sponsoring political parties, as well as their local associations or teams. If you stood for a larger party, you were likely to receive more help, but if you had less support, especially outside of a target seat, it could be a very lonely road indeed.
A balance is needed between accessibility and safety. As the report acknowledges, participation in democracy is an honour and a privilege, and vigorous political debate, including public challenge, is vital and must be protected. But there comes a tipping point where the level of threats and abuse freezes debate, halts engagement and discourages good, ordinary people from stepping into public service.
Digital campaigning is important, but there is no substitute for knocking on doors, and we must do everything possible to preserve that human connection. When I was a parliamentary candidate, I was immediately hit by a tidal wave of abuse, much of which I suspect came from bots, including death threats. You become a public punching bag. I had a person stalk me, refusing to let me open my own car door. I had to involve the police.
I remember putting a leaflet through a door and being chased down the street by someone screaming. It was genuinely frightening. I am sure there are worse stories across the UK from the thousands of candidates who have stood. The Speaker’s Conference report makes sensible recommendations, including removing the requirement to publish candidates’ home addresses, suggesting instead only the constituency area, and introducing a code of conduct. But we should go further.
There needs to be a better level playing field for all candidates. Each selected candidate should have a named local police officer as a point of contact, someone they can draw on for support at key moments, such as during public hustings. Social media companies must also step up. Obvious abusive bots should be removed and user identities verified where necessary.
At a time when there is a crisis of confidence in our political discourse, with poor turnouts in recent elections, a wider conversation must take place about the safety of running for public office, not just for parliamentary candidates, but for mayoral and local elections too. We need more candidates, not fewer, to widen the talent pool for these crucial public roles and to help address the growing cynicism. This is essential for a healthy democracy. And it starts by making the process safer.
Johnny Luk Former Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Milton Keynes Central