Independent MP candidates have bitten back against ‘intimidation’ claims – particularly by members of the Labour Party.

This Writer was delighted to read the following X post by former candidates in the general election that took place on July 4:

Press Release: Independent and Socialist Candidates Defend Democratic Rights Against Media Mischaracterisation

Dear Members of the Media,

We, the undersigned independent and socialist candidates from the 2024 General Elections, assert that questioning MPs’ records on crimes… pic.twitter.com/DrOPec1IrE

— Tottenham and Haringey Palestine Action (@haringeypals) July 30, 2024

It is part of a longer press release that says:

It is not “intimidation” to question records on opposing some of the worst crimes against humanity and flagrant breaches of International Humanitarian Law.

Highlighting voting records or choosing not to re-elect certain MPs is a democratic right, not intimidation. As ordinary citizens stand against the support for genocide, climate change, and austerity, it is their democratic sovereignty to challenge MPs.

These actions do not constitute harassment, as defined legally, but rather reflect protected political speech under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as enshrined in UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

What’s it all about? Well…

Recent statements by Jess Philips, John Woodcock, Yvette Cooper, and Jonathan Ashworth and the framing by mainstream media have wrongfully labelled our campaigns and supporters as “hateful” and “intimidating.”

This systematic approach uses racist dog whistles and manufactured panic to justify potential restrictions on protests and to stifle democratic scrutiny.

Such tactics maintain the status quo and limit the diversity of political discourse, pushing a narrative that the problem with democracy lies with the voters themselves. Of course, where genuine harassment has occurred, we stand by due process of the law.

Having attributed the offending statements to Labour MPs, the press release concludes:

The reality is that Labour, under Keir Starmer’s leadership, has shown authoritarian tendencies by purging dissenting members and preventing local democratic processes within its own ranks.

The current strategy aims to delegitimize left-leaning and independent candidates who offer progressive alternatives, portraying them as bullies to deflect from genuine political discontent and demand for change.

We urge the media to uphold its duty to democracy by providing fair and unbiased coverage.

The role of the press is not to perpetuate unfounded narratives but to facilitate informed and open discourse.

Media outlets must respect the democratic process and the people’s will, refraining from mislabelling or marginalising grassroots movements.

We stand firm in our commitment to representing our constituents and advocating for policies that reflect their values and concerns. Our society can thrive through the protection of democratic principles and freedom of speech.

It’s all very well saying that, of course – but where’s the proof?

Shall we have a look at a recent Guardian article, headlined Ministers urged to act over physical and online intimidation in UK election? It states:

“Within 100 yards of polling stations there were massive screens saying a vote for Labour is a vote for genocide, and protests right outside,” one candidate who attended the meeting said.

Hmm. Did those screens provide evidence? That isn’t clear from the report.

TikTok also featured “heavily” at the meeting with ministers, the candidate said, with voters who viewed material by pro-Gaza independents being fed increasingly problematic and incendiary content. “A lot of this was borne out on TikTok – the algorithms just point towards more hatred and more hatred.”

Again: evidence? TikTok denied the claim about its algorithms within the same article:

“We have strict rules in place against hateful content or harassment that are enforced by our 40,000-strong global trust and safety team, and have taken action against violating content whenever we have found it. Unlike any other platform, our algorithm is subject to independent oversight from a third-party US company.”

Jess Phillips [pictured] and John Woodcock (now styled as Lord Walney) also provided unevidenced quotes – and it is notable that there is no balancing comment from any of the candidates alleged to have been behind this intimidation.

What do you think?

It seems likely that the Independent candidates have a point about the behaviour of the media, based (admittedly) on that one article.

And where is the evidence of what Phillips, Walney and others have been claiming?

---

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:

The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here: