More than half of the candidates in July’s general election may have faced angry constituents but doesn’t abuse of election candidates indicate disgust at their uselessness?
The Electoral Commission has said that more than half of those standing for election – who responded to its survey – faced abuse, with a third reporting that they were intimidated or made to feel unsafe at least once, and more than one in 10 (13 per cent) reported serious threats, abuse or intimidation.
There were reports of abuse from candidates including slashing tyres, throwing milkshakes and targeting candidates’ families.
Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!
All 4,515 candidates were offered basic security and had access to a named police officer during the campaign – the first time this has happened, and guidance on respectful campaigning was updated.
But almost half (46 per cent) of those responding to the survey reported harassment, intimidation or threats in person on the doorstep, and a quarter (23 per cent) at a campaign event.
Online abuse was reported by two-thirds of the candidates who responded.
Sexism and racism were apparently rampant on the campaign trail, with women twice as likely to report serious abuse as men: one in five (20 per cent) of women compared with one in 10 (11 per cent) of men, and ethnic minorities more than three times more likely to report serious abuse than white people, with 34 per cent reporting it compared with 11 per cent of white people.
The Electoral Commission reported that abuse and intimidation can have a significant impact on candidates’ campaign activity, with 66 per cent of female respondents saying they avoided campaigning alone due to a fear of abuse.
There are some mitigating factors which are not mentioned in, for example, the BBC’s report.
For a start, only 717 candidates responded to the survey – that’s just 15.9 per cent of the total. It might be reasonable to assume that the other 84 per cent had no problems – or perhaps we should just admit that we simply don’t know whether they did or not.
And it is a purely subjective survey – we are being asked to accept that these people were abused because they say they were – and politicians are notorious for being economical with the truth.
So a more accurate headline might say that eight per cent of all candidates in the election had said they faced abuse.
How many incidents were reported to those “named police officers” who were responsible for candidates’ safety? Did they Electoral Commission collect that information? If not, why not?
And how many incidents were triggered by election candidates of different political views? During the election campaign, This Site and others reported on claims by Independent candidates that members of the Labour Party had tried to interfere with their campaigns.
Indeed, one of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations calls for tougher rules on political party membership, which appears to indicate an acknowledgement that party organisations may have been responsible for some of the attacks on candidates.
And lurking behind this is the fact that discontent with the UK’s political class has grown almost exponentially over the 14-years-and-more since the Tories took office in coalition with the Liberal Democrats in 2010; this has been fuelled by continual failures by governments to achieve what they claimed they would do for the people alongside a perception that they were lining their own pockets with cash – along with those of their cronies – instead.
It is all very well to suggest that the general public should face tougher penalties if they take out their frustrations on their political representatives – on what is often the only time they get to see these people. Many of them seem to act like absentees, only turning up to make sure their position in their safe seat is secure, and this is a strong argument for proportional representation and the end of safe seats.
But where are the penalties for politicians who go wrong? Time and again we have seen transgressors who use their positions in Parliament for their own personal gain get away scot free – or with a light slap on the wrist – when they should have gone to prison.
Why are the police so timid about prosecuting government ministers?
And isn’t it time we saw legislation that put forward real penalties for their misdemeanours – along with real justice against the right dishonourable transgressors?
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:
Doesn’t abuse of election candidates indicate disgust at their uselessness?
More than half of the candidates in July’s general election may have faced angry constituents but doesn’t abuse of election candidates indicate disgust at their uselessness?
The Electoral Commission has said that more than half of those standing for election – who responded to its survey – faced abuse, with a third reporting that they were intimidated or made to feel unsafe at least once, and more than one in 10 (13 per cent) reported serious threats, abuse or intimidation.
There were reports of abuse from candidates including slashing tyres, throwing milkshakes and targeting candidates’ families.
Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!
All 4,515 candidates were offered basic security and had access to a named police officer during the campaign – the first time this has happened, and guidance on respectful campaigning was updated.
But almost half (46 per cent) of those responding to the survey reported harassment, intimidation or threats in person on the doorstep, and a quarter (23 per cent) at a campaign event.
Online abuse was reported by two-thirds of the candidates who responded.
Sexism and racism were apparently rampant on the campaign trail, with women twice as likely to report serious abuse as men: one in five (20 per cent) of women compared with one in 10 (11 per cent) of men, and ethnic minorities more than three times more likely to report serious abuse than white people, with 34 per cent reporting it compared with 11 per cent of white people.
The Electoral Commission reported that abuse and intimidation can have a significant impact on candidates’ campaign activity, with 66 per cent of female respondents saying they avoided campaigning alone due to a fear of abuse.
There are some mitigating factors which are not mentioned in, for example, the BBC’s report.
For a start, only 717 candidates responded to the survey – that’s just 15.9 per cent of the total. It might be reasonable to assume that the other 84 per cent had no problems – or perhaps we should just admit that we simply don’t know whether they did or not.
And it is a purely subjective survey – we are being asked to accept that these people were abused because they say they were – and politicians are notorious for being economical with the truth.
So a more accurate headline might say that eight per cent of all candidates in the election had said they faced abuse.
How many incidents were reported to those “named police officers” who were responsible for candidates’ safety? Did they Electoral Commission collect that information? If not, why not?
And how many incidents were triggered by election candidates of different political views? During the election campaign, This Site and others reported on claims by Independent candidates that members of the Labour Party had tried to interfere with their campaigns.
Indeed, one of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations calls for tougher rules on political party membership, which appears to indicate an acknowledgement that party organisations may have been responsible for some of the attacks on candidates.
And lurking behind this is the fact that discontent with the UK’s political class has grown almost exponentially over the 14-years-and-more since the Tories took office in coalition with the Liberal Democrats in 2010; this has been fuelled by continual failures by governments to achieve what they claimed they would do for the people alongside a perception that they were lining their own pockets with cash – along with those of their cronies – instead.
It is all very well to suggest that the general public should face tougher penalties if they take out their frustrations on their political representatives – on what is often the only time they get to see these people. Many of them seem to act like absentees, only turning up to make sure their position in their safe seat is secure, and this is a strong argument for proportional representation and the end of safe seats.
But where are the penalties for politicians who go wrong? Time and again we have seen transgressors who use their positions in Parliament for their own personal gain get away scot free – or with a light slap on the wrist – when they should have gone to prison.
Why are the police so timid about prosecuting government ministers?
And isn’t it time we saw legislation that put forward real penalties for their misdemeanours – along with real justice against the right dishonourable transgressors?
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:
you might also like
Conservative campaign video slammed for ‘out of context’ quotes
TV debates: New format proposed but will Cameron come back?
Tax and benefit changes bleed families – how will the Coalition spin this?