The impulse to post on social media often overwhelms judgment of what is appropriate to share. Knowing when not to succumb to that urge, exercising due diligence before passing on material that is flatly false or offensive, is an indispensable skill for politicians in the digital age. Or it should be.
It is a test failed by Simon Evans, a Reform UK councillor and deputy leader on Lancashire council. Mr Evans shared a Facebook image of Natalie Fleet, a Labour MP, featuring a fake quote – “I voted against the grooming gang enquiry”. The Bolsover MP has, in reality, campaigned to protect girls from sexual predators. An accompanying comment called for Ms Fleet to be shot. Mr Evans says he did not see the offending remark. He deleted the post and apologised, adding that “this sort of rhetoric has no place in our politics”. Reform UK investigated, concluded that it had been “an honest mistake” and that no further action was required.
It is the kind of mistake that is easily avoided by preferring facts to polemical point-scoring and conducting online debate ever mindful that aggressive language has consequences. To be a politician in the public eye is now to run the risk of routine digital pillory. Women, in particular, are subjected to a relentless, venomous barrage. This is frightening for the targets and distressing for their families. It is a disincentive to anyone considering running for office. Being prepared to withstand abuse and death threats should not be the qualifying threshold for a career in politics.
It is not safe to assume any threat is idle. Two MPs – one Labour, one Conservative – have been murdered with political motive in the past decade. In June 2016, Labour’s Jo Cox was shot and stabbed by a far-right fanatic who, when asked to identity himself in court, said his name was “death to traitors, freedom for Britain”. In 2021, David Amess was stabbed by a British Somali who identified with the Islamic State jihadi group.
There have been near misses too. In 2010, Labour’s Stephen Timms was stabbed by a woman claiming sympathy with al-Qaida. In 2017, police thwarted a plot by National Action, a neo-Nazi group, to murder Rosie Cooper, a Labour MP. The man imprisoned for planning that attack had, the previous year, posted his approval of Ms Cox’s assassination on social media.
Ms Cox’s murder occurred just weeks before polling day in the Brexit referendum. The police officer leading the investigation later said that he believed the febrile atmosphere of the campaign was a contributing factor. The killer’s mental state may have been tipped from enraged introspection to active violence in a climate of heightened, polarised political animus.
Ten years on, the political climate has not cooled. If anything, the frenzy that attended Britain’s departure from the European Union has been sustained as the new normal pitch of debate, especially online. The engines of perpetual rage and casually violent rhetoric work ceaselessly to dehumanise people according to their opinions, casting the opposing side in a debate as irredeemably wicked and, by extension, a legitimate target for attack.
It may be unrealistic to expect every user of social media to be always judicious and civil in the way they express their politics. But that standard, in local or national politics, should be the minimum requirement for any candidate to elected office.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
