The LGA’s Debate Not Hate campaign provides important tools and guidance for councillors. It is a strong and necessary initiative.
But it cannot, on its own, address the structural challenges we are now facing.
It is becoming increasingly normal for councillors to require risk assessments relating to their private homes.
In Birmingham, a significant number of colleagues have had police ‘markers’ recommended or undergone council-led assessments due to safety concerns.
The majority are from ethnic minority backgrounds or have ethnic minority members within their household. Some have stopped reporting incidents altogether, feeling outcomes can be inconsistent.
That should not be the case in a mature democracy.
Being advised that I may need a police marker placed on my home was the final factor in my decision not to seek re-election as a councillor in May. It was the right decision for me.
I chose public life. My family did not.
There is a clear distinction between scrutiny and intimidation. Robust democratic challenge is essential. Persistent hostility, stalking, coordinated digital harassment, doxing (cyberbullying that uses sensitive documents or information for the harassment, exposure, financial harm, or exploitation of targeted individuals), and intimidation of families is not.
Over three terms, I have witnessed conduct that goes well beyond scrutiny: photographs of family homes shared online, protests directed at private residential streets rather than civic venues, and threats of violence.
The LGA’s most recent Debate Not Hate survey found that nearly three-quarters of councillors reported experiencing abuse or intimidation in the past year, with almost half saying it had increased.
When intimidation becomes normalised, it narrows who feels able to stand and serve.
Campaigns help those willing to reflect on their behaviour. The deeper issue lies with those who justify abuse as ‘part of the job’. Public office does not remove the right to safety, dignity or family life.
Everyone in public life deserves protection. In my own experience, and in conversations with colleagues nationally, women, ethnic minority, LGBTQ+ and disabled representatives are more frequently the focus of targeted and personal abuse rather than policy disagreement.
Legislative reform is essential to ensure equal democratic participation.
If public service increasingly requires police markers on homes and risk assessments affecting private homes and family life, we should pause and ask what that says about the health of our democracy.
This is not about shielding individuals from accountability. It is about safeguarding the integrity of our democratic system.
It is now time for Parliament to give serious consideration to strengthening the legal and safeguarding framework protecting those in public life.