Eamon Dyas

BBC report: Government to allocate £31 million to improve safety and security for all elected politicians

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-68562310

This is all part of making a perceived threat real. But does the level of online abuse of politicians mean that there is an actual real threat? Before the arrival of the digital age the only way to abuse or threaten a politician was face to face, by letter or by phone. The first two of these methods required a significant physical effort for the initiator to give expression to their feelings. The third required them to invest the time in finding the phone number of the politician and then getting the opportunity to speak to the actual politician on the other end of the line.

The digital age and the associated push for what is purported to be political transparency and accessibility has changed all that. Every crank, oddball and miscreant can express and broadcast their feelings to a wider audience simply by a keyboard click on their computer or smart phone. 

But does that mean that there are any more people out there that actually constitute a real threat than was the case previously?  Or does it mean that the number of those who harboured similar thoughts in the past but were never motivated or capable of giving expression to them now have the means of giving them expression?

Maybe, but is that increase on a scale that warrants the current hysterical response from the political establishment? I doubt if even the political establishment believes it. However, inflating the prospects of an increased threat to our politicians serves a useful purpose in shutting down political debate. We saw this in the way the Speaker used the excuse of the level of alleged threat to Labour politicians to prevent a parliamentary vote on a ceasefire in Gaza recently. We have even seen it in the way it was used to destroy Corbyn over antisemitism where every online expression of antisemitism or even descriptions of Israel as a colonial endeavour was interpreted as a threat to Jews. 

On a wider front providing the levels of online abuse and threat with the status of reality is useful to buttress the idea of the “hate crime” and the idea that we are now living in a more hate-fuelled age than before. In that context it is also useful as it creates the climate where curtailments of online sources and social media can be justified as they can be depicted as the means by which hate is being propagated.