---

Intimidation of candidates and voters

Intimidation of MPs and candidates

Abuse of elected representatives and candidates has caused concern in recent years.

The Electoral Commission’s report on the 2024 general election found that 70% of candidates had experienced at least one form of abuse. The Speaker of the House of Commons said he had “never seen anything as bad”.

Following the 2017 general election, the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) published a report examining the extent of candidate abuse. The committee called for evidence on “how to address this without stifling the robust debate or differences of opinion that are fundamental to our democracy.”

The committee heard evidence that intimidation disproportionately affected women, those from minority ethnic and religious backgrounds, and LGBT+ candidates, and that it was putting people off from standing for election.

Disqualification orders

One of the recommendations of the CSPL’s 2017 report was that the UK Government should consult on a new electoral offence of intimidating parliamentary candidates. The government consulted on the new electoral offence, and there was broad agreement with its proposed approach. However, there were concerns from some about the interaction of the new offence with the right to freedom of expression.

Disqualification orders were subsequently introduced by the Elections Act 2022. A disqualification order can be imposed by a court when a person is convicted of intimidatory or threatening behaviour against a candidate or campaigner.

The order bans the person from standing for election for five years.

Speaker’s Conference

The House of Commons established a Speaker’s Conference to examine the increase in security threats to MPs and other elected officials after the 2024 general election.

The conference published two reports and made recommendations in a range of areas, including on improving citizenship education, increasing consistency of policing responses of intimidation of candidates, and the implementation of the Online Safety Act in relation to social media companies and illegal intimidatory content.

The conference also called for a new code of conduct for parties and candidates that sets the principles on behaviour and language during a campaign.

The conference noted that some people view abuse of public figures as more acceptable. It observed that targeting of MPs and candidates was often based on personal characteristics, and that people who abuse public figures do not “appear to be deterred by the existing regulatory and legal framework.”

Ofcom’s response to the final report of the Speaker’s Conference noted that the Online Safety Act requires online platforms to remove illegal content swiftly once they are aware of it. This applies to threats against MPs and candidates. Ofcom said that it is reviewing whether platforms’ moderation systems effectively remove illegal hate and terror content, and that it will take enforcement action if needed.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council’s response highlighted work to improve consistency and said work was underway to develop guidance that clarifies the criminal thresholds for communications, electoral, and public order offences that relate to incidents of abuse and intimidation of MPs and candidates.

Government proposals

The UK Government broadly welcomed the Speaker’s Conference’s reports.

The government outlined current work that it is doing. This included work on supporting democratic engagement through citizenship education and introducing a new offence to restrict protests outside the homes of public office holders.

The Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 was introduced in Parliament in February 2026. It includes measures that would:

• extend disqualification orders to cover offences against all elections staff
• allow courts to increase sentences by allowing intimidation of candidates, campaigners and elections staff to be cited as an aggravating factor in sentencing
• remove the requirement that an election agent’s home address should be made public

The Electoral Commission welcomed the measures in the bill but said further measures may be needed to ensure candidate safety. Like the Speaker’s Conference, the commission said the government should consider creating a clearer new overarching duty on social media platforms operating in the UK.

Intimidation of voters

People have the right to cast their vote without interference or intimidation. It is an offence to persuade someone to vote one way or another, or not to vote, by using inappropriate influence.

Undue influence

Undue influence in elections is using inappropriate influence to get someone to vote in a particular way, or not to vote. The offence of undue influence includes committing or threatening to commit actions that include:

• Violence against a person
• Damage to property
• Damage to a person’s reputation or causing financial loss
• Deceiving someone in relation to the administration of the election

This includes threats made outside polling stations and threats made in other ways, including threats in leaflets. It also includes spiritual pressure. This protects voters of any faith from having undue spiritual pressure placed on them in relation to how they should vote.

Family voting

So-called ‘family voting’ is where a voter is accompanied into or close to a polling booth by another person who influences the voter into voting in a particular way.

Family voting is a type of undue influence, but it was made a specific offence by the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023.

It does not apply to companions who are assisting a disabled voter. Disabled voters can bring a companion to assist them to vote.