The short-lived moments of fleeting silence often become the most memorable part of Prime Minister’s Questions. And during the most recent hebdomadal affair, we witnessed one of these rare moments in action. The Prime Minister (an apt title, considering the event) announced that a Reform UK councilor had reshared a social media post beseeching another human being to die. The real kicker? The person caught in the crossfire of the post’s salvo was a fellow Lancashire MP.
The reform MP caught resharing the post
The Reform UK councillor, Simon Evans, shared a post targeted at Natalie Fleet, a Labour MP for Bolsover in Derbyshire. The post included a comment saying “you lazy cow… you should be shot.”
The Labour MP, who has spoken previously about being groomed and raped as a teenager, was falsely quoted as saying “I voted against the grooming gang enquiry”.
The deputy leader of Lancashire council quickly apologised and deleted the post. He claimed he didn’t notice the accompanying text when he made the career-altering decision to share it. (Specsavers, take note for your next advertisement brainstorming session.
When people online inspected the post more closely, it wasn’t long until Evans found himself in hot water.
He avowed that he “did not notice” the vile text accompanying the post, describing the matter as a “genuine mistake that we can all make from time to time, especially on social media.”
Evans’ very big mistake
His use of the word “mistake” here is quite bemusing. I would have thought “grave error” or “unforgivable foolishness” would be far more appropriate.
Of course, there are glaring ethical issues associated with sharing a tweet that publicly recommends the death of a political colleague. Additionally, on a more fundamental level, it violates a basic level of etiquette that even the most greasy-palmed, baiserly politician should feel mandated to respect. Even putting aside Reform UK’s tendency to opt for inexperienced MPs, this feels like something all new councilors should be forced to attend a mandatory training session on.
Forgive me for getting temporarily saddled down by etymological minutia. But I would normally be inclined to characterise a “mistake” as a small blunder. Perhaps a temporary lapse in judgment. Examples such as being a bit too heavy-handed with the semi-skinned in the morning, or accidentally ordering two, instead of one, Wonderskin lipstain from TikTok, naturally spring to mind.
Next to these examples, forwarding a death threat aimed at a fellow MP, in the context of a grooming gang inquiry, looks like quite an extreme leap. Still, if someone with as little vested interest as Nigel Farage can find it in his heart to overlook Evans’ velous misnomer, clearly we should all pretend it never happened and focus on disparaging the results of the Gordon and Denton Manchester by-election too.
Farage’s Response in the House of Commons
Starmer addressed the drama on Wednesday.
“I want to take this opportunity to condemn unequivocally the death threat made against the honourable member for Clacton.
“When death threats were made against the member for Clacton, I stood at this dispatch box and condemned them outright. If [Nigel Farage] has any decency or backbone, he will stand up, apologise, condemn the comments and sack the individual in his party. Will he do so?”
Besides the obvious virtue-signalling here, Starmer’s point remains valid. What Evans did was categorically wrong. It was wrong on every level, politically and personally. It was wrong in a way that transcends petty political feuds and extends beyond the doors of the plush, temperature-controlled House of Commons cozy interior.
And how did Farage respond to Starmer’s suggestion?
In a somewhat uncharacteristic move for the usually straight-shooting politician, Farage stood up, after being summoned by the Speaker, and spun the spotlight back on the Prime Minister.
He recounted the touching, if not inappropriately timed, life story of a Michel Mandarin. At the age of 14, he was forcibly removed from his home and dumped on a Mauritian quay. Farage ended his inopportune monologue by asking the Prime Minister why the opinions and human rights of indigenous Chagossians did not concern him, amidst the furious cries of “shame” and “coward” from the Labour crowds.
In a separate statement, Reform UK confirmed to the ECHO on Wednesday that the party had accepted Evans’ version of events.
A spokesperson said,
“After investigating the post, the party considers it an honest mistake and will not be taking any action. We accept Cllr Evans’ apology and version of events.”
But we shouldn’t be so quick to downplay as innocuous the seriousness of Evans’s action. Even if it was a “genuine mistake”.
How concerned should we be?
In an obvious sense, death threats are nothing new. They have existed since man was first alive, scribbling away his frustrations en papier, and will presumably continue to prevail for as long as there exists one human with enough hatred to commit to sending them, and another human unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end.
This truism is no less pertinent in the political lexicon. Politicians, for all their graces and gifts of prose, are not immortal. Anyone in need of further vindication might consider any one of a catalogue of historical examples – Martin Luther King Junior, JFK, Julius Ceaser. Charlie Kirk is another more recent addition to the list.
In 21st century England, there have been two notable MP assassinations. In 2021, a member of Boris Johnson’s ruling Conservative Party was stabbed to death during what was intended to be a routine constituency surgery. The trial revealed that the murderer had also planned attacks on other MPs, including the then-cabinet minister Michael Gove. Five years prior, a Labour politician was shot and stabbed in West Yorkshire. A particularly helpful Wikipedia death list compilation traces the line of political killings further back.
Why this death threat is particularly important
So why does the death threat sent to Natalie Fleet – which didn’t result in anyone losing their life (or even a loss on a job, thanks to the mercy of Farage) – matter so much? It matters because of the person who sent it.
To be clear, Evans didn’t make the post himself. It was created by another Facebook user. Evans still maintains he never noticed the comment about wanting to kill off Natalie Fleet. But he still decided to share it. And, in a way, this marks a new landmark for British politics.
The fact remains that Evans is, on a fair-headed assessment, a respectable MP. He represents a prominent political domain for his constituency. He occupies a position as Lancashire County Council’s Cabinet member for Children and Families. As far as local politicians go, this guy is legit by all standards.
What does this mean for the future of politics?
Evans isn’t some notorious terrorist or high-level extremist, intent on detonating any politician who makes the mistake of walking down his path. He is a regular councilor. And yet, he is still ultimately responsible for propagating the vile image to his band of merry men followers. Even if it was only on his page for a short period of time. The fact remains that he, a fully-recognised MP, played a causal part in sharing this image into the world.
Fleet’s response
Reacting to the post, Fleet shared: “Posts like this are so common I don’t bat an eyelid.
“But they remind me why my husband and kids begged me not to stand. I felt huge responsibility; [the] last [Labour government] helped me, I wanted to help others.
“But…we should be able to fight for our areas [without] death threats as standard.” She told the Guardian: “Whatever party, we should be able to fight for our areas without death threats as standard.”
Starmer echoed this attitude during PMQs when he proposed that: “Whatever our disagreements, we are all parliamentarians. And I won’t stand for violence or threats against our democracy.”
The fact that Evans was able to make a simple apology and return to his position is mind-blowing to me. I understand that, for most people, this isn’t the main story of the week. How could it be? It has been overshadowed (rightly so) by the results of the Gorton and Denton by-election and the Green Party’s seismic win.
Yet, I don’t think we can simply overlook Farage’s abject attempt to dismiss what was said as innocuous. This represents something dramatic in British politics. It shows that politicians can resort to new underhanded levels of volitivity, and get off unscathed.
