Increasing the cost of female representation? The gendered effects of harassment, abuse and intimidation towards Parliamentary candidates in the UK

Figures & data

Figure 1. Distribution of outcome variable. Source: Own analysis based on Fieldhouse et al. (2017).

Figure 2. Harassment during UK electoral campaign. Source: Collignon and Rüdig 2020; Representative Audit of Britain 2017, 2019.

Table 1. Coeffects and standard errors from log-linear and binary regressions.

Variables	(1)	(2)
	Log vote share	Harassment
Harassment	0.51**
	(0.05)
Female	0.16**	0.49**
	(0.05)	(0.12)
Left /Right	0.06**	−0.01
	(0.01)	(0.03)
Inc MP	1.02**	0.17
	(0.09)	(0.34)
Age	−0.00	−0.02**
	(0.00)	(0.00)
LGBT+	−0.11	0.08
	(0.08)	(0.18)
BME	−0.10	0.32
	(0.07)	(0.18)
Party	−0.26**	0.03
	(0.01)	(0.03)
Disability	−0.23**	−0.11
	(0.08)	(0.20)
Safe seat	0.58**	−1.40**
	(0.10)	(0.36)
Vote share		0.05**
		(0.01)
Constant	2.56**	0.50
	(0.11)	(0.28)
Observations	1061	1061
R-squared	0.57

Standard errors in parentheses ** p<0.01, * p<0.05.

Source: Representative Audit of Britain 2019.

Figure 3. Coefficients and standard errors (in parentheses) of GSEM model. Source: Representative Audit of Britain 2019.

Table 2. Coefficients and t-statistics of GSEM model explaining vote share.

	Direct effects		Indirect effects
	Vote share	Harassment	Avoid canvassing	Avoid social media	Avoid rallies
Harassment			0.524**	0.875**	0.792**
			(2.95)	(5.65)	(3.58)
Female	0.115**	0.552**	0.563**	0.625**	0.312
	(2.60)	(3.68)	(3.32)	(4.17)	(1.54)
Left / Right	0.0317**	0.0461
	(3.13)	(1.34)
Inc MP	0.659***	1.051**
	(4.88)	(3.28)
Age	−0.00223	−0.0220**
	(−1.29)	(−3.94)
LGTB+	−0.0729	0.00878
	(−0.71)	(0.04)
BAME	0.0538	0.330
	(0.78)	(1.55)
Party	−0.162**	−0.0780**
	(−12.66)	(−2.62)
Disability	−0.0770	−0.208
	(−0.56)	(−0.89)
Safe seat	0.401**	−0.439
	(3.23)	(−1.25)
Avoid soc med	0.0450
	(0.90)
Avoid rallies	0.111
	(1.87)
Avoid canvassing	−0.201**
	(−3.28)
Constant	3.181**	1.343**	−1.909**	−1.562**	−2.395**
	(30.17)	(4.18)	(−12.65)	(−11.80)	(−12.70)
N	1061

t statistics in parentheses * p<0.05 ** p<0.01.

Table A1. Descriptive statistics (unweighted).

Variable	Obs	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
Vote share	1061	15.44	16.78	.19	80.77
Declared harassment	1061	.47	.5	0	1
Real harassment	1061	.57	.5	0	1
Avoid rally	1061	.13	.33	0	1
Avoid canvassing	1061	.19	.4	0	1
Avoid socmed	1061	.3	.46	0	1
Female	1061	.33	.47	0	1
Left / Right	1061	3.76	2.09	0	10
Inc MP	1061	.09	.28	0	1
Age	1061	49.34	13.13	18	82
LGTB+	1061	.12	.33	0	1
BAME	1061	.11	.31	0	1
Disability	1061	.1	.3	0	1
Safe seat	1061	.07	.25	0	1
Feelings of safety	1061	3.05	2.7	0	10

Table A2. Response rate by party.

	N	Response rate (%)
Conservative Party	144	23
Green Party	241	49
Labour Party	244	39
Liberal Democrat	280	46
Plaid Cymru	17	47
Scottish National Party (SNP)	21	36
The Brexit Party	65	15
UK Independence Party (UKIP)	12	31
Other/Independent	137	31

Table A3. Types of harassment during 2019 GE campaign (weighted).

Type of harassment		No (%)	Yes (% at least once)
Physically **	Male	94	6
	Female	97	3
	Total	95	5
Threatened***	Male	84	16
	Female	77	23
	Total	82	18
Approached***	Male	78	22
	Female	68	32
	Total	75	25
Followed **	Male	93	7
	Female	89	11
	Total	91	9
Loitered *	Male	95	5
	Female	92	8
	Total	94	5
Property	Male	94	6
	Female	95	5
	Total	94	6
Emails ***	Male	69	31
	Female	58	42
	Total	65	35
Social Media***	Male	60	40
	Female	46	54
	Total	56	44
Letters ***	Male	85	15
	Female	82	18
	Total	85	15
Phone ***	Male	91	9
	Female	87	13
	Total	90	10
Sexually harassed ***	Male	99	1
	Female	95	5
	Total	98	2
Sexually assaulted	Male	99	1
	Female	99	1
	Total	99	1

* p<0.1 ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01.

Table A4. Proportion of candidate that modified their behaviour as a result of harassment.

As a result of harassment have you …		No(%)	Yes(%)
Avoided canvassing	Male	83	17
	Female	73	27
Avoided social media	Male	76	24
	Female	59	41
Avoided rallies	Male	88	12
	Female	79	21

In all cases the χ² show significant differences by sex with p≤0.05.

Fieldhouse, E., J. Green., G. Evans., H. Schmitt, C. van der Eijk, J. Mellon, and C. Prosser 2017. British Election Study 2019 Constituency Results File, version 1.0.

 Google Scholar

Collignon, S., and W. Rüdig. 2020. “Lessons on the Harassment and Intimidation of Parliamentary Candidates in the United Kingdom.” The Political Quarterly 91 (2): 422–429.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar