Heather Williams has fitted her home with cameras and panic alarms after repeated abuse, threats of rape and a death threat. Her experience is no longer exceptional: a new Local Government Association survey finds that 78% of councillors feel at risk in their roles, while 52% believe intimidation has worsened over the past year.
The findings expose the growing human cost of political office. They also raise uncomfortable questions about who feels able to stand for election, who remains in post, and whether the people elected to serve communities still reflect the diversity of the country they represent.
Security has become part of the job
Williams, a Conservative district councillor in South Cambridgeshire, was first elected nine years ago. She expected the work to be demanding, but not to be shouted at in the street, receive threats of sexual violence or find dog faeces left on her doorstep.
At one point, she did not leave her home alone for more than three months. Her daughter has also had to adopt security routines, while Williams has installed additional cameras, panic alarms and a phone-tracking application that can be activated if she needs help.
“It is very intimidating. I’ve had people threatening to rape me in my sleep, a man once threatened to shoot me,” said Williams, now opposition group leader on the council. “You do question whether you’re doing the right thing, what impact it is having on your family. Even my daughter has security protocols now.”
Her case illustrates how abuse can extend far beyond the workplace. It reaches into the home, disrupts family life and forces councillors to weigh personal safety against public service. For some, that calculation may decide whether they return to politics at all.
A survey reveals the scale of the problem
The LGA’s annual Debate Not Hate survey involved more than 1,500 councillors across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. More than half said abuse and intimidation had increased in the previous 12 months.
Thirty-five per cent reported making changes to their homes to improve security. Measures included CCTV, alarms, electric gates, sealed or removed letterboxes, reinforced doors and locks, personal rape alarms and “Beware of the dog” signs. Some respondents acquired a dog, while others relocated altogether.
Seventy-eight per cent said they felt personally at risk while carrying out their duties. That figure rose to 85% among women, ethnic minority, LGBTQ+ or disabled councillors. A quarter had received threats of violence, and 7% said they had been issued a death threat.
These are not abstract concerns about rudeness or strong opinions. Threats, surveillance and attacks on family members can make ordinary tasks, such as attending a meeting or going shopping, require careful planning. They also create a constant background pressure that elected officials may carry long after the official working day has ended.
Women and minority councillors face a heavier burden
The survey found that abuse is influencing electoral participation unevenly. Among women who were considering standing down, 38% said intimidation had affected their decision, compared with 23% of men.
Among councillors from ethnic minority backgrounds, 43% said abuse had influenced their decision not to stand again, compared with 28% of white respondents. The figure for LGBTQ+ councillors was 41%.
Hannah Dalton, a councillor and the LGA’s civility in public life ambassador, said the results showed that abuse was “a direct threat to the strength, diversity and health of our democracy”.
“We must never accept a situation where harassment and personal attacks are simply regarded as part of public service,” she said. “It is deeply alarming that most councillors believe the problem is getting worse. This toxic culture is not only affecting those currently in office, it is deterring talented and committed people from standing for election in the first place.”
The implications are therefore broader than the welfare of individual councillors. If people with particular experiences or identities are disproportionately deterred from seeking office, voters lose access to a wider range of perspectives and expertise. Political institutions become less representative, not simply because of electoral rules or party structures, but because public hostility makes participation unsafe.
Current protections fall short, the LGA says
Some safeguards have already changed. Councillors are no longer required to publish their home addresses on council websites, and every police force now has at least one force elected official adviser focused on the security needs of politicians.
Williams’s council role means she is subject to rules governing the publication of councillors’ details, but such administrative changes cannot remove the abuse she has faced. Nor can they prevent threats sent through digital channels, monitor the effect on a councillor’s family or reassure someone who has been targeted repeatedly.
The LGA argues that a more coordinated response is needed from government, police and social media companies. It is calling for “formal arrangements” to tackle the harassment of elected officials, suggesting that existing measures are fragmented and insufficient.
That request recognises that the problem cannot be solved by councillors buying stronger locks or police forces responding incident by incident. Threats may originate online, travel across jurisdictions and culminate in an attempt on someone’s life. Effective protection requires clear responsibilities, rapid reporting routes, consistent police action and stronger intervention from platforms where abuse spreads.
Why it Matters
Democracy depends on ordinary people being willing to take on public responsibilities without fearing for their safety. When 78% of councillors feel at risk, and the burden falls most heavily on women and councillors from underrepresented communities, the result is not only individual distress but a narrowing of political participation. Protecting elected officials is therefore not a favour to politicians; it is a necessary condition for ensuring that local and national decision-making remains open, accountable and genuinely representative.
