- News
- governments-cabinets
- Families of David Amess and Jo Cox voice concern at rise in violent political rhetoric
Families of David Amess and Jo Cox voice concern at rise in violent political rhetoric
The families of the murdered MPs David Amess and Jo Cox have voiced profound concern about a recent surge in violent political rhetoric in Britain, framing the fatal attack on a synagogue in Manchester and the targeting of Muslims as part of a disturbing continuum where violent antisemitism and Islamophobia are now paralleled by an increasing normalisation of language calling for political figures to be killed. This isn't merely a shift in tone; it is the erosion of a fundamental civic boundary, a line that, once crossed, makes violence not just thinkable but actionable, a lesson written in the blood of their loved ones.The suspension of a Reform UK councillor linked to a social media account calling for Keir Starmer to be shot, and the arrest of a man allegedly captured on film at a major far-right rally in London threatening to kill the prime minister, are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a coarsening political ecosystem where dehumanisation becomes a precursor to physical harm. At that same rally, Elon Musk’s comments that 'violence is coming'—later condemned by Downing Street—functioned not as a prediction but as a permission slip, amplifying a narrative from the fringes into the mainstream and leveraging a platform of immense influence to validate the very impulses that lead to tragedy.For the families of Amess and Cox, who have endured the ultimate consequence of such rhetoric, this moment is a visceral wake-up call, a chilling echo of the environments that preceded the murders of their family members, where targeted abuse and threats escalated into irreversible acts. The personal impact on leaders and their families is often the forgotten dimension in these debates; the constant security assessments, the fear in children's eyes, the transformation of public service into a fortified existence—these are the human costs of a political discourse poisoned by the fantasy of violent resolution.Historically, we have seen this pattern before, where the demonisation of political opponents, the framing of policy disagreements as existential battles against evil, creates a fertile ground for individuals to take matters into their own hands, believing they are acting as patriots. The assassination of Jo Cox in 2016, a brutal act motivated by extremist ideology, and the killing of Sir David Amess in 2021, an attack on the very principle of accessible representation, should have been watershed moments that permanently recalibrated the boundaries of acceptable political speech.Yet here we are, with rhetoric that once would have been confined to the darkest corners of the internet now being uttered at public rallies and echoed by influential figures. Expert commentary from sociologists who study political violence consistently points to a three-stage process: first, the creation of a pervasive 'us vs.them' narrative; second, the dehumanisation of the 'them' through repeated violent imagery and language; and third, the activation of a lone actor or group who believes they are justified in moving from word to action. We are now navigating the precarious space between the second and third stages, a period where the signal of consequence is dangerously muted.The possible consequences are not abstract; they are the further isolation of dedicated public servants, a withdrawal from the open, constituent-facing politics that is the bedrock of British democracy, and ultimately, another funeral. The analytical insight here is that this is not a partisan issue but a democratic one; while the current examples may skew toward the far-right targeting a Labour prime minister, the logic of violent rhetoric is a contagion that can infect any part of the political spectrum, left or right, and its ultimate victim is the shared project of civil society itself.To address this requires more than condemnation; it demands a collective, cross-party recommitment to the dignity of political disagreement, a conscious effort by media platforms to de-amplify incendiary speech, and a public that holds its leaders—both political and technological—to account for the words they unleash into the world. The voices of the Amess and Cox families are a powerful, painful reminder that the price of failure is one we have already paid, and cannot afford to pay again.
JA
Jamie Wilson123k2 days ago
wow this is genuinely terrifying tbh, feels like we learned nothing from what happened to Jo Cox
0