Kissing babies is a vital campaigning technique. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The 2015 election campaign officially begins: what does this mean?

The "long campaign" begins today.

Although anyone who's been watching British politics closely for the past six months would be forgiven for thinking it had already started, the general election campaign officially begins today. 

It is the beginning of what is called the "long campaign", which runs from today until Whitehall goes into "purdah" (when the government is restricted on its use of the civil service) and parliament dissolves for the official pre-election period on 30 March. That is when the "short campaign" begins. The election itself will be held on 7 May 2015.

As the long campaign begins, new rules apply:
 

 - Campaign spending in each constituency is strictly limited, and prospective parliamentary candidates have to keep a record of all their expenses to report to the Electoral Commission

 - The pre-candidacy spending limit is now £30,700 (this changes to £8,700 in the short campaign)

 - The spending limit per voter is 9p in county constituencies

 - The spending limit per voter is 6p per voter in borough constituencies

 - Candidates must now declare all donations of more than £50 they receive for spending on election campaigning

 

Limits on the expenditure of political parties began in May this year; those that stand candidates in all 650 constituencies are permitted a maximum spend of £19.5m – £30,000 per seat. This election campaign also marks the first time charities and other organisations that aren't political parties are restricted on what they spend on campaign spending.

The first time Britain has seen a fixed-term parliament of five years has meant the build-up to May 2015 has already felt like a particularly long campaign. The addition of a surprise number of by-elections has added to the feeling of a perpetual election campaign. Politicians and voters alike will most likely be relieved now the campaign begins in earnest – because it means we're closer to the end.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.

BBC screengrab
Show Hide image

Owen Smith is naïve if he thinks misogynist abuse in Labour started with Jeremy Corbyn

“We didn’t have this sort of abuse before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader.”

Owen Smith, the MP challenging Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership contest, has told BBC News that the party’s nastier side is a result of its leader.

He said:

“I think Jeremy should take a little more responsibility for what’s going on in the Labour party. After all, we didn’t have this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism in the Labour party before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader.

“It’s now become something that is being talked about on television, on radio, and in newspapers. And Angela is right, it has been effectively licenced within the last nine months.

“We’re the Labour party. We’ve got to be about fairness, and tolerance, and equality. It’s in our DNA. So for us to be reduced to this infighting is awful. Now, I understand why people feel passionately about the future of our party – I feel passionately about that. I feel we’re in danger of splitting and being destroyed.

“But we can’t tolerate it. And it isn’t good enough for Jeremy simply to say he has threats too. Well, I’ve had death threats, I’ve had threats too, but I’m telling him, it’s got to be stamped out. We’ve got to have zero tolerance of this in the Labour party.”

While Smith’s conclusion is correct, his analysis is worryingly wrong.

Whether it is out of incompetence or an unwillingness to see the extent of the situation, Corbyn has done very little to stamp out abuse in his party, which has thus been allowed to escalate. It is fair enough of Smith to criticise him for his failure to stem the flow and punish the perpetrators.

It is also reasonable to condemn Corbyn's inability to stop allies like Chancellor John McDonnell and Unite leader Len McCluskey using violent language (“lynch mob”, “fucking useless”, etc) about their opponents, which feeds into the aggressive atmosphere. Though, as I’ve written before, Labour politicians on all sides have a duty to watch their words.

But it’s when we see how Smith came to the point of urging Corbyn to take more responsibility that we should worry. Smith confidently argues that there wasn’t “this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism” in the party before Corbyn was voted in. (I assume when he says “this sort”, he means online, death threats, letters, and abuse at protests. The sort that has been high-profile recently).

This is naïve. Anyone involved in Labour politics – or anything close to it – for longer than Corbyn’s leadership could tell Smith that misogyny and antisemitism have been around for a pretty long time. Perhaps because Smith isn’t the prime target, he hasn’t been paying close enough attention. Sexism wasn’t just invented nine months ago, and we shouldn’t let the belief set in that it did – then it simply becomes a useful tool for Corbyn’s detractors to bash him with, rather than a longstanding, structural problem to solve.

Smith's lament that “it’s now become something that is being talked about” is also jarring. Isnt it a good thing that such abuse is now being called out so publicly, and closely scrutinised by the media?

In my eyes, this is a bit like the argument that Corbyn has lost Labour’s heartlands. No, he hasn’t. They have been slowly slipping away for years – and we all noticed when Labour took a beating in the last general election (way before Corbyn had anything to do with the Labour leadership). As with the abuse, Corbyn hasn’t done much to address this, and his inaction has therefore exacerbated it. But if we tell ourselves that it started with him, then we’re grasping for a very, very simple solution (remove Corbyn = automatic win in the North, and immediate erasure of misogyny and antisemitism) to a problem we have catastrophically failed to analyse.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.