Getty
Show Hide image

Momentum is under investigation – for spending 0.57 per cent of what the Brexit campaign did

The contrasting figures for both groups before the Electoral Commission reveal more about Momentum’s remarkable success than its potential breach of the rules.

Another day, another campaign appears to have fallen foul of the UK’s election spending rules. The Electoral Commission is investigating the left-wing membership network Momentum’s outgoings during the general election.

Momentum – which backs Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party – may have spent over the limits for a non-party campaigner. Such organisations are allowed to target spending for a particular party or candidate within a limit in each of the devolved nations (£31,980 in England, £3,540 in Scotland, £2,400 in Wales, and £1,080 in Northern Ireland, totalling £39,000).

To exceed this, they have to be authorised by said party. Momentum filed below the permitted spending limit for an unauthorised registered non-party campaign group: £38,743.

The Electoral Commission is investigating whether the group exceeded this limit, and submitted inaccurate returns.

Momentum has admitted administrative mistakes in a statement:

As I’ve written before, during the Tories’ election fraud scandal following the 2015 election (which also involved other parties), the spending rules are outdated. They enforce a rather meaningless divide between national and local campaigning during a general election, while failing to take into account micro-targeting on Facebook and other digital platforms.

So unknowingly breaking the rules is fairly common, and in the eyes of most parties points not to wrongdoing but to a system desperately in need of change. This is true of Momentum too, which does a lot of its most effective campaigning online.

It’s also important to note how few resources Momentum has. It only had a handful of paid staff over the election period – the majority were volunteers – and overall it spent £2,000 on Facebook advertising. The legal spending limit for Momentum in each constituency would have been £60, and going by its total expenditure filed to the Electoral Commission, it spent £59.60 in each seat.

Compare this to the figures for which the Electoral Commission is investigating Vote Leave (potentially exceeding a £7m spending limit), Arron Banks (£6m of loans to Leave.EU) and Leave.EU (£2.3m of donations to campaigners), and you learn more about Momentum’s remarkable success than its alleged errors.

NB. The 0.57 per cent in the headline assumes the official Leave campaign spent its declared £6,789,892 and Momentum spent its declared £38,743. Both groups are under investigation, so it may turn out that they went over their spending limits.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

South Africa’s new dawn: How Jacob Zuma’s misrule was ended

“We are going to look back at the past ten years and think of it as a lost decade.”

On the afternoon of 13 February, as South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma was recalled by his party, the African National Congress (ANC), a popular Johannesburg radio station began receiving calls about a peculiar incident.

A truck had lost its load along the M2 highway and people were scurrying to pick up what they believed to be tiny nuggets of unprocessed gold. The highway became congested as motorists pulled over to join the search. Even for a city that rose from the dust of a gold rush, this was a bizarre scene.

The first radio caller was giddy with excitement, as was the second. The third did what South Africans do best: he made light of an otherwise confusing and anxious day in the young nation’s history. “It’s manna from heaven,” the caller said. “Zuma’s just been recalled and already the roads are paved in gold.” Nine years into the president’s disastrous rule, South Africans had not lost their sense of humour – and were awaiting a new dawn. The police cleared the scene along the M2, no one proclaimed a worthy find and the nation returned to waiting for Zuma’s next move.

Technically, the president did not have to resign as head of state, despite the opposition of the ANC, the proud liberation movement turned ruling party that Zuma led for a decade until December 2017. Realistically, he had no options left.

With an overwhelming majority in parliament, the ANC was ready to table a motion of no confidence the next day. Defiant to the end, these final hours on the eve of Valentine’s Day were Zuma’s last stand.

They called him the “unstoppable tsunami” and with good reason. Zuma damaged South Africa and the ANC in ways only history will fully capture. He wrecked a country struggling to rebuild itself under the shadow of apartheid. Under his rule, the economy stagnated, unemployment rose, poverty grew, violent crime spiked and corruption became endemic.

“South Africa was headed in the wrong direction,” says Mmusi Maimane, leader of the Democratic Alliance, the official opposition, which governs in cities including Johannesburg and Cape Town. “We are going to look back at the past ten years and think of it as a lost decade,” the political analyst Stephen Grootes concludes.

Zuma lurched from one scandal to the next. He was acquitted of rape, avoided almost 800 corruption charges for over a decade and nearly crashed the economy by recklessly firing a respected finance minister. Taxpayers were misled over exorbitant upgrades to his private mansion (a swimming pool was defended as a fire-fighting feature) and his friendship with the controversial Gupta family placed him at the heart of what became known as “state capture”: the looting of state coffers through the corruption of senior government officials.

“State and independent institutions were repurposed for the enrichment and protection of Jacob Zuma,” says political commentator Justice Malala. “He went through the guts of the framework, pulled out the institutions he needed and systematically broke them down or took away their independence.”

The institutions ranged from the tax revenue service to the public broadcaster, from the police to the prosecuting authority, and from the intelligence services to crucial industries such as mining.

Although constitutionally barred from governing beyond 2019, Zuma was widely believed to have engineered a plan to hold on to power (and avoid prosecution) through his ex-wife, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, who was campaigning to take over from him. By December, when the ANC met to pick its next leader, who would go on to become the country’s president in 2019, a mood of despair and hopelessness had set in.

The race was close. In the end, 179 votes out of nearly 5,000 cast separated Dlamini-Zuma from her challenger, Cyril Ramaphosa, a former union leader and businessman who had campaigned on an anti-corruption and pro-growth platform.

Ramaphosa’s victory in mid-December was a turning point. It removed the prospect of Zuma’s continued rule, began an instant shift in political power and sparked a moment of renewed hope. Ramaphosa had his own controversies, but was viewed as largely incorruptible. He had risen through the trade unions, served the ANC and built his wealth in the private sector. 

Following Ramaphosa’s election, the extent of state capture emerged through superb investigative journalism.

Politically driven prosecutions fell away, a hugely unpopular nuclear energy deal with Russia was frozen and, as Zuma was being recalled, police cars arrived outside the home of the Gupta family.

And yet, the president refused to leave the Union Buildings quietly, prompting comparisons with Margaret Thatcher. “He was the worst possible combination of ignorance, selfishness and incompetence that could have been inflicted upon the long-suffering people of South Africa,” read an editorial in the Daily Maverick on 13 February. “Now, stripped to the bare essence of being Zuma, the final image emerges, one of the selfish man who cared only for himself.”

Journalist Richard Poplak concluded: “What is born in chaos dies in chaos.”

 Zuma’s departure allows for the rebuilding to begin. The role played by the media, civil society – which found its voice during the Zuma years – and the judiciary (particularly the constitutional court) is being recognised. New president Ramaphosa delivered an inspiring state of the nation address the day after being sworn in.

“You can survive bad leadership, but what you won’t survive is bad institutions,” Mmusi Maimane told me.

There are no delusions over the epic challenges ahead. Unemployment is at 27 per cent (and is much higher for young, black South Africans) and GDP growth is stranded at 1 per cent. However, there is optimism, too: the “lost decade” is over and the Rainbow Nation’s renewal has finally begun. 

This article first appeared in the 22 February 2018 issue of the New Statesman, Sunni vs Shia