All posts by

Democracy and the Labour Party, Labour structures and programme, Momentum

Don’t be a fan club

William Sarsfield of Labour Party Marxists calls for a serious fight to transform Labour

The dramatic events in Momentum over the past few months have revealed the crassly undemocratic ethos that informs the approach of Jon Lansman – effectively the ‘owner’ of the organisation. Predictably, the right’s victory in the Februaryopinion poll-turned-plebiscite, used to justify the imposition of a bureaucratic constitution, has prompted a wave of demoralisation, falling numbers at Momentum meetings and a growing atmosphere of denunciations and restrictions on debate directed against “the enemy”, as the Momentum left is now being dubbed by some – with the blessing of the national centre, it seems.

This anti-democratic farce has been well documented in the pages of this paper, plus in the bulletins and general commentary of Labour Party Marxists. The question now is: what does the left do about this? How do we fight back?

The omens do not look good, if we are to judge from the agenda and discussion papers produced for the dissident gathering of the Momentum left in London on March 11 – convened as the “Momentum Grassroots networking conference”. The comrades organising this national meeting appear utterly clueless about what to do next in relation to Momentum and – like the ‘official’ Momentum – the work that needs to be undertaken in the Labour Party itself. So the organisers (the previous conference arrangements committee, plus the old steering committee majority before both committees were abolished by Lansman) have issued a document “as a starting point” for the discussion on what the Grassroots of Momentum is and what it should fight for.

Sensibly, it recognises it would be wrong to “split from Momentum”, but equally it would be a mistake to “waste unnecessary energy fighting a battle that can’t be won”, given the Lansman clique’s stranglehold over the apparatus and the backing he enjoys from the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott. There is also a nod in the direction of the tasks of “democratising and transforming the labour movement” and “fighting … unjust suspensions/expulsions/exclusions” from the Labour Party.

However, the meat of the campaigning work that this draft sets out for Grassroots is the standard left fare of:

  •  Fighting austerity.
  •  Defending the NHS – “including supporting national demos” and “Labour days of action, local campaigns and industrial action by health unions to smash the pay cap”.
  •  “Defending migrants’ rights”.
  •  Supporting “workers in struggle”, joining picket lines, etc.
  •  Supporting the popularisation of Corbyn’s “10 pledges”.
  •  Mass council house building and renovation.

In other words, precisely the sort of activities that the local units of the Labour Party itself should be (and often are) involved in. What exactly would be the point of the small Grassroots campaign if it tried to substitute itself for the campaigning life of a mass party?

Ironically, the same sort of surrogate impulse hangs around the Lansman organisation. After all, the Grassroots founding document cited above makes clear that the campaigning work it commits to encompasses “all previous campaigns” agreed to by the official organisation, including the ones listed above.

In this context, there is an interesting Guardian article by Momentum/‘The World Transformed’ organiser Deborah Hermanns that notes that Momentum branches around the country have been “making an effort to build community” in areas devastated by cuts. She cites film screenings in “halls and community centres”, donating the proceeds to local food banks and homeless shelters, etc. Far more needs doing, she concedes – “social spaces, cinema clubs, food banks and sports centres … providing the space and security people need to build their own, unique political and cultural identities”.

But it is on a “limited scale” due to the “shoestring” budgets local Momentum organisations are able to deploy. The real point is the Labour Party itself, she correctly writes:

Corbyn’s Labour, with thousands of branches across the country, millions of pounds in its coffers and a membership of more than half a million, could flood key areas with resources, ideas and activists to support and get projects going that actually help out the community.1)The Guardian March 7

Quite right, and a vision this paper has championed for some time. But, for that to happen, Labour itself must be radically transformed – the parliamentary party subordinated to the mandate of the membership as part of a democratic revolution within Labour; the pro-capitalist right wing excluded; bans and proscriptions on working class political organisations overturned, etc. In short Labour must be transformed into a mass movement for socialism that unites the trade unions, co-ops, leftwing societies, socialist and communist groups and parties.

This is the key, defining task that Grassroots comrades should commit to. An uncritical ‘support Jez’ stance is worse than useless, because Corbyn’s game plan is useless. Unsettlingly, the right honourable Lord Daniel Finkelstein, Tory peer and associate editor of The Times, appears to have a more realistic grasp of what is required than Grassroots, the official Lansman organisation or the Labour leadership team itself:

His only hope must be as a subversive challenger, relentlessly organising to take over the party and talking about his efforts to do so. He should come out with huge, earth-shaking, radical leftwing policies and not care that Yvette Cooper and I both think that they are bonkers … He should organise to deselect critics and win selection contests for his people.2)The Times February 28

This internal battle for the heart and soul of the Labour Party is the key link to grasp in this period. As Corbyn supporter Matthew Turner notes in a March 6 posting on TheIndependent website, “an authoritative and relentless streak” needs to be developed and “the democratic right of CLPs to reselect and deselect their parliamentary candidates” is crucial “to ensure that young, up-and-coming, ‘fire in the belly’ leftwingers replace those who are actively seeking to undermine the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.”

The shared weakness of the Turner and Finkelstein commentaries is that both make this change reliant on a change of heart on the part of Corbyn himself as an individual politician. In fact, the real starting point for the left of the party is to organise on the basis of a bold, principled and strategically clear perspective … and to refashion the Labour Party from top to bottom on that basis. That is what Momentum Grassroots needs to discuss and vote on.

References

References
↑1 The Guardian March 7
↑2 The Times February 28
Momentum

Momentum elections: Putting the case for real socialism

The recent elections in Momentum allowed us to test our strength and present our arguments, writes Stan Keable

At a stroke Jon Lansman’s January 10 coup scuppered any remaining hope in Momentum’s fragile, emerging democracy. This after an email vote by six members of a defunct, out-of-time steering committee, without discussion or the opportunity of amendment. He imposed instead a nightmare of a constitution, which can only be rejected by members, against the will of the national coordinating group (NCG), if 30% of the entire membership vote to reject it (rule 9.5(ii)). As for the NCG itself, only 12 of its 28 seats are elected by the membership.

The coup was ‘legitimised’ by the results – announced the same day – of a ‘survey’ of members, in which 80.6% expressed a preference for decision-making by ‘one member, one vote’. Clicks were also 72.29% in favour of the well-crafted proposition that “all members should have a say in electing their representatives”. With a 40.35% turnout for the survey, that meant 32.5% and 29.2% respectively of the membership answered the ‘right way’ for what were loaded, but seemingly innocuous, questions. However, this was treated by Lansman as a green light to impose his hugely complex constitution without further consultation. National committee abolished, regional committees abolished, conference arrangement committee abolished, left groups and individuals blocked – job done.

What the coup has achieved is not the end of ‘factionalism’, but the entrenchment of Lansman’s dominant faction. Democracy has been snuffed out, the danger of the left exerting an influence by winning delegates averted and Momentum set on a path that will probably end in extinction. In place of what might have been a weapon in the hands of the Labour left, what now remains is little more than a Jeremy Corbyn fan club.

And, of course, Momentum’s database, money and the hiring and firing of staff remain safely in private hands. The main task of Momentum and the left should be democratising and transforming Labour into a party of the working class for socialism – but fear overcame hope. A democratic Momentum was bound to be seen as a threat by the Labour right. A bureaucratic Momentum is a threat to no-one.

Nevertheless Momentum’s pinched NCG elections enable us to measure the strength of the various political tendencies and organised factions. Participating did not legitimise the imposed constitution, as some ‘Don’t stand, don’t vote’ oppositionists claimed, any more than participating in parliamentary elections legitimises the United Kingdom’s constitutional monarchy – with its queen, lords, established church and standing army. For Marxists, participation in elections (with exceptions) is obligatory, for propaganda purposes. We should not miss the opportunity to present our political programme for the liberation of the working class from wage-slavery, and for the ending of all oppressions, through the achievement of world socialism.
National Coordinating Group

As I write, on February 22, Momentum’s website, intriguingly, still displays the following message: “The Momentum national coordinating group elections closed on Friday February 17 at 12 noon. Results will be announced soon.”1)https://vote.peoplesmomentum.com Why the delay? Surely this cannot be an oversight on the part of Team Momentum. What spin, one wonders, is being cooked up behind the scenes?

Perhaps there is embarrassment, perhaps a difficulty in presenting a partial victory (despite all the advantages of controlling Momentum’s money, database and paid staff) for the ruling Jon Lansman faction, in a mere 33.75% turnout, as an overwhelming endorsement of his January 10 coup, constitution and digital pseudo-democracy.

The results were announced privately, however, in a Momentum HQ email to candidates on the evening the ballot closed. “Temporary Momentum organiser” Beth Foster-Ogg wrote to me that “unfortunately you were not successful in this election”. However, I received a respectable 458 votes on an explicitly Marxist platform.2)https://vote.peoplesmomentum.com/candidates/se She gave a link to the full results.

Surely in need of a truth drug, Beth added that “A huge 34% of Momentum members voted in the election.” But 34% is not “huge”, and one should refrain from writing such guff, even if they pay you. The word “huge” was deleted from Beth’s next email, announcing the results to all members, sent less than an hour later. But also missing is any apology for the dishonest spin, and any acknowledgement or assessment of the “huge” 66% who did not vote – who were not inspired to get involved by the much vaunted inclusivity of the so-called “new politics” of online voting. After all, in terms of Lansman’s imposed Omov constitution, a 34% turnout, and the result itself, are both disappointing.

The rightwing (in Momentum terms) Lansman faction was undoubtedly better prepared and better organised than the anti-coup, anti-constitution left. On February 2, Lansman’s Left Futures blog announced its four-person slates for each of the three regional divisions. The opposition candidates, on the other hand, with varying degrees of criticism of the imposed constitution and the high-handed way it was imposed, divided their votes amongst 30 competing candidates, reflecting the political disunity of the left, as well as its disorganisation.

Nevertheless, despite their advantages, the Lansmanites were unable to sweep the board, losing three of the 12 seats to their critics. These defeats were limited because of the ‘first past the post’ system prescribed by the new, illegitimate constitution (illegitimate because it has never been put to a vote). Labour Party democracy is already in advance of Momentum’s in this respect, requiring transferable votes in its internal elections.

The ballot results circulated show that Momentum membership (“total eligible voters”) had reached 22,398 before the ballot opened, of whom only 7,559 voted. Unfortunately, the number of voters in each region is not given – perhaps that will appear on the website one day soon. The votes for each candidate is stated and, adding them up, we find the total votes cast is 29,000, of which only 12,429 – well under half – went to the Lansmanite slates. A total of 16,571 votes were cast for non-Lansmanite candidates, most of whom were variously critical of the coup and constitution. Under a transferable vote system, the outcome would have been much worse for Lansman. Truly, as socialist candidate Andrew Thompson rightly blogged, “the emperor has no clothes”.

In one of the three regions, the North and Scotland, oppositionists failed to present an identifiable slate. Out of 11 candidates, all four of the Lansmanites were elected, with a total of 4,260 votes, the other seven gaining 4,495. Two were backed by the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty: Camila Bassi (834) and Alan Runswick (705).

In the Midlands, Wales, East and West region there was a fudged oppositionist slate. Out of 18 candidates, the four Lansmanites gained only 3,519 votes, against a total of 6,334 votes for non-Lansmanite candidates. Three of the oppositionists tried to form a bloc with Andy Thompson (413 votes), but Andy asked members to vote for Rida Vaquas. Andy’s address had the best politics – “working class socialist principles”, “struggle for a socialist transformation of society”, “delegate democracy” and a sovereign national conference.

Perhaps that peculiar combination of factors partly explains why AWL-backed candidate Rida Vaquas topped the poll with 973 votes, knocking out Lansmanite candidate Sam Poulson (765). Rida’s forthright election address sharply criticised Lansman’s coup, promising to “fight for Momentum to be led by the grassroots membership and not by a clique at the top with no accountability whatsoever”. Momentum’s structures, she said, must be decided by members, “not by six people in a room in an email vote in less than an hour.”

No AWL candidate mentions that toxic organisation by name, nor its pro-Zionist, social-imperialist politics, nor its feeding into the fake anti-Semitism smear campaign in the Labour Party, nor its betrayal of Jackie Walker when she was under concerted Zionist attack. No surprise. The Momentum left is generally divided 50-50 on the issue of Zionism and the anti-Semitism smear campaign.

Four of the Lansman critics in the South East region presented a well organised slate (not including me) campaigning under the title, “Democracy and Socialism, for a Grassroots Momentum”, and two of them got elected: Yannis Gourtsoyannis (1,350) came second only to Lansman’s top candidate, Christine Shawcroft (1,382), while AWL-backed Sahaya James (1,018) knocked out Lansmanite David Braniff-Herbert (1,031) despite his slightly higher vote, because two of the four regional seats must be held by women. Christine Shawcroft’s Lansmanite slate, with its fake “Building the Grassroots” title, gained a total of 4,650 votes.

While the oppositionist slate gained 3,557, the total oppositionist vote was 5,742, beating the Lansmanite vote, as in all three regions. A more democratic transferable vote system would have produced an all-round defeat for Lansman – but he would still own Momentum, and would no doubt have changed the rules yet again.

References

History, Labour structures and programme

‘Progressive alliance’ adds up to defeat

Bad opinion polls have encouraged retrogressive thinking, argues James Marshall

Dismissing the Jeremy Corbyn leadership as less important than the latest ephemeral street protest, or urging comrades to stay aloof from the battle raging in the Labour Party, is the worst kind of sectarianism. Unfortunately, we have seen that from too many on the left: eg, Socialist Party in England and Wales, Socialist Workers Party, the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain and Left Unity.

On the other hand, adopting an uncritical approach to Corbyn, refusing to condemn the ‘anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism’ smear campaign, attempts to appease the Labour right, abandonment of one principle after another – that is the road to disaster; a road foisted on Momentum with Jon Lansman’s cynical, anti-democratic coup (with the active connivance of Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott and Clive Lewis).

Frankly, the Labourite left has no viable strategy for socialism. Even the thought of it has become vanishingly small. Just like the Labourite right, the Labourite left is committed to a Labour government for the sake of a Labour government. ‘The worst Labour government is better than any Tory government’ runs their mutual slogan. In other words, managing capitalism, though it may entail vicious attacks on the working class, is preferable to resisting capitalism and organising the working class for the struggle for socialism.

On the contrary, as Kier Hardie famously said in 1910, we need Labour MPs, “not to keep governments in office or to turn them out, but to organise the working class into a great, independent political power to fight for the coming of socialism”.1)Independent Labour Party 1910 annual conference report, p59 That should be our motto; that should be our strategic objective. Hardie, note, was clearly influenced here by the likes of Karl Kautsky, August Bebel, Vladimir Lenin and the Second International majority. True, organising the working class into a political party committed to socialism, enlightening millions with the theory of Marxism, coordinating our actions internationally – means that the immediate prospect of a Labour government recedes. However, that is the only sure way to achieve working class rule and the global transition to communism.

Labour’s (eminently predictable) bad poll ratings under Corbyn’s leadership have catapulted disorientated leftwingers – eg, Paul Mason and Owen Jones – far to the right. Any kind of majority Labour government appears impossibly remote – especially with boundary changes, the continued UK Independence Party threat in the north of England, the near Scottish National Party monopoly in Scotland and the bulk of Labour MPs still in open conflict with Corbyn.

Polls can be wrong: eg, David Cameron’s May 2015 general election victory, the Brexit vote and Donald Trump. Nevertheless, the Tories are so far ahead, the margin is so wide, that, barring some unforeseen accident, we are surely heading for a Labour defeat of 1931 proportions. The most recent ICM poll for The Guardian shows the Tories extending their lead to 18 points (the Tories being on 44% and Labour on 26%).2)The Guardian February 20 2017

Corbyn’s lame response was to say that the Labour Party was “better” at getting its message across online and blaming the media for the poor ratings. As if the Labour Party can rely on the capitalist press, radio and TV. Obviously, Labour cannot get anywhere just through tweeting. It needs a full-spectrum alternative media.

Indeed Marxists – genuine Marxists, that is – are committed to a root-and-branch transformation of the Labour Party. Instead of the ‘next Labour government’, the priority must be a sovereign conference, a meaningful clause four, commitment to a programme of international socialism, automatic reselection of MPs, the subordination of MPs to the national executive committee, MPs on an average worker’s wage, the closure of the compliance unit, rooting CLPs in workplaces and communities, new trade union affiliates, ending the bans and transforming the Labour Party into a united front open to all socialist organisations.

It is not only the wretched Paul Mason and Owen Jones who have undergone a full-scale political collapse. Comrades in Socialist Resistance and the Labour Representation Committee are in effect advocating the slogan, ‘Any government is better than a Tory government’. Naturally, this is done under the banner of ending the ‘age of austerity’. Hence the siren call for “forming a government through a progressive alliance with other parties”: ie, a Labour-Green-SNP-Plaid Cymru alliance.3)Socialist Resistance October 15 2016 Writing in the Labour Representation Committee’s monthly journal, John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, echoes this council of despair. He says we must “start the work” of building the “progressive alliance”.4)Labour Briefing November 2016 Some even want to give an invite to the Liberal Democrats. The LRC’s Peter Bowing too calls for a “progressive coalition” and in that spirit urges Labour to “lead the Liberal Democrats, Greens and SNP in opposing Brexit”.5)Labour Briefing February 2017

A clear case of political regression. A return to Millerandism, Menshevism or the popular fronts of ‘official communism’. And, be warned, in the oft quoted words of George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.
Millerandism

In 1899 the French socialist, Alexandre Millerand, agreed to become a minister in Pierre Waldeck-Rousseau’s coalition government of ‘republican defence’ – this was at the height of the Dreyfus affair. Millerand took his cabinet seat alongside general Alexandre de Gallifet, the butcher of the 1871 Paris Commune. Inevitably, this provoked widespread indignation, both in France itself and internationally.

Yet the advance of the baying Catholic, royalist and military right was stopped and Millerand steered through a wide range of reforms, including the reduction in the maximum working day from 11 to 10 hours, the introduction of an eight-hour working day for postal employees, the prescribing of maximum hours and minimum wages for all work undertaken by public authorities, the establishment of arbitration tribunals and inspectors of labour.

Millerandism became the subject of heated debate at the congress of the Socialist International held in Paris over September 23-27 1900. Previously any participation in a coalition government with bourgeois parties had been regarded as a gross violation of elementary principle. Millerand was, of course, part of a growing trend, which included Peter Struve in Russia, Eduard Bernstein in Germany and Sidney Webb in Britain. This revisionist opportunism erupted into outright social chauvinism in August 1914.

In an attempt to smooth over divisions, Kautsky tabled a rotten, though successful, compromise motion. Class collaboration was roundly condemned … but there was a get-out clause: “Whether in a particular case, the political situation necessitates this dangerous experiment [of joining a coalition government with bourgeois parties – JM] is a question of tactics and not principle.”

Lenin sarcastically dismissed the resolution as being made from “caoutchouc” – that is to say, India rubber: it could be stretched in any direction. Hence, outrageously, Millerand could claim to be a good socialist, differing with other good socialists only in terms of tactical considerations.

Understandably then, Millerandism continued to be a source of fierce controversy. At the 1903 (Dresden) Congress of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, Kautsky supported the resolution condemning revisionism and, implicitly, Millerandism. So, while in Paris Kautsky was “running with the hares”, at Dresden he was “again to the fore, now ‘barking with the hounds’” (Daniel De Leon, 1904).

With a minor amendment, the SDP’s Dresden resolution was agreed at the Socialist International’s 1904 congress in Amsterdam. It deserves the closest attention:

The congress repudiates to the fullest extent possible the efforts of the revisionists, which have for their object the modification of our tried and victorious policy based on the class war, and the substitution, for the conquest of political power by an unceasing attack on the bourgeoisie, of a policy of concession to the established order of society.

The consequence of such revisionist tactics would be to turn a party striving for the most speedy transformation possible of bourgeois society into socialist society – a party therefore revolutionary in the best sense of the word – into a party satisfied with the reform of bourgeois society.

For this reason the congress – convinced, in opposition to revisionist tendencies, that class antagonisms, far from diminishing, continually increase in bitterness – declares:

1. That the party rejects all responsibility of any sort under the political and economic conditions based on capitalist production, and therefore can in no wise countenance any measure tending to maintain in power the dominant class.

2. The Social Democracy can accept no participation in the government under bourgeois society, this decision being in accordance with the Kautsky resolution passed at the International Congress of Paris in 1900.

The congress further condemns every attempt to mask the ever growing class antagonisms, in order to bring about an understanding with the bourgeois parties.

The congress relies upon the socialist parliamentary group to use its power, increased by the number of its members and by the great accession of electors who support it, to persevere in its propaganda towards the final object of socialism, and, in conformity with our programme, to defend most resolutely the interests of the working class, the extension and consolidation of political liberties, in order to obtain equal rights for all; to carry on more vigorously than ever the fight against militarism, against the imperialist and colonial policy, against injustice, domination and exploitation of every kind, and finally to exert itself to the utmost to perfect social legislation and to enable the working class to fulfil its political and civilising mission.6)www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1900s/1904/no-1-september-1904/international-socialist-congress-1904

The positive reference to the 1900 resolution was an obvious attempt to correct Kautsky without criticising Kautsky. Not a good omen.
Popular fronts

The popular fronts of ‘official communism’ are in essence a continuation of Millerandism. In the name of combating fascism, fighting for peace, uniting against Thatcherism, ending austerity, etc, etc, the parties of the working class are urged to seek a ‘broad democratic alliance’ with the ‘progressive’ parties of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie.

The result? The bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties set the limits of the political agenda and the parties of the working class are driven to the right … to the point of being prepared to suppress the working class. Of course, this leads, not to opening up the road to socialism, but to demoralisation and defeat. Why vote for those who refuse to support you against employers? Why vote for those who want to keep the capitalist state intact? No wonder Trotsky branded the popular fronts as a “strike-breaking conspiracy”.

This is what we saw in practice with popular front governments from Spain and France in the 1930s to Chile in the early 1970s. The socialist working class was constantly held back by the need to keep allies on board. Then it was betrayed. Mass strikes were sabotaged, manifestations of dual power wound down, militias disarmed.

The most disappointing thing about today’s calls for a “progressive alliance” is the sheer philistinism involved. In early 20th-century Russia, the idea of stages made a certain kind of sense. Eg, first an anti-tsarist revolution that unites all democratic forces; then, after a considerable historical delay, when capitalist economic development had finally created a working class majority, socialism comes onto the agenda. Such was the Menshevik reasoning. Though their strategy appeared to have a degree of logic, it assumed a Russia in isolation from the socialist revolution in Europe. Hence in 1917 the Mensheviks wanted state power not in the hands of the soviets, but a bourgeois-dominated provisional government, a “progressive alliance”, which would, by its very nature, continue Russia’s war against Germany.

In 2017 this caricature of Marxism has degenerated into a caricature of itself. Things are reduced to simple arithmetic – that is, addition: Labour, plus the SNP, plus Plaid, plus the Greens add up to a voter base that might beat the Tories in 2020. Such is the sum of their wisdom. However, arithmetic alone cannot suffice. At the very least we need to apply mechanics. Political parties move according to different trajectories, rely on different class forces and possess different social weights. Eg, Labour needs to rewin its traditional base in the central belt of Scotland, meanwhile the SNP is committed to a second referendum and Scottish independence. Hence either the Labour Party fights the SNP and its nationalist programme or, in the name of the ‘progressive alliance’, Labour dilutes its criticisms and reconciles itself to the loss of its MPs in Scotland and the permanent disunity of the British working class.

We do not oppose marching on protest demonstrations alongside members of the SNP, Plaid, the Greens, etc. Nor do we oppose rebuilding trade unions alongside members of the SNP, Plaid, the Greens, etc. Cooperation around single-issue campaigns and workplace terms and conditions can only be beneficial. But, obviously, a ‘progressive alliance’ based on the hope of forming a coalition government that manages capitalism stands in flat contradiction to the strategy of organising the working class into a “great, independent political power to fight for the coming of socialism”.

References

References
↑1 Independent Labour Party 1910 annual conference report, p59
↑2 The Guardian February 20 2017
↑3 Socialist Resistance October 15 2016
↑4 Labour Briefing November 2016
↑5 Labour Briefing February 2017
↑6 www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1900s/1904/no-1-september-1904/international-socialist-congress-1904
Democracy and the Labour Party, Momentum

Guide for new Labour Party members

The task of transforming the party into a real weapon for the working class remains crucial. All members should get actively involved in this struggle. However, this is easier said than done. The Labour Party is still dominated by a bureaucratic middle layer that interprets the rules and procedures as it sees fit. It does not help that the Labour Party rulebook is almost a hundred pages long and written in pure Bureaucratese. The guide is an attempt to explain the party’s most important rules and structures in plain language. We take full responsibility for any inaccuracies or mistakes, of course.  

(Please note that this was last updated in early 2018 – changes introduced since then are not reflected in the booklet. We are currently working on an updated version).

Click here to download in PDF format.

Momentum

Momentum internal elections – LPM recommendations

We are supporting candidates standing for the National Coordinating Group (NCG) who openly condemn the coup in Momentum and who promote taking the fight for democracy and socialism into the Labour Party. However, we do not (knowingly) support candidates of the Alliance of Workers’ Liberty, as we believe that they have played an utterly disgraceful role in the entirely fabricated ant-Semitism scandal in the Labour Party and Momentum. They have supported Jon Lansman’s demotion of Jackie Walker as vice-chair of Momentum, for example – thereby paving the way for his latest coup.

LPM recommends a vote for these candidates:

South East
Stan Keable (LPM secretary) and Jamie Green

Midlands, Wales, East and West
Liz Yeats, Andy Thompson, Rida Vaquas and Phil Pope

North and Scotland
Gary Wareing and Alan Runswick

Momentum

Fight back in Momentum – but for what?

The left in Momentum is organising a ‘networking conference’ on March 11

Nineteen national committee members and 25 observers attended the meeting of the officially disbanded Momentum leadership on January 28 – which is not bad, considering that everybody there was basically sticking two fingers up to Momentum founder Jon Lansman. His long-expected coup on January 10 did away with all democratic decision-making structures in Momentum, including of course, the national committee.

The organisers had received a few apologies, so the meeting was supported by about half of all NC members – there had been around 60 members in attendance at its last meeting on December 3 (which included people sent from affiliated organisations approved by Lansman, as well as ‘representatives’ elected online via ‘one member, one vote’ to hastily created positions). The December 3 meeting, of course, was the trigger for the Lansman coup: despite his best efforts to stuff it with allies, he was outvoted on all major issues – crucially, the NC decided to organise Momentum’s first ever conference on a delegate basis.

Lansman knew that such a democratic conference would have insisted on ending his own one-man rule. Local groups were preparing motions to democratise Momentum and no doubt there would have been a couple seeking to take control of the company set up by Lansman that owns the database and all the income. Plus, we could probably have expected a number of motions critical of Jeremy Corbyn’s current political trajectory.

So Lansman simply pulled the plug. No conference, no potential embarrassment and certainly no coherent challenge to his dictatorial rule over the organisation. Needless to say, the ‘How we win’ event he was planning instead would have been a mere rally, without motions. It did not break anybody’s heart when it was cancelled ‘because of the by-elections’. Of course, there is always an important by-election somewhere, so we are doubtful if this particular gathering will ever see the light of day.

Around 40 branches have so far adopted statements and motions opposing the coup and the imposition of the new, anti-democratic constitution, with only seven supporting it. Apparently, there are over 150 Momentum branches, but it is doubtful if a majority of these are active. The tone of criticism in their statements varies, as can be expected, with some branches declaring that they would not recognise the new constitution, while others merely regretting the way it was imposed.

This was reflected on January 28. Most comrades agreed that there is nothing that can be done about the constitution. It cannot be changed, though there are some question marks over exactly how some bits will be imposed – and when. The rules on barring non-Labour Party members from Momentum, for example, seem to have been written so that they can be used if and when required (for example, in order to keep Jill Mountford of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty out of high office). New Momentum company owner Christine Shawcroft has meanwhile assured members that “there will be no expulsions”. We shall see.

No split

About a quarter of the participants at the NC meeting argued (sometimes more coherently, sometimes less) that the committee should continue to organise the conference cancelled by Lansman. In reality of course, this would amount to a split. Among them were anti-Zionist campaigner Tony Greenstein (who accused the “old left” of offering “nothing but a council of despair”), Delia Mattis from the London region of Momentum, a comrade from Red Flag and a few others. Apparently, “local groups can function just fine” without the national organisation, according to one comrade. It is true, of course, that no membership dues find their way back to branches, there have been no real national campaigns and most definitely no support from centre. (In the run-up to the coup, Lansman initiated some quick changes, designed to make team Momentum look awfully busy, with varying levels of success.)

But it has become clear in the last couple of weeks that there is no widespread appetite for such a split. And it has to be said that the January 28 participants in favour of that option did not really present a viable way forward: split and then … do what, exactly? And with whom? As these comrades did not propose a motion and were calling for different things at different times, their arguments basically ran into the sand.

The majority – amongst both NC members and observers – were against a split, however. It was most strongly opposed by the handful of AWL members and supporters in the room. Their motion was slightly less combative than another motion presented by Alan Runswick, delegate from the North West region (when it still existed), though both were eventually passed.

The AWL motion, for example, argued that the call for a “national networking conference” is “not the ‘founding conference’ that was planned for February and which was cancelled by the coup and, while it may establish some connections or forum structures, it is not to set up a rival organisation to Momentum”.

And, while Alan too argued for a “national meeting of local groups”, he proposed in his motion that the NC should “agree to support the conference planned by the conference arrangements committee” – ie, the conference that was cancelled by the coup.

But, thanks to some pretty impressive chairing by Matt Wrack (leader of the Fire Brigades Union), the AWL motion was taken and agreed first, which basically took the sting out of this or that formulation of Alan’s motion. For example, while discussing the AWL-inspired motion, the meeting decided – instead of electing a new steering committee, as planned – to set up a “coordinating group” to consist of the remaining members of the officially abolished steering and conference arrangements committees, plus representatives to be coopted from unrepresented regions. So, by the time we got to Alan’s motion, the conference “planned by the conference arrangements committee” had turned from the one abolished by Jon Lansman into the new (and clearly different) networking gathering agreed for March 11.

As an aside, both motions are equally deluded in one respect: both call for branches to elect and send delegates to the March gathering. Yes, 40 branches have issued motions and statements critical of the coup. But it is another matter altogether for a branch to elect and send official representatives to what will undoubtedly be presented by the right within Momentum as a ‘rival’, ‘illegitimate’ conference. Both motions seriously overestimate how many branches would be prepared to go that far. For example, Leeds, York, Manchester and Sheffield have a strong rightwing and would probably not send delegates. March 11 could end up a very small meeting indeed if the organisers do not rethink this and allow pro-democracy minorities in hostile branches to attend in an official capacity (and not just as observers).

A suggestion by the Red Flag comrade to add a clause to call for a boycott of the NCG elections was defeated with only her vote in favour. Quite a few NC members had actually argued in favour of such a boycott (among them Jackie Walker, Suzanne Gannon and Nick Wrack), but they also recognised that “some good comrades here have decided to stand” and they did not want to exclude them. Stan Keable of Labour Party Marxists was actually the only candidate present at the meeting (as an observer), though the AWL has also fielded a few candidates.

Wishful thinking

The final clause in the AWL motion was going a bit far for most comrades and was deleted: “We call on the structures created by the coup to recognise the elected national committee of Momentum and to enable the two parallel structures to come together”. That seemed like pointless wishful thinking. However, it was replaced with a no less pointless suggestion that we should send “a deputation” to meet Jon Lansman under the auspices of John McDonnell.

This suggestion had come about after an observer reported that he had run into the shadow chancellor; McDonnell had told him that he was “not happy” about the coup and that in his opinion Jon Lansman and Matt Wrack should get together to talk things through. And, yes, he would be glad to have this message passed on to others in Momentum. Let us ignore the fact that McDonnell did not contact comrade Wrack about this suggestion or that a similar meeting had already taken place after the unofficial November 5 NC meeting rejected Lansman’s previous coup attempt. Another comrade suggested in the pub afterwards that Corbyn was being “held hostage” by Jon Lansman, who had threatened to walk off with the 200,000 contacts in his database if Corbyn did not let him do with Momentum as he pleases. This seems rather hard to believe. Momentum has suffered from a lack of democracy from day one. While the precise details of the organisational structure might not have been planned out very well by Corbyn and Lansman, it is clearly not in the interest of the Labour leader to have an organisation, which is associated so closely with him, that has the potential to embarrass him – be it with the call for mandatory reselection of MPs, the fight for the free movement of people or campaigning against weapons of mass destruction in the form of Trident.

The Lansman coup was clearly designed to demobilise and depoliticise Momentum members. It is part and parcel of Corbyn’s seriously flawed strategy of appeasing the right in the Labour Party. It is no coincidence that Lansman abolished Momentum democracy on the same day as Jeremy Corbyn gave (a version of) his infamous Peterborough speech. Don’t rock the boat. Keep Tom Watson and the right as sweet as possible for as long as possible.

This makes it all the more important that the Labour left does not give up this important fight to take on the right and, crucially, transform the Labour Party. This fight is not about Corbyn, Angela Rayner, Clive Lewis or whoever else might next lead the Labour Party – it is the fight to make the Labour Party into a real party of the whole class.

While there was nodding all round when Labour Party Marxists supporters argued for such a political orientation at the NC meeting, the AWL seemed to want to push the organisation towards “campaigning”. It proposed the setting up of “working groups” on the NHS, migrants rights and “expulsions/suspensions”. In our view, these suggestions range from the pointless (why would we campaign separately on the NHS, when the Labour Party and Momentum are already organising their own NHS ‘days of action’?) to the downright cynical: the AWL has, of course, already set up its own campaign, Stop the Labour Purge, and indeed it suggested in its written submission to NC members that we should “encourage local groups to host a speaker from Stop the Labour Purge”.

There was little appetite at the NC for these suggestions and they ended up falling off the agenda. Let us hope they will not be resurrected for March 11.