Tag Archives: Lansman

Anti-Semitism, Democracy and the Labour Party, The left

NCC ‘left’ slate farce ends in another Jon Lansman surrender

The manoeuvres over joint candidates for Labour’s disciplinary committee exposes the political vacuity of the existing left groupings, says Carla Roberts.

If any more proof was needed that the organised Labour left is in deep trouble, the last week has surely provided it.

Since its foundation in 1995, the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance has operated as an underground club, to which only a few lucky reps of approved groups are invited. This thoroughly undemocratic and unaccountable lash-up has always taken it upon itself to ‘recommend’ various candidates for Labour Party internal elections – consistently guided by its original assumption of the necessity of reaching out to ‘honest’ moderates.

For many years, the CLGA stuck to its mantra that the only way to defeat the Blairite right was through an alliance with centrist candidates, and rejected any moves to present an openly leftwing platform. This hopeless perspective explains how Ann Black could remain on the CLGA ticket for so long, despite being very much on the centre-right of the party.

Despite its name, the CLGA’s two main current constituent parts – Momentum and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD) – are, of course, both on the left of the party. But they have now fallen out quite spectacularly over which six candidates to support for the newly-expanded national constitutional committee (NCC). This is a crucial body in the Labour Party. It deals with all disciplinary matters that the national executive committee feels it cannot resolve and – given that it is dominated by the right – the referral of a left-winger to the NCC usually results in expulsion from the party. Incredibly, even after its expansion from 11 to 25, only a minority are to be chosen by rank and file Labour members. The rest are appointed by affiliates, which explains why in the last few crucial years, the NCC could be so (badly) chaired by Maggie Cousins, a delegate from the rightwing GMB union.

After three meetings, the CLGA talks deadlocked on October 10, apparently because Momentum (aka Jon Lansman) refused to support Stephen Marks, a member of Jewish Voice for Labour, which has been included in the CLGA negotiations for the first time. Lansman tried to veto Marks, allegedly arguing that “‘the Jewish community’ will not tolerate a JVL representative”.

So, on the morning of October 11, the CLPD simply put out its own slate of candidates, which included Stephen Marks. The slate was also supported by JVL and the “Labour Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament”. (The whole CLGA project has the definite whiff of ‘Potemkin Village’ about it. Jon Lansman, for example, is representing two organisations – Momentum and his own blog, Left Futures, which is so crucial to the labour movement that its latest entry is dated February 5). After a lengthy discussion, the Labour Representation Committee also decided to support the slate, despite the fact that the only candidate they put forward, LRC treasurer Alison McCarty, was rejected by both the CLPD and Momentum.

Momentum published its slate later the same day. And indeed, it did not feature Marks (though there were three candidates who were also on the CLPD/JVL slate: Khalid Moyer, Cecile Wright and Annabelle Harley). Now Lansman let it be known that Momentum “had been prepared to back Stephen Marks”, but did not include him because of ”concerns about the geographical balance of the CLPD slate”. Or, in Lansman’s own unconvincing words: “Half of CLPD’s slate live in London or the south-east. So do three out of four of the existing CLP reps”, he tweeted . This transparent obfuscation over “concerns with the geographical balance” reminds us of his crass attempt to bullshit his way out of his ill-judged attempt to become Labour’s next general secretary. Remember, he claimed then that his only motivation in standing was to increase the gender balance – oddly enough, by standing against a woman, Jennie Formby!

What do they stand for?

Lansman opposes Marks for political reasons, of course – not geographical ones. Stephen Marks has written about how the problem of anti-Semitism in the party has been “exaggerated and weaponised by JC’s enemies”. Clearly that makes him, in Lansman’s view, the ‘wrong kind of Jew’. Which also reveals as utter bullshit Lansman’s claim that Marks could not represent “the Jewish community” (our emphasis). There is no uniform, politically homogeneous Jewish community – the simple fact of the existence of Jewish Voice for Labour proves that. There are pro-Zionist Jews and there are anti-Zionist Jews – and that is just for starters. Politically, in today’s toxic climate, you cannot get two more implacably opposed viewpoints in the party. We know which of the two viewpoints Lansman supports.

He has been on the wrong side of the Labour witch-hunt from the start: a soft Zionist who has argued for the party to adopt the full ‘working definition on anti-Semitism’ put out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance – including the full list of highly disputed “examples” that effectively bans criticism of the state of Israel. ’Zio’, the diminutive form of ‘Zionist’, should be banned as ‘insulting’, according to him. And don’t forget, Lansman – alongside Margaret Hodge (that charmer who branded Jeremy Corbyn a “fucking racist and anti-Semite”) – recently attended a conference organised by the Jewish Labour Movement. Readers will not need reminding that this outfit supports and aligns itself with the Israeli Labor Party: that is, the foul organisation that orchestrated the nakba (the forced expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians in 1948) and which presided over the colonialist conquest of the Golan Heights and the West Bank in 1967. Momentum’s constitution – enforced by Lansman after his coup – bans from Momentum membership anybody expelled from the Labour Party. It internalises the witch-hunt, in other words.

The farce continued when a candidate on the CLPD slate withdrew: “We understand that Kaneez Akhtar has been put under pressure to withdraw,” the CLPD’s statement read. “We are seeking further info and if true will ask another BAME woman candidate to put her name forward.”

Put under pressure by whom, exactly? We are not told. But apparently, it had something to do with the fact that Jabram Hussain, a candidate on the Momentum slate, is the brother of Bradford East Labour MP Imran Hussain and that Kaneez Akhtar is a Labour councillor for Bradford City. We can only guess at the power games being played out here. She was replaced by Sonia Klein, who, like Annabelle Harle, is a member of Welsh Grassroots Alliance (we can only guess how Jon Lansman must have suffered under this geographical and gender imbalance).

Of course, the whole Labour left went berserk over there being two rival leftwing slates. But, after a week, ‘harmony’ was again restored on the morning of October 17. Momentum released a press statement: “Following our call to reopen negotiations, we’re happy to announce a joint list of candidates backed by Momentum and CLPD.” Clearly, they did not even bother inviting any of the other organisations who are officially part of the CLGA. The agreed candidates are Cecile Wright, Khaled Moyeed, Annabelle Harle, Susan Press, Gary Heather – and, wait for it, Stephen Marks.

So, the new “negotiations” basically led to Momentum collapsing and accepting Stephen Marks after all. In turn, the CLPD now supports Susan Press (a councillor and Lansman loyalist, who had been put forward by Momentum for all sorts of other positions in the past). Sonia Klein and Michael Menear, another loyal Lansman supporter and member of Momentum’s national coordinating group (NCG), have been dumped. Not that they matter, to be quite frank. The real disagreement was always over Stephen Marks.

Apart from Marks, who has written on the question, we have to guess what these candidates think about the witch-hunt in the party, the necessary reforms of Labour’s disciplinary process or the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. The CLPD and Momentum give us some short information about the colour of their skin and where they live – but no politics at all.

It does not bode well that both Momentum and the CLPD have been very quiet on the witch-hunt against Corbyn and his supporters. When Willsman was accused of anti-Semitism (see below), he incredibly chose to publish an apology and referred himself for equalities training … when clearly the witch-hunters deserved a two-fingered reply. Both Willsman and Lansman support Cecile Wright for the NCC – it was she who smoothly and swiftly replaced Jackie Walker as Momentum’s vice-chair when she was first suspended from the Labour Party on false charges of anti-Semitism. Can we really rely on her to speak up for other members who are similarly falsely accused?

Kaneez Akhtar, the CLPD candidate from Bradford who eventually withdrew, said in an interview: “I fully support the IHRA definition on anti-Semitism and was indeed proud that Bradford council adopted this definition.” The acceptance of the IHRA by the NEC has already led to an increase in suspensions and investigations, as it dramatically widens the definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism (calling Israel a “racist endeavour”, for example). How on earth did she end up on a ‘left’ slate?

Labour Against the Witchhunt seems to be the only organisation that has asked the candidates some pertinent political questions. That is a much better approach, in our view. But, for the time being, we have to guess about the politics of the other candidates. We fear that – apart from Stephen Marks – no other candidate can be relied upon to challenge the false narrative that the Labour Party is awash with anti-Semites. That is a truly worrying state of affairs.

Lansman humiliated

The joint CLPD/Momentum slate represents without a doubt a new political humiliation for Jon Lansman. Pretty much all leftwing organisations had backed the CLPD slate, while Lansman’s was supported by Momentum – and nobody else. Funnily enough, even Lansman’s former NEC ally, Christine Shawcroft, came out for the CLPD: “The only result of supporting the Momentum ‘slate’ for the NCC will be getting rightwingers onto the NCC,” she wrote on Facebook. Did we mention she is a director of Momentum Campaign (Services) Ltd?

Most local Momentum groups who said anything on the matter also fell in behind the CLPD slate. We hear of a number of frustrated Momentum members setting up ‘secret’ WhatsApp and Facebook groups to start organising around Momentum nationally. An online petition of “active members of Momentum” who are “increasingly concerned about the lack of democracy in Momentum” is spreading like wildfire.

No doubt, Momentum is in deep trouble. Yes, Lansman still owns the data of tens of thousands of Corbyn supporters. But politically, he has managed to make one huge mistake after another, shedding support and members in the process. It all started with his coup of January 10 2017, when he simply abolished all democratic structures in Momentum, imposing his own constitution on the organisation.

But dumping Pete Willsman from the slate for the NEC elections earlier this year was the real turning point for many. Willsman, long-term secretary of the CLPD, was a victim of the witch-hunt directed against Corbyn and his supporters. His comments, recorded at a closed NEC meeting and leaked to the press (by whom, we wonder?), forcefully called into question the ‘anti-Semitism problem’ in the party. While someMomentum members followed Lansman’s toxic advice not to vote for Willsman, he was nevertheless re-elected to the NEC (albeit with a smaller share of the vote than the rest of the CLGA slate).

This was followed by Lansman’s collapse over the question of mandatory reselection at this year’s Labour conference. Despite the fact that over 90% of delegates wanted to discuss the issue (and presumably vote in favour of it), Lansman urged Momentum supporters to vote against. Few people followed his advice and, in the next vote, 75% of delegates continued to support open selection.

Clearly, Momentum enjoys less and less political authority amongst the Labour left. Some people seem to think that it can be reformed: the petition quoted above, for example, demands that “minutes from all past meetings” are published, “calls on the NCG to oppose individual opinions that are not in line with Momentum members” and “calls on the NCG to be accountable and contactable, and carry out a review of the structure and democracy of Momentum with widespread input from members”.

Obviously, none of these rather naive demands would change how Momentum is run. There are probably some more radical ideas being discussed right now. But this monstrosity of an organisation cannot be reformed. The constitution imposed by Lansman makes sure of that. Both organisationally and politically, it is deeply flawed. Yes, it has played a relatively useful role in getting Corbyn re-elected and has organised some useful training for local party members. But it plays no real role in educating, politicising or even just organising its 30,000 or so members. They are treated as mere voting fodder.

Flawed method

Lansman and Willsman are old comrades – and it shows. They are both presiding in pretty unaccountable fashion over their respective organisations. In March this year, they first came to blows over which candidates to support in the elections to the NEC. Lansman refused to continue backing Ann Black. Quite right, in our view – and long overdue. But Pete Willsman insisted on giving her support – he had worked well together with her on the NEC, despite some political differences. He even, undemocratically, overruled his own executive committee’s decision to drop her from the CLGA slate. So Lansman simply leaked his nine candidates to the press – minus Ann Black, of course (at this point the list still included Pete Willsman).

For decades, Willsman and Lansman worked together in the CLPD: both feature in a very entertaining BBC drama, which shows how the CLPD successfully fought for mandatory reselection in the Labour Party back in 1980. Funnily enough, as soon as Jeremy Corbyn was elected Labour leader, both gave up the fight for this important leftwing principle: CLPD dropped it; Momentum never adopted it. In this, they were following Corbyn’s lead. Unfortunately, he still attempts to appease the right, in the vain hope that this will keep the centre on board and thus eventually neutralise the right.

This is tactically inept, of course. The majority of Labour MPs have been plotting against Corbyn from day one, if not before. Should he become prime minister – which is far from certain, even if Labour wins the next general election – he would be held hostage by the Parliamentary Labour Party. In all likelihood the right would try one manoeuvre after another to get rid of him. By refusing to back mandatory reselection (aka open selection) at conference, which would have allowed the membership to rid the PLP of the anti-Corbyn right, Momentum and the CLPD (as well as Corbyn himself) seriously undermined the leader’s position.

This is very much in line with the old political method of the Labour left: getting the Labour Party into 10 Downing Street trumps everything. Open criticism of the party’s flawed programme or the Labour leader are taboo, as they could harm electoral prospects. Political differences are treated as a huge problem, to be kept under wraps. Socialist politics are hidden, because they could be perceived as unpopular.

This latest farce ought to spell the end of the CLGA. Its politics and methods belong to the scrapheap of history. We fear, though, that even if it was killed off, it would probably be replicated under another name – reborn as an organisation with the same flawed political method. After all, programmaticallythere is very little that distinguishes Momentum and those Labour left organisations that supported the CLPD slate. Neither organisation involved in these abortive subterranean negotiations have seen the need for transparency on any of the political differences involved, let alone the views of the candidates they support.

Clearly, there is a huge space for a principled organisation of the Labour left that criticallysupports Jeremy Corbyn, fights against the witch-hunt and campaigns openly for socialism and the thorough democratisation of the party and the left itself. Reporting openly and honestly about what is going on must be an integral part of the culture of such a new organisation.

Democracy and the Labour Party, The left

Two alternative left slates for NCC elections

The Centre-left Grassroots Alliance (CLGA) seems to have finally imploded over which candidates to select for the newly expanded National Constitutional Committee. The winking out of existence of this shady organisation is long overdue. 

[this article has been updated on the evening of October 11]

Since its foundation in 1995, the CLGA has operated as an underground club, to which only a few lucky reps of carefully screened groups are invited. This thoroughly undemocratic and unaccountable lash-up takes it upon itself to ‘recommend’ various candidates for Labour Party internal elections – consistently guided by its assumption of the unelectability of the party’s left. (An especially perverse template to work to in the aftermath of Corbyn’s victory and the membership surges he inspired.)

For many years, the CLGA stuck to its mantra of giving support to centrist candidates and rejected any moves to either present a leftwing platform or support openly left individual candidates. It is this hopeless perspective that explains how Ann Black could remain on a ‘left ticket’ for so long, despite clearly being very much in the centre/right of the party. (More background here).

The two main current constituent parts of the CLGA – Momentum and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD) – have now fallen out quite spectacularly over which six candidates to support for the NCC. This is a crucial body in the Labour Party. It deals with all disciplinary matters that the National Executive Committee (NEC) feels it cannot resolve and – given that it is dominated by the right – a referral to the NCC usually results in an expulsion from the party.

The talks “deadlocked” on Wednesday October 10, apparently because Momentum (aka, Jon Lansman) refused to support Stephen Marks, a member of Jewish Voice for Labour (which has been newly included in the CLGA negotiations). Lansman argued that “‘the Jewish community’ will not tolerate a JVL representative”, as the Skwakbox reports.

So, on the morning of Thursday October 11, the CLPD put out its own slate of candidates, which includes Cecile Wright, who is also championed by Momentum. And, of course, Stephen Marks. The slate is also supported by JVL and the “Labour Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament”. Who? Have readers seen much evidence of the work on the LCND beavering away in the ranks? No, us neither.  The whole CLGA project has the definite whiff of ‘Potemkin Village’ about it (Jon Lansman for example is representing two organisations, Momentum and his own blog, Left Futures, which is so crucial to the labour movement that its latest entry is dated from February 5.) After a lengthy discussion, the Labour Representation Committee also decided to support the slate, despite the fact that the only candidate they put forward, LRC treasurer Alison McGarry, was rejected by both the CLPD and Momentum.

Momentum published its slate later on the same day. And indeed, it does not feature Marks [tough there are three candidates who also feature on the CLPD/JVL slate: Khaled Moyeed, Cecile Wright and Annabelle Harle]. Lansman let it be known that the organisation “had been prepared to back Stephen Marks”, but did not include him because of “concerns about the geographical balance of the CLPD slate“: “Half of CLPD’s slate live in London or the South East. So do 3 out of 4 of the existing CLP reps. I regret that CLPD launched their campaign today without agreement. Momentum will launch its more representative slate later today whilst continuing to seek to negotiate with CLPD”, Lansman tweeted during the day.

Utter bollocks, of course. He opposes Marks for political reasons – not geographical ones. Lansman has been on the wrong side of the Labour witchhunt from the start. He is a soft Zionist who has argued for the Labour Party to adopt the full ‘working definition on anti-Semitism’ put out by the Holocaust Remembrance Alliance – including the full list of highly disputed “examples” that effectively bans whole swathes of criticism of the state of Israel.  The diminutive “Zio” should be banned as ‘insulting’, according to him. And don’t forget, Lansman – alongside Margaret Hodge (that charmer who branded Jeremy Corbyn a “fucking racist and anti-Semite”) attended a conference organised by the Jewish Labour Movement. Readers will not need reminding that this outfit supports and aligns itself with the Israeli Labor Party: that is, the foul organisation that orchestrated the nakba (the forced expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians in 1948) and which presided over the colonialist conquest of the Golan Heights and the West Bank in 1967.

The simple fact of the existence of Jewish Voice for Labour proves that Lansman is wrong to claim that there is a uniform “Jewish community”. There are pro-Zionist Jews and there are anti-Zionist Jews, for a start. Politically, in today’s toxic climate, you can’t get two more implacably diverse viewpoints. We know which of the two viewpoints Lansman supports. His transparent obfuscation over “concerns with the geographical balance” reminds us of his crass attempts to bullshit his way out of his ill-judged attempt to become Labour’s next general secretary. Remember that he claimed then that his only motivation in standing was to increase the gender balance – oddly enough, by standing against a woman, Jennie Formby!

Chequered history

In truth, we are surprised that Momentum and CLPD still attempted to be in the same room together. After all, they also came to blows over which candidates to support in the elections to the National Executive Committee (NEC) in March this year.

Lansman, owner of the Momentum database, refused to continue backing Ann Black. Quite right, in our view – and long overdue. She supported the move to stop tens of thousands of pro-Corbyn members from voting in the second leadership election and, as chair of the NEC disciplinary panel, gave her backing to much of the witchhunt against the left – for instance, by voting for the suspension of Brighton and Hove CLP. Many have questioned, quite rightly, why the CLGA continued to back her.

But CLPD’s secretary, Pete Willsman, insisted giving her support – he had worked well together with her on the NEC, despite some political differences. He even overruled his own executive committee’s decision to drop her from the CLGA slate.

So Lansman simply leaked his nine candidates to the press (sans Ann Black, of course). Deal done. At this point, of course, the list still included Pete Willsman, who Lansman later dropped after ‘somebody’ had recorded the comrade at an NEC meeting and leaked the audio to the press. He was charged with ‘anti-Semitism’– for questioning the severity of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party! ‘Bizarre’ does not quite do it justice.

Lansman and Willsman are old comrades, of course – they worked for decades together in the CLPD: both feature in this very entertaining BBC drama, which shows how the CLPD successfully fought for mandatory reselection in the Labour Party back in 1980. Funnily enough, as soon as Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party, both gave up the fight for this important leftwing principle. In this, they were following Corbyn’s lead, unfortunately, who still attempts to appease the right, in the vain hope that this will keep the centre on board and thus neutralise the right.

This is tactically inept. The majority of Labour MPs have been plotting against Corbyn from day one, if not before. Should he become prime minister – which is far from certain, even if Labour wins the next general election – he would be held hostage by the Parliamentary Labour Party. In all likelihood the right would try one manoeuvre after another to get rid of him. By refusing to back mandatory reselection (aka open selection) at conference, which would have allowed the membership to rid the PLP of the anti-Corbyn right, Corbyn has seriously undermined his own position.

What now?

This latest episode must serve as serious wake-up call for the whole Labour left. As this year’s conference showed very vividly – especially the debacle over open selection – there is now a massive democratic deficit on the Labour left. A huge gap exists between the aspirations and the hopes of many members about what the Labour Party is and what it could achieve – and the attempts by the Labour leadership to steer the organisation into another direction altogether.

There is a huge space for a principled, leftwing organisation of the Labour left that critically supports Jeremy Corbyn, fights openly against the witchhunt and campaigns for the thorough democratisation of the party and the left itself. Reporting openly and honestly about what is going on must an integral part of the culture of such a new organisation and that is why we say that the politics and the methods of the CLGA belong on the scrap heap of history. Neither organisation involved in these aborted subterranean negotiations have seen the need for transparency on any of the political differences involved, let alone to criticise the methods employed. In emails to their members both JVL and CLPD do not even mention the fact that there has been a disagreement with Lansman.

This, comrades, is just not good enough.

Conference 2018

Constitutional amendments, Labour Party conference 2018

Please note that not all of these will end up before delegates – some will be composited, others superseded by the Party Democracy Review. Click here to read our political assessment.

1. Battersea, referencing Chapter 1, Clause VIII, Section 1.G, The National Executive Committee, BAME rep, page 5 in existing rule book

Remove all of sub clause 1.G and replace with:

One member who self-defines as Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic (BAME) who shall be elected in a national one member one vote (OMOV) ballot of all BAME members. No elected member of the House of Commons, European Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly shall be eligible to stand for this position.

Abstain

Our reason: Previously, the NEC BAME rep was elected by BAME Labour, which is a seriously rigged and undemocratic organisation (which is how Keith Vaz could get elected to the position as NEC representative). We would prefer to abolish this position altogether and instead increase the amount of NEC members elected by members in the branches and CLPs.

2. Tower Hamlets, referencing the same as 1.

Remove all of sub clause 1.G and replace with:

One member who self defines as Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic (BAME) who shall be elected in a national one member one vote (OMOV) ballot of all BAME members, plus one BAME member elected by trade union delegates to the BAME Labour Conference. No elected member of the House of Commons, European Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly or a member of the House of Lords shall be eligible to stand for this position.

Abstain

Our reason: See 1.

3. Aylesbury and Walton, referencing Chapter 1, Clause VIII, section 1 F, The National Executive Committee, Youth Rep

Remove all of sub clause 1.F and replace with:
One young member of the party who is at the close of nominations under 25 years old and who shall be elected in a national one member one vote (OMOV) ballot of all members of Young Labour as defined by Chapter 1.II.2.F, plus one young member who is at the close of nominations under 25 years old elected by trade union delegates to the Young Labour Conference.

Vote Against

Our reason:We prefer the NEC member to be elected at a democratic conference of Young Labour, as this allows members to question the different candidates and makes them accountable to said body. This should be viewed together with the rule change from Stockport, which seeks to democratise Young Labour and its conference. Note that this rule change also wants to reduce the maximum age of Young Labour members to 25 from currently 27.

4. Garston and Halewood, referencing Chapter 1, Clause VIII, section 1 F, The National Executive Committee – Youth Rep, Page 5

Remove all of sub clause 1 F and replace with:

One young member of the Labour Party who is at the close of nominations under 27 years old will be elected in a national one member one vote (OMOV) ballot of all members of Young Labour as defined by Chapter 1.II.2.F, plus one young member who is at the close of nominations under 27 years old elected by trades union delegates to the Young Labour Conference.

Vote Against

Our reason: see above.

5. Carmarthen East & Dinefwr, Ceredigion, Swansea East referencing Chapter 1, Clause VIII, Section 1 H and I, Scottish and Welsh reps on the NEC, page 5

Remove all of sub clauses 1.H and I and replace with:

  1. One member of the Scottish Labour Party elected by the Scottish Labour Conference
  2. One member of the Welsh Labour Party, elected by the Welsh Labour Conference.

Vote For

Our reason:Just before the NEC shifted in favour of the left, the right majority pushed through a rule change that created two more seats on the NEC. This allowed the leader of the Scottish and Welsh Labour Party to choose an NEC member, who had to be “a front bench member” of the Scottish Parliament/the Welsh Assembly. This rule change tries to hand this power to the delegates at conference.

6. Mid Worcestershire, Rugby, Truro and Falmouth, Bexhill and Battle referencing Chapter 2, Clause I, Section 4.B, Conditions of Membership, page 10

Remove: ‘joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party, or’

Vote For

Our reason: This rule had not been used for decades – until the election of a certain Jeremy Corbyn to leader of the Labour Party, that is. Since 2015 though, it has been liberally applied to “auto-exclude” dozens of supporters and alleged supporters of Socialist Appeal, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and Labour Party Marxists – many of whom had been active Labour Party members for many, many years. It was, for example, used to expel professor Moshé Machover after an article of his was published by Labour Party Marxists, which was handed out last year’s Labour Party conference (he has since been reinstated after an international outcry). It has also been used to auto-exclude people who have merely sharedarticles online published by the three organisations.

Members of Progress or Labour First – clearly very highly organised factions in the Labour Party – remain untouched. If applied consistently, the party would also have to expel supporters of the Stop the War Coalition or the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. But, of course, it has exclusivelybeen used against the organised left in the party. It is a McCarthyite anti-democratic rule that needs to go.

7. Broxtowe, referencing Chapter 2, Clause I, Section 4.B, Conditions ofMembership, page 10

Remove section B and replace with:
‘A member of the Party who joins and/ or supports a political organisation that is in conflict with the aims and principles of the Labour Party, or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member, subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.I.2 below of the disciplinary rules.’

Vote Against

Our reason:This adds a few words to the first sentence: “that is in conflict with the aims and principles of the Labour Party”. This might have been inspired/pushed by Momentum, where Jon Lansman has made clear his opposition to rule change 6. This proposal begs the question as to how on earth you prove that the aims of an organisation are not “in conflict” with those of the Labour Party. This formulation has been used, for example, to expel supporters of Socialist Appeal, because they self-define as Marxist. The CND clearly wants to abolish all nuclear weapons; Jeremy Corbyn wants to rearm Trident – incompatible, surely? The amendment clarifies nothing.

8. Tewkesbury, referencing Chapter 2, Clause III, section 6, Membership Subscription fees, Page 13

Replace existing section 6 with:

An NEC approved statement shall be produced setting out the basis on which membership fees shall be allocated, including from January 2017 a minimum cash allocation of 50% of each paid up member’s subscription and a guaranteed minimum package of support for all CLPs.

Vote For

Our reason:Currently, CLPs are allocated a ‘minimum’ of a measly £1.50 per member – per year! Clearly, an organisation that encourages local organisation and autonomy should allocate much more.

9. Copeland, referencing chapter 3, Clause I, Section B and C, Conference delegates, page 14

At the end of section B add:
Where there are an odd number of delegates appointed, or delegation sizes vary year on year, a CLP will be required to make 50% of their delegates female over a four year period. A CLP may only send a delegation which is composed of more than 50% males, if doing so would not take them outside this rule. If a CLP is unable to find sufficient female delegates to comply with this rule, they will not be allowed to make up their delegation with males but will forfeit places. In exceptional circumstances, where the CLP can demonstrate they have made every effort to seek sufficient female delegates, conference arrangements committee may agree to allow a single male delegate to attend in year five; in all other cases the period will be extended to future conferences until such time as the average is 50% female.

At the end of section C add:
CLPs will be expected to alternate between male and female youth delegates

Vote Against

Our reason: The rules already states that, “at least every second delegate from a CLP shall be a woman”. While we encourage the participation of women on all levels of the party, this rule effectively punishes the CLP if it cannot find any female volunteers. It seems to us that this is a pseudo-democratic, unnecessary addition that makes the rule book even more unwieldy than it already is.

10. Islington North and South Derbyshire, referencing chapter 3, Clause III, Section 1, Procedural Rules for Conference, Page 15

Add additional Sub clause at the end of Section 1:
The NEC draw up Standing Orders for Party Conference that will outline procedures for: the conference timetable, procedure in debate, motions, composite motions, emergency motions, withdrawal and remittance of motions, reference back, point of order, chair’s ruling, suspension of Standing Orders, voting, including full procedures for card votes, ending debate and the role of the CAC. These Standing Orders will be presented to the first session of each Party Conference in a CAC report for agreement by the conference.

Vote For

Our reason: This is sorely lacking at present, as anybody who has attended conference will confirm. While each morning delegates and visitors wade through the huge pile of papers, composited motions and votes cast the previous day, the CAC plays hard and fast with conference standing orders (many which are not written down anywhere). It has a huge amount of power. It can decide, for example, if there should be a ‘hand vote’ or a ‘card vote’.

The unions and other affiliates have around 300 delegates at conference, while the CLPs have about 1,200. But in a card vote the affiliates’ vote counts for 50% of the total vote; ditto the CLPs’ vote (which is then further divided according to how many members a CLP has). Roughly, a union delegate’s vote counts for four times as much as the vote of a CLP delegate – and that can make all the difference in a dispute.

At the 2016 conference, for example, a huge row broke out at conference over the NEC’s “reform package” that snuck in two additional NEC seats for the leaders of Welsh and Scottish Labour. Delegates were on their feet, shouting “card vote, card vote” – but the chair simply refused and declared that the hand vote had “clearly won”. In a card vote, the result would have gone the other way, as the unions were firmly against the addition of two rightwingers.

11. Blackley and Broughton, Burnley, Filton and Bradley Stoke, Newport West, referencing chapter 3, Clause III, Section 2, Constitutional Amendments, page 13

Add Additional Sub clause at the end of Section 2:

All constitutional amendments submitted by affiliated organisations and CLPs that are accepted as in order shall be timetabled for debate at the first annual party conference following their submission.

Vote For

Our reason: The practice currently employed is actually not part of the rule book. It delays debate of constitutional amendments to the following year. An utterly unnecessary block to the democratic will of Labour Party members. Apparently, this was also discussed as part of the Democracy Review, but rejected by Katy Clark.

12. Beckenham, Brighton Pavilion, Hereford, Leyton & Wanstead, Solihull, referencing chapter 3, Clause III, Section 2. C Contemporary Motions Page 16

Delete the word ‘contemporary’ in the first sentence
.
Delete ‘determine whether the motions meet these criteria and’ from the second sentence.
Delete ‘which is not substantially addressed by reports of the NEC or NPF to conference’, replace with ‘on a matter of policy, campaigning or party organization and finance’
Second sentence: delete ‘determine whether the motions meet the criteria and’
Delete the word ‘contemporary’ in the last sentence

Vote For

Our reason: This is another rule change ‘left over’ from last year – and it should have been implemented a long time ago.Currently, the Conference Arrangements Committee and the NEC rule out tons of contemporary motions, because they deal with a subject that is mentioned in the overlong documents produced by the National Policy Forum. We are strongly against this outsourcing of policy-making to an untransparent and unwieldy forum like the NPF. Conference must become the supreme body of the party. The NPF is nothing but a pseudo-democratic device – invented by Tony Blair, of course – and should be abolished.

13. Washington & Sunderland West and 19 other CLPs, referencing chapter 4, Clause II, Section 2, B.i Election of Leader and Deputy Leader Nominations, page 18

Delete part of first sentence:

‘by 15 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP’

Replace with

‘by nominations from: a) 15 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP; or b) 15 per cent of the affiliated national trade unions; or c) 15 per cent of Constituency Labour Parties’

Vote Against

Our reason: This still gives parliamentarians too much power. There is a better proposal coming up in the Party Democracy Review, so this rule change will hopefully be superseded: This envisagesthat all candidates would have “to secure the support of 10% of trade unions, MPs orparty members, plus 5% of each of the other groups”, as The Guardianreports the leak. Though Marxists actually favour doing away with any threshold altogether – it should be up to the members to decide.

14. Edmonton, referencing chapter 4, Clause II, Section 2, B.i Election of Leader and Deputy Leader Nominations, page 18

At the end of the sentence

‘15 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP’

Add 

‘and Constituency Labour Parties’

Vote Against

Our reason: see rule change 13

15. Wirral West, referencing Chapter 4, Clause II, Section 2. A, Election of Deputy Leader, page 18

Remove

‘Deputy Leader’ and replace with ‘2 Deputy Leaders’.

At the end of the sub clause add the sentence

‘At least one Deputy Leader must be a woman’

Abstain

Our reason:We have sympathy for this rule change, which is clearly designed to curb the power of Tom Watson. But we are in favour of doing away with the position of deputy leader altogether. Incidentally, we are also in favour of doing away with the position of leader, as there are serious issues of how members can effectively hold somebody in such a strong position to account.

16. Hornsey & Wood Green, referencing chapter 4, Clause II, Section 2. A, Election of Deputy Leader, Page 18

After sub clause 2. A add:

At all times subsequent to the 2020 General Election, or earlier if a vacancy arises, at least one of the two positions of leader and deputy leader will be occupied by a woman. If the position of Deputy Leader is held by a man, and a leadership election is required for any reason, Leader and Deputy leader nominations and elections will be held simultaneously.

The existing male deputy leader will only be eligible for re-election if the elected leader is a woman. He will be deemed to have resigned at the point of the declaration of the Leader election, unless the elected leader is a woman.

At the end of 2.B I add:

In the event of an election for deputy leader consequent on the requirement for at least one woman in the leadership, if at the close of the nomination period all candidates for Deputy Leader are male, nominations will be reopened with a threshold of 5% of the Commons members of the PLP. If after the close of such nomination period, there are no women nominations, nominations will reopen with self-nomination from members of the PLP. 

At the beginning of 2 C iii add:

Votes will be counted first for Leader. If a man is declared elected, the first preference votes for any man in the Deputy Leadership election will be disregarded.

The second preference votes of those male candidates will be redistributed immediately and considered in the first round of counting. If a woman is elected leader, all votes and candidates will be counted in the Deputy Leader election.

Vote Against

Our reason: see above – plus, this suggested rule change is unnecessarily complicated and long-winded.

17. Kingswood, referencing chapter 4, Clause II, Section C. vi, Voting-Registered Supporters, page 19

Remove the phrase ‘registered supporters’

Remove all other references to registered supporters in rule book.

Vote For

Our reason: This was referenced back last year in favour of the Party Democracy Review – as it is listed again, we presume this issue is not covered by the recommendations of the Review. We are against the Americanisation of politics and would argue for Labour Party members only to have a vote.

18. Canterbury,Leeds North West, Newark, Southampton Test, Stockton South, referencing chapter 4, Clause II, Section 4, Election of General Secretary, page 20

Delete section 4.A. and replace with

The General Secretary of the Party shall be elected in accordance with the provisions set out below for a term of up to 3 years, at the discretion of the NEC. The General Secretary shall be accountable to the NEC for the implementation of its decisions and the management of all Labour Party staff. The NEC shall have the power to terminate the employment of the General Secretary, provided that its decision is supported by an absolute majority of its members.

 The first election under these rules shall be initiated no more than one year and eight months after this rule is introduced when the General Secretary at that time shall be entitled to apply and, if s/he does so, shall be entitled to be included as a candidate in the ballot. Thereafter, no later than 2 years and eight months after the previous election of the general secretary, and in the event of a casual vacancy or a decision to give notice of the termination of the appointment of the current general secretary, the NEC shall initiate the process for electing a general secretary.

 In order to ensure a wide choice of applicants, all NEC members may choose up to 4 applicants for interview, at least two of whom shall be women, and the eight candidates with the most support shall be interviewed. Following the interviews, all NEC members may support two candidates, one of whom must be a woman, of whom the top four shall go forward to a national one member one vote (OMOV) ballot of all members of the party to be conducted in line with guidelines issued by the NEC.

 The candidate with the most votes in that ballot shall be declared elected General Secretary at the subsequent Party conference and shall be an ex-officio member of Party conference. S/he shall devote her or his whole time to the work of the Party and shall not be eligible to act as a parliamentary candidate. Should a vacancy in the office occur, for whatever reason, between Party conferences, the NEC shall have full power to fill the vacancy on a temporary basis pending the outcome of a new election. And the NEC shall make necessary consequential amendments.

Vote Against

Our reason: We have a lot of sympathy for this rule change, which has no doubt been inspired by the disastrous reign of Iain McNicol. He had to be bribed out of his job after undermining Jeremy Corbyn for two long years, during which he was responsible for facilitating the witch-hunt against thousands of Corbyn supporters, creating the hostile and fearful atmosphere we can still feel today.

Currently, the GS is elected at conference “at the recommendation of the NEC” and usually stays in the job until s/he dies or retires. We therefore welcome the fact that this rule change seeks to give the NEC the clear power to sack the GS, because that is clearly missing in the current rules. However, this also creates a certain democratic deficit: all party members can vote for the GS, but s/he could then be sacked by the NEC.

In our view, it would make more sense for the GS to be truly accountable to the NEC by being elected by this body too: it is, after all, the NEC that the GS is supposed to serve.

We also disagree with limiting the term to three years. If the person is doing a great job, why get rid of him or her? On the other hand, if s/he is terrible, s/he can be sacked straight away anyway. There is no point to this limit.

19.  New Forest East, referencing chapter 4, Clause II, Section 4, Election of General Secretary, page 20

See rule change 16, but this envisages “… a term of up to 5 years” instead of 3 years. 

Vote Against

Our reason: See above 18.

20. Swansea West, referencing chapter 4, Clause II, Section 8, Election of Leader and Deputy Leader of Welsh Labour Party, page 20

Remove sub clause 8.A and replace with

The Leader and Deputy Leader of Welsh Labour shall be elected by a one member one vote (OMOV) ballot of members in Wales conducted to procedures laid down by the Welsh Executive Committee.

Vote Against

Our reason: Again, we have a lot of sympathy with the motives behind this rule change: a truly undemocratic weighted electoral college, adopted only recently by the Welsh executive committee, has led to the election of Carolyn Harris MP, who is deeply unpopular among individual Labour Party members (but was favoured by the unions and elected representatives). But if there has to be a position of ‘leader’ – a position we think should be abolished – we would prefer this person to be elected by the (democratically chosen) Welsh/Scottish executive directly. After all, s/he is supposed to be accountable to and recallable by that body.

21. Dartford, referencing chapter 4, Clause III, Section A.i.d, Election of NEC – local governance, page 21

Replace first sentence with:

Division IV (local governance) shall consist of four members from either the Association of Labour Councillors (‘ALC’), directly elected mayors, or elected Police Commissioners, at least two of whom shall be women.

Vote Against

Our reason: This rule change clearly comes from the right. Instead of doubling the figure from two to four, these NEC positions should be abolished altogether.

22. Sefton Central, referencing chapter 4, Clause III, Section C.i. a,b and c, Election of the NCC (national constitutional committee), Page 22

In sub clauses C(i) a, b and c delete

‘their delegations at Party conference on a card vote basis’

Replace with:

‘means of a one-member-one-vote postal ballot among all eligible individual members of the Party, conducted to guidelines laid down by the NEC’

Vote For

Our reason: The National Constitutional Committee is incredibly important in the ongoing civil war. This is where the NEC sends all disciplinary cases it does not want to deal with themselves. Ideally, it should be abolished. But, seeing as this is not an option, we agree with this reform, which takes away the right of the unions, cooperatives and socialist societies to chose who should judge over party members.

23. Manchester Gorton, referencing chapter 5, Clause IV, Selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates, page 27

insert New Sub clause after sub clause 1, to read:

The NEC’s procedural rules and guidelines for the selection of candidates for Westminster parliament elections shall include provision for party branches and affiliated organisations to both interview prospective candidates and make nominations to the long list. The drawing up of the final shortlist will give due cognisance to the weight of nominations each candidate receives.

Vote For

Our reason: This is mainly to do with by-elections, where time constraints are often used as a reason to ignore the nominations by branches. Currently, candidates can be nominated by most branches, but still excluded from the long list. However, this rule change is basically tinkering with a process that is wholly undemocratic. We hope that rule changes 22 and 24 will supersede this one.

24. Portsmouth North, Rochester & Strood, referencing chapter 5, Clause IV, Selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates, Point 5, page 28

Remove sub clause A and B and replace with

If the sitting MP wishes to stand for re-election the standard procedures for the selection of a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate shall be set in motion not later than 42 months after the last time the said Member of Parliament was elected to Parliament at a general election and before any scheduled or “snap” general election. The said Member of Parliament shall have equal selection rights to other potential candidates save for those outlined in paragraph.

 The said Member of Parliament shall have the right to be included (irrespective of whether he/she has been nominated) on the shortlist of candidates from whom the selection of the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate shall be made 

Vote For

Our reason: This rule change does away with the trigger ballot. It would establish the mandatory reselection of all parliamentary candidates, similar to rule change 24. We presume these two amendments will be composited.

25. West Lancashire, referencingchapter 5, Clause IV, Selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates, Point 5, page 28

In Section 5 remove all references to ‘trigger ballot’ and replace with the phrase ‘CLP re-selection ballot’

Remove text from Section B and replace with:

If the MP fails to win the trigger ballot, he/ she shall not be eligible for nomination for selection as the prospective parliamentary candidate, and s/he shall not be included in the shortlist of candidates from whom the selection shall be made.

Vote For

Our reason: This will hopefully be overtaken by the much more radical rule changes 22 and 24. If not, then we urge a vote in favour of this rule change, as currently a sitting MP is automatically included on the short list of candidates, even if they lose the trigger ballot.

26. Labour International, referencing chapter 5, Clause IV, Selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates, Point 5, page 28

Remove sub clauses 5 and 6 and replace with:

  1. Following an election for a Parliamentary constituency the procedure for selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates shall be as follows:If the CLP is not represented in Parliament by a member of the PLP, a timetable for selecting the next Westminster Parliamentary Candidate shall commence no sooner than six weeks after the election and complete no later than 12 months after the election.If a CLP is represented in Parliament by a member of the PLP, then a timetable for selecting the next Westminster Parliamentary Candidate shall commence no sooner than 36 months and complete no later than 48 months after the election. The sitting Member of Parliament shall be automatically included on the shortlist of candidates, unless they request to retire or resign from the PLP.
  1. The CLP Shortlisting Committee shall draw up a shortlist of interested candidates to present to all members of the CLP who are eligible to vote in accordance with Clause I.1.A above

Vote For 

Our reason:This is very similar to rule change 22 and the two will probably be composited. It would enshrine a process of real mandatory reselection.

27. Worthing West, Bristol West, Hove, referencingchapter 5, Clause IV, Selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates, Point 5, page 28

Remove Section 5 and 6 and replace with:

  1. If a CLP is represented in Parliament by a member of the PLP, that MP shall indicate, no later than 30 months after the last general election, or by an earlier specified date if the NEC believes that there is a significant prospect of an early general election, whether or not s/he wishes to stand for re-election.
  2. A. If a sitting MP has not indicated by that date that s/he wishes to stand for re-election, if s/he has indicated s/he wishes to retire, or if there is no sitting Labour MP, the NEC shall agree a timetable for a selection process for that constituency, candidates shall be invited to express interest in the selection and a Shortlisting Committee shall be appointed in line with procedural guidance to be issued by the NEC.In line with that timetable, party units and affiliates may make nominations in accordance with NEC guidance, and in doing so may interview interested candidates or not as they see fit. Any decision to invite some of the interested candidates to interview by party units must be made at a meeting to which all members of that unit have been invited, in accordance with party rules and with an explanation of the decisions that will be made at it.After the closing date for nominations, the Shortlisting Committee shall present to all members of the CLP who are eligible to vote (in accordance with Clause I.1.A above) a shortlist of nominated candidates. That shortlist must reflect the requirements of the NEC to ensure that candidates are representative of our society in accordance with Clause I.E.i above, and be subject to the requirement that any candidate who has received nominations from party branches representing over half of the CLP membership, or from more than half the affiliates and party units other than branches shall be included, subject to meeting eligibility criteria.
  3. A. If a sitting MP has indicated by that date that s/he wishes to stand for re-election, the NEC shall agree a timetable for a selection process for that constituency, candidates shall be invited to express interest in the selection and a Shortlisting Committee shall be appointed in line with procedural guidance to be issued by the NEC.B. In line with that timetable, party units and affiliates may make a single nomination each in accordance with NEC guidance, and in doing so may interview interested candidates or not as they see fit. Any decision to shortlist some of the interested candidates for consideration by party units for nomination must be made at a meeting to which all members of that unit have been invited, in accordance with party rules and with an explanation of the decisions that will be made at it. Whether party units make nominations following interviews or based on candidates’ applications, the sitting MP must be considered alongside and on equal terms to other candidates. If party units choose not to invite other candidates, then the sitting MP shall not attend the nomination meeting.C. If the sitting MP receives both
  1. nominations from party branches with a combined membership of more than two thirds of the CLP membership, and
  2. nominations submitted by more than two thirds of the affiliates and party units other than branches submitting nominations,
    then the sitting MP shall be automatically reselected. D. Where the sitting MP is not automatically reselected, the Shortlisting Committee shall present to all members of the CLP who are eligible to vote in accordance with Clause I.1.A above a shortlist of nominated candidates. That shortlist must reflect the requirements of the NEC to ensure that candidates are representative of our society in accordance with Clause I.E.i above, it must include the sitting MP and it must be subject to the requirement that any candidate who has received nominations either from party branches with a combined membership of more than one half of the CLP membership or from more than half of the affiliates and party units other than branches making nominations shall be included, subject to meeting eligibility criteria.E. If the said MP is not selected as the prospective parliamentary candidate s/he shall have the right of appeal to the NEC. The appeal can only be made on the grounds that the procedures laid down in the rules and the general provisions of the constitution, rules and standing orders have not been properly carried out. The NEC must receive the appeal by the date on which they consider endorsement of the parliamentary candidate for the constituency.

Vote Against

Our reason: This rule change might do away with the word ‘trigger ballot’, but not with the undemocratic concept. If a sitting MP receives more than 66% of nominations from party branches and affiliated organisations, the MP would automatically be reselected. Such a system would still hugely favour the sitting MP and could be easily rigged by affiliated unions and societies. Much better to have an open and democratic contest between all candidates, to be decided by Labour Party members – as envisaged by rule changes 22 and 24. It smacks of Momentum’s original plan to reform the trigger ballot (see article by Carla Roberts).

28. Hastings & Rye, Kensington, Rayleigh & Wickford, referencing chapter 5, Clause IV, Selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates, Point 5, page 28

Remove Section 5 A and B and replace with:

5. If the sitting MP wishes to stand for re-election the standard procedures for the selection of a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate shall be set in motion not later than 42 months after the last time the said Member of Parliament was elected to Parliament at a general election. If the nominations, by both party units and affiliates, are over 66% in favour of the sitting MP then the NEC has the authority to endorse the sitting MPs as the CLP’s prospective parliamentary candidate [in those cases where a CLP does not have a branch structure (in other words, does not have the usual structure of party units), the NEC will provide appropriate guidance].

6. The said Member of Parliament shall have the right to be included (irrespective of whether he/she has been nominated) on the shortlist of candidates from whom the selection of the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate shall be made.

Vote Against

Our reason: Shorter than rule change 25, but would still give the sitting MP a huge advantage over other candidates. Also smacks of Momentum’s original plan to reform the trigger ballot (see article by Carla Roberts).

29. Richmond Park, referencing chapter 5, Clause IV, Selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates, Point 5, page 28

At the start of Section 7 add:

CLPs have the right to decide whether or not to field a candidate to contest a Westminster parliamentary seat. Such a vote, if moved from the floor and seconded, is to be taken at the beginning of a selection meeting. Should the vote be passed, the selection meeting is concluded. This decision would be endorsed by the NEC, such endorsements would not be reasonably with-held. Should the vote fall, the meeting proceeds to the selection of candidates.

Vote For

Our reason: We presume that this rule change comes from the right and has been moved by people who argued to withdraw a Labour Party candidate in favour of Tory billionaire Zac Goldsmith, who was standing as an ‘independent’ candidate in a by-election in 2016, triggered by his resignation from the Conservatives in protest over their support for a third runway in Heathrow (he is now safely back in the Tory fold).

Nevertheless, it is entirely correct that local members should have the right to decide not just whothey want as their candidate – but also ifthey even want to stand somebody. In the past, local Labour Parties stood down in order to support a candidate from the Communist Party, for example.

30. Cheltenham, referencing chapter 5, Clause IV, Section 1, Selection of Westminster Parliamentary Candidates, page 28

Remove Section 1 and replace with:

Following a parliamentary election in constituencies that do not elect Labour MPs, all the relevant CLPs will choose and appoint a candidate for any future parliamentary election within six months of the date of the aforesaid parliamentary election. If the chosen candidate later withdraws for any reason, the CLP will choose and appoint another candidate within three months. These selections will be made according to the procedure described in paragraphs 5.IV.6 -7 and clause 5.I.

Vote Against

Our reason: There is currently no particular time frame for choosing candidates. Is it useful to have somebody in this position for over four and a half years? This rule change does not allow for the person to be replaced (unless s/he withdraws voluntarily).

31. Bracknell, referencing chapter 6, Clause 1, Section 2, Readmission to the party following Auto-

Exclusion, Page 31

Remove section 2 and replace with:

When there has either been a decision to expel a member, or an automatic exclusion has been agreed, the body making that decision (NEC or NCC) will at the time of the decision also specify a period of between one and five years which has to elapse before readmission will be considered. The member will be informed of the exclusion period and the reason for their exclusion. The CLP will also be similarly informed. An application for re-admission shall not normally be considered by the NEC until the specified minimum period has elapsed. When a person applies for re-admission to the Party following an expulsion by the NCC on whatever basis or by automatic exclusion under Chapter 2 4A above of the membership rules, the application shall be submitted to the NEC for consideration and decision. The decision of the NEC shall be binding on the individual concerned and on the CLP relevant to the application.

Vote For

Our reason:The current period following an expulsion or auto-exclusion is set at a fixed “minimum of five years”. This amendment would give the NEC the right to choose a shorter period. There would probably still be unfair and unjust expulsions, but this is slightly better than the status quo.

32. Stockport, referencing chapter 11, Clause V, Rules for Young Labour, Page 47

Add an additional sub clause 4, as follows:

Young Labour shall have its own constitution and standing orders, to be determined by the Young Labour AGM.

Vote For

Our reason: This amendment should have been discussed and agreed last year, but was referenced back in favour of the Party Democracy Review. So unless this proposal is superseded by democratic changes contained in Katy Clark’s recommendations, socialists should support.

33. City of Durham, referencing chapter 12, Clause I and IV, Rules for Local Campaign Forums, Page 52

In Chapter 12 remove all reference to ‘Local Campaign Forum’ and replace with ‘Local Government Committee’.

Remove sub clauses 1-4 in Clause IV and replace with:

  1. The membership of the Local Government Committee shall consist 75% of delegates from the local CLP(s) and 25% from affiliates. At least 50% of delegates from each group shall be women.
  2. Additionally, CLP campaign co-ordinators shall be ex officio members of the LGC. Any sitting MP, AM, MSP, MEP, PCC and / or PPC may attend their LGC. Where a Co-operative Party council exists for the area concerned and they sponsor candidates in local elections they shall be entitled to appoint a member to the LGC.
  3. The LGC shall meet at least four times per year with representatives of the Labour group where one exists.

Vote For

Our reason: This will probably be superseded by the Party Democracy Review, which wants to re-establish District Labour Parties and do away with LCFs altogether (though we do not yet know on what basis).

The current LCFs clearly need radical reforming: They are dominated by councillors and party officials and are little more than toothless debating chambers. They used to write the Labour group’s manifesto, but this has long been outsourced to the councillors themselves. We would prefer a much more thoroughgoing reform of this body though.

Momentum

Corbynmania and the SPD

Emma Rees and other Momentum employees have been sent to Berlin to help the German youth wing oppose the latest grand coalition, writes Susanne Holstein

(This article first appeared in the Weekly Worker)

The German political system is in crisis: more than four months after the elections of September 24, chancellor Angela Merkel has still not succeeded in putting together a coalition. Never in German history has it taken that long to form a government. Merkel is currently leading a ‘caretaker government’.

It was not a good election for the big parties: both the conservative CDU/CSU and the social democratic SPD suffered bad losses. With 32.9% of the vote, Angela Merkel’s CDU/CSU might be the biggest party in parliament, but this represents a loss of 8.6%, compared to the last general election of 2013. The SPD lost 5.2%: Its 20.5% share of the vote is, in fact, its worst ever result. The leftwing Die Linke and the Greens remained stable at 9.2% and 8.9% respectively.

Big winners were the liberal FDP with 10.7% (plus 5.9%) and, most worryingly, the rightwing Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which increased its national share from 4.7% to 12.6%. In 2013, both parties narrowly missed the 5% hurdle, which is designed to stop smaller parties from entering parliament.

Initially, the SPD refused to continue in another grand coalition government. Since Merkel became chancellor in 2005, she has been continuously backed by the SPD (only interrupted when the Liberal Democrats temporarily took their place from 2009-13). And the SPD has paid a bitter price for its participation in a government that has been characterised by increasingly precarious working conditions, a worsening of welfare provisions and widespread privatisations: electoral support for the SPD has been steadily decreasing and members have been leaving the party in droves. In 1977, there were over one million; in 2005 590,000 – today, there are only around 440,000 members.

Just after the elections, Merkel tried to form a so-called ‘Jamaica coalition’ with the liberal FDP and the Greens, but the negotiations were ended in November by the FDP, which demanded stricter controls on migration. Eventually, the SPD leadership, under pressure to avoid an unstable minority government, agreed to join another grand coalition – without Merkel having to make any major concessions.

Hot potato

On the most contentious issue, for example, Merkel got exactly what she wanted: a commitment to cap “new migration” at “between 180,000 and 220,000” per year. The word Zuwanderung (migration) is, of course, totally misleading. “Economic migrants” from the rest of Europe, the US, etc, are explicitly excluded from the figure. What is meant here is the number of refugees and asylum-seekers allowed to stay in the country – which includes, contentiously, family members of refugees already in the country, who currently still have the right to join them.

Anybody who enters German territory may apply for asylum and until now the only basis used to decide if the application should be allowed was its ‘merit’ (although the right to stay has been massively eroded in recent years, including through the introduction of rules that saw refugees being sent back to Drittländer – ie, countries they passed through before they got to Germany). But there has never been a cap on their numbers.

This is the same Angela Merkel who welcomed one million refugees into Germany in 2015 – initially, to the entire establishment’s delight at the leader’s ‘morality’, not to mention her economic far-sightedness. After all, the birth rate in Germany is amongst the lowest in the European Union, and the president of the employers association, the BDA, argued that Germany was right to welcome refugees, because “in the next 20 years, we will need a lot more workers than this country can produce”. In his estimate, there are 500,000 “unfilled positions” – most of them not the kind of jobs that Germans are too keen on taking up. Refugees tend to be young, male and eager to work. Perfect fodder for the always-hungry capitalist machine.

But Merkel messed up big time. Very little effort was made and very little money spent on integrating the newcomers. It was down to local volunteers to organise language courses, for example. Famously, 1,000 refugees were housed in the tiny village of Sumte (population: 100). In many places, Syrian families were sent to live in school sports halls – and sports lessons for local children were cancelled indefinitely. In other cities, refugees were housed in empty barracks or deserted houses in troubled and neglected neighbourhoods. Add to that the effects of decades of failed integration of the millions of ‘guest workers’, especially from Turkey, and you have the perfect conditions for the shit to hit the fan.

And indeed, depravation, crime and trouble ensued, and we saw the rise of the ridiculously named organisation Pegida (‘Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the Occident’) and the growth of its electoral equivalent, the AfD. At first, Merkel – no doubt keenly aware of the needs of German capital and clinging on to her cherished image as the caring Mutti der Nation – refused to change her so-called ‘open-door policy’ on migration. Which was always anything but, of course: refugees from, say, Somalia or those pesky ‘economic refugees’ always had as little chance of making it into Germany as Britain.

But the rise of the AfD has certainly scared the whole political establishment and the 2017 election was a brutal wake-up call for Merkel, who quickly changed her tune and called for the cap on refugee numbers. While the SPD leadership now agrees with her figure of around 200,000, many SPD members are unhappy about joining another grand coalition, at least on this particular political basis.

At a special SPD delegate summit on January 20, the proposal to join such a government won the day by 362 to 279 votes. Speakers opposing the deal got standing ovations, especially Kevin Kühnert, leader of the SPD youth wing, Jusos. Dozens of delegates held up big signs, declaring “GroKo: Nein” (GroKo stands for Große Koalition = grand coalition). According to Kühnert,

The election result of September 24 has clearly shown that a continuation of GroKo is not desired by most people. There would be a continuation of bad compromises on various issues that don’t serve anybody. We will not support that. The SPD needs to renew itself and many people are joining to help us with that process.

This narrower than expected vote and the vocal anger of many members has left the SPD leadership seriously rattled: after all, the final coalition agreement will have to be approved in an all-members ballot in February. In between agreeing to the basic deal on January 12 and the start of the more detailed negotiations on January 28, the SPD leadership suddenly remembered that in fact they want more than was actually agreed. For a start, there should be “more relaxed” rules for those migrants joining family members already in Germany. The SPD leadership also wants a legal restriction on the increasing use of short-term employment contracts and a “start of the end” of the two-tier health system – ie, the abolition of private health insurance. As we go to press, the negotiations have stalled over the hot potato of migration.

The negotiations are scheduled to last until around Easter – ie, SPD members will have to vote on the deal without seeing the ‘improvements’ the leadership is now claiming to be fighting for.

To the rescue?

It is nothing new for the Jusos to oppose a grand coalition. They also called on SPD members to oppose the deal of 2013, which was eventually approved by 76% of SPD members. Things look rather different this time, however. Many members believe that another GroKo could kill the party off altogether. And, according to a recent poll, only 26% of the German population favours one. With this in mind, the Jusos have launched a campaign to get people to temporarily join the SPD – mainly in order to vote against the deal. They are using the slogan, ‘A tenner against the grand coalition’, €10 being the cost of two months’ membership. Apparently, within the first 24 hours more than 1,700 new members joined.

And, according to The Times, “The Young Socialists are now modelling themselves on Momentum … Activists were briefed by Emma Rees … during her two-day visit to Germany” last week. Rees (pictured), who resigned as Momentum’s national coordinator in October 2017, is now mysteriously back in the role,which was still being publicly advertised in November 2017. Funnily enough, her visit has not made it into the German press, so we must remain cautious about the accuracy of who actually invited Rees or who she met in Berlin (The Guardian for example describes Rees as “one of Momentum’s four founding members”… who are the other three supposed to be?).

Nevertheless, such international cooperation is interesting. Politically, of course, it is absolutely vital that the left across Europe (and beyond) works together and learns from each other. Despite – or maybe even because of – Brexit, capital across Europe is uniting on an ever closer basis. So must we. But there is pathetically little cooperation amongst the socialist left in Europe.

How much the Jusos can and should learn from Momentum and its owner, Jon Lansman, is, however, debatable. His undemocratic methods, his political collapse when it comes to the fight for issues like mandatory selection and his bending over backwards to the pro-Israeli lobby make him and his organisation a very bad role model indeed.

We should remember that it was not Momentum that got Jeremy Corbyn to where he is now. His election to party leader was made possible by a handful of ‘moderate’ knuckleheads in the Parliamentary Labour Party, who lent him their vote to get him onto the ballot paper. And in terms of the ongoing fight to democratise the Labour Party, Momentum has played a lamentable role. It has all but joined the witch-hunt against the left in the party. It treats its members with contempt, giving them no right to vote on anything. It does not organise the left in the party politically, but merely regards them as voting fodder, to be turned on and off according to need.

When there is a successful challenge to the right in the party, as we are currently witnessing in Haringey, this is entirely down to local party members. Many are inspired by what Jeremy Corbyn stands for (or what they think he stands for) – but they are not being organised by Momentum nationally.

Differences

But clearly something is moving in the German SPD and that is very much to be welcomed. Like any half-decent youth organisation, the Jusos are firmly on the left of the SPD leadership and their politics are indeed quite similar to those of Jeremy Corbyn and his allies who run Momentum. They are all soft social democrats.

But there are obvious and important differences between the situation of the SPD and the Labour Party, which explain why, unfortunately, the SPD is probably not going to experience the same kind of major shift that Labour is currently undergoing, no matter how necessary and overdue it is. There are three key differences.

Firstly, the socio-political basis of the Labour Party is very different to that of the SPD. In Germany, unions do not affiliate to political parties, mainly for historic reasons. In Germany the workers’ movement first formed the SPD (and its forerunners), which was then instrumental in founding several unions.

Of course, there is a massive crossover between German unions and the SPD, especially in their common bureaucracy, and both have been haemorrhaging members on a similar level. But German unions do not exercise the same kind of influence over the SPD as British unions have had over the Labour Party. The SPD, while far more leftwing than the Labour Party in its early life – Lenin thought it was the model for Social Democratic parties everywhere – has moved steadily and almost without internal opposition to the right.

Because of its lack of a formal relationship with the unions, it is not a ‘bourgeois workers’ party’ in the same sense that the Labour Party is. Here, affiliated unions can send voting delegates to Constituency Labour Parties and even help pick prospective parliamentary candidates. The political and organisational support of, for example, Unite leader Len McCluskey for Corbyn has also been crucial over the last two years, but there is no major union support for any leftwing SPD leader or potential leader.

Secondly, Martin Schulz is no Jeremy Corbyn. Yes, he is to the left of some of his predecessors and has criticised the ongoing draconian attacks on employment rights and the welfare system (‘Agenda 2010’), which were introduced by Gerhard Schröder in 2003. In sharp contrast to other mainstream politicians in Germany, Schulz is also an occasional critic of some of the actions of the Israeli government. Some 30,000 people joined the party following his election in March 2017.

But the euphoria did not last long. Schulz might have shone for a few short months, as he spoke passionately in favour of European integration – just after the Brexit vote, that resonated well in Germany. But he has since come out as just another tame, mainstream SPD leader who wants power at all costs. Including in a grand coalition.

As opposed to the Labour Party, which elects its leader in a ballot of all members and supporters only when there is a challenger to the post or “a vacancy”, German parties are required by law to elect their leader at least every two years. The SPD currently does so at its annual delegate conference. Theoretically, that should make it easier for a leftwinger to get in, but, quite frankly, there is no agency capable of organising such a move. Even if plans by Schulz for a Labour-style all-members ballot for the leader come to fruition,there is currently no real force pushing for a leftwing challenger. That can, of course, all change, and relatively quickly at that.

Thirdly – and perhaps most crucially – Germany already has a formally leftwing party, Die Linke, which won 9.2% of the national vote in September. There is, in truth, very little that distinguishes its programme from that of the soft left Jusos (and there is widespread cooperation between the two forces on the ground). Should the mainstream of the SPD move to the left even a little – for example, while refusing to join the grand coalition – it would easily encroach into Die Linke’s political territory.

Die Linke is far from a consistent socialist alternative. In the federal states where it is big enough to govern, it does so with relish, enforcing draconian cuts on the population like any bourgeois government would do. The only reason it still looms relatively large is because of its history as the former ruling ‘official’ communist party of East Germany. It still polls around 20% in regional elections there and it has replaced the SPD as the real Volkspartei. It will remain difficult for the SPD to win over Die Linke supporters in the east.

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

Momentum

New Momentum constitution: Contemptible document

William Sarsfield of Labour Party Marxists looks at the new Lansman constitution

I really hope that readers will find the time to plough through the near 4,000 words of convoluted sub-clauses and provisos in the latest Lansman constitution. Like mainstream news outlets such as the Daily Mirror, The Guardian and The Times, the online Labour List site parrots the official spin from team Momentum that the so-called “member shake-up” is primarily about a Momentum move to seek affiliation to Labour. As an afterthought, it mentions that “The Corbynista group last night told its 20,000 members it had introduced a constitution” – which is just about accurate.1)https://labourlist.org, January 11 2017 This important development has simply been announced as a fait accompli and, as such, the manner of its arrival suits the contents of the crassly bureaucratic ethos document itself.

Jon Lansman has evidently grown weary of even the pretence of democracy in ‘his’ organisation. This constitution was sent out amongst a raft of papers on January 10 after, Lansman informs us, “consultation with a number of others in Momentum, the leader’s office and trade unions that have supported Jeremy Corbyn”. He is explicit that it means “[winding] up the steering committee, the national committee and the conference arrangements committee with immediate effect” and, “though the conference would go ahead” on February 18, it would be bound by the “new rules”, which mean that “no motions would be considered”. In effect, ownership rights have, for the moment, triumphed over democratic rights. If you “consent” to this coup, “you don’t have to do anything”, Lansman assures us: thoughtfully however, he supplies an email address to fire your resignation off to “if you wish to opt out.”

The comrade clearly wants some of us to sling our hooks. His covering letter underlines that future Momentum membership requires “all members to be [Labour] party members” – in contrast to the February 7 2016 communication from team Momentum that told us that the organisation was open to “Labour members, affiliated supporters, and supporters of the aims and values of the Labour Party, who are not members of other political parties”.

The repetition of the same narrowed view of the Momentum membership is reiterated at different points in the imposed constitution. In a sub-section titled ‘Ceasing to be a member’, we are informed that that you will have been “deemed to have resigned” from the organisation if you have not “[joined] the Labour Party by July 1 2017”; or you are out of Momentum if you “[cease] to be a member of the Labour Party” at any point (including if you are expelled by the witch-hunting right, presumably); or if you “[act] inconsistently with Labour Party membership” (like perhaps call a rightwing scab like John Mann MP “a rightwing scab”, perhaps?)

Regular readers of the LPM Bulletin should recall that we have previously featured the nasty comments of Lansman fan Laura Murray – herself a Stalinist chip off the old Andrew Murray block – who wrote that, “Given that Nick Wrack, Jill Mountford and Jackie Walker are, in turn, blocked, expelled and suspended from being members of the Labour Party, it is unsurprising that they care little for reforming and democratising the Labour Party.” We wondered at the time whether “we see here the beginnings of an attempt to oust those members of Momentum who have been expelled and suspended from the Labour Party?” Lansman has now answered the query, we think.

The ‘Labour members only’ criterion makes another appearance under the section describing the operation of the new leadership body, the “national coordinating group” (NCG). This “shall consist of Momentum members who confirm (and can provide evidence on request) that they are current Labour Party members” and “confirm their agreement to the rules of Momentum”. What, all the rules? All the time?

In addition to abolishing existing democratic structures (such as they are), the announcement of a new leadership body effectively negates any real democratic control from below. Jackie Walker estimates that just 12 out of the 31 people on the NCG would be rank-and-file members – the rest would be comprised of MPs, councillors and union delegates. Her figures might well be right, although the Lansman constitution is so dense and convoluted in places it is difficult to be sure what the final numbers would be. Her basic point is spot on, however.

The active base of Momentum – members organised in branches, running campaigns, discussing politics – are drastically underrepresented in the Lansman constitution. The entire country is to be carved into just three “divisions”: “the North and Scotland”, “Midlands, Wales and the West” and “the South”, with each of these allocated just four reps each. That is, a total of just 12 comrades.

This is farcical.

For instance, there is a national question in Scotland that does not find a reflection in Sunderland. The issues of London – the capital city and political hub of British life – have a rather different dynamic to those in Dover. Cardiff is not St Ives.

Lansman’s actual motivations are clear, especially when we scan the list of the other groups that will – by right – be represented on the NCG. There will be:

  • six places for (current, we assume) affiliated unions
  • four Labour members who are elected to some official post – eg, MPs, members of the Welsh or Scottish Assemblies (even police commissioners, we are told)
  • “up to four additional members”, who may be coopted at the discretion of the NCG – although the criteria for what is, in any organisation, an exceptional action are not made clear. I think reader might be able to hazard a guess, however …
  • one place each from the Scottish group, Campaign for Socialism, and Welsh Labour Grassroots (voted for by the membership in those regions? We are not told)
  • four places from other “affiliated organisations, as defined in rules 11 (iii) and (iv) …” Thirteen such groups (including, confusingly, the Campaign for Socialism and Welsh Labour Grassroots) are actually listed, which begs the question of how those four places will be determined. Some other interesting organisations that “may affiliate” to Momentum, as the document coyly puts it, include “The World Transformed” – the event organised by the central team Momentum at September’s Labour Party conference; Lansman’s blog Left Futures; Red Labour; Christine Shawcroft’s Labour Briefing Cooperative, Compass, etc.

In the original constitutional proposals that I critiqued in a previous article, I mocked the absurd suggestion that “In addition to the 12 [steering committee] members, on a three-month rotational basis, three members of Momentum, drawn at random, will be invited to join the SC.” This idea is developed further in Lansman’s actual constitution, only this time the lucky rank-and-file lottery winners (50 of them now) are to be parked in a “members’ council” (MC) rather than them cluttering up the actual leadership.

Instead, the MC will be gifted the “opportunity to directly participate in the development of activities, resources and campaigns for the use of Momentum members and groups”, while the “format of this engagement will be defined by the NCG, having regard to the requirements of the individual members of the council”. Under no circumstances will the MC “be required to make decisions on the operation of the constitution or administration of the organisation, this being the remit of the NCG, but it may review decisions of the NCG and the administration of the organisation” and “make recommendations and provide advice on the basis of its findings”.

There is much more to dissect in this contemptible document, but if there is one proposal in it that reveals the real, thoroughly anti-democratic agenda of Lansman and co it is this “members’ council” – a cynical Potemkin villagetype stunt.

References

References
↑1 https://labourlist.org, January 11 2017
Momentum

January 10: Email from Jon Lansman to Momentum steering committee

(thanks to Nick Wrack for publishing)

From: Jon Lansman
Date: Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 7:39 PM
Subject: Proposal to Steering Group: A new constitution for Momentum

To: Marsha Jane Thompson, Christine Shawcroft, Sam Tarry, Jacqueline Walker, Martyn Cook, Michael Chessum, Matt Wrack, Sam Wheeler, Professor Cecile Wright, Jill Mountford, Maggie Simpson
Cc: Emma Rees, Adam Klug

Dear Colleagues

I am writing to explain why, in consultation with a number of others in Momentum, the Leader’s office and trade unions that have supported Jeremy Corbyn, I have decided to propose today that we immediately act to put Momentum on the proper footing that those dependant on the success of Jeremy’s leadership need it to be and our members want it to be.
Most of our members joined Momentum because they support Jeremy Corbyn and want to help him achieve what he is trying to do. We must put behind us the paralysis that has for months bedevilled all our national structures, and focus on our most urgent task – winning the general election that could come within months, by turning Labour into an effective force committed to that task, and to the transformative government that would follow.
I have also taken legal advice, based on a review of a substantial body of Momentum records, which is that in order to operate effectively as an organisation with members, Momentum needs written rules or a constitution with which all its members agree, and in our current circumstances, the only way of agreeing such a constitution which is binding on the relationship between the organisation and our members is to seek the individual consent of each of our members and affiliates.
The papers which are included in this mailing set out:

  1. The results of the survey initiated by Jeremy Corbyn’s pre-Christmas message to Momentum members, which indicate members’ overwhelming support for the type of organisation we will continue to build, action-focused, rooted in our communities, wholly committed to the Labour Party, and involving our members directly in decision-making;
  2. A constitution which establishes a sustainable democratic framework for the sort of organisation we need – an outwards-looking, campaigning organisation to change and strengthen the Labour Party, not to mirror its structures. This constitution would apply from now but would be reviewed in due course and be subject to amendments;
  3. A paper on interim governance
  4. A paper on election process for the new National Coordinating Group to replace existing regional and national structures.

The Constitution may not be perfect in everyone’s eyes, but, whatever process we follow, it is common ground that we need one, and it is surely better to have it now and amend it later by a process that is indisputable. As well as setting out the essential elements of our aims and objectives as they have always appeared on our website and in our public statements, the constitution:

  1. Reinforces our wholehearted commitment to the Labour Party by restating our aim of working towards affiliation, and requiring all members to be party members;
  2. Provides for elections and key decisions including changes to the constitution to be made by our members themselves;
  3. Provides for a structure with minimum bureaucracy reflecting members desire to focus externally on organising and campaigning through our local groups, liberation networks and the Labour Party rather than internally on making policy for ourselves.

If this constitution is agreed, the effect would be to wind up the SC, the NC and CAC, with immediate effect, though the conference would go ahead but under the new rules, no motions would be considered.
If you are happy with all these proposals as they stand, please indicate by email. If there is a majority – I think we all recognise that we shall continue to disagree on this matter – I propose that we seek the approval of members immediately.
In solidarity

Jon Lansman
Chair
Momentum National Steering Group

LINKS TO FILES

electionprocessforthenationalcoordinatinggroup-1

interimgovernance-1

momentum-constitution

momentum-members-survey-16-17