Tag Archives: Momentum

Momentum

Yes to a Momentum opposition – No to a split

We all knew the Lansman coup was coming, says Carla Roberts. But now is the time for the left to take stock and organise

Once team Momentum announced its “online survey” of all members and supporters, the result was a forgone conclusion. In referendums the dictator gets to ask the question and, barring accidents, they get the result they want.

Not only were the questions loaded: they were also disgracefully backed up by Jeremy Corbyn, Clive Lewis and Diane Abbott. Topping it all it was the fact that team Momentum did the count … a wonderful opportunity to gerrymander.

So, with a victorious 80.6% voting for Omov, at a stroke the national committee, steering committee and regional committees were abolished. There will perhaps be a powerless ‘official’ Momentum conference … eventually (like the proposed November 5 national committee meeting, the February 18 conference has been cancelled – this time because of the by-elections in Stoke-on-Trent Central and Copeland). Moreover, everyone has to agree to Lansman’s constitution … or quit the organisation. They also have to be a member of the Labour Party by July 1 2017 or they will be “deemed to have resigned” (even though many have been already barred or expelled because of their activity in support of Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum).

Jon Lansman’s coup de grâce was a long time in coming … and, frankly, we are surprised it took him so long. Even though he has made his ally, Christine Shawcroft, a director of ‘Momentum Data (Services) Ltd’, he is still in charge of ‘Jeremy for Labour Ltd’. In other words, legal control of Momentum lies not with its membership nor its elected committees. No, it lies with its tiny group of shareholders (very capitalistic). Hence it is Jon Lansman’s hands on the databases and the funds. Effectively it is he too who appoints the full-timers who make up team Momentum.

However, not surprisingly, Momentum branches up and down the country have come out against Lansman’s January 10 coup. To date around 30 of them. Most Momentum activists are utterly appalled by the crass way in which all democratic decision-making bodies have been abolished and a new anti-democratic constitution imposed by Jon Lansman and his allies. But, as would be expected, there is huge confusion on how to best move forward.

On January 13, the (abolished) Conference Arrangements Committee released a statement (with the three Lansman allies on the committee not voting), according to which: “The CAC takes its direction from Momentum’s national committee, as per the original remit we were given. Until that body meets and informs us our role has changed, we will continue working towards Momentum’s first conference.” Brave talk … and, given Momentum’s original structure, perfectly legitimate.

A provisional date of March 11 for “the postponed conference” has been mooted. The statement rigidly sticks to the CAC’s initial brief, according to which the committee will accept only “one motion” from each branch and “one motion or constitutional amendment” from each region. The committee also told us that the national committee (majority) would meet, as previously planned, on January 28 in London.

The meeting will probably be a non-binding get-together. However, there are those who wanted to use it as a springboard for a full-scale split, with the national committee appointing a new steering committee, agreeing the date of a sovereign conference and demanding the transfer of funds and databases from Jon Lansman and his allies. Morally, this course would have been perfectly justifiable. After all, with the new constitution it is next to impossible to remove Lansman and his allies from their position of total domination.

However, it has become clear in recent weeks that very few Momentum members, let alone branches, are up for such a course. While there are countless expressions of outrage, there is also a heart-felt desire not to further divide the movement. So, for the moment at least, accept any anti-democratic outrage, any violation of basic principles.

There is naivety too. Some refuse to believe that Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Diane Abbott know what Lansman has done. Similar illusions existed in the Soviet Union at the height of Stalin’s purges.

There is also fear. A split in Momentum will give the bourgeois media a field day. Many worry that Ukip’s Paul Nuttall is set to win in Stoke. Jeremy Corbyn’s populist turn has not increased Labour’s poll standing. If Theresa May calls a snap general election this spring, we therefore face a wipe-out of 1931 proportions. Those who joined Momentum to support Corbyn and get him into No10 are almost in a panic. Hence the frantic calls for unity, not to rock the boat and the need to get rid of troublesome leftists who could embarrass Jeremy Corbyn by reminding the public of his former republican stance, his anti-imperialist campaigning and forthright opposition to Zionist Israel.

Hence the chances are that a split would only take a tiny minority of Momentum’s largely passive 20,000 members. However, the biggest problem for the opposition is its lack of solid politics and a clear perspective. The CAC was searching for some middle ground with Lansman. Its preferred constitution – drafted by Nick Wrack and Matt Wrack – had all the problems of Lansman’s: referendums, direct election of officers and mimicking student unions, trade unions and the Labour Party itself. By contrast we in LPM wanted Momentum to recognise that it was a faction united by its common politics and which, like the Fabians, ought to seek affiliation to the Labour Party.

Given the absence of a well-organised and politically principled left, the idea of challenging the Lansman coup head-on was never realistic. But that does not mean we should give up the fight for the hearts and minds of Momentum’s 20,000 or the 200,000 on its database. True, quite a number of people – for example, Nick Wrack – have talked about resigning or have already left Momentum. This level of frustration and impatience is understandable, but also short-sighted.

There has been a huge democratic deficit within Momentum right from the start. Ever since Corbyn won the leadership race he and his allies have had to improvise. Jon Lansman swopped his role as Corbyn’s campaign organiser for what became the Momentum brief. To begin with there was vague talk of grassroots control, involving wider protest movements and local campaigning. However, instead of channelling the huge enthusiasm generated by Corbyn’s success into a battle to transform the Labour Party, another, more conservative, course was chosen. The Labour Party right had to be conciliated … therefore Momentum has to be tightly controlled from above. Otherwise it would be demanding the automatic reselection of MPs (which was until very recently, the position of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, of which Corbyn and Lansman are members).

Of course, any organisation that cannot trust its membership is unlikely to be able to mobilise them … even as spear-carriers. The danger is that Momentum will soon become little more than an empty husk. But for now Labour Party Marxists will continue to work in Momentum while any life in it remains. We will do so with a view to spreading our vision of what Labour needs to be.

Demands for boycotting Momentum – crucially the elections to the new National Coordinating Group – are mistaken. There is no reason to impose isolation upon ourselves. Indeed we should use every opportunity, every avenue to spread the ideas of Marxism. That is why Stan Keable, secretary of LPM, is standing for the NCG, in the South East constituency.

True, Momentum’s new constitution is a travesty of democracy. The 12 rank-and-file members will find themselves swamped by chosen representatives of Left Futures, Labour Briefing (‘original’), MPs, councillors, affiliated trade unions, etc, etc, who are allocated specially reserved places on the NCG.

But the same can be said of the post-1905 constitution of tsarist Russia. An autocratic monarch; rigged, indirect elections; seats reserved for the aristocracy and priesthood; and a stifling regime of censorship. Nevertheless, it was right for the Bolsheviks to stand in duma elections.

Of course, the left should organise and debate the road ahead. That can involve electing delegates from Momentum branches. But there should also be a conscious effort to involve the groups and fractions committed to working in the Labour Party: the Labour Representation Committee, Red Labour, The Clarion, Red Flag, Labour Party Socialist Network, Socialist Appeal and, of course, Labour Party Marxists.

So, no to a split, yes to Momentum opposition.

Momentum

Stay and fight the battle of ideas

Despite widespread outrage over the Lansman coup, there is little appetite to split Momentum, says Carla Roberts of Labour Party Marxists

Momentum branches, groups and committees up and down the country have come out openly against the Lansman coup of January 10. Labour Party Marxists is publishing statements and motions as and when they are being released.

Not surprisingly, most Momentum activists are utterly appalled by the crass way in which the February 18 conference has been rendered impotent, all democratic decision-making bodies have been abolished and a new anti-democratic constitution imposed by Jon Lansman and his allies. But, as can be expected, there is huge confusion on how to best move forward.

On January 13, the (abolished) conference arrangements committee released a statement (with the three Lansman allies on the committee not voting), according to which: “The CAC takes its direction from Momentum’s national committee, as per the original remit we were given. Until that body meets and informs us our role has changed, we will continue working towards Momentum’s first conference.”

A provisional date of March 11 for “the postponed conference” has been mooted. The statement rigidly sticks to the CAC’s initial brief, according to which the committee will accept only “one motion” from each branch and “one motion or constitutional amendment” from each region. The committee “advises” that the national committee should meet, as previously planned, on January 28 in London.

Clearly, the CAC statement was written shortly after the coup, when people were still very sore and very angry. And at the time many were probably up for the kind of action they are actually proposing here: a split. Of course, within Momentum, it is simply impossible to wrest power out of Lansman’s hands – that was the case before the coup and is now even more so. He set up the various companies that control Momentum’s finances and its huge database. And, crucially, he has got the support of Jeremy Corbyn.

However, it has become quite clear in recent days that very few Momentum members, let alone branches, are up for that kind of fight. And it would be a massive undertaking: anybody splitting would be hugely disadvantaged and would have to start again from ground zero. Without the money, contacts and the database.

The CAC seems to have changed its mind, too. It looks more and more likely that the January 28 meeting will become not so much a meeting of the (abolished) NC, but the kind of event that the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty is pushing for: a “local groups network” within Momentum.

Fearful of a split, AWL members have been keen to tone down statements in branches and it is interesting that the left minority of the steering committee (which comprises AWL member Jill Mountford, AWL supporter Michael Chessum, Fire Brigades Union president Matt Wrack and Jackie Walker) has gone very quiet too, although apparently it continues to meet. 1)www.workersliberty.org/node/27459

The biggest problem for the opposition is its lack of a clear political alternative. The CAC was searching for some middle ground with Lansman. Its preferred constitution – drafted by Nick Wrack and Matt Wrack – had all the problems of Lansman’s: referendums, direct election of officers and mimicking student unions, trade unions and the Labour Party itself.

Given the absence of a well-organised and politically principled left, the idea of challenging the Lansman coup head-on was never realistic. But that does not mean we should give up the fight for the hearts and minds of Momentum’s 20,000 or the 200,000 on its database. True, quite a number of people – for example, Nick Wrack – have talked about resigning or have already left Momentum. This level of frustration and impatience is understandable, but also short-sighted.

There have been huge democratic deficits within Momentum right from the start. Ever since Corbyn collected enough nominations to stand in the leadership election, he and his allies had to play catch-up. They had no idea what to do with the tens of thousands of people enthused by his campaign who wanted to get more involved. Momentum was badly thought-out and badly executed.

One thing is for sure, however: it was never the intention of Jon Lansman to allow Momentum to become a democratic organisation that would allow members to decide on its constitution or policies. That was obvious right from the start.

After all, such an organisation could easily embarrass Jeremy Corbyn by publishing statements that were not to the liking of the Labour right. For example, calling for the mandatory selection of parliamentary candidates (which was of course, until very recently, the position of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, of which Corbyn is a member) would scupper the illusion of a ‘peace settlement’ within the party.

But any organisation that cannot trust its membership is unlikely to be able to mobilise them … even as spear carriers. The danger is that Momentum will soon become little more than an empty husk. But for now, Labour Party Marxists will continue to work in Momentum while any life in it remains. We will do so with a view to spreading our vision of what Labour needs to be.

Demands for boycotting Momentum – crucially the February 18 ‘conference’ organised by team Lansman and the elections to the new ‘national coordination group’ (NCG) are mistaken. There is no reason to impose isolation upon ourselves. Indeed we should use every opportunity, every avenue to spread the ideas of Marxism. True, Momentum’s new constitution is a travesty of democracy. But the same can be said of the United Kingdom constitution, with its hereditary head of state, unelected second chamber and ‘first past the post’ elections to the lower house, which leave minority parties massively underrepresented. Nevertheless, it is right to stand in parliamentary contests.

Of course, the left should organise and debate the road ahead – first on January 28 and then March 11 (perhaps). That can involve electing delegates from Momentum branches. But there should also be a conscious effort to involve the groups and fractions committed to working in the Labour Party: the Labour Representation Committee, Red Labour, The Clarion, Red Flag, Labour Party Socialist Network, Socialist Appeal and, of course, Labour Party Marxists.

Such a conference should establish a Momentum opposition and a politically representative steering committee. Obviously there can be no hope of winning a majority on Momentum’s NCG. Jon Lansman has ensured that he will enjoy a permanent stranglehold: a maximum of 12 people on this body (which will have between 27 and 34 members) will be elected by Momentum members – the rest being filled by unions, affiliates, MPs and other “elected representatives”.

And it is far from certain that the 12 will be made up of leftwingers – for example, Lee Jasper is one of the 17 who has already thrown his hat into the ring. 2)https://order-order.com/2017/01/18/male-shortlist-momentum-internal-elections Ken Livingstone’s race relations quango chief has the undeniable advantage of having name recognition. Ditto Paul Mason or Owen Jones, should they decide to stand or be persuaded by Lansman and Corbyn to do so.

In any case, the Momentum opposition can link up branches, organise joint action and fight for more space for leftwing ideas in Momentum.

To be a member or not? There is some dispute over the status of all those left Momentum members who have been expelled from the Labour Party for political reasons: Nick Wrack, for example, Tony Greenstein and a whole lot of members of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty.

The key point in the constitution, point 5.8, states that “Any member who does not join the Labour Party by July 1 2017, or ceases to be a member of the Labour Party, or acts inconsistently with Labour Party membership, may be deemed to have resigned.” 3)https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/momentum/pages/939/attachments/original/1484079394/momentum-constitution.pdf?1484079394

Labour NEC member Christine Shawcroft – Jon Lansman’s successor as director of the company Momentum Data Services Ltd, which controls the vast database of the organisation – assures us on Facebook that this

does not mean expulsions. 5.8 says if anyone ceases to be a member of the party they may be deemed to have resigned. Not will, but may … Even if we were to take action under 5.8, the member will have a right of appeal under 5.10. So there is no witch-hunt, no expulsions (well, only under very unusual circumstances, we hope).

Some hope. “Christine speaks with forked tongue”, writes Jackie Walker on Facebook. She is right. The new rules are actually very clear:

  • Those expelled by the LP for political reasons can appeal to the Momentum NCG to be allowed to remain/become members of Momentum” (rule 5.10) 4)“Where a member may be deemed to have resigned in accordance with rules 5.7, 5.8 or 5.9 there will be a right to be heard by the NCG or a delegated panel before a final decision is made.”
  • But even if those are allowed to become Momentum members, they will not be allowed to take up elected positions, either on the national coordinating committee (rule 6.2) 5)“The NCG shall consist of Momentum members who confirm (and can provide evidence on request) that they are current Labour Party members.” or in local groups (rule 12.7) 6)“Anyone who stands for office, such as chair or secretary, in a group or network shall be a member of the Labour Party and in the event that they cease to be a member of the Labour Party within their term of office, they are deemed to have resigned such office.”.

The current formulation, centring on the word “may”, means that we will basically have to wait and see how actively those expelled by Labour for political reasons will be hounded out of Momentum. The Momentum office has assured members that they will do no such thing. That begs the question as to why these rules have been put in the constitution in the first place.

They are not there to prepare Momentum for affiliation to the Labour Party, as has been claimed. Members of affiliated organisations – eg, trade unions and socialist societies – do not need to be members of the Labour Party. Instead, they are entitled to become “affiliated members” of Labour.

No, these rules are clearly there to get rid of troublemakers from the left, as and when the need arises. It is never a good sign when rules are written in a way that leaves them open to interpretation. Needless to say, the interpreting will not be done by anybody appealing to the kangaroo court run by the NCG, but the ‘judges’.

And if you have indeed managed to convince the judges that you are worthy of Momentum membership, you might still be thrown out for being “a member of an organisation disallowed by the NCG.” 7)Point 5.1.ii in the constitution.

References

References
↑1 www.workersliberty.org/node/27459
↑2 https://order-order.com/2017/01/18/male-shortlist-momentum-internal-elections
↑3 https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/momentum/pages/939/attachments/original/1484079394/momentum-constitution.pdf?1484079394
↑4 “Where a member may be deemed to have resigned in accordance with rules 5.7, 5.8 or 5.9 there will be a right to be heard by the NCG or a delegated panel before a final decision is made.”
↑5 “The NCG shall consist of Momentum members who confirm (and can provide evidence on request) that they are current Labour Party members.”
↑6 “Anyone who stands for office, such as chair or secretary, in a group or network shall be a member of the Labour Party and in the event that they cease to be a member of the Labour Party within their term of office, they are deemed to have resigned such office.”
↑7 Point 5.1.ii in the constitution.
Momentum

Momentum branches and groups protest against the coup

send statements, motions or petitions to office@labourpartymarxists.org.uk to have them published here:

  • Barnet Momentum
  • Blyth and Wansbeck Momentum
  • Brighton and Hove Momentum 1)Brighton and Hove Momentum General Meeting, January 25
    1. We condemn the attempt by Jon Lansman and the majority of the Steering Committee to abolish the National Committee and the Conference Arrangements Committee, which was elected at the December NC meeting.
    1. It is not possible for the Steering Committee, which was elected by the NC, to abolish the very body which elected it.
    1. We do not recognise the newly-announced ‘Constitution’ imposed by way of an email.  It has no validity. We note that the Steering Committee, let alone the National Committee, was not even given an opportunity to discuss this proposed Constitution.
    1.  We particularly condemn the fact that those who refuse to accept an imposed, undemocratic Constitution, will be deemed to have resigned from Momentum.
    1.  We wish to give full support to the elected National and Conference Arrangement Committees.  We urge that a national delegate conference open to all Momentum groups and oppressed groups be convened as a matter of urgency and ask that in the meantime a bank account etc. be opened by the NC in order that the necessary financial arrangements can be mad
    1. We call on other Momentum groups and oppressed groups to boycott the proposed conference that Jon Lansman and the Steering Committee majority are organising.  It will be undemocratic and will not discuss policy, the new ‘constitution’ or motions.  Likewise we urge members to boycott elections to the new National Co-ordinating Group.  The NCG has no political, moral or legal validity.
    1. We urge that Jon Lansman and the Steering Committee majority to place all Momentum data in the hands of the Steering Committee and warn them that any ‘change in use’ of that data will be illegal under the Data Protection Act 1998.
    1. We hope that the Steering Committee rethinks its decisions as to the agreed Conference as it has clearly led to widespread anger and confusion amongst Momentum activists, including calls for a split.
  • Broxtowe Momentum
  • Cambridge Area Momentum 2)Cambridge Area Momentum
    meeting on January 29: 15 votes in favour of a motion condemning the imposition of the constitution, with 5 abstentions. 16 votes in favour of a proposal in support of local organisation and a local groups conference, with 4 abstentions.
  • Camden Momentum
  • Cheshire West and Chester Momentum
  • Coventry Momentum 3)Coventry Momentum A general meeting on January 19 voted with 18 votes for and one against the motion below. In addition, it was agreed that in the spirit of the vision of Jeremy Corbyn for a social movement that would work to change society, the Coventry Momentum local branch welcomes all socialists to its meetings.”This branch condemns the undemocratic dissolution of Momentum’s elected national and regional committees and the imposition of a new constitution by the steering committee majority.
    Calls on Momentum branches to oppose this coup against the members and urges the national committee to convene itself, re-elect a new steering committee, declare the constitution invalid, and renew the mandate of the Conference Arrangements Committee.
    This Branch agrees to send a motion and delegates to the National Conference when convened by the democratically elected Conference Arrangements Committee.”
  • Darlington Momentum 4)Darlington Momentum general meeting on January 17 voted unanimously for this motion, which was also adopted at an open meeting called by Northern Regional network on January 15.
    We call for people to stay members of Momentum including local groups and regional networks and continue to build a bottom up grassroots network
    We call for the restoration of Momentum’s democratic structures including regional networks and the convening of NC on 28 January.
    We propose local groups and regions, working with the NC call a national meeting of Momentum groups to discuss the way forward We will campaign for democracy in Momentum
  • Derbyshire Momentum 5)Momentum Derbyshire general meeting on January 17, unanimously passed this motion
    This meeting notes:
    – That on 10th January 2017 National Momentum announced the immediate adoption of a new constitution.
    – That this constitution dissolves the NC, SC and regional networks, including those on loomio.
    – Graphics were published on the momentum website explaining how to pass a motion or amend this new constitution.
    – That this constitution was voted for by only 6 members of the SC.
    – That the CAC was declared to be abolished.
    – That the National Conference planned for 19th Feb seems unlikely to proceed, with a gathering in London on the 18th Feb
    now being planned, where no motions are to be considered.
    – It is not necessary for all members of an affiliated group or a socialist society affiliated to Labour to be members of the Labour Party.
    This meeting believes:
    – That the adoption of this constitution has no legitimate basis, with no consultation of the membership.
    – That passing motions or constitutional amendments is now very difficult, and not conductive to grassroots democracy.
    – That the postponement of the 19th Feb conference, where this constitution could have been debated alongside that produced by Matt Wrack, is wrong and should go ahead.
    – That the expulsion of any momentum members not currently in the Labour Party, whether because of expulsions or in no party, is wrong.This meeting resolves:
    – To call on the NC to confirm the conference now planned for March as going ahead.
    – To call on the NC to reject the imposition of this constitution and instead present it for consideration at this conference.
    – That the NC should re-affirm that membership of Momentum is open to everyone who is a member of Labour or not a member of a party that stands candidates against Labour.
  • Enfield Momentum 6)Enfield Momentum on January 22 voted with 30 for, 2 against with 1 abstention:
    “Enfield Momentum condemns the undemocratic dissolution of Momentum’s elected national and regional committees and the imposition of a new constitution, all done without any mandate from the members.

    We also condemn that the constitution allows only 12 members of the NCG to be directly elected by the membership, thus ensuring Momentum ceases to be a democratic member led organisation.

    We call on all Momentum branches to oppose this coup against the members. We demand that the constitution be suspended, until such time that a democratic debate about the future of Momentum can be convened and an open and transparent decision reached. The terms of any constitution adopted by Momentum must be agreed by the informed consent of a majority of its members.”

  • Harrow
  • Hexham Momentum
  • Hounslow Momentum
  • Kirklees Momentum 7)
    • Kirklees Momentum general meeting, January 15
      This meeting notes:

      • That on 10th January 2017 National Momentum announced the immediate adoption of a new constitution
      • That this constitution dissolves the NC, SC and regional networks, including those on loomio
      • Graphics were published on the momentum website explaining how to pass a motion or amend this new constitution
      • That this constitution was voted for by only 6 members of the SC
      • That the CAC was declared to be abolished.
      • That the National Conference planned for 19th Feb seems unlikely to proceed, with a gathering in London on the 18th Feb
        now being planned, where no motions are to be considered.It is not necessary for all members of an affiliated group or a socialist society affiliated to Labour to be members of the Labour Party.

    This meeting believes:

      • That the adoption of this constitution has no legitimate basis, with no consultation of the membership.
      • That passing motions or constitutional amendments is now very difficult, and not conductive to grassroots democracy.
      • That the postponement of the 19th Feb conference, where this constitution could have been debated alongside that produced by Matt Wrack, is wrong and should go ahead.
      • That the expulsion of any momentum members not currently in the Labour Party, whether because of expulsions or in no party, is wrong.

    This meeting resolves:

      • To call on the NC to confirm the conference now planned for March as going ahead.
      • To call on the NC to reject the imposition of this constitution and instead present it for consideration at this conference.
      • That the NC should re-affirm that membership of Momentum is open to everyone who is a member of Labour or not a member of a party that stands candidates against Labour
  • Lambeth Momentum 8)Lambeth Momentum general meeting, February 16
    Lambeth Momentum condemns the undemocratic behaviour of the majority of the Momentum Steering Committee in trying to undermine the decisions of the December 3rd National Committee. The attempt to dissolve all elected committees and impose a new constitution on members without discussion is nothing less than an undemocratic coup by a small group of SC members.We oppose Momentum unquestioningly and without due process expelling all those previously expelled by the Labour Party Compliance Unit. We will continue to allow such comrades to remain involved in our local Momentum group so long as they meet our current membership criteria and we call, yet again, on national Momentum to agree fair and transparent disciplinary and complaints procedures.We call on the NC to immediately convene itself, nullify the imposed constitution, re-elect the Steering Committee and allow the Conference Arrangements Committee to carry on its work in organising a democratic, decision making conference in February))
  • Leicestershire Momentum ((Leicestershire MomentumThe following motion was passed at our meeting of January 14th, 2017, 21 votes to 2, with 3 abstentions:Leicestershire Momentum opposes the imposition of a constitution on the organisation with no discussion or democratic process, and calls for the imposition to be immediately reversed.We want Momentum to move forward, focus on campaigning, building support for socialist policies in the Labour Party as many local groups have been doing.We want to build Momentum as a democratic movement to enable this.We welcome the continuing functioning of the Momentum National Committee (NC) and call on our NC members to attend it, even if it is no longer recognised by the National OfficeWe call for a national conference with delegates from local groups to happen in March 2017 to allow groups to coordinate, learn from each other, discuss and make decisions on the way forward for Momentum.We also oppose summary expulsions from the Labour Party. And will continue to allow those expelled on this basis to be fully involved in our local Momentum group.
  • Leeds Momentum 9)Leeds Momentum decided by a vote of 26 to 25 on January 15 to vote against the imposed constitution, though no motion was agreed on.
  • Lewisham Momentum 10)Lewisham Momentum, meeting on January 16: We are saddened by the attempted coup against democracy in Momentum by six members of the national Steering Committee, seeking to uproot what democracy exists and impose an undemocratic constitution by diktat.We believe the great majority of members, whatever their views on the shape of national structures, aspire to a democratic organisation in which those who make decisions are accountable. There is a minority, entrenched at the national centre of Momentum, who seem determined to prevent the consolidation of a functioning democracy of any sort, whatever the costs to the organisation and the movement.We want a democratic Momentum which debates and develops socialist policies as part of organising and mobilising to transform Labour and the labour movement. We need an end to bureaucratic manipulation from above, which has wasted so much time, energy and good will that should be used for productive work.
    We urge people not to resign or drift out in disgust. We:
    – will coordinate with others in Momentum to fight the coup and for democracy and socialist policies.
    – welcome the SC and NC continuing to meet
    – back the calling of a national conference of group delegates in March
    – to allow groups to coordinate, learn from each other and discuss the way forward (avoiding a clash with the 4 March NHS and 18 March anti-racism demos).
    We will elect five delegates and two alternates to attend this conference and the 18 February rally called by the office.
  • Liverpool Riverside Momentum 11)Liverpool Riverside Momentum
    The unilateral email proposal of January 10th 2017, originating from John Lansman and something calling itself ‘Team Momentum’, is undemocratic and therefore invalid. Liverpool Riverside Momentum calls on the National Committee to proceed with the national conference in February. We do not recognise the validity of the Momentum Christmas Questionnaire, or the abrogation of our democratic structures by John Lansman and the group around him
  • Liverpool Momentum
  • Medway Momentum
  • Newham Momentum
  • North Tyneside Momentum
  • Northamptonshire Momentum 12)Northamptonshire Momentum met on January 10 and “expresses solidarity and support for the Momentum Conference Arrangements Committee 2017 and look forward to attending their conference”.
  • Richmond Park and Twickenham Momentum 13)Richmond Park and Twickenham Momentum, meeting on January 12:
    This local group condemns the undemocratic behaviour of the majority of the Momentum Steering Committee in trying to undermine the decisions of the December 3rd National Committee. The attempt to dissolve all elected committees and impose a new constitution on members without discussion is nothing less than undemocratic action by a small group of SC members
  • Rotherham Momentum 14)Rotherham Momentum passed the following motion on January 24:That this branch:

    1. Recognises the key fundamental principle of Momentum is to strive for socialism, which currently includes supporting Corbyn to make the Labour Party more democratic with socialist policies that will eventually lead to a socialist Labour government;

    2. Recognises that fundamental to socialist principles is full democracy that involves full participation of the people;

    Therefore:

    3. Views with concern and does not accept the actions of a small number of people that have disregarded democracy to try to abolish the existing democratic structures and impose a new constitution with no transparent consultation and no ballot of the members;

    4. Resolves to continue to operate within the existing democratic structures, electing delegates and moving proposals to the representative bodies for consideration;

    5. Resolves to strive for a new constitution that includes the representative delegate structures that are essential for proper face-to-face debate, as well as online consultation and voting technology that ensures all members can participate and choose their representatives, validated and implemented through democratic means.

  • Sheffield Momentum (Steering Committee) 15)Momentum Sheffield steering committee meeting on January 17
    Momentum Sheffield’s Steering Committee opposes the undemocratic manner in which Momentum’s national constitution was imposed.We want Momentum to move forward and focus on campaigning, building support for socialist policies and democracy in the Labour Party, and mobilising for a socialist Labour government. We want to build Momentum as a democratic movement to enable this.We have always encouraged our members to be Labour Party members and have stood against the summary expulsions from the Party on political grounds. We will continue to allow those expelled on this basis to be fully active, including holding elected positions, within our local group. We call on Momentum to adopt the same position nationally.
  • Sheffield Momentum 16)Sheffield Momentum general meeting, January 25:
    Sheffield Momentum opposes the undemocratic manner in which Momentum’s national constitution was imposed.We do not believe the new Constitution establishes a member-led organisation. OMOV online will elect only an inbuilt minority of members (a maximum of 44%) of the new ruling National
    Coordinating Committee (NCG), with the other NCG members coming from ‘Labour public officer holders’, affiliated trade unions and ‘other affiliated organisations’, including ‘Left Futures’ (Jon Lansman’s own blog) and the NCG’s own power of cooption. Further, members’ ability to influence or change any NCG decisions is heavily restricted by artificially high thresholds.We want Momentum to move forward and focus on campaigning, building support for socialist policies and democracy in the Labour Party, and mobilising for a socialist Labour government. We want to build Momentum as a democratic movement to enable this.We want Momentum to remain a *united* organisation, both nationally and locally, and do *not* support a boycott of the new national structures.We note that a large majority of groups that have met to discuss the imposition of the new constitution have opposed the process.We want to promote greater democracy and grassroots activity in Momentum and will work with others for a reasonable resolution to the current situation within a united Momentum.We will encourage our members to attend the national event on 18 February (or on a future date if it is postponed).

    We also support the call for a national network meeting of local Momentum groups to meet in March.

    We have always encouraged our members to be Labour Party members and have stood against the summary expulsions from the Party on political grounds. We will continue to allow those expelled on this basis to be fully active, including holding elected positions, within our local group. We call on Momentum to adopt the same position nationally.”

    Bizarrely, the meeting also voted through a motion “supporting” the constitution, while another one “reluctantly accepts” the constitution.

  • Southwark Momentum 17)Southwark Momentum agreed this statement on January 11 in a meeting attended by Jon Lansman:”This branch condemns the undemocratic dissolution of Momentum’s elected national and regional committees and the imposition of a new constitution by the steering committee majority.”Calls on Momentum branches to oppose this coup against the members and urges the national committee to convene itself, re-elect a new steering committee, declare the constitution invalid, and renew the mandate of the conference arrangements committee.”
  • South Tyneside Momentum
  • South East Kent Momentum
  • Southwark Momentum
  • Thanet Momentum
  • Tower Hamlets Momentum 18)Tower Hamlets Momentum general meeting, January 18:
    To Team Momentum and Jon Lansman:
    Momentum Tower Hamlets condemns the imposition of a new constitution, the actions leading up to it, and substantial sections of the document itself. In addition we demand that the organisation takes steps to reject this undemocratic manoeuvre and respects the democratic mandate of its members as represented by the existing National Committee, National Steering Committee and regional delegates.This announcement has come at a critical moment not just for the central organisation and the Labour Party, but also for local groups that actually are engaging, building alliances and putting ‘shared values’ into practice. Tower Hamlets Labour party is currently in the midst of delayed AGMs in which Momentum members are actively engaged and seeking election. This action by the central organisation does nothing to support this, and adds fuel to the attempts to besmirch and ridicule our organisation.At best we can only accept this document as a draft resolution and demand that it be taken to the existing National Committee for discussion, amendment and endorsement. Given the ambiguity of the document we suggest that action is taken to address a number of issues and will draw attention to the most glaring problems:

    1. The incentive for this document is based on the pre-Christmas on-line survey, which undermined the previous democratic decisions of the organization, was not presented as a resolution or seeking mandate, and cannot be used as a basis for the imposition of a constitution. Subsequent communication claimed that the response was a huge democratic success, and by implication a mandate for subsequent actions. We reject this and point out that 40% doesn’t represent a majority, and the process represents nothing more than a democratic deficit in its representation of members.
    2. Whilst the wording and working of the proposed NCG is ambiguous the intention seems clear: rather than strengthen the voice of the membership the balance of power is weighed 16-12 against the membership in favour of unions, affiliates and elected MPs etc., so repeating the very structures that have held back the left of the Labour party itself.
    3. The document insists that membership of Momentum is dependent on membership of the Labour Party, and imposes a deadline for joining of 1 July 2017. We reject this as arbitrary and draw attention to the ongoing delays, confusion and inefficiencies of the Labour Party membership itself which in the last year has seen several local members waiting for over 7 months for their membership to be confirmed.
    4. We see no reason why members expelled (or by implication, refused membership) from the Labour Party should be automatically expelled from Momentum. One of the campaigns that Momentum embraced over the summer was to challenge the arbitrary and undemocratic nature of the expulsions and suspensions made. We will continue to accept membership to our local organisation by people who are in the process of committing to join both Momentum and the Labour Party, and we fail to see how one can expand membership of either without this right.
    5. A list of affiliate organisation has been presented with no debate and in an ambiguous and arbitrary fashion, mirroring the very processes that the Labour Party itself has used to silence voices from the left. We demand that all affiliate organisations are selected through an agreed democratic process, at annual conference, not by arbitrary mandate.
    6. The election by lot to a members council makes a mockery of the role of members and their authority over policy, structure and campaigns. It also reduces the central importance we in Tower Hamlets give to the democratic principle of accountability of elected officers within Momentum and the Labour Party. Being elected by lot absolves you of being held accountable, as well as reducing actual participation in the organising structures to a sham.Most importantly we absolutely condemn the options presented to members to challenge this constitution. We neither accept the dichotomy that members’ silence on this equals consent to the document, nor do we accept as an alternative cancellation of membership. By contrast the members of Momentum Tower Hamlets reject this constitution and insist that the members of the organisation are in fact sovereign, not an unelected bureaucracy or individual members wielding proprietorial leverage. We call on the members of Momentum and organised local groups to do the same, and continue your democratic participation campaigning with the Labour Party.We are Momentum and continue to act in Tower Hamlets under the democratic mandate that we have established.
  • Truro and Falmouth Momentum
  • Wandsworth Momentum 19)Wandsworth Momentum, meeting on January 19
    1. Momentum’s new national constitution has been imposed on members without discussion. This is not the “new kind of politics” that we support. Regardless of its merits and its defects, we reject the new constitution because of the way it was imposed on us.
    2. We are not going to leave Momentum, as has been demanded of those members who reject the new constitution. We will elect a Working Party to reach out to other branches of Momentum and to take all necessary steps to rebuild a democratic organisation from the bottom up.
    3. Our aim was and still is to create an open, pluralist, outward-facing network of activists working within the Labour Party to achieve a transformation of our society in the interests of the 99%. We support the 10 pledges issued by Jeremy Corbyn last year and will work to ensure they are the basis for Labour’s campaigning and next election manifesto

 

  • South Yorkshire and Humberside regional committee 20)South Yorkshire and Humberside regional committee, meeting on January 22:
    “That this meeting operates as a representative delegate committee until a new constitution has been validated through democratic means with consultation with all members.” So I believe the breakdown was: For: Rotherham x1, Leeds x1, York x2, Kirklees x2, Wakefield x1. Against: Calderdale x2, Bradford x1. Abstain: Sheffield x2.
  • Northern Momentum regional committee
  • Momentum National Committee 21)Momentum National Committee meeting on January 28;
    Proposal 1 – agreed as amendedWe share the outrage which has swept the country about the coup in Momentum. We urge people not to resign or drift out in disgust. We need to continue the fight for democracy, a campaigning orientation and socialist policies, so we can build up an organisation capable of transforming Labour and the labour movement. We note the large number of local Momentum groups which have already met and condemned the coup, and the significant number which have called for a national networking event for groups in March.More than one years afters its foundation, Momentum is nowhere near where it should be. Local groups have achieved amazing things but they have largely done this on their own. The top of the organisation has failed to develop the infrastructure, support and resources that should be available to members. Much worse, the behaviour of a portion of Momentum’s leadership has undermined the trust and goodwill without which we cannot function as a diverse, pluralist movement. The new constitution will entrench the power of one faction at the expense of the organisation as a whole.

    The debate in Momentum ins now not about what kind of democracy we have – it is about whether Momentum has democratic structures at all. We do not take a view on the debate between online and in-person voting systems. But Momentum needs democracy and accountability in order to be competent, in the labour movement, only our collective wisdom can win – the collective wisdom of local activists who fight for their communities, for their fellow workers, for a different kind of society. We want to build a world in which every aspect of our lives is democratic. Momentum must live its values throughout the organisation.

    We do not accept that the people who carried out the coup constitute the leadership of Momentum. We assert the role and responsibility of Momentum’s grassroots membership in formulating strategy, continuing our campaigns and holding organisations together.

    1. We call on everyone in Momentum to stay in the organisation and work constructively with each other wherever we can, whatever our differing views on the content of the new constitution or the manner of its imposition.
    2. We endorse the call made by a number of local groups for an national networking conference of representatives of local groups on 11 March. We call for as many local groups as possible to publicly endorse this call and to attend. This conference is not the “founding conference” that was planned for February, which was cancelled by the coup; and, while it may establish some connections or structures, it is not to set up a rival organisation to Momentum. Its purpose is to allow Momentum groups to – at long last – coordinate with each other on a national level: to learn from each other, discuss and develop campaigning ideas, and debate the way forward for Momentum, including the fight for democracy.
    3. We call on local groups to continue meetings including at the original regional level to coordinate activities, to create the support networks and infrastructure our members need, to run training and education for our members and activists and to share examples of goof practice; and to catalyse the formation of new local groups.
    4. We do not accept the coup and will not dissolve ourselves at a National Committee. We assert ourselves as a continuation of the structure established on 6 February 2016. We will elect a coordinating group at this National Committee.

    Proposal 2 – agreed as amended

    This Momentum National Committee believes that Momentum must be an open and democratic group which enables debate and informed decision making. Members should decide policy, structure and activity. Members should be able to initiate proposals, and then vote on various choices, based on information and arguments.
    The NC rejects the attempt to impose a new constitution for Momentum. This has taken place without members being allowed  to even see the specific proposals, let alone discuss them and then vote on them.
    The NC agrees to:
    Encourage Momentum members and local groups to remain in Momentum;
    Encourage local groups to continue to meet, and for members to form local groups where they are not meeting or cease to meet because the local officers are not convening them;
    Encourage those groups to link up in area and regional committees of local Momentum groups. Those meetings should agree the policies and the campaigning activity for their areas and regions, and decide on policies to take into the Labour Party and the wider community. Groups should also decide on candidates to stand and who to support in local and regional Labour Party elections;
    Encourage local groups to continue to accept participation from Momentum supporters who have been unjustly expelled, suspended or excluded from the Labour Party;
    Support the conference planned by the Conference Arrangements Committee;
    Suggest that the CAC holds that as a National Meeting of Momentum local groups, with voting by democratically elected representatives of local groups on the numerical basis by the last NC, and also open to observers without voting rights.

  • Labour Representation Committee 22)Labour Representation Committe:
    The following motions on Momentum were passed at the LRC NEC on January 21 20171) The LRC rejects the new constitution imposed upon Momentum. The new constitution dissolves the existing democratic structures of Momentum – the National Committee, the Conference Arrangements Committee and the Steering Committee – without proper discussion and without even consulting the first two of these bodies. It puts in their place a National Co-ordinating Group and a Members’ Council. Neither of these bodies have yet been elected or selected, so at present there is no governing body of Momentum at all.  Even when the National Co-ordinating Group and Members’ Council are in place there is no proper means of their members being made accountable to the membership. We shall fight for a democratic alternative to the new constitution.We condemn the way this new constitution has been put in place, with a simple email to the members of the Steering Committee asking for a Yes/No reply, with no discussion and replies from a bare majority of the Steering Committee without explanation deemed sufficient to dissolve the existing democratic structures.We reject the fact that the new constitution abolishes the regional structures of Momentum currently in place. It also thereby cancels co-ordination between regions.We reject the fact that the new constitution abolishes the power of the Conference to be a decision-making body.We reject the fact that the new constitution makes Momentum a body where all members of Momentum are required to be Labour Party members. While we believe that all members should be encouraged and convinced to become Labour Party members, the best way to achieve this is not by demanding LP membership as a precondition of becoming a member of Momentum. This rule also means that those unjustly expelled from the Party are ineligible for membership of Momentum.We call on all members of Momentum to maintain their membership and to campaign for it to become a democratic organisation. The LRC campaigns for Momentum to become a mass fighting socialist organisation committed to winning the widest support in the labour movement and in British society in order to win support for the policies on which Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership and to elect a Labour government committed to these policies.The LRC shall also be sending a delegation to the Momentum National Committee (which the new constitution claims to have abolished) due to meet on January 28th 2017.We want the LRC’s views on this matter to be published as widely as possible on our website and on social media.

    2) The LRC condemns the undemocratic closing down of elected bodies within Momentum, by its legal owner, Jon Lansman. We recognise that the particular history of Momentum’s brief existence required the transition from initial set up of a private company to a full-fledged socialist and Labour Party orientated organisation, which gave power to ordinary members through election processes and the formation of democratically elected representative bodies. The organic forms of representation that developed in local areas, in the form of branches and local groups, reflected the desire of Labour Party members and Corbyn supporters to build a coherent left, with a mission to transform the Labour Party as a vehicle of democratic socialist policies and for government, both locally and on a national scale. We acknowledge Jon Lansman has used his legal private ownership and staff he has appointed at the London office to circumvent the wishes of the wider active membership based in branches and local groups to destroy the current emerging national structure of Momentum.

    We therefore resolve to endorse the following:

    1. not to accept Momentum’s offer of a place on their National Co-ordinating Group, as outlined in their new constitution, as we cannot give legitimacy to its undemocratic actions;

    2. support measures to continue the plans for a national conference of what would have been representatives from local Momentum groups;

  • Red Labour organisers group 23)Statement from the Red Labour organisers group
    Red Labour was established in 2011, initially as an online project which sought to promote socialism within the Labour Party and help socialists organise within their respective Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs). We subsequently moved into real world activities, establishing several groups in various parts of the country.We played a significant role in mobilising support for an anti-austerity leadership candidate in the summer of 2015, securing the nominations for Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign and his election as leader in September 2015.We welcomed the establishment of Momentum and hoped it could be grassroots organisation which could harness the support for Jerem Corbyn’s socialist politics to help transform our party and communities. However, we are dismayed at recent developments within Momentum which are completely contrary to the Bennite tradition of grassroots democracy. Red Labour’s approach: ‘from the ground up, not the top down’, is more than a slogan.Therefore, we have taken the decision, as a collective, not to accept Momentum’s offer of a place on their National Co-ordinating Group, as outlined in their new constitution. This does not preclude us from working with Momentum activists at a local level or on joint campaigns, but we simply cannot endorse (or continue to support) the undemocratic actions of those at the top of Momentum. We hope Momentum are able to sort their issues out. In the meantime, we believe we need to focus our energy and resources on creating a party we can be proud of and ensuring a Labour victory at the next General Election.
  • Momentum Conference Arrangements Committee 24)Momentum Conference Arrangements Committee
    The Momentum Conference Arrangements Committee (CAC) note with dismay the decision, of six people from Momentum’s Steering Committee (SC), to declare our National Committee (NC) and its decision to hold a conference with decision-making powers to be dissolved.We cannot understand how “the six” feel this benefits our aims. We call for the destructive and divisive actions from their email to be reversed immediately before any more damage is done to the organisation.
    Their ideas could have been democratically debated at the conference that we were working round the clock to organise. Instead they have attempted to declare changes with no mandate.However, committed members and agreed current structures cannot be dissolved by the click of an email from an office by half a dozen people.The CAC takes its direction from Momentum’s National Committee, as per the original remit we were given. Until that body meets and informs us our role has changed, we will continue working towards Momentum’s first conference. Further details of this will be announced through the same Conference Arrangements Committee Facebook page, and we would urge all members to look there (https://www.facebook.com/momentumconference17/…) for all future updates.All emails regarding conference business should now be sent to the new email momentumconference2017@gmail.com as we have been locked out of the original with no notice.
    Whilst a minority of our number have accepted the email from “the six” as legitimate, the CAC majority (and in effect the people who have done virtually all of the work to make a conference happen) are still able to organise a conference which brings together the key Momentum supporters.The conference will consider motions, be a place to network and to politically educate ourselves as per the original NC remit. The conference will fashion a clear strategy for democratising the Labour Party and fighting the effects of austerity in our communities.Considering Jeremy Corbyn is as safe as he will ever be in his position, but the Labour Party is not committed to the policies he was elected on, the discussion at this conference comes at a crucial time.
    Successfully achieving clear actions based on the above will be the only way that Jeremy Corbyns Labour party will win the political power the working class needs it to.
  • Member of Momentum Youth and Student Committee 25)Member of Momentum Youth and Student Committee We the undersigned members of the Momentum Youth and Students (MYS) committee express our collective disagreement with the statement published on the MYS page with regards to the imposition of a new constitution on Momentum by Jon Lansman and a slim majority of the Steering Committee. We also note with irony that the current Momentum Youth and Students committee effectively does not have any official authority to release such statements because according to the new constitution it effectively no longer exists.We believe the new constitution runs contrary to the very best democratic traditions in the labour movement. Far from ‘empowering members’, the sole democratic body in the constitution, the National Coordinating Group, only has 12 out of 30 seats on it directly elected by members. They are outnumbered by the seats given to affiliates (including Jon Lansman’s blog), trade unions and Labour elected representatives. Ostensibly introduced to prevent Momentum repicating the structures of a “political party”, the new constitution effectively mimics the Labour Party NEC.In order to make any proposal to the National Co-ordinating Group, a member has to get the support of at least 1000 members, which is a difficult task for grassroots members with limited national contacts or access to large email lists. A toothless Members’ Council will comprise 50 people selected by random lots but “shall not be required to make decisions on the operation of the constitution or administration of the organisation.” Make no mistake, members of Momentum under the new constitution have less of a voice than they did in the existing structures. It disempowers the grassroots membership and fortifies a totally unaccountable central organ.Disgracefully, in a move to silence prominent critics of the new structures, the new constitution bars Labour Party members who have been unfairly expelled from the party by the Compliance Unit from being members of Momentum. This has the implication of indirectly handing over control of Momentum’s membership criteria to Iain McNicol, expressly contradicting Momentum’s voted-on policy to fight the witch-hunt of socialists.We believe that the process by which the new constitution has come into force is not a result of a legitimate debate within existing democratic structures. As a sub-committee of the National Committee, whose mandate had run out in July 2016, the Steering Committee does not have the power to make constitutional decisions about Momentum, and did so solely to head-off the planned and more representative Momentum national conference in February.The online survey that is cited to support the actions of the Steering Committee was fundamentally misleading, and backed up by the sort of resources, mass emails, all-member text messages and support from leading Labour figures that Momentum’s outward facing campaigns, such as on the NHS, could only dream of.
    Nowhere in the survey was any respondent asked about the specific structural proposals set out in the constitution. We also note that a consultative survey is not the same as a vote, is not in any way democratically binding and was not presented as a way of making constitutional decisions. It is far from clear if the respondents to the survey are more representative of Momentum members than the members who go to meetings, after all only 40% of the membership responded to the survey, and the evidence from the survey is that 40% of Momentum members go to meetings.We believe that Momentum, in order to be successful, has to be based in local groups with the power (and the data) to organise themselves as part of a socialist organisation on a national platform where decisions are made democratically and openly. We do not believe it is up to the owner of Momentum to effectively dissolve all existing structures through an email vote wrapped up within an hour. Democracy cannot be passive assent, it has to be deliberative, done through serious debate and discussion that takes place across the country. We maintain our support for the National Committee meeting called on 28th January, and believe that the National Committee remains the sovereign decision-making body in Momentum and Conference must be organised according to its decisions.Momentum continues to be one of the most potentially transformative forces within the Labour movement. That is why we must continue to assert ourselves as grassroots members organising in branches across the country to change the Labour Party. The Steering Committee’s recent actions are an act of sabotage against what we can achieve as an organisation.Rida Vaquas
    Ed Potts
    Hattie Craig
    Monty Shield
    Liam McNulty
    Josie Runswick
  • LGBT+ Forum 26)LGBT+ Forum: Motion to Momentum London LGBT+ Meeting, 14 January
    1. Momentum’s new national constitution has been imposed on members without discussion. This is not the “new kind of politics” that we support. Regardless of its merits and its defects, we reject the new constitution because of the way it was imposed on us.
    2. In particular we note with concern the total lack of consultation with any liberation groups, the absence of mechanisms for liberation groups to feed into Momentum and ensure equality, and the ongoing lack of progress in establishing liberation groups around the country due to lack of action by the office.
    3. We are not going to leave Momentum, as has been demanded of those members who reject the new constitution. We authorise our elected Steering Committee to reach out to other Momentum groups and to take all necessary steps to rebuild a democratic organisation from the bottom up.
    4. Our aim was and still is to create an open, pluralist, outward-facing network of activists working within the Labour Party to achieve a transformation of our society in the interests of the 99%. We support the 10 pledges issued by Jeremy Corbyn last year and will work to ensure they are the basis for Labour’s campaigning and next election manifesto and work for the election of a Labour Government with Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister.
  • Proposal on MxV platform 27)Proposal on Mxv platform: Reject the decision by Jon Lansman to dissolve the current structures and CAC
    We condemn in the strongest possible terms the moves by Jon Lansman and his clique to usurp and undermine the democratic decisions made by the majority of the Momentum National Committee. These undemocratic, behind-the-scenes manoeuvres demonstrate that Lansman and co. can no longer be a trusted and should be replaced immediately by accountable representatives, elected through the previously existing democratic structures of the Regional and National Committees. The newly imposed constitution is completely undemocratic and should be withdrawn immediately. Instead, the plans drawn up by the previously elected Conference Arrangements Committee should be used as the basis for a national conference of elected delegates to discuss and decide upon the way forward for Momentum and the Corbyn movement.We call for:
    * The immediate restoration of all democratic structures within Momentum.
    * The national conference to proceed in its previously agreed form, as a democratic conference to discuss motions and decide policy on the basis of elected delegates from local groups.
    * For an emergency National Committee to discuss this coup and hold those responsible to account.

 

References

References
↑1 Brighton and Hove Momentum General Meeting, January 25
  1. We condemn the attempt by Jon Lansman and the majority of the Steering Committee to abolish the National Committee and the Conference Arrangements Committee, which was elected at the December NC meeting.
  1. It is not possible for the Steering Committee, which was elected by the NC, to abolish the very body which elected it.
  1. We do not recognise the newly-announced ‘Constitution’ imposed by way of an email.  It has no validity. We note that the Steering Committee, let alone the National Committee, was not even given an opportunity to discuss this proposed Constitution.
  1.  We particularly condemn the fact that those who refuse to accept an imposed, undemocratic Constitution, will be deemed to have resigned from Momentum.
  1.  We wish to give full support to the elected National and Conference Arrangement Committees.  We urge that a national delegate conference open to all Momentum groups and oppressed groups be convened as a matter of urgency and ask that in the meantime a bank account etc. be opened by the NC in order that the necessary financial arrangements can be mad
  1. We call on other Momentum groups and oppressed groups to boycott the proposed conference that Jon Lansman and the Steering Committee majority are organising.  It will be undemocratic and will not discuss policy, the new ‘constitution’ or motions.  Likewise we urge members to boycott elections to the new National Co-ordinating Group.  The NCG has no political, moral or legal validity.
  1. We urge that Jon Lansman and the Steering Committee majority to place all Momentum data in the hands of the Steering Committee and warn them that any ‘change in use’ of that data will be illegal under the Data Protection Act 1998.
  1. We hope that the Steering Committee rethinks its decisions as to the agreed Conference as it has clearly led to widespread anger and confusion amongst Momentum activists, including calls for a split.
↑2 Cambridge Area Momentum
meeting on January 29: 15 votes in favour of a motion condemning the imposition of the constitution, with 5 abstentions. 16 votes in favour of a proposal in support of local organisation and a local groups conference, with 4 abstentions.
↑3 Coventry Momentum A general meeting on January 19 voted with 18 votes for and one against the motion below. In addition, it was agreed that in the spirit of the vision of Jeremy Corbyn for a social movement that would work to change society, the Coventry Momentum local branch welcomes all socialists to its meetings.”This branch condemns the undemocratic dissolution of Momentum’s elected national and regional committees and the imposition of a new constitution by the steering committee majority.
Calls on Momentum branches to oppose this coup against the members and urges the national committee to convene itself, re-elect a new steering committee, declare the constitution invalid, and renew the mandate of the Conference Arrangements Committee.
This Branch agrees to send a motion and delegates to the National Conference when convened by the democratically elected Conference Arrangements Committee.”
↑4 Darlington Momentum general meeting on January 17 voted unanimously for this motion, which was also adopted at an open meeting called by Northern Regional network on January 15.
We call for people to stay members of Momentum including local groups and regional networks and continue to build a bottom up grassroots network
We call for the restoration of Momentum’s democratic structures including regional networks and the convening of NC on 28 January.
We propose local groups and regions, working with the NC call a national meeting of Momentum groups to discuss the way forward We will campaign for democracy in Momentum
↑5 Momentum Derbyshire general meeting on January 17, unanimously passed this motion
This meeting notes:
– That on 10th January 2017 National Momentum announced the immediate adoption of a new constitution.
– That this constitution dissolves the NC, SC and regional networks, including those on loomio.
– Graphics were published on the momentum website explaining how to pass a motion or amend this new constitution.
– That this constitution was voted for by only 6 members of the SC.
– That the CAC was declared to be abolished.
– That the National Conference planned for 19th Feb seems unlikely to proceed, with a gathering in London on the 18th Feb
now being planned, where no motions are to be considered.
– It is not necessary for all members of an affiliated group or a socialist society affiliated to Labour to be members of the Labour Party.
This meeting believes:
– That the adoption of this constitution has no legitimate basis, with no consultation of the membership.
– That passing motions or constitutional amendments is now very difficult, and not conductive to grassroots democracy.
– That the postponement of the 19th Feb conference, where this constitution could have been debated alongside that produced by Matt Wrack, is wrong and should go ahead.
– That the expulsion of any momentum members not currently in the Labour Party, whether because of expulsions or in no party, is wrong.This meeting resolves:
– To call on the NC to confirm the conference now planned for March as going ahead.
– To call on the NC to reject the imposition of this constitution and instead present it for consideration at this conference.
– That the NC should re-affirm that membership of Momentum is open to everyone who is a member of Labour or not a member of a party that stands candidates against Labour.
↑6 Enfield Momentum on January 22 voted with 30 for, 2 against with 1 abstention:
“Enfield Momentum condemns the undemocratic dissolution of Momentum’s elected national and regional committees and the imposition of a new constitution, all done without any mandate from the members.

We also condemn that the constitution allows only 12 members of the NCG to be directly elected by the membership, thus ensuring Momentum ceases to be a democratic member led organisation.

We call on all Momentum branches to oppose this coup against the members. We demand that the constitution be suspended, until such time that a democratic debate about the future of Momentum can be convened and an open and transparent decision reached. The terms of any constitution adopted by Momentum must be agreed by the informed consent of a majority of its members.”

↑7
  • Kirklees Momentum general meeting, January 15
    This meeting notes:

    • That on 10th January 2017 National Momentum announced the immediate adoption of a new constitution
    • That this constitution dissolves the NC, SC and regional networks, including those on loomio
    • Graphics were published on the momentum website explaining how to pass a motion or amend this new constitution
    • That this constitution was voted for by only 6 members of the SC
    • That the CAC was declared to be abolished.
    • That the National Conference planned for 19th Feb seems unlikely to proceed, with a gathering in London on the 18th Feb
      now being planned, where no motions are to be considered.It is not necessary for all members of an affiliated group or a socialist society affiliated to Labour to be members of the Labour Party.

This meeting believes:

    • That the adoption of this constitution has no legitimate basis, with no consultation of the membership.
    • That passing motions or constitutional amendments is now very difficult, and not conductive to grassroots democracy.
    • That the postponement of the 19th Feb conference, where this constitution could have been debated alongside that produced by Matt Wrack, is wrong and should go ahead.
    • That the expulsion of any momentum members not currently in the Labour Party, whether because of expulsions or in no party, is wrong.

This meeting resolves:

    • To call on the NC to confirm the conference now planned for March as going ahead.
    • To call on the NC to reject the imposition of this constitution and instead present it for consideration at this conference.
    • That the NC should re-affirm that membership of Momentum is open to everyone who is a member of Labour or not a member of a party that stands candidates against Labour
↑8 Lambeth Momentum general meeting, February 16
Lambeth Momentum condemns the undemocratic behaviour of the majority of the Momentum Steering Committee in trying to undermine the decisions of the December 3rd National Committee. The attempt to dissolve all elected committees and impose a new constitution on members without discussion is nothing less than an undemocratic coup by a small group of SC members.We oppose Momentum unquestioningly and without due process expelling all those previously expelled by the Labour Party Compliance Unit. We will continue to allow such comrades to remain involved in our local Momentum group so long as they meet our current membership criteria and we call, yet again, on national Momentum to agree fair and transparent disciplinary and complaints procedures.We call on the NC to immediately convene itself, nullify the imposed constitution, re-elect the Steering Committee and allow the Conference Arrangements Committee to carry on its work in organising a democratic, decision making conference in February))
  • Leicestershire Momentum ((Leicestershire MomentumThe following motion was passed at our meeting of January 14th, 2017, 21 votes to 2, with 3 abstentions:Leicestershire Momentum opposes the imposition of a constitution on the organisation with no discussion or democratic process, and calls for the imposition to be immediately reversed.We want Momentum to move forward, focus on campaigning, building support for socialist policies in the Labour Party as many local groups have been doing.We want to build Momentum as a democratic movement to enable this.We welcome the continuing functioning of the Momentum National Committee (NC) and call on our NC members to attend it, even if it is no longer recognised by the National OfficeWe call for a national conference with delegates from local groups to happen in March 2017 to allow groups to coordinate, learn from each other, discuss and make decisions on the way forward for Momentum.We also oppose summary expulsions from the Labour Party. And will continue to allow those expelled on this basis to be fully involved in our local Momentum group.
↑9 Leeds Momentum decided by a vote of 26 to 25 on January 15 to vote against the imposed constitution, though no motion was agreed on.
↑10 Lewisham Momentum, meeting on January 16: We are saddened by the attempted coup against democracy in Momentum by six members of the national Steering Committee, seeking to uproot what democracy exists and impose an undemocratic constitution by diktat.We believe the great majority of members, whatever their views on the shape of national structures, aspire to a democratic organisation in which those who make decisions are accountable. There is a minority, entrenched at the national centre of Momentum, who seem determined to prevent the consolidation of a functioning democracy of any sort, whatever the costs to the organisation and the movement.We want a democratic Momentum which debates and develops socialist policies as part of organising and mobilising to transform Labour and the labour movement. We need an end to bureaucratic manipulation from above, which has wasted so much time, energy and good will that should be used for productive work.
We urge people not to resign or drift out in disgust. We:
– will coordinate with others in Momentum to fight the coup and for democracy and socialist policies.
– welcome the SC and NC continuing to meet
– back the calling of a national conference of group delegates in March
– to allow groups to coordinate, learn from each other and discuss the way forward (avoiding a clash with the 4 March NHS and 18 March anti-racism demos).
We will elect five delegates and two alternates to attend this conference and the 18 February rally called by the office.
↑11 Liverpool Riverside Momentum
The unilateral email proposal of January 10th 2017, originating from John Lansman and something calling itself ‘Team Momentum’, is undemocratic and therefore invalid. Liverpool Riverside Momentum calls on the National Committee to proceed with the national conference in February. We do not recognise the validity of the Momentum Christmas Questionnaire, or the abrogation of our democratic structures by John Lansman and the group around him
↑12 Northamptonshire Momentum met on January 10 and “expresses solidarity and support for the Momentum Conference Arrangements Committee 2017 and look forward to attending their conference”.
↑13 Richmond Park and Twickenham Momentum, meeting on January 12:
This local group condemns the undemocratic behaviour of the majority of the Momentum Steering Committee in trying to undermine the decisions of the December 3rd National Committee. The attempt to dissolve all elected committees and impose a new constitution on members without discussion is nothing less than undemocratic action by a small group of SC members
↑14 Rotherham Momentum passed the following motion on January 24:That this branch:

1. Recognises the key fundamental principle of Momentum is to strive for socialism, which currently includes supporting Corbyn to make the Labour Party more democratic with socialist policies that will eventually lead to a socialist Labour government;

2. Recognises that fundamental to socialist principles is full democracy that involves full participation of the people;

Therefore:

3. Views with concern and does not accept the actions of a small number of people that have disregarded democracy to try to abolish the existing democratic structures and impose a new constitution with no transparent consultation and no ballot of the members;

4. Resolves to continue to operate within the existing democratic structures, electing delegates and moving proposals to the representative bodies for consideration;

5. Resolves to strive for a new constitution that includes the representative delegate structures that are essential for proper face-to-face debate, as well as online consultation and voting technology that ensures all members can participate and choose their representatives, validated and implemented through democratic means.

↑15 Momentum Sheffield steering committee meeting on January 17
Momentum Sheffield’s Steering Committee opposes the undemocratic manner in which Momentum’s national constitution was imposed.We want Momentum to move forward and focus on campaigning, building support for socialist policies and democracy in the Labour Party, and mobilising for a socialist Labour government. We want to build Momentum as a democratic movement to enable this.We have always encouraged our members to be Labour Party members and have stood against the summary expulsions from the Party on political grounds. We will continue to allow those expelled on this basis to be fully active, including holding elected positions, within our local group. We call on Momentum to adopt the same position nationally.
↑16 Sheffield Momentum general meeting, January 25:
Sheffield Momentum opposes the undemocratic manner in which Momentum’s national constitution was imposed.We do not believe the new Constitution establishes a member-led organisation. OMOV online will elect only an inbuilt minority of members (a maximum of 44%) of the new ruling National
Coordinating Committee (NCG), with the other NCG members coming from ‘Labour public officer holders’, affiliated trade unions and ‘other affiliated organisations’, including ‘Left Futures’ (Jon Lansman’s own blog) and the NCG’s own power of cooption. Further, members’ ability to influence or change any NCG decisions is heavily restricted by artificially high thresholds.We want Momentum to move forward and focus on campaigning, building support for socialist policies and democracy in the Labour Party, and mobilising for a socialist Labour government. We want to build Momentum as a democratic movement to enable this.We want Momentum to remain a *united* organisation, both nationally and locally, and do *not* support a boycott of the new national structures.We note that a large majority of groups that have met to discuss the imposition of the new constitution have opposed the process.We want to promote greater democracy and grassroots activity in Momentum and will work with others for a reasonable resolution to the current situation within a united Momentum.We will encourage our members to attend the national event on 18 February (or on a future date if it is postponed).

We also support the call for a national network meeting of local Momentum groups to meet in March.

We have always encouraged our members to be Labour Party members and have stood against the summary expulsions from the Party on political grounds. We will continue to allow those expelled on this basis to be fully active, including holding elected positions, within our local group. We call on Momentum to adopt the same position nationally.”

Bizarrely, the meeting also voted through a motion “supporting” the constitution, while another one “reluctantly accepts” the constitution.

↑17 Southwark Momentum agreed this statement on January 11 in a meeting attended by Jon Lansman:”This branch condemns the undemocratic dissolution of Momentum’s elected national and regional committees and the imposition of a new constitution by the steering committee majority.”Calls on Momentum branches to oppose this coup against the members and urges the national committee to convene itself, re-elect a new steering committee, declare the constitution invalid, and renew the mandate of the conference arrangements committee.”
↑18 Tower Hamlets Momentum general meeting, January 18:
To Team Momentum and Jon Lansman:
Momentum Tower Hamlets condemns the imposition of a new constitution, the actions leading up to it, and substantial sections of the document itself. In addition we demand that the organisation takes steps to reject this undemocratic manoeuvre and respects the democratic mandate of its members as represented by the existing National Committee, National Steering Committee and regional delegates.This announcement has come at a critical moment not just for the central organisation and the Labour Party, but also for local groups that actually are engaging, building alliances and putting ‘shared values’ into practice. Tower Hamlets Labour party is currently in the midst of delayed AGMs in which Momentum members are actively engaged and seeking election. This action by the central organisation does nothing to support this, and adds fuel to the attempts to besmirch and ridicule our organisation.At best we can only accept this document as a draft resolution and demand that it be taken to the existing National Committee for discussion, amendment and endorsement. Given the ambiguity of the document we suggest that action is taken to address a number of issues and will draw attention to the most glaring problems:

  1. The incentive for this document is based on the pre-Christmas on-line survey, which undermined the previous democratic decisions of the organization, was not presented as a resolution or seeking mandate, and cannot be used as a basis for the imposition of a constitution. Subsequent communication claimed that the response was a huge democratic success, and by implication a mandate for subsequent actions. We reject this and point out that 40% doesn’t represent a majority, and the process represents nothing more than a democratic deficit in its representation of members.
  2. Whilst the wording and working of the proposed NCG is ambiguous the intention seems clear: rather than strengthen the voice of the membership the balance of power is weighed 16-12 against the membership in favour of unions, affiliates and elected MPs etc., so repeating the very structures that have held back the left of the Labour party itself.
  3. The document insists that membership of Momentum is dependent on membership of the Labour Party, and imposes a deadline for joining of 1 July 2017. We reject this as arbitrary and draw attention to the ongoing delays, confusion and inefficiencies of the Labour Party membership itself which in the last year has seen several local members waiting for over 7 months for their membership to be confirmed.
  4. We see no reason why members expelled (or by implication, refused membership) from the Labour Party should be automatically expelled from Momentum. One of the campaigns that Momentum embraced over the summer was to challenge the arbitrary and undemocratic nature of the expulsions and suspensions made. We will continue to accept membership to our local organisation by people who are in the process of committing to join both Momentum and the Labour Party, and we fail to see how one can expand membership of either without this right.
  5. A list of affiliate organisation has been presented with no debate and in an ambiguous and arbitrary fashion, mirroring the very processes that the Labour Party itself has used to silence voices from the left. We demand that all affiliate organisations are selected through an agreed democratic process, at annual conference, not by arbitrary mandate.
  6. The election by lot to a members council makes a mockery of the role of members and their authority over policy, structure and campaigns. It also reduces the central importance we in Tower Hamlets give to the democratic principle of accountability of elected officers within Momentum and the Labour Party. Being elected by lot absolves you of being held accountable, as well as reducing actual participation in the organising structures to a sham.Most importantly we absolutely condemn the options presented to members to challenge this constitution. We neither accept the dichotomy that members’ silence on this equals consent to the document, nor do we accept as an alternative cancellation of membership. By contrast the members of Momentum Tower Hamlets reject this constitution and insist that the members of the organisation are in fact sovereign, not an unelected bureaucracy or individual members wielding proprietorial leverage. We call on the members of Momentum and organised local groups to do the same, and continue your democratic participation campaigning with the Labour Party.We are Momentum and continue to act in Tower Hamlets under the democratic mandate that we have established.
↑19 Wandsworth Momentum, meeting on January 19
1. Momentum’s new national constitution has been imposed on members without discussion. This is not the “new kind of politics” that we support. Regardless of its merits and its defects, we reject the new constitution because of the way it was imposed on us.
2. We are not going to leave Momentum, as has been demanded of those members who reject the new constitution. We will elect a Working Party to reach out to other branches of Momentum and to take all necessary steps to rebuild a democratic organisation from the bottom up.
3. Our aim was and still is to create an open, pluralist, outward-facing network of activists working within the Labour Party to achieve a transformation of our society in the interests of the 99%. We support the 10 pledges issued by Jeremy Corbyn last year and will work to ensure they are the basis for Labour’s campaigning and next election manifesto
↑20 South Yorkshire and Humberside regional committee, meeting on January 22:
“That this meeting operates as a representative delegate committee until a new constitution has been validated through democratic means with consultation with all members.” So I believe the breakdown was: For: Rotherham x1, Leeds x1, York x2, Kirklees x2, Wakefield x1. Against: Calderdale x2, Bradford x1. Abstain: Sheffield x2.
↑21 Momentum National Committee meeting on January 28;
Proposal 1 – agreed as amendedWe share the outrage which has swept the country about the coup in Momentum. We urge people not to resign or drift out in disgust. We need to continue the fight for democracy, a campaigning orientation and socialist policies, so we can build up an organisation capable of transforming Labour and the labour movement. We note the large number of local Momentum groups which have already met and condemned the coup, and the significant number which have called for a national networking event for groups in March.More than one years afters its foundation, Momentum is nowhere near where it should be. Local groups have achieved amazing things but they have largely done this on their own. The top of the organisation has failed to develop the infrastructure, support and resources that should be available to members. Much worse, the behaviour of a portion of Momentum’s leadership has undermined the trust and goodwill without which we cannot function as a diverse, pluralist movement. The new constitution will entrench the power of one faction at the expense of the organisation as a whole.

The debate in Momentum ins now not about what kind of democracy we have – it is about whether Momentum has democratic structures at all. We do not take a view on the debate between online and in-person voting systems. But Momentum needs democracy and accountability in order to be competent, in the labour movement, only our collective wisdom can win – the collective wisdom of local activists who fight for their communities, for their fellow workers, for a different kind of society. We want to build a world in which every aspect of our lives is democratic. Momentum must live its values throughout the organisation.

We do not accept that the people who carried out the coup constitute the leadership of Momentum. We assert the role and responsibility of Momentum’s grassroots membership in formulating strategy, continuing our campaigns and holding organisations together.

1. We call on everyone in Momentum to stay in the organisation and work constructively with each other wherever we can, whatever our differing views on the content of the new constitution or the manner of its imposition.
2. We endorse the call made by a number of local groups for an national networking conference of representatives of local groups on 11 March. We call for as many local groups as possible to publicly endorse this call and to attend. This conference is not the “founding conference” that was planned for February, which was cancelled by the coup; and, while it may establish some connections or structures, it is not to set up a rival organisation to Momentum. Its purpose is to allow Momentum groups to – at long last – coordinate with each other on a national level: to learn from each other, discuss and develop campaigning ideas, and debate the way forward for Momentum, including the fight for democracy.
3. We call on local groups to continue meetings including at the original regional level to coordinate activities, to create the support networks and infrastructure our members need, to run training and education for our members and activists and to share examples of goof practice; and to catalyse the formation of new local groups.
4. We do not accept the coup and will not dissolve ourselves at a National Committee. We assert ourselves as a continuation of the structure established on 6 February 2016. We will elect a coordinating group at this National Committee.

Proposal 2 – agreed as amended

This Momentum National Committee believes that Momentum must be an open and democratic group which enables debate and informed decision making. Members should decide policy, structure and activity. Members should be able to initiate proposals, and then vote on various choices, based on information and arguments.
The NC rejects the attempt to impose a new constitution for Momentum. This has taken place without members being allowed  to even see the specific proposals, let alone discuss them and then vote on them.
The NC agrees to:
Encourage Momentum members and local groups to remain in Momentum;
Encourage local groups to continue to meet, and for members to form local groups where they are not meeting or cease to meet because the local officers are not convening them;
Encourage those groups to link up in area and regional committees of local Momentum groups. Those meetings should agree the policies and the campaigning activity for their areas and regions, and decide on policies to take into the Labour Party and the wider community. Groups should also decide on candidates to stand and who to support in local and regional Labour Party elections;
Encourage local groups to continue to accept participation from Momentum supporters who have been unjustly expelled, suspended or excluded from the Labour Party;
Support the conference planned by the Conference Arrangements Committee;
Suggest that the CAC holds that as a National Meeting of Momentum local groups, with voting by democratically elected representatives of local groups on the numerical basis by the last NC, and also open to observers without voting rights.

↑22 Labour Representation Committe:
The following motions on Momentum were passed at the LRC NEC on January 21 20171) The LRC rejects the new constitution imposed upon Momentum. The new constitution dissolves the existing democratic structures of Momentum – the National Committee, the Conference Arrangements Committee and the Steering Committee – without proper discussion and without even consulting the first two of these bodies. It puts in their place a National Co-ordinating Group and a Members’ Council. Neither of these bodies have yet been elected or selected, so at present there is no governing body of Momentum at all.  Even when the National Co-ordinating Group and Members’ Council are in place there is no proper means of their members being made accountable to the membership. We shall fight for a democratic alternative to the new constitution.We condemn the way this new constitution has been put in place, with a simple email to the members of the Steering Committee asking for a Yes/No reply, with no discussion and replies from a bare majority of the Steering Committee without explanation deemed sufficient to dissolve the existing democratic structures.We reject the fact that the new constitution abolishes the regional structures of Momentum currently in place. It also thereby cancels co-ordination between regions.We reject the fact that the new constitution abolishes the power of the Conference to be a decision-making body.We reject the fact that the new constitution makes Momentum a body where all members of Momentum are required to be Labour Party members. While we believe that all members should be encouraged and convinced to become Labour Party members, the best way to achieve this is not by demanding LP membership as a precondition of becoming a member of Momentum. This rule also means that those unjustly expelled from the Party are ineligible for membership of Momentum.We call on all members of Momentum to maintain their membership and to campaign for it to become a democratic organisation. The LRC campaigns for Momentum to become a mass fighting socialist organisation committed to winning the widest support in the labour movement and in British society in order to win support for the policies on which Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership and to elect a Labour government committed to these policies.The LRC shall also be sending a delegation to the Momentum National Committee (which the new constitution claims to have abolished) due to meet on January 28th 2017.We want the LRC’s views on this matter to be published as widely as possible on our website and on social media.

2) The LRC condemns the undemocratic closing down of elected bodies within Momentum, by its legal owner, Jon Lansman. We recognise that the particular history of Momentum’s brief existence required the transition from initial set up of a private company to a full-fledged socialist and Labour Party orientated organisation, which gave power to ordinary members through election processes and the formation of democratically elected representative bodies. The organic forms of representation that developed in local areas, in the form of branches and local groups, reflected the desire of Labour Party members and Corbyn supporters to build a coherent left, with a mission to transform the Labour Party as a vehicle of democratic socialist policies and for government, both locally and on a national scale. We acknowledge Jon Lansman has used his legal private ownership and staff he has appointed at the London office to circumvent the wishes of the wider active membership based in branches and local groups to destroy the current emerging national structure of Momentum.

We therefore resolve to endorse the following:

1. not to accept Momentum’s offer of a place on their National Co-ordinating Group, as outlined in their new constitution, as we cannot give legitimacy to its undemocratic actions;

2. support measures to continue the plans for a national conference of what would have been representatives from local Momentum groups;

↑23 Statement from the Red Labour organisers group
Red Labour was established in 2011, initially as an online project which sought to promote socialism within the Labour Party and help socialists organise within their respective Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs). We subsequently moved into real world activities, establishing several groups in various parts of the country.We played a significant role in mobilising support for an anti-austerity leadership candidate in the summer of 2015, securing the nominations for Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign and his election as leader in September 2015.We welcomed the establishment of Momentum and hoped it could be grassroots organisation which could harness the support for Jerem Corbyn’s socialist politics to help transform our party and communities. However, we are dismayed at recent developments within Momentum which are completely contrary to the Bennite tradition of grassroots democracy. Red Labour’s approach: ‘from the ground up, not the top down’, is more than a slogan.Therefore, we have taken the decision, as a collective, not to accept Momentum’s offer of a place on their National Co-ordinating Group, as outlined in their new constitution. This does not preclude us from working with Momentum activists at a local level or on joint campaigns, but we simply cannot endorse (or continue to support) the undemocratic actions of those at the top of Momentum. We hope Momentum are able to sort their issues out. In the meantime, we believe we need to focus our energy and resources on creating a party we can be proud of and ensuring a Labour victory at the next General Election.
↑24 Momentum Conference Arrangements Committee
The Momentum Conference Arrangements Committee (CAC) note with dismay the decision, of six people from Momentum’s Steering Committee (SC), to declare our National Committee (NC) and its decision to hold a conference with decision-making powers to be dissolved.We cannot understand how “the six” feel this benefits our aims. We call for the destructive and divisive actions from their email to be reversed immediately before any more damage is done to the organisation.
Their ideas could have been democratically debated at the conference that we were working round the clock to organise. Instead they have attempted to declare changes with no mandate.However, committed members and agreed current structures cannot be dissolved by the click of an email from an office by half a dozen people.The CAC takes its direction from Momentum’s National Committee, as per the original remit we were given. Until that body meets and informs us our role has changed, we will continue working towards Momentum’s first conference. Further details of this will be announced through the same Conference Arrangements Committee Facebook page, and we would urge all members to look there (https://www.facebook.com/momentumconference17/…) for all future updates.All emails regarding conference business should now be sent to the new email momentumconference2017@gmail.com as we have been locked out of the original with no notice.
Whilst a minority of our number have accepted the email from “the six” as legitimate, the CAC majority (and in effect the people who have done virtually all of the work to make a conference happen) are still able to organise a conference which brings together the key Momentum supporters.The conference will consider motions, be a place to network and to politically educate ourselves as per the original NC remit. The conference will fashion a clear strategy for democratising the Labour Party and fighting the effects of austerity in our communities.Considering Jeremy Corbyn is as safe as he will ever be in his position, but the Labour Party is not committed to the policies he was elected on, the discussion at this conference comes at a crucial time.
Successfully achieving clear actions based on the above will be the only way that Jeremy Corbyns Labour party will win the political power the working class needs it to.
↑25 Member of Momentum Youth and Student Committee We the undersigned members of the Momentum Youth and Students (MYS) committee express our collective disagreement with the statement published on the MYS page with regards to the imposition of a new constitution on Momentum by Jon Lansman and a slim majority of the Steering Committee. We also note with irony that the current Momentum Youth and Students committee effectively does not have any official authority to release such statements because according to the new constitution it effectively no longer exists.We believe the new constitution runs contrary to the very best democratic traditions in the labour movement. Far from ‘empowering members’, the sole democratic body in the constitution, the National Coordinating Group, only has 12 out of 30 seats on it directly elected by members. They are outnumbered by the seats given to affiliates (including Jon Lansman’s blog), trade unions and Labour elected representatives. Ostensibly introduced to prevent Momentum repicating the structures of a “political party”, the new constitution effectively mimics the Labour Party NEC.In order to make any proposal to the National Co-ordinating Group, a member has to get the support of at least 1000 members, which is a difficult task for grassroots members with limited national contacts or access to large email lists. A toothless Members’ Council will comprise 50 people selected by random lots but “shall not be required to make decisions on the operation of the constitution or administration of the organisation.” Make no mistake, members of Momentum under the new constitution have less of a voice than they did in the existing structures. It disempowers the grassroots membership and fortifies a totally unaccountable central organ.Disgracefully, in a move to silence prominent critics of the new structures, the new constitution bars Labour Party members who have been unfairly expelled from the party by the Compliance Unit from being members of Momentum. This has the implication of indirectly handing over control of Momentum’s membership criteria to Iain McNicol, expressly contradicting Momentum’s voted-on policy to fight the witch-hunt of socialists.We believe that the process by which the new constitution has come into force is not a result of a legitimate debate within existing democratic structures. As a sub-committee of the National Committee, whose mandate had run out in July 2016, the Steering Committee does not have the power to make constitutional decisions about Momentum, and did so solely to head-off the planned and more representative Momentum national conference in February.The online survey that is cited to support the actions of the Steering Committee was fundamentally misleading, and backed up by the sort of resources, mass emails, all-member text messages and support from leading Labour figures that Momentum’s outward facing campaigns, such as on the NHS, could only dream of.
Nowhere in the survey was any respondent asked about the specific structural proposals set out in the constitution. We also note that a consultative survey is not the same as a vote, is not in any way democratically binding and was not presented as a way of making constitutional decisions. It is far from clear if the respondents to the survey are more representative of Momentum members than the members who go to meetings, after all only 40% of the membership responded to the survey, and the evidence from the survey is that 40% of Momentum members go to meetings.We believe that Momentum, in order to be successful, has to be based in local groups with the power (and the data) to organise themselves as part of a socialist organisation on a national platform where decisions are made democratically and openly. We do not believe it is up to the owner of Momentum to effectively dissolve all existing structures through an email vote wrapped up within an hour. Democracy cannot be passive assent, it has to be deliberative, done through serious debate and discussion that takes place across the country. We maintain our support for the National Committee meeting called on 28th January, and believe that the National Committee remains the sovereign decision-making body in Momentum and Conference must be organised according to its decisions.Momentum continues to be one of the most potentially transformative forces within the Labour movement. That is why we must continue to assert ourselves as grassroots members organising in branches across the country to change the Labour Party. The Steering Committee’s recent actions are an act of sabotage against what we can achieve as an organisation.Rida Vaquas
Ed Potts
Hattie Craig
Monty Shield
Liam McNulty
Josie Runswick
↑26 LGBT+ Forum: Motion to Momentum London LGBT+ Meeting, 14 January
1. Momentum’s new national constitution has been imposed on members without discussion. This is not the “new kind of politics” that we support. Regardless of its merits and its defects, we reject the new constitution because of the way it was imposed on us.
2. In particular we note with concern the total lack of consultation with any liberation groups, the absence of mechanisms for liberation groups to feed into Momentum and ensure equality, and the ongoing lack of progress in establishing liberation groups around the country due to lack of action by the office.
3. We are not going to leave Momentum, as has been demanded of those members who reject the new constitution. We authorise our elected Steering Committee to reach out to other Momentum groups and to take all necessary steps to rebuild a democratic organisation from the bottom up.
4. Our aim was and still is to create an open, pluralist, outward-facing network of activists working within the Labour Party to achieve a transformation of our society in the interests of the 99%. We support the 10 pledges issued by Jeremy Corbyn last year and will work to ensure they are the basis for Labour’s campaigning and next election manifesto and work for the election of a Labour Government with Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister.
↑27 Proposal on Mxv platform: Reject the decision by Jon Lansman to dissolve the current structures and CAC
We condemn in the strongest possible terms the moves by Jon Lansman and his clique to usurp and undermine the democratic decisions made by the majority of the Momentum National Committee. These undemocratic, behind-the-scenes manoeuvres demonstrate that Lansman and co. can no longer be a trusted and should be replaced immediately by accountable representatives, elected through the previously existing democratic structures of the Regional and National Committees. The newly imposed constitution is completely undemocratic and should be withdrawn immediately. Instead, the plans drawn up by the previously elected Conference Arrangements Committee should be used as the basis for a national conference of elected delegates to discuss and decide upon the way forward for Momentum and the Corbyn movement.We call for:
* The immediate restoration of all democratic structures within Momentum.
* The national conference to proceed in its previously agreed form, as a democratic conference to discuss motions and decide policy on the basis of elected delegates from local groups.
* For an emergency National Committee to discuss this coup and hold those responsible to account.
Momentum

January 10: Email from Jon Lansman to all members, abolishing all democratic structures

Momentum
Dear XY,
We hope you have had a good start to 2017 and feel refreshed and ready for the challenges that lie ahead. With the Tories’ chaotic Brexit unfolding, Trump soon to be inaugurated and the threat of UKIP’s racist, right-wing populism on the rise, we need the Corbyn project to succeed now more than ever. Momentum has a crucial role to play in electing a transformative, socialist Labour government.

SILV0796_-_edited_send.jpg

Momentum Moving Forwards

Momentum had a big first year – not least, by forming the backbone of Jeremy’s re-election campaign last summer. Just before Christmas, Jeremy emailed members of Momentum setting out his vision for our movement and asking them to share theirs. The results of the survey show that there is a widespread consensus about the type of organisation members want – a grassroots, Labour-focused, campaigning political movement that can help Labour win power on a transformative platform.

survey-video.png

Click here to view a video of the survey results. The full report is available here.

A huge 40.3% of members responded to the survey. The responses clearly set out members’ views on the way forward for our movement. Campaigning for Labour victories and helping members become more active in the Labour Party were the most popular options for Momentum’s priorities in 2017, chosen by 71.7% and 68.2% of respondents respectively.

80.6% of respondents said that key decisions should be taken by One Member One Vote, rather than by delegates at regional and national conferences and committees (12.5%). 79.3% of respondents said all members should have a say in electing their representatives, as opposed to national representatives being elected by delegates from local groups (16.2%).

Following this decisive response, the Steering Committee voted to introduce a constitution for Momentum to deliver the kind of action-focused, campaigning organisation that our members want.

Read a summary of the constitution and how it affects you here, and read the full constitution here.

The constitution requires all new Momentum members to be Labour Party members. Existing Momentum members have the opportunity to join Labour by 1 July if they are not a member already. Momentum members who have been suspended from Labour, but not expelled, will remain members of Momentum.

The constitution aims to clarify Momentum’s purpose, goals and organisation, so that our energy and resources can be channelled into supporting members and local groups. It is also intended to improve transparency and reduce the internal bureaucracy within Momentum.


Participatory, grassroots democracy in Momentum

The constitution empowers members to directly elect their representatives, and gives all members a say in key decisions.

Elections to the National Coordinating Group
Under Momentum’s constitution, all members can stand and vote in elections for positions on the National Coordinating Group (NCG). Elections to the NCG will take place online or by other accessible means, with each member having a vote. The election timetable is here.The NCG also includes places for Labour public office holders, representatives of affiliated trade unions and other organisations.

Members’ Council
A Members’ Council will be chosen randomly by lot every 6 months to ensure that ideas, inspiration and innovation from the grassroots drives Momentum’s activities. The Members’ Council will provide oversight on, and make recommendations to, the NCG, and develop Momentum’s activities, resources and campaigns.

Digital Democracy Platform
Momentum will provide a digital democracy platform to ensure that all members are empowered to initiate and vote on campaign priorities, constitutional amendments or overturning decisions by the NCG.

Momentum National Conference
Momentum’s Inaugural National Conference will take place on 18 February. This will be organised by the National Office and will be open to all members. To reflect the priorities of the membership, the Conference will focus on the theme ‘Momentum’s role in Labour’s General Election Strategy.’ It will be a day of grassroots activist training, political education workshops, discussion and special guest speakers. More details will be announced soon.

We’ve seen what division can do to our movement. The challenge ahead of us is too big and important to spend time and resources on internal disputes. It’s time for Momentum to focus on supporting the Labour Party to take on the Tories and fight the rise of the far-right, as an effective grassroots, action-focused and campaigning movement.

If you consent to Momentum’s constitution, you do not have to do anything. Simply continue paying your membership fees. However, if you wish to opt out, you can email membership@peoplesmomentum.com to cancel your membership.
In solidarity,
Team Momentum
Momentum

A false narrative

The current Momentum crisis has nothing to do with age, Trotsky or even the voting method to be used at conference, says Carla Roberts of Labour Party Marxists. It is about who controls Momentum and for what political ends

You have got to hand it to Jon Lansman: he seems to have managed in record time to spread a totally fabricated ‘narrative’ about Momentum. Ever since comrade Lansman – the sole director of the company, Jeremy for Labour Ltd, which controls the database and the income of Momentum – lost the vote on the organisation’s national committee on December 3 he has been a busy getting the word out that, in fact, Tom Watson and the bourgeois media had it right all along: Momentum is riddled with Trotskyists and something needs to be done about it.

Of course, when Labour deputy leader Watson first published his ill-researched dossier on “proof of Trotskyist Labour infiltration” back in August, Lansman was quick to hit back: “That isn’t what Momentum meetings are like. The vast majority of people are entirely new to politics. In some areas, yes, you have some returners, but most of the returners aren’t Trots. This is not an entryist operation in any way.”1)www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/05/jon-lansman-interview-theres-no-leader-who-would-find-it-easier-win-jeremy

Well, either he was lying then or he is lying now.

How scary is the AWL?

In any case, in what is clearly a coordinated attack against the left in Momentum, Lansman has organised various ‘leftwing’ journalists and Labour apparatchiks to get out there into the mainstream media and warn the good people of Britain of the horrid “Trotskyist sectarians” and “saboteurs” who are organising a “takeover bid of Momentum”, as Owen Jones puts it in his particularly distasteful piece in The Guardian. The same Owen Jones, of course, who could not bring himself to support Jeremy Corbyn before and during this year’s attempt to remove him sparked by the Parliamentary Labour Party right wing.

In reality, there is only one side in Momentum that is organising any kind of coup or split. Jon Lansman and his allies are preparing the ground to overturn the decision of the national committee by undermining the NC’s legitimacy. In fact, they want to do away with this annoying body altogether.

“The sectarians” here are supposedly skilfully led by the few dozen members of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty. As readers will know, we have little time for the AWL’s soft stance on imperialism or its attempt to paint any criticism of Zionism as anti-Semitic. In this respect its support for Lansman’s removal of Jackie Walker as vice-chair of Momentum has done much to help embolden his position.

But the AWL generally stands with the left majority in arguing for democracy in Momentum, while the pro-Lansman minority argues for a constitutional set-up that amounts to a one-man dictatorship. Despite its social imperialism, we defend the AWL against the witch-hunt in Momentum and the Labour Party.

And to claim that it is responsible for the fact that the NC majority voted on December 3 in favour of a delegate conference rather than online plebiscites (rather misleadingly summed up as ‘one member, one vote’ – Omov) is just absolute nonsense. The overestimation of the AWL’s influence stems largely from the fact that leading member Jill Mountford managed to get onto the steering committee, which was elected at the first meeting of the NC early last year (attendance at which was by invitation only). Its real influence can be gauged from the fact that the AWL’s November 26 ‘Stop the Purge’ conference attracted a mere 70 people.

But Owen Jones and his ilk would have us believe that the ‘old Trots’ are now a serious threat to Momentum. Apparently, there is an inter-generational war going on in Momentum, with most of the ‘old’ people firmly on the side of the evil Trotskyists. Jones, of course, takes the side of “their opponents”, who are “younger, idealistic, campaign-oriented and pluralistic, lacking Machiavellian strategic ability – all of which the sectarians exploit”.

Or, as the young(ish) Laura Murray – the oh-so-hip daughter of well-known Stalin admirer Andrew Murray – puts it, “When I arrived [at the NC] what I witnessed was horrible. The generational divide was starkly visible for all to see. In the seats in the horseshoe-shape around the room were the pro-Omov delegates – more likely to be younger, in the Labour Party and close to Momentum staff and Jon Lansman. In the seats in the centre of the room were the anti-Omov delegates – more likely to be older, Trotskyist, seasoned in far-left factions, not in the Labour Party. It was like a doughnut of desire for change, with a sticky centre of angry socialist stalwarts.”

A doughnut of desire … with a big brown filling of utter horseshit.

A number of ‘young’ NC delegates have, by the way, since criticised this attempt to spin real political divisions into a question of age (and have stated that they did, in fact, vote against systematic online plebiscites). Considering “the recent coverage”, one could be “forgiven for thinking the divide was between a Trotskyist old guard, who can’t countenance new ways of working, and hip youngsters who are filled with idealism and better at memes”, as Red Labour delegate Rida Vaquas puts it in her amusing article in the New Statesman.

Owen and Murray might look under 30 years of age – he, is, in fact, 32, and she is 27 – but they undoubtedly have far, far more political experience than most Momentum members, young or old. These members, let us remember, had mandated all their regional representatives at the NC to vote in favour of a delegate structure at the forthcoming Momentum conference – and against Omov. Those members active in Momentum branches have no interest in Momentum being controlled by one person. They want democracy and transparency. Unfortunately, however, many of them feel so sidelined and powerless that they mistakenly believe that Omov would give them at least some power. This is the alienated layer that Lansman is appealing to. But most of those actually running the branches, organising stalls and demonstrations, etc, know what is happening and have backed a delegate conference precisely for that reason.

It was mainly those delegates who had won the hastily called elections for supporters of “liberation groups”, together with those from Labour organisations personally invited by Lansman, who ensured that his view was not utterly trashed, but was supported by almost half the meeting.

But Jones, Murray and Lansman will not let this rather inconvenient fact get in the way of a good story. Or even their own experience – they should know better. Owen Jones likes to trace his family’s radical roots back to a “gunrunner for Garibaldi”, through to a “Russian Revolution-­inspired” train driver who took part in the 1926 General Strike, a grandfather who joined the Communist Party in the 1930s, and a great-­uncle in the Independent Labour Party. He himself was literally a child of the Militant Tendency in the Labour Party, where his parents met in the 1960s. Unfortunately, he is now busily in the process of betraying that heritage.

Keeping up with the Murrays

Murray, on the other hand, can look back at a very active, proud Stalinist family history. The story goes that, back in 1983, her parents wheeled their baby, Laura’s sister Jessica, into the 38th Congress of the ‘official’ CPGB and had her pram searched by Eurocommunist stewards – who found copies of Straight Left’s banned publication Congress Truth tucked away underneath her. Talk about a proper faction fight! Seamus Milne was business editor of Straight Left at the time and remains a close family friend of the Murrays.

But we are supposed to believe that the now almost grown-up Laura (did we mention that she’s really young?), who is an official advisor to shadow cabinet member Grahame Morris MP, had no idea that things might get a bit heated at the national committee. Come off it.

Her faux naive style has been further discredited by the fact that her dad, Unite’s chief of staff Andrew Murray, has just left the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain in order to join the Labour Party. Not that he is accused of being a communist ‘entryist’ by the right, of course – after all, there is talk of him being wheeled in to help sort out Momentum. In the run-up to Corbyn’s re-election last summer, Murray was among those who went along to a summit at a Unite training centre,2)www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/79087/excl-tom-watson-tells-plotters-trying-oust-him which was also attended by Corbyn, John McDonnell, Len McCluskey, Diane Abbott, Seamus Milne and Jon Lansman. Apparently, it discussed, among other things, the possibility of Murray eventually replacing the hated Iain McNicol as Labour Party general secretary.3)www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/from-left-to-left-a-whos-who-of-corbyns-comrades

Murray does not even have to bend his politics very much. Yes, he will have to cut back on his well-known admiration for a certain 20th century Georgian, but in terms of its political outlook, the CPB is no more revolutionary than even the Labour Party under Ed Miliband was. In the run-up to the 2015 general election, The Daily Telegraph published extracts from both parties’ programmes and asked its readers: “Can you tell them apart?” Slightly exaggerated, you might think. But it does underline the CPB’s lack of coherent strategy in terms of actually trying to transform the Labour Party (rather than just supporting it).4)http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1056/no-strategy-towards-labour/ And, of course, Andrew Murray is among the large number of CPB members to have deserted it in favour of Labour since Corbyn’s election as leader.

Just like Paul Mason, Murray senior clearly feels that the current situation in Momentum is reason enough to jump on board. Not despite the struggles within the organisation, as Mason dishonestly claims, but precisely because of them – in order to come down heavily and with some authority on the side of Jon Lansman.

Paul Mason

Paul Mason, a member of the semi-orthodox Trotskyist organisation, Workers Power, for close to 20 years,5)http://labourpartymarxists.org.uk/paul-masons-consensus-democracy-same-old-ephemeral-new is now acting as turncoat par excellence. He has reinvented himself as a critic of Corbyn from the right, arguing in favour of keeping Trident, investing in nuclear power and increasing the arms budget.

On the BBC’s Daily Politics show on December 8, he said that Laura Murray was “broadly right” to describe Trotskyist groups as being “destructive” in Momentum, though some might question his expertise after he admitted that he had, in fact, “never been to a Momentum meeting”. Still, he is absolutely certain that “we need to be a network – open, broad, diverse”; and that “having an app on your cellphone” is really useful in terms of members making decisions. Definitely young at heart, this one. He even uses the American term for, you know, a mobile phone.

This magical app “would avoid re-enactment groups from the 1970s taking over, because that’s their key skill. There are not just Trotskyists though: they are people who are obsessed with anti-Zionism.” And, would you believe, “Some of them are rampant supporters of Vladimir Putin.”

Mason then went on to land his (and Lansman’s) killer punch. He basically demands that all those expelled or even suspended from the Labour Party should also be given the boot by Momentum:

Momentum has to be ready to become an affiliated society of Labour. That means everybody in it has to be in the Labour Party and everybody has to conform to the rules. And if somebody breaks Labour rules, as Jackie Watson [he meant Walker] is deemed to have done and who has been suspended from the party, then she can’t be …

At this point, he was interrupted by presenter Andrew Neil, but I suspect he was going to say ‘in Momentum’. He did state, for example:

If Jill Mountford is not allowed into the Labour Party – and I can’t see her being allowed in the short order in the Labour Party – and she remains an expelled member of the party and remains in Momentum, I will not remain in Momentum and nor will thousands of us. This will be sorted in the direction of party loyalty, discipline and a moving on very quickly.

You could be forgiven for thinking from especially this last sentence that Mason knows more than the average Momentum member (even those who do attend meetings) what Lansman is planning next. As it happens, he was also at the gathering with Corbyn and Lansman I referred to earlier, along with Andrew Murray. Surely, an official job in the Labour machine is the next step in Mason’s career.

Aside from implying that Momentum should not even differentiate between those expelled and suspended from Labour, he is also wrong to state that all members of a Labour-affiliated society have to be individual members of the party. This is clearly not the case: members of such societies are entitled to become “affiliated members” of Labour, who enjoy fewer rights than full members.6)“Affiliation means that the socialist societies – like a number of British trade unions – pay an affiliation fee to the Labour Party, and the affiliates’ members become affiliated members of the Labour Party (a different status from full member), unless they specifically choose otherwise. In return the societies receive a formal role in Labour decision-making, and the affiliated members can take part in all-member ballots in certain circumstances. For example, they can participate in the election of Labour Party leaders and deputy leaders, have delegates and votes at Annual Conference”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_society_(Labour_Party)

As an aside, Mason slipped up rather badly when trying to correct the other participant in the Daily politics discussion, Labour First honcho Luke Akehurst, who referred to “Workers Power, which Paul was a member of”. Mason replied, “No, no – that is now Red Labour.”

Mason’s ex-comrades in WP are now organising under the banner, Red Flag. Red Labour, on the other hand, is the soft-left online outfit of Momentum’s former social media manager, Ben Sellers.

Ben Sellers

Interestingly, Sellers is one of the few people close to Lansman who has now come out publicly against him. In a much-read and commented-on post on Facebook, he writes:

Could the real Jon Lansman please stand up? … Is it the Jon Lansman who only wants a “pluralistic”, democratic, grassroots organisation, facilitated by a new era of digital democracy? Or the Jon Lansman who told me to my face just a year ago that Momentum groups should be banned from having social media accounts and encouraged a completely unaccountable ‘helper’ to take over regional Facebook pages from local Momentum activists?

Lansman and Sellers fell out some time ago, it seems, and he continues;

I didn’t want to have to do this, and I think 12 months plus of silence on the issue is a sign of that, but Jon continues to use the press to push a version of events and an approach that I believe is harmful to the whole Corbyn movement and the Labour left, not just Momentum. What am I supposed to do? Sit on my hands while everything we’ve built gets taken apart?

The obvious reply to this is: ‘Why didn’t you comment in public 12 months ago, when the rot first set in and you still had a position of influence in Momentum that could have helped steer the ship in a different, more democratic, direction?’ Surely, openness is the most powerful weapon when confronted with a wannabe-dictator like Lansman. In any case, Sellers is making up for lost time now by spilling the beans on Lansman’s anti-democratic crusade in Momentum. Better late than never.

And it is certainly a more honest and fruitful method than the incredibly naive online petition being circulated by Chris Ford (ex-member of a many far-left organisations), which calls on everybody to just stop fighting and “work together”. Easy. It states: “We consider Momentum a dynamic plurality of ideas that demands respect for each other in the spirit of the New Politics.” The New Politics? What exactly is that? Something like New Labour, but better?

It then calls on those who were among the small leftwing majority at the December 3 NC meeting to recant the decisions taken – in order to push for an unworkable hybrid of Omov and delegate voting:

We believe the manner that digital and delegate democracy is being counterposed is unnecessary. We call upon the delegates to the national committee to put past disagreements behind them and secure a consensus which combines both methods of working to complement one another and thus strengthen opportunities for democratic engagement.

Not about voting method

This petition misses the point spectacularly. As if the current anti-left drive in Momentum is about the voting methods used at national conference. It is about who controls Momentum – and for what political ends. If a delegate conference ensured that Lansman and his allies continued to make up the majority on the new steering committee, there is no doubt he would go for it. They are pushing for Omov, because it is the only way to make sure the organisation stays in the hands of ‘Team Momentum’.

This team consists, of course, of the staff employed and controlled by Jon Lansman. He is, in effect, their direct boss. He decides how the database is used (basically, it is his personal property) and how the dues of the members are spent. Not a penny finds its way back to the branches; every email a branch sends has to be okayed by ‘Team Momentum’. There is no transparency at the top of Momentum at all.

Of course, we are not claiming that Jon Lansman has set out on this course in order to enrich himself or because he is suffering from a particular bad Bonapartist character flaw. Clearly, he is acting on behalf of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.

The current crisis in Momentum underlines the fact that Corbyn’s election was a historical accident, rather than a result of the power and strength of the Labour left. Most districts, regions and councillors – in other words, the Labour machine – are all very firmly in the hands of the right. The Labour left (Corbyn and McDonnell included) is disorganised and has no coherent strategy of how to transform Labour into an organisation that could fight for a socialist society. They also have no idea what to do with Momentum.

They no doubt appreciate that there is a database of 160,000 Corbyn supporters, some of who can be called upon to operate phone banks or hand out leaflets for this or that Labour campaign. But what Corbyn and McDonnell do not want is a strong, coherent organisation that starts to challenge the current (and temporary) ‘peace settlement’ with the right.

Witness Momentum’s silence on the purges in the Labour Party. Or the way in which the basic democratic demand for mandatory selection of MPs – until recently the standard position of the left and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy – has been quietly dropped and is now seen as a major embarrassment.

Or the outrageous way in which the organisation not just went along with the entirely fabricated anti-Semitism ‘scandal’ in the Labour Party, but helped to facilitate it by throwing Jackie Walker to the wolves. Clearly, the longstanding Zionist, Jon Lansman, is seeking a rapprochement with the Jewish Labour Movement. Thanks to Corbyn’s and therefore Momentum’s stance on this matter, it is now ‘common knowledge’ that the Labour Party is ‘riddled with anti-Semites’: Theresa May has been handed the moral high ground on the question and no self-respecting member of the establishment objects, when she says the Labour Party is “disgusting” for “turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism”.7)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/12/jeremy-corbyn-turning-blind-eye-anti-semitism-party-theresa/

Of course, in reality there can be no permanent peace between the left and right in the Labour Party. After Corbyn’s thumping second victory, the open warfare conducted by the right has merely been suspended for the time being – we are in a ‘pre-election period’, after all. But Corbyn is on borrowed time and he should know it. The next attempted coup will come soon enough, for the right will never accept him. Either he gets rid of them or they will get rid of him. The latter seems more likely, unfortunately.

Rather than using this fluid political period to openly fight to transform the Labour Party into a real party of labour, Corbyn and his allies are peddling the utterly deluded line that we must all ‘unite’ in order to secure a Labour victory at the next general election. And in their view, the only way that could happen is by bowing to the right – on Trident, Brexit, immigration: you name it. Of course, that does not make the Labour Party an ounce more ‘electable’. It just makes Corbyn look like a weak and rather dishonest leader who does not believe in his own vision of socialism.

The left in Momentum must be careful not to step into the ‘unity’ trap. This is a crucial moment for the Labour left. We must oppose the red scare in Momentum – and develop a plan to ensure that policy-making and control of the database and income is firmly in the hands of a democratically elected national committee – before Jon Lansman goes for the nuclear option.

 

References

References
↑1 www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/05/jon-lansman-interview-theres-no-leader-who-would-find-it-easier-win-jeremy
↑2 www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/79087/excl-tom-watson-tells-plotters-trying-oust-him
↑3 www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/from-left-to-left-a-whos-who-of-corbyns-comrades
↑4 http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1056/no-strategy-towards-labour/
↑5 http://labourpartymarxists.org.uk/paul-masons-consensus-democracy-same-old-ephemeral-new
↑6 “Affiliation means that the socialist societies – like a number of British trade unions – pay an affiliation fee to the Labour Party, and the affiliates’ members become affiliated members of the Labour Party (a different status from full member), unless they specifically choose otherwise. In return the societies receive a formal role in Labour decision-making, and the affiliated members can take part in all-member ballots in certain circumstances. For example, they can participate in the election of Labour Party leaders and deputy leaders, have delegates and votes at Annual Conference”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_society_(Labour_Party)
↑7 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/12/jeremy-corbyn-turning-blind-eye-anti-semitism-party-theresa/
Momentum

Replace the Momentum steering committee!

 

Some good decisions were taken at the December 3 National Committee meeting of Momentum. However, while the Steering Committee survives intact and Jon Lansman maintains his ‘ownership’ of the organisation, Momentum is seriously flawed – as new leaks and attacks in the bourgeois media show, warns Carla Roberts of Labour Party Marxists

Around 60 members of the National Committee of Momentum met in Birmingham to discuss, among other things, the first Momentum conference. It was a very fractious and ill-tempered meeting.

Crucially, a motion to recall the current Steering Committee (which has a majority in support of sole Momentum company director Jon Lansman) and replace it with an interim body elected at the NC was voted down by 30 to 29 votes. Even three recounts could not change the outcome. Ironically, Nick Wrack had successfully moved to change the agenda so that this item was discussed first, as he feared it would be excluded because of time constraints. But had this vote been taken later in the day, it is likely that a majority would have voted in favour of it, as a number of pro-democracy members arrived later in the day.

There were some good decisions taken. Most importantly, there will be no OMOV (one member, one vote) voting at or after conference, despite this being the expressed will of Lansman. Conference will decide on a new constitution, a code of ethics and various policy motions – and all of these decisions will be taken by delegates at conference.

Fearing exactly such an outcome, Jon Lansman and his allies on the Steering Committee had successfully prevented the National Committee from meeting since May 2016. On October 28, they even launched a deeply undemocratic coup by cancelling the meeting of the NC scheduled for November 5 and simply declared that the conference would in fact be a livestreamed national debate, with voting then taking place online afterwards. When the national media picked up on the coup and Lansman was asked by John McDonell to ‘sort it out’, he relented and called another NC meeting for December 3.[i]

In the meantime, he has done pretty much everything in his power to stuff the NC with members who support his plans to make Momentum into nothing more than a big phone bank that sporadically sparks into life for this or that campaign. The hastily called elections of additional NC delegates from the “liberation strands” have to be seen in this context.

Ditto the presence of a number of voting delegates from “Labour organisations” who seem to have been there merely on the invitation of, yes, Mr. Jon Lansman. So we had Labour CND, Labour Against Austerity, Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, Labour Briefing, Labour Representation Committee, Labour Futures (Jon Lansman’s personal blog) and, farcically, Open Labour and Compass. These last two are not exactly known for their pro-Corbyn-stance, to put it mildly. Needless to say, the list of invitees did not stretch to Labour Party Marxists.

AWL and Momentum Steering Committee member Jill Mountford writes that, “with the exception of LRC delegates (Jackie Walker and Michael Calderbank) the other Labour groups’ delegates voted en-bloc for Jon’s proposals, and were in fact, the only people getting up to support any of his proposals (which were often billed as the Steering Committee’s proposals).”[ii]

Jon Lansman claimed at the meeting that it was in fact the handful of MPs who set up Momentum last year who suggested that these organisations be represented. But there is no method to take groups like Compass or Open Labour off the list of invitees or for other organisations to get involved – chiefly, because there is no official method for affiliation. Only trade unions can affiliate, pay an affiliation fee and then send two delegates to the NC – the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) and the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association (TSSA) are the only two organisations officially affiliated to Momentum. Clearly, this situation is untenable.

In any case, Lansman failed this time. The NC saw a tiny pro-democracy majority and most motions were passed “with majorities of 1, 2 or 3 votes”, writes AWL fellow traveller Michael Chessum (who, like Marshajane Thompson, is now still on the SC, although they both haven’t been reelected to the NC, from among which the SC is supposed to be elected).

“Regional delegates, who make up a majority of the NC, almost all arrived mandated to vote for a purely delegate based conference”, he writes in a report that can otherwise be safely ignored: He wants to “build a coalition around a mixed system of decision making” (ie, OMOV plus delegates – a system that clearly is unworkable, otherwise somebody, anybody, would have come up with a concrete proposal by now) and he calls the current debates on the structure and democracy “Mickey Mouse politics” that “need to stop”, while predictably demanding that Momentum should “turn outwards”.[iii]

Opening Momentum

In this, Chessum actually echoes those supporting Lansman’s vision for Momentum. A new Facebook page has been set up “for Momentum members disappointed in that [NC] decision, and who believe all members should be able to vote on Momentum’s future. A delegate based model was originally hoisted onto Momentum without consultation with its wider membership. Letting a small group of delegates decide to maintain their own power, at the expense of all members, isn’t a good starting point for a new political movement. Beyond February, we believe Momentum should adopt a structure that is inclusive and unbureaucratic. We are in the process of transforming the Labour Party, building a parallel organisation with the same structures and procedures of Labour would be a mistake.”

The Facebook page, called Opening Momentum, also prominently features a pretty nasty, gushingly pro-Lansman report of the NC meeting by recently elected women’s NC representative Laura Murray. She claims that, “Naively, I was excited for the National Committee”, but was to be disappointed by all the “infighting” at the meeting. “How silly I was.”

Not as naive as she pretends
Laura Murray: Not as naive as she pretends

And how dishonest. In reality, she is far from the political newcomer she pretends to be in this report. She works as adviser to Grahame Morris MP, member of the shadow cabinet. Oh, and she happens to be the daughter of Andrew Murray, member of the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain and out and out Stalinist. Seamus Milne is a close family friend.[iv]

And look how well he has taught her. Laura writes that she “is not anti-Trotskyist per se, but thinks that “the sectarian attitude taken by Trotskyist groups within Momentum is destructive to our movement”. She has a go at the Alliance for Worker’s Liberty and then turns on those purged from the Labour Party on the most spurious grounds:

“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 and even less so about getting it elected into government.”[v] Do we see here the beginnings of an attempt to oust those members of Momentum who have been expelled and suspended from the Labour Party?

The Guardian, who quotes generously from her article, writes that, “The development has meant that Lansman is threatening to walk away from Momentum, Labour sources said.”[vi] If only.

Quite the opposite seems to be happening. Opening Momentum looks like Lansman’s call to arms, perhaps his organisational vehicle to reinforce his grip on the organisation. Needless to say, it is more than ironic that the man who launched an outrageously undemocratic coup in Momentum is now trying to claim the mantel of democracy.

Clearly, he is very unhappy with these decisions taken by the National Committee:

  • Conference will take place on February 25 (or one week either side of that)
  • Branches select delegates (2 per 100 members or any part thereof)
  • Each local branch can submit one motion. Ditto Momentum Youth and students, each “liberation group”, each affiliated union, the national committee and each regional committee.
  • Members in areas without local Momentum groups are “to be represented at the same rate as members in groups, elected by OMOV ballot in regions”. 30 of those members can also submit a motion
  • Motions to be submitted up to three weeks before conference on aims, structures, ethics, policy and campaigning.
  • An open e-forum for all members will be set up, where motions can be discussed, amendments can be mooted and compositing processes can be arranged.
  • A Conference Arrangements Committee (CAC) has been elected, which has a small left-wing majority (4 to 3). We sincerely hope that this will prevent those crucial decisions being overturned again.

Why is Lansman so powerful?

Jon Lansman
Jon Lansman: controls Momentum database and income as sole company director

But, as we all know, Jon Lansman and his allies have overturned decisions before and he basically makes up Momentum policy as he goes along. Momentum is still very much the private property of Lansman, who is the sole director of various companies that “own” the Momentum database and its income. And he treats it very much like his private property.

For example, in mid-November he launched the MxV platform, which asks members to post “proposals” (ie, motions) for conference which are ranked by how many members have clicked the “support” button featured next to each headline. There is now a long list of no less than 300 proposals, which range from the supportable to the bizarre. Clearly, nobody can read them all – and that is of course the point of the OMOV system favoured by Lansman: it is not “empowering”, as people like Paul Mason[vii] claim, it is exactly the opposite. It alienates people, makes them less engaged with Momentum, sidelines the branches – and concentrates all power in the hands of King Jon.

It is of course noteworthy that Lansman launched this platform a couple of weeks before the December 3 meeting of the NC, which was tasked with deciding on how motions should actually be submitted. Clearly, he thought he had it in the bag and that his proposals for an OMOV conference would be supported at the newly stuffed NC. (I recommend the report by Josie Runswick, LGBT rep on the NC, on this matter, as she usefully publishes Jon Lansman’s full OMOV proposal, which can only be described as a bureaucrat’s wet dream [viii]).

Also, there are enough ambiguities in the motions voted through by the NC for us to remain on our guard:

  • The NC voted in favour of an “online priorities ballot”, which can only mean that some motions submitted will not be heard at conference. Such a ballot (presumably organised via the already existing MxV platform) is also designed to bring easily digestible and short motions to the top. Who wants to read a proposal for a constitution that could actually work (and therefore would have to be of a certain length). Boring!
  • Local branches are “encouraged to composite motions (motions composited by more groups will move higher up the agenda as incentive to composite). Amendments to be circulated before the conference.”[ix] However, it is not stated which Momentum bodies can actually submit amendments or how many. The tight timeframe will also make it rather difficult for Momentum branches to meet and discuss motions or amendments.
  • The National Committee and regional committees “may send 1 motion or constitutional amendment”. The problem is that there is no constitution yet, so how can it be amended? Or does Lansman have some kind of draft constitution in his back pocket that he will surprise the organisation with just before conference? Via his SC, perhaps? Why don’t branches have the right to submit “constitutional amendments”? It is all very unclear.

Ideally, all of these issues should be resolved by the CAC soon. But the Steering Committee could again overturn it all – it has done similar things before. Also, the next NC (scheduled for January) could easily see a small majority for the Lansman wing, if a couple of pro-democracy people are absent for some reason.

In any case, the Lansman wing has the clear advantage in the current struggle. Not numerically. Needless to say, most members want democratic control over the organisation that they pay regular dues to.

But it is important to understand why Jon Lansman can command such power. After all, he is just one man. We have been told not to “personalise” things so much by placing the blame for Momentum’s inertia onto his shoulders.

But Lansman has been tasked by ‘our Jeremy’ to set up and run the organisation. There are quite a few members of the SC and NC who work for Corbyn and/or the Labour Party. Clearly, they understand that any future career in the Labour Party and parliament depends on them ‘playing nice’.

They know that Corbyn has given his okay to the deeply undemocratic set up of the organisation, which is “owned” by a couple of companies that Lansman is the director of. Momentum was never designed to be democratic or to be run by its members.

Just like the Labour Party itself, Momentum is split, though of course the fault lines do not run between those that want to keep Corbyn and those busy plotting his overthrow. Momentum is split between those who want peace with the right (justified by the mantra that any Labour government is better than a Tory government) and those who think we should be fighting for some kind of socialism.

All those pesky lefties who come to Momentum meetings and talk about mandatory selection of MPs, the need to transform the Labour Party into a real party of Labour or the fight for socialism are viewed as nothing but a diversion. In fact, branches are seen as a diversion, especially those that function well.

Momentum is supposed to be an extension of the Labour electoral machine, designed to support Corbyn in the event of the next coup (which will come sooner rather than later). It is far from impossible that Lansman will be told to close down the organisation if the left becomes too powerful or branches become too autonomous and energetic. Anybody who then continues to use Lansman’s database will make themselves liable to be sued – and probably successfully, it should be noted.

To sum up. Of course, it’s great that the left, pro-democratic wing in Momentum has managed to pull off a couple of victories on the NC. Clearly, all is still to play for in Momentum. But as long as Lansman is in charge of the organisation, it cannot become anything more than a fanclub for Jeremy Corbyn.

And not a very dynamic or effective one at that.

Notes

[i] http://labourpartymarxists.org.uk/jon-lansmans-coup-in-momentum/

[ii] https://jillsmomentumblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/04/decisions-on-national-conference-positive-steps-forward-to-building-a-democratic-movement/

[iii] https://theclarionmag.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/michaelncforward/

[iv] http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/04/thin-controller

[v] https://medium.com/@lauracatrionamurray/momentum-vs-inertia-e525c8f9e217#.e7djumgoq

[vi] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/05/trotskyist-factions-seeking-to-take-over-momentum-member-claims

[vii] https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/why-i-joined-momentum-e2e8311ea05c#.pksd32xel

[viii] https://momentumjosie.wordpress.com/2016/12/04/nc03_12_16/

[ix] https://momentumjosie.wordpress.com/2016/12/04/nc03_12_16/

Momentum

Paul Mason’s ‘consensus democracy’: Same old ephemeral new

Paul Mason may now be championing ‘consensus democracy’, but its failings have long been established, writes Mick Last of the Labour Party Marxists

In an article published on November 1, journalist Paul Mason announced that he is joining Momentum.1)https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/why-i-joined-momentum-e2e8311ea05c#.w4d2rhk1i He gives three reasons. The first two are to support Momentum, and to support Jeremy Corbyn, against the Labour right (one reason dressed up as two). The third, much more elaborated, is to support the organisational proposals of Jon Lansman and his co-thinkers against their internal opponents. Momentum, Mason says, “faces two alternative futures: one in which all the negative, hierarchical and factionalist tendencies of the 20th century left are allowed to resurface; another in which Momentum?- and ultimately Labour itself – becomes a horizontal, consensus-based organisation, directly accountable to its mass of members.”

Mason is a fairly eminent journo (BBC2’s Newsnight business editor and then economics editor for Channel 4 News before quitting this February in order to pursue a freelance career). But his potential political weight in support of Lansman does not come from his background in “impartial” TV reporting. Rather, it has two elements.

The first is Mason’s four books, Live working or die fighting: how the working class went global (2007); Meltdown: the end of the age of greed (2009); Why it’s kicking off everywhere: the new global revolutions (2012) and Postcapitalism: a guide to our future (2015).2)I leave on one side his ‘journo China novel’, Rare earth (2012), available used at 1p or remaindered at 98p on Amazon. This fertile book production on large issues can make Mason appear as a serious theorist. (No matter for this purpose that all four books are, in fact, journalistic rather than rigorous theoretical productions, that the predictions of the first three have already been falsified, and that the illusions of the fourth in the ‘gig economy’ have been recently exposed by the industrial tribunal ruling in the Uber case.3)www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37802386.)

Second, and probably equally importantly, Mason is a ‘repentant Leninist’ like the Eurocommunists and, before them, many others (like Arthur Koestler or Roger Garaudy), though less significant than any of these. Though he tends to downplay his involvement with the semi-orthodox Trotskyist group, Workers Power, he was certainly already involved with WP in 1984 aged 24,4)www.reportdigital.co.uk/gallery/1980s/1882/2159/1286/feminism-1980s.html., as he still was in 2001, aged 41. 5)See M Larsen, ‘A tale of two campaigns’ Weekly Worker March 1 2001. In 2007 and 2008 he spoke at the weekend schools of the Permanent Revolution splinter from Workers Power (listings at www.permanentrevolution.net/search/?s=%22Paul+Mason%22), though, given that on these occasions he was plugging his 2007 book, no more than slight sympathy with the Permanent Revolution side of the split can be inferred. This is a substantial track record of involvement with one of the more dogmatic and bureaucratic-centralist among the Trotskyist groups. Work on political economy under this aegis may well account for Mason’s ability to turn himself from a ‘music and politics’ graduate and music teacher in the 1980s into an economics writer from the 1990s.

It is this substantial period of bureaucratic-centralist commitment, together with present explicit condemnation of Leninism, which qualifies Mason as a ‘repentant Leninist’ rather than merely a left Labourite with a far-left past.

Like ‘repentant Leninists’ more generally, he adopts the general line that ‘Leninism leads to Stalinism’. Like them, too, he argues for “respecting … the democratic institutions of the UK”. And, also like them, he advocates policies of exclusion: “Momentum must have the ability to immediately exclude from membership people who breach Labour Party rules, and who engage in [undefined] unacceptable behaviour.”

Mason claims, however, to offer a new alternative to discredited Leninism; not a mere repetition of the same old repentance. But it is anything but new. It is merely the same old pseudo-anarchism (with bureaucratic control supplying the real practical decision-making mechanism) of the ‘consensus’, anti-globalisation ‘social forums’ movement around 2000; and behind that, the same old ‘anti-authoritarianism’ which goes all the way back to Mikhail Bakunin.

If there is an added element, it is that ‘horizontalism’ is to mean plebiscitary ‘democracy’ without either any effective possibility of deliberation or means of unseating the authors of the plebiscite question – as practised by Louis Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler and Ayatollah Khomeini, and most recently before our very eyes by the Brexiteers and their fraudulent press.

The presentation of something old as really new is a distinctive inheritance of the post-1956 ‘new left’, and thereby of the Socialist Workers Party and related groups (Workers Power, which originated in the ‘Left Faction’ expelled from the SWP in 1975, is one); and of the Mandelite Fourth International, which adopted the idea of a ‘new vanguard’ in the 1970s. The basic idea is that the ‘old left’ is a waste of space and it is necessary to start again from scratch with ‘newly radicalising forces’. Ever since the post-1956 ‘new left’ the novelty of each ‘newly radicalising force’ has proved illusory.

What, if anything, are we to make of the more concrete arguments Mason offers in his ‘joining statement’?

Social movements

To begin with, Mason responds to discussions about “how Labour could ‘become a social movement’”. He argues that as an electoral party it cannot become a social movement as such, because “its structures have to mirror those of constituencies, councils, parliament itself”. However, he argues, Labour has to “learn from social movements”, meaning that it should “become much more clearly an alliance of groups with limited common interests: in social justice, workers’ rights, a zero-carbon energy system, the liberation of oppressed minorities, and opposition to adventurist wars”.

He makes no attempt to define what he means by a “social movement”. If what is meant is a mass movement mobilising very broad forces in society, there is not the slightest reason to suppose that the Labour Party’s ‘electoral’ and affiliate structures are an obstacle to such a movement. Consider the Social Democratic Party of Germany before 1914 and its European congeners; or, for that matter, the French or Italian Communist Parties at their height. Cooperatives, trade union fractions, social clubs, local fiestas, and so on, all operated alongside and together with the electoral form of organisation.

It is reasonably clear, however, that what Mason means is not this, but rather “social movement” in the sense of the 1970s women’s liberation movement, or the 1990s-early 2000s anti-globalisation movement, or Occupy.

By comparison with the late 20th and early 21st century far-left grouplets, these phenomena are no doubt impressively large. But by comparison with the mass European social democratic or communist parties of the past, or even with the Labour Party, they are trivial.

In the first place, even by comparison with the hundreds of thousands who signed up to Labour to support Corbyn, the numbers involved in them are marginal – with the exception of the Brazilian Workers Party (the source of the “people’s budget” idea), which, Mason conveniently forgets for a moment, both was a conventional political party and, when it took office, became merely a player in the ‘social-liberal’ game, like the Blairites and so on.

Secondly, and more fundamentally, the ‘social movements’ make a big splash for a little while, but are temporally ephemeral. Where now are the social forums? Where is Occupy?

In contrast, the big mass workers’ parties were built over decades and were able to achieve real, if limited, gains. The Labour victory of 1945, celebrated by Ken Loach’s film and by many Labour left supporters, depended in part on a favourable political conjuncture – but also on 14 years’ hard slog after the spectacular defeat of 1931. Before that, the Labour Representation Committee was founded in 1900 – it took 22 years for the party it established to become a contender for power. (This is, in fact, also true of the Brazilian Workers Party, which took a decade to achieve more than 10% of the vote.)

Remodelling Labour on the basis of the “social movements” would then mean abandoning that long, hard slog in favour of a series of ephemeral campaigns and street actions, without long-term results.

Moreover, if Labour is anything useful at all, it is, as it was in 1900, a political party which seeks the political representation of labour – that is, of the wage-earning class as a class – through the means available in the electoral system. To remodel Labour as “an alliance of groups with limited common interests” would, in reality, be to achieve what Blair and his Eurocommunist allies failed to do: to liquidate Labour as a party of the working class in favour of a ‘broad democratic alliance’ coalition.

From this angle, Mason’s ‘joining statement’ is his equivalent of Georg von Vollmar’s 1891 Eldorado speeches, in which this former ultra-left and general strike advocate announced his conversion to a ‘realism’ well to the right of those like Bebel and Kautsky.6)FL Carsten, ‘Georg von Vollmar’ Journal of Contemporary History No25 (1990), pp317-22. Such conversions are commonplace: both ultra-leftism and rightist coalitionism reflect an impatience to ‘do something now’ – it is just that the option of the hard slog of building, (or in 21st century conditions rebuilding) an effective movement is excluded a priori. Then, when it becomes too obvious that ‘direct action’ is not producing results, the only remaining option is coalitionism.

The fundamental step has been taken. Mason’s view remains overtly of the left. But the logic of his view is to become a Blairite, a Clinton Democrat or a Renzi-ite.

Anti-factionalism

The demon of faction that over them hungIn accents of horror their epitaph sung

While pride and venality joined in the stave

And canting democracy wept at the grave 7)Memoirs of the life of the Rt Hon George Canning New York 1830, Vol 2, p58.

So wrote Tory politician George Canning on the 1807 fall of the ‘Ministry of All the Talents’ government, which introduced the abolition of the slave trade.

For Canning, both ‘faction’ and ‘democracy’ were ‘boo words’, carrying as much negative emphasis as ‘pride’ and ‘venality’. For Mason ‘democracy’ is not a ‘boo word’; but ‘faction’ still is. This complaint about ‘factionalism’ is a feature of the underlying dominance of British high politics by Toryism (including the Cobbettian radical Toryism of the traditional Labour right). But it is also a reflection of the ‘orthodox Trotskyism’ Mason continues to inherit from his time in Workers Power – which even if it does not ban factions outright, or ban ‘permanent factions’ (as the SWP does) – still regards them as wholly exceptional and undesirable. Thus,

I am not worried about ‘entryism’. Anybody who is in a leftwing group or party right now should be allowed to join Momentum, so long as they openly and irrevocably dissolve their organisations and pledge to support Labour in all future elections.

The emphasis is in the original, so that it is the demand to dissolve groups that is Mason’s main point; not the demand for unconditional and permanent future support for Labour.8)That itself is problematic. Is it to be even if Labour was to break the links with the unions, or to launch a new aggressive war, Mr Mason?

What is involved is a deep misunderstanding of absolutely fundamental necessities of social decision-making; a misunderstanding which also supports Mason’s advocacy of plebiscitism. Anti-factionalism makes sense for Toryism, which is an oligarchical and leader-cult politics, and all the more for open anti-democrats such as the early 19th century politicians like Canning. For purported democrats, it is a complete contradiction.

Equally, for traditional Stalinists, with their monolithism and leader cults, anti-factionalism makes a bizarre sort of sense. For Trotskyists – including former Trotskyists – the inheritors of Leon Trotsky’s Third International after Lenin, it should also be an obvious contradiction.

It is just in the nature of things that human beings have disagreements. Assuming there is a straightforwardly ‘right thing to do’, what it is is rarely obvious. Very frequently, there is not only a choice to be made between option 1 or 2, but from options 1 to 7 and within these, 1 (a) (i), 1 (a) (ii), 1 (b) … and so on.

To reach a decision, then, it is necessary to reduce the range of options. This is, of course, why the Labour Party, when it functioned at all democratically, had (1) the right of constituencies to introduce amendments to proposed motions, (2) compositing procedures and (3) discussion at party conference before the vote was taken.

Factions (and, in the politics of the state, parties) are a part of the method by which, on the one hand, the full range of possible options is brought to light in discussion; and, on the other hand, the range of options is reduced to a manageable number, through individuals allying, compromising and coalescing in factional groupings, between whose proposals choices are then made.

The underlying problem does not in the least go away if factions are banned. It is still necessary that the range of possible ideas should be reduced in some process of discussion, amendment and so on.

Otherwise, let us imagine a Momentum of 200,000 members, of which every member has (a) the right to put proposals by electronic circulation to the whole organisation and (b) the right of individual veto over all such proposals (which is what is actually meant by proceeding by consensus, rather than by vote).

Then, on the one hand, I get up in the morning, switch on my computer and find 10,000 emails with individual proposals for Momentum decisions waiting to be read. However, on the other hand, actually, I need not read them, because I can be pretty certain that someone among the 200,000 members will veto any of them, so that none of them will be adopted.

The reality is that someone has to reduce the range of possible choices. Behind any consensus process, there must be some decision-making mechanism which works otherwise. Thus, in the World Social Forum, the decisive voice was of the bureaucratic apparatus of the Brazilian Workers Party; in the European Social Forum, that of Rifondazione Comunista; in the London variant, Ken Livingstone’s London mayor’s office. In the absence of freedom to organise factions which endeavour to persuade others of their ideas, it must be so.

Hence my point above about The Third International after Lenin, where Trotsky makes the point that the full-time apparatus must function as a faction. Hence, to ban factions is merely to ban all factions except the full-time apparatus.

The apparatus then functions in exactly the way as Mason claims the ‘Leninist’ left group does – as an ‘enlightened-minority’ cog driving a half-ignorant bigger group – and, by not admitting its own factional character, it befuddles the believers in a real ‘consensus process’.

The ‘zombie ideology’ (which Mason claims affects the left groups) is, then, Mason’s ideology, which is a zombie version of the ideas of the anarchists, the ‘new left’ and the ‘children of 68’. The result of this ideology is to make democratic discussion impossible. In turn, this produces demoralisation as soon as the first flush of enthusiasm fails, which is in turn the reason for the ephemeral quality of the ‘social movements’ of the past period.

References

References
↑1 https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/why-i-joined-momentum-e2e8311ea05c#.w4d2rhk1i
↑2 I leave on one side his ‘journo China novel’, Rare earth (2012), available used at 1p or remaindered at 98p on Amazon.
↑3 www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37802386.
↑4 www.reportdigital.co.uk/gallery/1980s/1882/2159/1286/feminism-1980s.html.
↑5 See M Larsen, ‘A tale of two campaigns’ Weekly Worker March 1 2001. In 2007 and 2008 he spoke at the weekend schools of the Permanent Revolution splinter from Workers Power (listings at www.permanentrevolution.net/search/?s=%22Paul+Mason%22), though, given that on these occasions he was plugging his 2007 book, no more than slight sympathy with the Permanent Revolution side of the split can be inferred.
↑6 FL Carsten, ‘Georg von Vollmar’ Journal of Contemporary History No25 (1990), pp317-22.
↑7 Memoirs of the life of the Rt Hon George Canning New York 1830, Vol 2, p58.
↑8 That itself is problematic. Is it to be even if Labour was to break the links with the unions, or to launch a new aggressive war, Mr Mason?