Fight for Momentum heats up as Lansman claims members are being ‘disenfranchised’
Momentum supporters at a Liverpool fringe festival during the Labour party conference in September [Image: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images].
Perhaps we should all remind ourselves that the choice was between a delegate system that would examine all motions put before it, or Mr Lansman’s hybrid plan that would mix a delegate-led conference with a computerised, ‘one-member-one-vote’ scheme that would whittle down the supportable resolutions until only three were left.
Which of those is more democratic? Ultimately, This Writer thinks the delegate system has the edge – simply because it doesn’t impose an unnecessary limit on the number of resolutions to be passed.
One wonders why Mr Lansman wanted to impose such a limit in the first place.
Jon Lansman, the founder of Momentum and a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn, has promised to fight for his key role in the grassroots organisation following claims that it has been taken over by Trotskyists and could split.
In a statement to the Guardian, Lansman distanced himself from rumours he could walk away and claimed recent changes to the organisation had disenfranchised many of its thousands of members.
His first comments on the group’s internal crisis come as the activist accused of leading an alleged Trotskyist takeover said Lansman himself had first raised the prospect of a split last month.
Jill Mountford, who is on the organisation’s steering committee, said that far from being pushed out, Lansman appeared to be reacting to changes to the democratic structures which meant that he could no longer control it.
Lansman in turn indicated that he had not yet given up on the organisation he set up and whose database he controls. “Of course I’m not walking away from Momentum, but I do take the disenfranchisement of most of our 21,000 members very seriously,” he said.
Source: Jon Lansman vows stay in Momentum | Politics | The Guardian
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
The previous article that you linked to doesn’t say that motions would be limited to three, but to 24! 6 in each of 4 categories. This is much more reasonable.
“Mr Lansman’s proposal was for his online, one-member-one-vote method to be used to propose motions and gather supporters for them – but also to whittle them down to the six most popular motions in each of three categories – purpose, ethics and structure (and a catch-all ‘other’ category for those that don’t fit in any of them).”
From the article you mention: “Here’s the catch, though: Only the top three proposals – one for each category – would be approved.”
Not sure why this is a problem. It would be democratically decided OPOV rather than forceful delegates pushing their own agendas.
But the amount of choice would be restricted at every stage. How do you know it would be administered fairly?
If there is electronic voting surely there is a record of numbers cast? As Momentum is a grassroots group then it should be the grassroot members rather than people with their own agendas on some issues that should make the decisions.
Often those attending local branch meetings are a minority of the actual membership. Thus minority decisions get pushed forward by delegates.
Trouble is, only one person would be running the electronic voting system – or so the evidence suggests.
Something needs to be done to ensure Momentum is grassroots movement and not a vehicle fir some in the Far Left to move it in their own ideological direction.