Tag Archives: Jon Lansman

The Jewish Labour Movement is right – Labour IS acting too slowly on complaints of anti-Semitism

(Incidentally, this is the only definition of anti-Semitism anybody needs.)

Yes: This Writer agrees with the Jewish Labour Movement about something.

Of course, we split again over the details. Let’s look at the issue, as reported in The Observer:

The bitter Labour party controversy over antisemitism erupted again on Saturday night, as the main organisation representing its Jewish members accused the leadership of failing to deal with a “vast backlog” of complaints and of allowing a second inquiry into Ken Livingstone to get “stuck in limbo”.

The accusations from the national chair of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), Jeremy Newmark, came as party sources told the Observer that a group of members, including activists and councillors, was preparing legal action against the party for failing to act on complaints about antisemitic incidents, some of which date back more than six months.

Newmark said the delays in dealing with many cases raised serious questions about whether the party had learnt lessons after an inquiry last year by Labour peer and former head of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti.

Newmark said: “We remain seriously concerned about what is now a vast backlog of cases involving alleged antisemitism that appear to be stuck in the system, in some cases for over a year. That is not a good indicator of the party having embraced Shami Chakrabarti’s imperative to adopt a gold standard in dealing with antisemitism.”

Readers of This Site will be aware that I was suspended by the Labour Party at the beginning of May last year, based on a vexatious complaint of anti-Semitism that seems to have come from a so-called charity known as the Campaign Against Antisemitism.

It took a staggering eight months for this open-and-shut case to be heard by Labour’s disputes panel. We shall discuss the failings of the report to that panel momentarily. Let’s get back to Mr Newmark and some of the allegations to which he refers:

“We will be closely monitoring the outcomes of a number of high-profile cases due to be determined by the national constitutional committee over the weeks ahead. These include former Momentum vice-chair Jackie Walker and [activist] Marc Wadsworth [who are to contest the accusations].

“The second investigation into Ken Livingstone appears to be stuck in limbo.”

Last April, Livingstone avoided expulsion from the party after an NCC disciplinary panel ruled he should be suspended for another year for bringing the party into disrepute over comments about antisemitism, Hitler and Zionism. He was censured after having suggested that Hitler at one point supported Zionism, and for defending the Labour MP Naz Shah over an antisemitic Facebook post for which she subsequently apologised.

Livingstone’s defiant reaction to the suspension caused further outrage among Labour MPs, many of whom were already dismayed at what they saw as a far too lenient ruling. Corbyn said that the former mayor’s comments after the ruling would be the subject of further investigations by the NEC after representations from party members.

Several Labour MPs and senior officials have also expressed private concerns that – despite promises by the leadership to show “zero tolerance” in cases where antisemitism had been alleged – the party had been slow to investigate. In some cases where complaints had been found to have had substance, the party had recommended surprisingly lenient punishment.

It should be pointed out that anything Jeremy Newmark says should be taken with a pinch of salt. He was found to have lied while giving evidence at an employment tribunal in 2013, and it seems he is too keen to see anti-Semitism where it isn’t actually present.

Okay – there’s a lot to address here.

The case of Jackie Walker will be interesting because it arises from a so-called ‘safe space’ session of ‘training’ run by – guess who? – the Jewish Labour Movement. The organisation had claimed that attendees would be able to discuss their concerns about issues related to Judaism without fear of being attacked for it – then either allowed Ms Walker’s words to be recorded, or the organisation itself recorded her and released her words to the news media in order to present her as an anti-Semite.

That is not reasonable behaviour. It is deceitful to take words that are presented as discussion points and use them out-of-context to support a false claim about a person’s character.

Mr Wadsworth’s case arises from the launch of Shami Chakrabarti’s report into alleged anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, in June, 2016. Mr Wadsworth, a member of Jeremy Corbyn supporting organisation Momentum, attended and was handing out press releases from the organisation when he saw a reporter from the Daily Telegraph – a Conservative-supporting newspaper – handing a copy to Ruth Smeeth – a Labour MP who had resigned her position as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Shadow Scotland and Northern Ireland teams three days previously, in protest at Mr Corbyn’s leadership of the party, and who may therefore be said to have been an opponent of Mr Corbyn at the time.

He is quoted as having said: “I saw the Telegraph handed a copy of a press release to Ruth Smeeth MP; you can see who is working hand-in-hand.”

It seems clear that he was suggesting anti-Corbyn Labour MPs were working with the anti-Corbyn press to criticise him. Right?

In a statement released after the incident, Ms Smeeth tried to claim that: “I was verbally attacked by a Momentum activist and Jeremy Corbyn supporter who used traditional anti-Semitic slurs to attack me for being part of a ‘media conspiracy’. It is beyond belief that someone could come to the launch of a report about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and espouse such vile conspiracy theories against Jewish people.”

“Media conspiracy”? When did Mr Wadsworth make that claim? He didn’t.

So her claim that Mr Wadsworth was making an accusation that Jewish people control the media – which is certainly an anti-Semitic trope – is, as journalist Craig Murray described it, “untenable”. He added that, considering the subject matter of the meeting and her own Jewish ethnicity, Ms Smeeth’s reaction may have been genuine, and “she read into the remark something not intended”.

Ken Livingstone’s words have been discussed exhaustively on This Site. His Labour Party membership was suspended by the party’s National Constitutional Committee on grounds that the controversy over his defence of Labour MP Naz Shah had brought the party into dispute. He had been accused of anti-Semitism, but it had been proved that he had not said anything anti-Semitic. The Guardian‘s report, that he was “censured after having suggested that Hitler at one point supported Zionism” tells only part of the story. The claim against him was initially that he was an anti-Semite because he had claimed Hitler was a Zionist – something he never did. Labour MP John Mann, oddly accompanied by a TV camera crew, claimed he said it in an incendiary confrontation on a stairwell but the facts proved otherwise. The grounds for his suspension were that he had upset the UK’s Jewish population – and this, too, is questionable as many British Jews came forward to support him.

The Guardian states that Mr Livingstone was also censured “for defending the Labour MP Naz Shah over an antisemitic Facebook post for which she subsequently apologised”. In fact, it was a tweet, stating that “The Jews are rallying” to vote in an online poll by John Prescott on the appropriateness of Israeli military action against Palestinians in 2014. The message was indeed anti-Semitic and Ms Shah was right to apologise for it. If she had said “supporters of Israel are rallying”, she would have been in the clear. According to legal opinion, criticism of Israel that alleges ill treatment of Palestinians (the subject of the discussion at the time) cannot be taken as evidence of anti-Semitism.

Mr Livingstone also defended Ms Shah for retweeting two images. One was controversial as it was a response to a plan propossed to the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, to forcibly move Palestinians from the land that has been theirs for centuries, relocating them in neighbouring countries. The image proposed moving Israel – the whole country, physically – to within the borders of the United States (on the assumption that the US was Israel’s greatest ally). The idea is of course ridiculous and it would be inappropriate to take it seriously. The accompanying text drew flak for referring to the “Jews-only state”, but consider this: certain so-called representatives of Jewish people (including current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, come to think of it) like to conflate Israel with Judaism. It seems strange that certain organisations that demand the two should be intermingled should then complain about it.

The other image was of a man posing for a police ‘mug’ shot, above the words, “Everything Hitler did in Germany was legal”. Mr Livingstone was taken to task by Vanessa Feltz on her radio show over this image, which she claimed was an attempt to justify Hitler’s anti-Semitism. This was a huge mistake: The man in the image was Martin Luther King, and the point he was making was that actions that are entirely legal can still be entirely wrong.

Isn’t it curious that nobody has tackled Ms Feltz over her gross misinterpretation of the image? Has anybody even bothered to ask her, or is it only permitted to question the accused, and not the accusers?

The Guardian goes on to report Labour MPs and officials’ concerns that “despite promises by the leadership to show ‘zero tolerance’ in cases where antisemitism had been alleged – the party had been slow to investigate. In some cases where complaints had been found to have had substance, the party had recommended surprisingly lenient punishment.”

“Zero tolerance” with allegations? This implies that guilt is assumed, no matter what the evidence may be – which brings me to my own case.

Here‘s a site called The Red Roar, reporting my refusal to accept the disputes panel’s decision to give me a warning and send me for “training” with the JLM. It is inaccurate, or at least misleading by omission, in several places:

A Labour member accused of anti-semitism could face expulsion from the party after publicly refusing to take part in a training programme because it is run by the Jewish Labour Movement.

Mike Sivier was defended by Jon Lansman at a hearing of Labour’s Disputes Panel on Tuesday after being suspended for blog posts described as anti-Semitic. The Momentum founder helped to broker a compromise agreement that was endorsed by the Panel by the narrowest of margins, which Sivier has now effectively broken.

Party officials had recommended Sivier should be referred to the National Constitutional Committee, which has the final say on disciplinary matters. But several NEC members argued on Tuesday he should be given a second chance if he agreed to take part in training. It is unusual for the Disputes Panel to ignore the advice of Party officials, but it voted by 12 votes to 10 in favour of the compromise agreement.

Readers of This Site will know that I am not an anti-Semite. The allegations against me were entirely false.

If you’ve come late to the debate, or have only seen the other side of it, I recommend a quick trip here and here.

I’ve already mentioned the fact that it has taken Labour eight months to bring my case before the NEC’s disputes panel.

For nearly five of those months, I heard nothing from Labour at all. Then I was invited to an interview, to discuss the matter, and encouraged to bring evidence supporting my side of the issue, details of other people who could be contacted for supporting evidence, and a witness – who may not speak but may ensure that proceedings take place equitably.

In hindsight, I have no idea why I was invited to that interview; I might as well have stayed at home. My evidence was ignored; my documents went unexamined; my supporters uncontacted. And what’s the point of having a witness if she isn’t allowed to review the report to dispute panel members for accuracy?

The report delivered to the panel, as I understand it, dismissed nearly two hours worth of verbal evidence as “unclear”, and claimed that I did not understand why Jewish people might take offence at what I had said.

The reason they chose to take offence is perfectly clear: For political gain. My accusers did not want me to do well in the local government elections last May, so they released the article making their claim about me in the week before – to ruin my chances. This is against the law.

None of this information was provided to the disputes panel – and it seems that some of its members seem to assume guilt, simply from the fact that a complaint has been made. It can hardly be a surprise that they were not prepared to accept Mr Lansman’s argument – and that of others who were there – that I am innocent.

Indeed, it seems that some of the panel even took offence at attempts to introduce evidence I had given at my interview into their deliberations, as it had not been mentioned in the one-sided report they’d had from the officer.

Oh, and Mr Lansman didn’t put forward the proposal to give me a warning and send me for training – that was someone else.

Sivier has since written that he will not take part in the training because it is run by JLM “of all people”. That is an apparent reference to the fact that it was his controversial online statements about JLM that prompted his suspension from the party in the first place.

No, it’s a reference to the evidence that JLM uses its “training” events to smear innocent people with fake anti-Semitism accusations (as Jackie Walker discovered).

Also, it is surprising that whoever wrote the Red Roar article apparently hasn’t read the allegations against me. That’s poor journalism. My statements about the JLM cannot be described as anti-Semitism as they do not fit any of the definitions; they are criticism of the JLM as an organisation, not Jews.

Sivier now faces being referred to the NCC, as recommended by party officials.

Yes indeed. Hopefully I’ll be able to inject some much-needed factual accuracy into this sorry saga. I am already calling for reform of the disciplinary procedure as it clearly causes injustice.

His refusal to undergo training will embarrass Lansman and other Momentum NEC members who argued on his behalf earlier this week. Lansman has publicly conceded that Labour has a problem with anti-semitism which is has so far failed to address.

Those who spoke in my favour “understand” my decision and “applaud” my “strong principles”.

As for Mr Lansman’s agreement that Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism – he said it is on the rise nationally, and “it would be extremely surprising if it wasn’t also present in the Labour Party”. He didn’t say Labour had failed to address the problem, but did say “it has to be dealt with”.

He’s right – but not by automatically penalising anybody who has been accused. That merely encourages mischief-makers to make vexatious complaints in order to discredit people they don’t like – and that’s not acceptable.

Don’t forget that cases of apparently genuine anti-Semitism were discussed by the disputes panel and sent on to the Natonal Constitutional Committee last week. Where the party’s rules are clearly breached, it acts appropriately.

It is only in cases where the innocent are accused that Labour seems to tie itself in knots.

So, yes, I agree that Labour takes far too long dealing with these complaints. But Labour needs to reform its procedures to ensure that everybody who is accused can ensure that their case is heard fairly and that justice is served. That is not happening at the moment.

And that’s why I’m telling the disputes panel to think again.


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:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

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!

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:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Change in the chair won’t stop Labour’s disputes panel being a kangaroo court

Christine Shawcroft, newly-elected chairperson of the Labour Party disputes panel [Image from her website].

This Writer seems to have become a minor part of a major political news story – that really shouldn’t be.

It seems a certain quality of commentator has been trying to make a big thing of the fact that Ann Black has been replaced by Christine Shawcroft in the chair of Labour’s disputes panel, which rules on the handling of issues including allegations of anti-Semitism against members.

Like Aaron Bastani, I’d rather be discussing something else. Never mind – this has happened, so it must be addressed.

No sooner was she voted in than Ms Shawcroft was accused of going soft on anti-Semites, with announcements that some members were to be given a warning and sent for “training” by the Jewish Labour Movement, rather than their cases going on to be examined in detail by the party’s National Constitutional Committee, with a view to expulsion. It turns out that she didn’t vote and therefore had nothing to do with the decision apart from running the meeting at which it was made.

So attention shifted to Momentum founder – and recently-elected member of Labour’s National Executive Committee – Jon Lansman, who – we’re told – managed to clear This Writer of the anti-Semitism charge against me.

That one isn’t true either.

For a quick recap of the claims about me – and my response to them – nip across to the article I wrote about it back in April last year. Basically, someone with malice aforethought took comments from some of my articles out of context and presented them as proof that I was an anti-Semite, in a bid to affect the result of last year’s council election in the Powys ward where I was standing.

Labour HQ, in its wisdom, suspended my membership pending an investigation – which didn’t start until October, six months after the claims were made. Late that month, I attended – with a friend of Jewish heritage who was acting as a witness – an interview with an officer of Welsh Labour who questioned me about my allegedly dodgy comments. I spoke for nearly two hours, putting forward a forceful case (I thought) that the claims were rubbish, put forward by people who were making mischief at election time (which is a crime).

If what I’ve heard is accurate, then I may as well not have bothered attending that meeting.

You see, the report presented to Labour’s disputes panel contained none of the information I passed on. I’m told it repeated the out-of-context quotations from my articles and then claimed that I was “unclear” in my responses to questioning and did not seem to understand how my words could be interpreted as anti-Semitic. I can only interpret that as a lie.

The officer conducting the meeting had handed me a pile of printed copies of some of my articles, and questioned my on passages he had highlighted. In one such passage I stated that the Jewish Labour Movement “is not a movement that represents Jews; it represents Zionists”, and asked me why I had made that suggestion.

I looked at the printout and asked him if he had read the article in full. He said no – he had only been told to ask about the parts he had highlighted (meaning, incidentally, that was admitting he had absolutely no understanding of my attitudes or what I actually do).

I then pointed out that this was a shame as, if he had glanced down the page, he would have realised that my source was the organisation’s own website, which states that the JLM “is also affiliated to… the Zionist Federation of the UK, and organise within the World Zionist Organisation… Our objects: To maintain and promoted Labour or Socialist Zionism as the movement for self-determination of the Jewish people within the state of Israel.”

“‘Zionist’… ‘Zionist’… ‘Zionism’,” I had written. “It should be ‘Zionist Labour Movement’.”

That is an accurate description – the evidence bears it out. Nobody can honestly say that my response was unclear. And how can those words be interpreted as anti-Semitic? They are the Jewish Labour Movement’s own words, from the JLM’s own website.

The officer suggested that I had used the anti-Semitic trope of the international Jewish conspiracy in the comment, “it is a conspiracy, have no doubt about that.” I pointed out that the comment was in an article about Israeli Embassy staffer Shai Masot, who was exposed in an attempt to conspire with UK citizens to undermine members of the government who were deemed to be unsympathetic to the state of Israel, including then-Deputy Foreign Minister Sir Alan Duncan. You can read about the organisations he claimed to have set up and supported here (among many other pages). That’s the conspiracy to which I was referring – and it was a conspiracy.

Is there anything unclear about that? Anything anti-Semitic about discussing an Israeli diplomat’s attempt to undermine the UK government at a time when it was an issue of the day? No. Of course not.

I could go on, but the point is made, I think.

The problem with the disputes panel is that it acts as a secret court, in which members who are accused of breaking party rules are tried and convicted without seeing any evidence or having a chance to argue against it.

The prevailing attitude among members seems to be that “there’s no smoke without fire” – that virtually anyone facing disciplinary charges is guilty and the officers are just doing their job. Those who challenge the officers’ recommendations, I’m told, are regularly reproached in the strongest terms for impugning the professionalism of the officers and, in effect, attempting to shield bullies, bigots and trouble-makers.

This brings me back to Jon Lansman. I’ve never met Mr Lansman. I understand he is of Jewish heritage but self-defines as an atheist. All things considered, he has no reason to stand up for me…

Apart from a belief that I am innocent of the accusations against me.

Perhaps – unlike the officer who investigated my case – he has read This Site and carried out a bit of research.

Anyway, his intervention – and that of Welsh NEC member Darren Williams, who does know me – seems to have done some good, as the recommendation to refer my case to the National Constitutional Committee with a view to expulsion was rejected.

But those interventions weren’t completely successful. The disputes panel voted to give me a warning – and send me for “training” with the Jewish Labour Movement, of all people.

The JLM? The organisation that advertises “safe space” “training” meetings in which people are encouraged to discuss any issues they may have with Judaism, only to discover later that their comments have been recorded and released to the media as evidence of anti-Semitism? I should bleedin’ cocoa.

It is a choice that was put forward by another left-winger, Pete Willsman, as a compromise after certain members refused to accept the facts of my case – and I am grateful to him for trying.

But it is a result that still assumes guilt.

I am not guilty of anti-Semitism and won’t be treated as such. I have rejected the decision and the members of the disputes panel had better think again. They can try considering the facts this time.

The disputes panel itself is a kangaroo court that considers reports that are fabricated to confirm a predetermined conclusion, and consequently treats members referred to it as guilty, regardless of whether the evidence suggests this – with no opportunity to prove themselves innocent.

That cannot be changed by the arrival of a new person in the chair.

The conduct of the disputes panel is an offence to British justice and must be reformed.


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:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

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!

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:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

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].

The most interesting part of this story is Jon Lansman’s claim that Momentum members are being “disenfranchised” by a decision to let elected delegates approve motions at the organisation’s conference next February.

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:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Battle over democracy as Momentum prepares for 2017 conference

A murky horizon? Momentum members are among Jeremy Corbyn’s strongest supporters, but he risks losing them, opines The Graun. This Writer disagrees [Image: Filip Singer/EPA].

A murky horizon? Momentum members are among Jeremy Corbyn’s strongest supporters, but he risks losing them, opines The Graun. This Writer disagrees [Image: Filip Singer/EPA].

What a shame: Organisers of the Jeremy Corbyn-supporting organisation Momentum appear to be splitting, with each faction claiming the other is betraying democracy.

Focus of the split is Momentum founder Jon Lansman. One group says his plans for computerised, one-member-one-vote democracy feeding into a delegate-led debate is a “slap in the face” for democracy – the other touts it as the future of democracy.

The Guardian article quoted below focuses heavily on a blog by Laura Murray, a Lansman supporter – but blows its credibility by suggesting that a meeting of Momentum’s national committee on Saturday was “to decide whether to support the one-member-one-vote (OMOV) system favoured by Lansman, or a delegate-based system… Critics have claimed that a delegate-based system will mean that the hard left will be able to control Momentum’s future direction”.

In fact, the meeting was called to discuss arrangements for the organisation’s conference in February next year, when delegates will discuss broad political and campaigning priorities for the organisation and questions of strategy and tactics relating to its involvement in the Labour Party.

It seems members decided to support a procedure in which delegates debate and approve – or reject – motions submitted by Momentum’s constituent organisations, with an online forum for all members where motions can be discussed, amendments mooted and compositing processes arranged, and an online priorities ballot.

This was the controversial part.

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).

Delegates would debate all six proposals in each category – and vote on them – but the final say would go to members, after the conference, who would vote on only three proposals in each category, using the digital OMOV method.

Here’s the catch, though: Only the top three proposals – one for each category – would be approved.

Momentum LGBT+ co-representative Josie Runswick had this to say about it, in her own blog:

“It represents a slap in the face to the membership. What it allows, at the end of a lengthy and complex process, is asking the membership to whittle nine potential policies down to three. Just three actions to take from a national conference and months of organising work.
“It is also a slap in the face to all of the local and regional groups which have been organising, building and campaigning for the last year. It affords them absolutely no real say in the agenda of conference, and doesn’t allow their conference delegates to do any more than reduce eighteen motions to nine.

“I could not see any positives in the specifics of the Lansman proposals, so I voted against them.

“It is worth noting that electronic OMOV is still used several times in the run-up to the conference, and it also worth noting that nothing prevents conference from agreeing to put proposals to an electronic OMOV ballot of the membership. I would be minded to do this myself on some major issues.”

Contrast this with Ms Murray’s comments, in her blog:

“People who have only recently flocked into the Labour Party from other left-wing parties seek to agitate against Jon Lansman, in the hope that they can take ownership of Momentum for themselves.

It is in the context of these bitter and hurt groups that we lost any proposal to use OMOV for elections — other than for those areas of the country which don’t have local Momentum groups — and lost the proposal to use MxV to propose and vote on motions.

“These groups are unified only by their opposition to Jon Lansman and their realisation that the existing structures and processes are those which benefit themselves and their style of politics.”

What do you think?

The Guardian‘s piece scaremongers shamelessly, suggesting that under this “Trotskyite” controlled Momentum, Jeremy Corbyn could lose the group’s support. It quotes Ms Murray’s claim that “Jeremy Corbyn will inevitably make one compromise or concession that isn’t ideologically pure enough for them, and they will abandon him and Labour altogether to turn Momentum into a rival leftwing party”.

Really?

No. Momentum was created to support Mr Corbyn and the new vigour he has brought to the politics of the Left.

This seems nothing more than bleating from those who themselves sought to control the organisation undemocratically and then accused those who foiled them of exactly the same thing.

Sharp divisions have emerged within Momentum, the grassroots organisation that supports Jeremy Corbyn, following reports of an attempted takeover by Trotskyist and factional groups, an executive committee member has claimed.

Momentum’s women’s officer has written a blog claiming that members of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and others are seeking to wrest control from its founder, Jon Lansman. Laura Murray, who is also a Labour shadow cabinet adviser, has claimed that ultimately, some activists will try to force Momentum to abandon Corbyn and turn to another leftwing organisation.

Source: Trotskyist factions seeking to take over Momentum, member claims | 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:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook