Question 4 asked How should key national decisions be taken?  The options give were by all members via OMOV
or by delegates elected by attendees at meetings.  Posed in that way, of course, people elected
for everyone to vote.  But what wasn’t
said was that all members have the right
to attend local meetings.

Question 5 similarly asked How should Momentum members elect representatives? And again the
alternatives given were either delegates from local groups should elect
representatives or every member should do so. 
Again those not aware of this debate would therefore assume that
delegates acted of their own accord whereas the true situation is that all
members have the right to attend meetings that elect those delegates.

We are told that ‘A huge 40.3% of members
responded to the survey.’  40% of an
electorate voting is anything but huge. 
In general elections it is about 60-70%. 
80% of those answering these skewed questions i.e. 32% of the membership
voted in favour of them.  That is hardly
a ‘huge’ democratic mandate.  What is
clear is that when large meetings of Momentum meetings have been held in
localities, such as Brighton the overwhelming number of people at those
meetings decided to vote against
OMOV. 

Constitution

 ‘Team Momentum’ also
informed us that a Constitution
had been agreed by the Steering Committee at its last meeting.  I have just spoken to a member of the Steering
Committee and that is a lie.  There was no meeting because Sam Tarry, the
TSSA representative on the Committee informed members  there were ‘no rooms available’ at TSSA HQ
where Momentum is currently based.  A
Constitution was therefore sent by Lansman’s acronies aka ‘Team Momentum’ to
each individual Steering Committee member for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’.  This is the democracy that Lansman, Tarry and
co. are introducing.  No debate, no
discussion, either assent or dissent and if the latter then it is punished
accordingly.

The rigged poll that was sent to people before Xmas and the
apparent concern that all members should vote, was a spurious and cynical attempt
to concentrate all power in the hands of Lansman and his cronies  If Jon Lansman, Christine Shawcroft, Sam  Tarry and Marsha Thompson were at all serious
in involving  members, then they would
have sent out a draft
constitution to all members via their OMOV system.  Why were people never invited to give their
opinion on the Constitution?  What has
happened to the principle of all members
having a say in matters?  It seems that
OMOV is only used when it is of convenience to Lansman and cronies.  Otherwise it is discarded.

And if you disagree with the constitution?  Well if you don’t like it then the email says
that:

‘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  [email protected]
to cancel your membership.

In other words if you don’t agree with Lansman’s treating Momentum as
his personal property then you can simply leave Momentum by cancelling your
membership.  This is a democratic
outrage.  All carried out under the guise
of getting more members involved! 

When I said in my previous article that OMOV was a Tory version of
democracy I was not engaging in making rhetorical points.  This is exactly how OMOV works.  You are consulted, you are asked to consent,
but real power of decision making is not in your power because that can be
effected only within a delegate based structure.

Of course it would have been impossible to draw up a
constitution with 20,000 members on the basis of OMOV.  That is why you it is essential to have a
delegate based structure. 

The alternatives are
not between everyone voting and only delegates voting but between Lansman
deciding and everyone voting via their delegates.

The Constitution
is as bad and undemocratic as it can be. 
Of the 26 members of the new National Co-ordinating Group that will run
momentum, just 12 will be elected by the 20,000 members.  The rest will be Lansman appointees in
essence or fixed between him and a number of power brokers.  4 will be MPs, Police Commissioners (!) or
other elected Labour office holders.  There
is no guarantee they will even be on the Left. 
6 will be trade union affiliates and another 4 will be ‘affiliated
organisations’. 

Who will the ‘affilated organisations’ be?  The World Transformed, Campaign for Labour
Party, Democracy, Labour Representation Committee, Compass, Labour Assembly
Against Austerity, Labour CND, Labour Briefing Coop, Left Futures, Red Labour.

Most of these groups represent no-one.  They are not democratic.  The World 
Transformed is not a membership constituted organisation.  It does good work but in practice Lansman
will use it and other similar organisations to obtain crony
representation.  Red Labour represents
nothing but a blog.  Left Futures is
another name for Jon Lansman’s blog. 
CLPD is a small organisation, which Lansman will manipulate as is the
Labour Briefing Coop.  As for Compass,
they aren’t even on the left and work with other parties, including the Lib
Dems.  Labour CND is a shadow of what it
once was and is no longer on the left.

In other words a sham group, effectively controlled by one
person, will run Momentum and OMOV will the means by which Lansman maintains
his power.  Plebiscitary ‘democracy’ was
how Hitler and Mussolini maintained control. 
It is the antithesis of democracy because it means that rulers consult
the people, or in Lansman’s case, the members only when the need arises.  What it doesn’t allow is for the members to
depose their rulers.

The Constitution mentions the word ‘socialist’ just twice under 

3. Aims ‘To broaden support for a transformative, socialist programme’ and under

15.  Code of Ethics  when it talks of ”socialist values’.  

At no stage does the Constitution even hint at what socialist values might be.  This is a Constitution that politically Progress would be happy with.  There is no mention of public ownership or nationalisation.  Instead it speaks in terms that are essentially meaningless soundbites.  

The National
Conference – Why It Must Go Ahead

It is crucial that the national conference, as agreed by the
December National Committee goes ahead. 
If we lost Momentum (!) now we will lose it forever.  Lansman can only be stopped by a
determination to ignore his undemocratic gerrymandering and dictatorial practices.  Lansman controls nothing but the office and a
few sycophants.  The vast majority of
Momentum groups support a democratic Momentum and we should continue to hold
the conference.  It may be that a new
national office will need to be set up and we will need to start afresh given
that Lansman has a stranglehold over the existing databases and personally owns
the Momentum companies.

At the last National Committee a 7 person Conference
Arrangements Committee was elected to organise a national conference which will
be on the 25th February.  It
is intended to be a policy making and organising conference.  Lansman, without any authority at all, via a Steering
Committee that isn’t even meeting anymore, is effectively proposing to organise
a conference on the same date, presumably in another place, that will decide  nothing and will be nothing more than window
dressing, a talk shop whilst the decisions are made elsewhere.  It is
crucial that the original conference, organised by the CAC goes ahead.  If Lansman wants to organise his own
conference, that is up to him.  However
it won’t be a Momentum Conference.

Expelled
Members of the Labour Party will be Expelled from Momentum

One of the key elements of the new ‘Constitution’ is that
only members of the Labour Party will be eligible to be members of
Momentum.  At the moment those who are
not members of parties standing against Labour are eligible to become members
of Momentum.  This is right.  Not all convinced socialists are members of
the Labour Party and we wish to attract the broadest number of community activists
as long as they are not members of another party.  However this decision will mean that expelled
members of the Labour Party will be unable to join the Labour Party or will be
expelled from it if they have already joined. 
Not only will this exclude the Alliance for Workers Liberty but it will mean
that if Jackie Walker, Ken Livingstone or myself are expelled, we will be
ineligible for membership of Momentum. 
Apparently this has been introduced in order that Unite Union will
affiliate to Momentum.  If that is the case
then it should be argued out with them because many affiliated socialist
societies to the Labour Party have members who are not Labour Party members –
e.g. SERA, Socialist Health and Socialist Education Associations.

We are facing an attempted coup by a small clique that does
not have the support of the majority of Momentum members or groups.  It is essential that they are faced down and
told that they have to abide by democratic norms.  Lansman can take his constitution and use it to wipe a place that doesn’t see the sun.

Tony Greenstein

Lanman’s e-mail to fellow members of Momentum’s Steering Committee
A new constitution for Momentum

Dear Colleagues

I am writing to explain why, in consultation with a number of others in
Momentum, the Leader’s office and trade unions that have supported
Jeremy Corbyn, I have decided to propose today that we immediately act
to put Momentum on the proper footing that those dependant on the
success of Jeremy’s leadership need it to be and our members want it to
be.

Most of our members joined Momentum because they support Jeremy Corbyn
and want to help him achieve what he is trying to do. We must put behind
us the paralysis that has for months bedevilled all our national
structures, and focus on our most urgent task – winning the general
election that could come within months, by turning Labour into an
effective force committed to that task, and to the transformative
government that would follow.

I have also taken legal advice, based on a review of a substantial body
of Momentum records, which is that in order to operate effectively as an
organisation with members, Momentum needs written rules or a
constitution with which all its members agree, and in our current
circumstances, the only way of agreeing such a constitution which is
binding on the relationship between the organisation and our members is
to seek the individual consent of each of our members and affiliates.

The papers which are included in this mailing set out:
1. The results of the survey initiated by Jeremy Corbyn’s pre-Christmas
message to Momentum members, which indicate members’ overwhelming
support for the type of organisation we will continue to build,
action-focused, rooted in our communities, wholly committed to the
Labour Party, and involving our members directly in decision-making;

2. A constitution which establishes a sustainable democratic framework
for the sort of organisation we need – an outwards-looking, campaigning
organisation to change and strengthen the Labour Party, not to mirror
its structures. This constitution would apply from now but would be
reviewed in due course and be subject to amendments;

3. A paper on interim governance

4. A paper on election process for the new National Coordinating Group to replace existing regional and national structures.

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

1. Reinforces our wholehearted commitment to the Labour Party by
restating our aim of working towards affiliation, and requiring all
members to be party members;

2. Provides for elections and key decisions including changes to the constitution to be made by our members themselves;

3. Provides for a structure with minimum bureaucracy reflecting members
desire to focus externally on organising and campaigning through our
local groups, liberation networks and the Labour Party rather than
internally on making policy for ourselves.

If this constitution is agreed, the effect would be to wind up the SC,
the NC and CAC, with immediate effect, though the conference would go
ahead but under the new rules, no motions would be considered.

If you are happy with all these proposals as they stand, please indicate
by email. If there is a majority – I think we all recognise that we
shall continue to disagree on this matter – I propose that we seek the
approval of members immediately.

In solidarity

Jon Lansman

Chair

Momentum National Steering Group

[email protected]