Statement on the Labour left slate for the NEC

This was sent to me and I agree wholeheartedly with it. I'll be voting for the Momentum slate in the interest of left unity, but we need to do much better in future.

We feel that there should be a much more transparent and democratic process engaged in for the selection of the NEC Left Slate in the future. It is no longer sufficient that a handful of Executive members of Left organisations meet as the CLGA and choose who we are told to vote for: the grassroots members of these organisations should have the ability to choose who they want on this slate. Having the Executive members of the CLGA organisations select members to put forward for these positions excludes ordinary members from the process. The current system whereby a small group comprising the CLGA decides the final slate by “consensus” is no longer representative of the grassroots Left.

We are proposing that Momentum lead the democratisation within the Left by putting in place the following system for choosing the next NEC Left Slate:

Anyone who is a member of any one of the CLGA organisations and who is eligible to stand for the Labour Party’s NEC is able to put themselves forward for election. They must submit a brief bio and at least one nomination to indicate support from either a branch (or another local organisation) or the Executive of one of these organisations. To facilitate a fully democratic decision-making, all the CLGA organisations must circulate the details (bios & nominations) of all the candidates to all their members, as it is not simply the ability to vote for these candidates, but the opportunity to have full knowledge in which members are making informed choices.

The selection of the final slate is compiled by allowing each member of all the CLGA organisations to vote for the 9 candidates, using a Single Transferable Voting system. Since individuals may be a member of more than one Left organisation within the CLGA, the ballots are issued to members based on Labour Party membership numbers, so that an individual only gets one vote. The 9 candidates receiving the most votes are deemed to be the “left slate” and will be advertised by all the participating groups as such. This selection process should ideally be run by an independent scrutineer such as the Electoral Reform Society.

Anthem for a Lost Cause

The papers, fired up by Tom Watson, have been speculating feverishly about Momentum and plots to take over the Labour Party. Such is its commitment to finding reds under the bed that the Independent dispatched a reporter to the organisation's official conference yesterday. Exciting though the tales of revolutionary schemes might be, the truth is pedestrian: Momentum is no longer a threat to anything worth threatening. Destined to become an organising hub for speaker-rallies and phonebanks it is now indistinguishable at any level beyond superficial culture from the great bulk of Labour Party affiliates.

The process by which this has come about has been, for me at least, upsetting on several levels. The best opportunity for the British left in decades has been squandered. In the course of this, people who worked well together at local group level have become enemies: friendships have been broken, bonds of solidarity challenged. The experience has been uniquely unpleasant.

The failure of Momentum both reflects and feeds into a deeper and altogether more catastrophic defeat, namely that of the Corbyn leadership. Weak, and opposed by the greater number of his own MPs, Corbyn strikes a lonely figure on the political stage, undoubtedly making useful contributions, but unable to be effective or command convincing levels of electoral support. The foremost barrier to his leadership was always going to be the PLP, and the best hope of counteracting that effective grassroots pressure on MPs backed up by the threat of deselection. Now that Momentum has turned decisively away from that path, all that remains are appeals to party 'unity' - the brutal truth is that the right don't want unity, but the majority of the left are in danger of humiliating themselves by tacking right in an attempt to achieve it.

If Corbyn is to last and not to be humiliated electorally, the best hope remains with movements outside of parliament shifting political common-sense some way to the left. Perhaps some of the organisation around opposition to Trump's visit could go some way towards this. In any case, I think it is now time for the left to take stock and make a deliberate attempt to learn from its having lost. As I've said before, the things in which we are most lacking are organisation and ideas. If any good comes out the present situation, it will be a renewed attention to these cornerstones of socialist politics.

The brakes of ideology

In almost any situation the odds are massively against any radical political movement preserving its radicalism. History is more littered with stories of revolutionaries turned bureaucrats than is a Saturday night high street with beer cans and vomit. The reason for this downbeat truth is remarkably simple: those who join radical movements are products of the very society against which they are fighting, and the dominant ideas in that society are anything but radical. It couldn't be otherwise if society is to persist. No ruler ever ruled without ruling the minds of his subjects. We rage against our reduced pay packets, our closed hospitals, the deportation of our neighbour, and in doing so we catch a glimpse of how the world could be different. Nevertheless, the news we consume (and what gets to count as news in the first place), the jobs we do, the way we understand politics, the way our political organisations are structured, the very language we speak - all of these constrain our idea of what is possible and push us back towards the old world.

So it is with Momentum. The interesting question about this organisation is not so much why Jon Lansman and his cronies launched their power-grab; the answer is one part preservation of left labourism and one part ego, although in the case of a man who has built his career and reputation around left labourism these are not neatly separable. More deserving of attention is why a significant number of people within the organisation have gone along with him. Thinking back a year to some of the events I attended during Momentum's infancy, it seems difficult to imagine the participants meekly doing the bidding of a white male political hack tucked up in a London office. Demonstrations bursting at the seams, discussions full of energy, political campaigns whose participants were diverse in a way that the left had previously failed to be: these did not look like the beginnings of an organisation of passive doorstep-fodder. The students, BAME campaigners, single issue activists, and many others who joined Momentum groups were acutely aware of the corrosive effects of hierarchy. Why didn't they fight against it in greater numbers when it began to manifest itself in their own organisation?

It is tempting to reply that the absence of political education or a culture of ideas in Momentum was to blame. But this is not a real answer, it just pushes the question back one stage - why did people put up with that? At the start so many of them would sign up to slogans about transforming the world, rejecting capitalism, and much else besides. Now a good number of them won't even demand democracy in their own organisation. In saying this I'm not blaming them, I'm posing a puzzle.

The question how the instinct to resist can be transformed into a force for change is the question of left-wing politics, the rest is detail. It is the question of political organisation, and has pretty much been ignored within the British Labour left. Famously averse to the continental affectation that is theory, many members of the labour movement in this country would respond to the suggestion that they give some thought to the relationship between ideas and organisation as though they were Nigel Farage being offered a croque monsieur. In Britain socialists prefer to get on with things and campaign, rather then spend endless hours with books and debates. In the present context this is akin to complaining that the advice to stop and look at a map is a distraction from driving at precisely the moment your car plunges over a cliff.

The problem of organisation would be especially pressing because of the situation of many of Momentum's members even if the tragic rupture of the most inspiring and popular left-wing movements for a generation didn't deserve analysis. Quite apart from the general pressure towards the status quo I was talking about above, millennials aligned to the political left are pulled in two directions. Faced on the one hand with material attacks and uncertainty on a scale unseen since the end of the Second World War, they nonetheless have grown up under Blairism with a model of politics as a consumer choice between particular brands. To join a political party or a campaigning group is, on this model, to be a brand evangelist. The thought of remaining a member of a party whilst seriously dissenting from its public face doesn't enter into the picture - hence Corbyn's backtracking on freedom of movement  is likely to lead to a small exodus. Nor does the prospect of serious debate within a group like Momentum make sense, still less the suggestion that Momentum act as a source of pressure on Corbyn. The retreat of trade unionism and of any meaningful profile for left-wing ideas makes things worse. There appears to be no alternative to the unstable oscillation between effusive radicalism and conformist politics that can be seen all too clearly within Momentum.

Precisely because it's difficult to see how things could have gone differently, it is important that 'we' - by which I mean the left opposition to the imposed constitution - continue to work with people who don't share our opposition. In the short-term, it is only through showing in practice that a reflective commitment to democratic organisation is not only compatible with practical politics, but feeds into it, that we are going to win anyone over. I don't mean - please don't misunderstand me - that we should accept the coup de facto: my position is that the coup is illegitimate, as are the institutions it has established, and that we should continue to look to the NC and CAC for leadership. But our comrades in local groups are not Jon Lansman. We cannot allow the unity, the energy, and the potential of the past couple of years to be entirely wasted.

That is for the short-term. In the long-term serious thought is required about political organisation, ideology, and education. This means that the Labour left has to do something it doesn't like: think.

Momentum: Business as usual fights back

Just over a month ago I was posting about Momentum. As befits the organisation's name, a lot has happened in the time between now and then. A quick Google will fill the reader in if necessary, and I have no intention of using up pixels repeating what has been reported across the British left internet ad nauseam. The news in brief is that Jon Lansman has imposed a constitution on the organisation and that many members are not happy.

Over the coming days local groups will have to work out their positions on the coup, and on what to do next. I have my own view, as will be apparent from the way I'm writing, and I think it's important to defeat what I see as a power grab. But there's a caveat: the way we debate and interact within groups in the hours ahead matters as much as the outcome. Momentum, and the Corbyn movement more generally, is easily the most positive thing to come out of the British left for a generation. It cannot be allowed to go to waste. To this end, the necessary disagreements that lie ahead are ones that ought to be conducted in a comradely fashion, preserving the relationships on which practical solidarity depends, and keeping enough unity within local groups to go forward. This is especially the case because many people in Momentum are new to political action. Seasoned faction fighters would do well to bear this in mind.

If how we conduct the dispute is important, so is understanding it. This is a conflict about labourism, that peculiarly British way of doing working class politics, where the politics of the workplace is outsourced to the trade union movement, with the Parliamentary Labour Party keeping charge of the bulk of business. A strict separation of powers governs the labourist settlement, with trade unions straying into the 'political' being met with disapproval. So too, the PLP preserves its distance from the constituency activists who keep the Party ticking over at local level. If, on this model, political power is distant and insensitive to pressure from below, the devotees of this remote deity receive compensation in the form of the culture of labourism. The Labour Party and unions provide activities, friends and comrades, structure, purpose, and the possibility of office.

Labourism can be left-wing, just so long as it sticks to the rules of the game - politics is for parliament (and not for the streets, still less - God forbid - for 'political' strikes), MPs are important and to be treated with reverence, the 'Labour family' over-rides all other political loyalties. For all that he is the best leader Labour has ever had, and for all that his election would be a momentous step forward, Jeremy Corbyn remains squarely within the labourist consensus (by contrast, Tony Benn was set upon not least because he didn't).

The Corbyn movement, especially in the form of local Momentum groups, however, challenged labourism. It challenged it politically, organising and expressing solidarity with extra-parliamentary action, tying strikes into political agendas. Voices began to be raised about the deselection, and even mandatory reselection, of Labour MPs, turning the assumptions about power within the labour movement on their head. Scarcely less importantly, the movement challenged labourism culturally. More diverse culturally, ethnically and in gender and sexuality terms than anything the British left had ever produced it confronted a Labour establishment that in many localities is monocultural, white, and male.

Why am I writing about labourism? Because some people do well out of left labourism, those who get established positions in organisations, jobs with campaigning organisations or MPs, those who have just enjoyed being immersed in its culture and feel comfortable within it.

The Lansman coup is left labourism fighting back. It is because labourism, for all its undoubted achievements, can never deliver socialism that it would be good were the coup to fail.

A noninertial frame

Apparently MxV stands for 'momentum times velocity'. This is most likely a bad physics joke gone wrong. The more alarming thought is that somebody at Momentum head office thinks that it sounds down with the kids. People who believe this kind of thing also think that the kids in question say things like 'down with the kids'. We are at this point millimetres away from the organisational equivalent of dad dancing.

The internet you see is a double edged sword. At once a means of communication without parallel and fertile forum for political ideas and campaigns, and yet also a new occasion for surveillance, control, and - less seriously but more irritatingly - gimmicky naffness of the highest order, the technology needs to be handled with care in order to be an asset to an organisation.

It is perfectly in order then that Momentum's National Committee, meeting last week for the first time in too long, scrutinised and rejected the Standing Committee's plans for an on-line conference, with One Member One Vote, to be managed through the MxV system. Instead there will be a delegate conference, in line with the norms of the labour movement. This will allow genuine meaningful debate at a local level, with everyone getting their say in a way the respects them as an agent, able to contribute to arguments within an organisation, rather than simply a passive clicker of a mouse button. It will also prevent the centralisation and leadership control to which the more plebiscitary alternative would be prone, and avoids frustration by technological hiccup.

It was the right decision. National Committee member Laura Murray doesn't agree. Reported by the Guardian today she hands our opponents on the right the opportunity to repeat the tedious line about Trotskyist infiltrators. Quite incredibly, moreover, she claims that the Alliance for Workers Liberty - an organisation which doesn't have enough members to launch a coup in the Inverness branch of the Crewe Alexandra Supporters Club - is plotting to unseat Jon Lansman.

I happen to think that Jon Lansman's role within Momentum is quite unhealthy and inimical to the organisation doing everything it needs to do, particularly outside of London and amongst working class voters disillusioned with Labour. That's beside the point, however. What on earth incited this vitriol in Murray?

You'll need to read her blog. Leaving aside the unhelpful elision of OMOV with the internet-conference idea, there is an attempt to portray the division as being along generational and sectarian lines. Forward thinking, urbane, and inclusive young people wanted MxV. Conservative factional elderly Trotskyists wanted a delegate conference. As far as the debate in Momentum goes, this is nonsense. Not being based in London, I have the privilege of being involved in an incredibly active, diverse, and energetic local Momentum group with a wide age-span. It overwhelmingly backed a delegate conference, as did our regional representatives. This was because people, having experienced grassroots democracy, being involved in the labour movement, and listening to the arguments were not convinced by the Momentum leadership's case for MxV.

Partly, I think Laura's viewpoint is distorted by her being London-based. I can well imagine that London Momentum meetings feel more like a far-left talking shop than anything useful. But London bias is indicative of a deeper problem that goes to the heart of the current problems in Momentum. It can be seen in the, uncannily Blair-like, assumption that the leadership know what 'people', especially 'young people', want. The upset at the weekend's vote reflects a professionalised polite elite whose role in the organisation has been scuppered. It has this in common with some recent outbursts within the Labour Party.

Momentum will remain relevant and interesting to the extent that it is a genuine grassroots movement run by its members, rather than by a London based leadership of political hacks. That leadership not getting things its own way over conference is a welcome sign. The priorities now are twofold: making sure that conference defends and extends democracy within the organisation, and - much more importantly - building Momentum at local levels.

For the record, momentum times velocity equals twice kinetic energy. That might win you a pub quiz one day.

Dispatch Dispatches

There are times when you can't escape realising how far your opinions lie from that dullest of social constructs that goes by the name of mainstream opinion. The current public notoreity of Momentum is a case in point.

Regular readers of this blog will be aware that my issue with Momentum, of which I am an active member, is that we are not left-wing enough. That is to say, we're not - at a national level - sufficiently resigned to the inevitability of fights within the Labour Party (still, in spite of it all, I hear hopes for 'Party unity' being expressed), and the need to organise to win these, and win them decisively. Nor are we doing nearly enough to form the new generation of activists which is likely to be the lasting legacy of the Corbyn surge.

A Momentum activist - still from tomorrow's documentary

Quite incredibly, it seems that the makers of Dispatches don't share this outlook. The programme, to be broadcast tomorrow, targets people I know and like. It also makes the bizarre claim that Momentum is a hotbed of Trotskyist entryists, an accusation from which the organisation alas distances itself. On the on hand, the claim is too ridiculous to warrant an answer; on the other, even if it were true, the Labour Party has always contained Marxists - starting with the plodding second internationalist Marxism of Hyndman's SDF, compared to which the AWL represent a distinct improvement. In fact your host here is a Marxist.

Still there is a comforting familiarity about journalists seeing Leon Trotsky lurking within every GC. This, at least, is standard issue reds-under-the-bed fare. Altogether more disturbing, albeit hardly without historical precedent, is the focus on  selections, deselections, and mandatory reselection.

I leave you with one question: since when is the ability of members of a political party to choose who represents that party in elections something sinister?

There are many, many, more of us than you: 172 face thousands

Jess Phillips once remarked that if Corbyn messed up she would stab him, not in the back, but in the front. In spite of Corbyn not having messed up, spin and bluster to the contrary notwithstanding, 172 Labour MPs this evening carried through on that threat.

The battle begins now. It is not over, it has not even begun.

There are, you see, two models of democracy coming head to head. For one, basically a form of quasi-democratic elitism, parliamentarians need to be comfortable above all else. They are the experts, they are the ones who do the hard work, and they need to feel good with their leader. If their confidence goes, then so does the leader. The alternative, a democracy with a meaningful demos, was the motivating thought between those trade unionists who at the turn of the 19^th and 20^th century organised to get working people represented in parliament.

Democracy is nothing more than a hollow slogan, the uninteresting five-yearly choice between identikit media-performers, unless it is grounded in mass movements, connected to workplaces and communities. The direction of communication and accountability within a party, for this model, is from the bottom up. The members of the Labour Party choose the leader of the Labour Party. And, let the 172 think about this as they lie down to sleep tonight, it is the members of the Labour Party who choose Labour MPs.

If a model of democracy that gives the disenfranchised a sense of control over their own lives doesn't win over, in the form of a fighting, organised, growing, locality-based Labour Party, linked to revived trade unions and social movements, there are other supposed solutions on offer. They are from UKIP, and at the fringe Britain First. They don't care very much about democracy of any sort.

So get ready for a fight. I'm no doubt preaching to the choir here, but if you haven't already done it:

• Join Momentum (and go to its events)
• Join Labour (and go to meetings)
• In a few weeks, vote for the CLGA candidates for Labour's NEC

We need to keep our nerves. The strategy will be to dent your confidence. It is not about policy, they will say, but Corbyn can't win. Journalists and academics will be wheeled out to confirm this diagnosis. Commentators will use the word 'realistic' a lot. You will be made to feel like an oddball or a mischief-maker for supporting Jeremy. Do not fall for it. We are right, they are wrong.

This is the fight of our lives. Let's win.

Anti-Semitism, Labour, and the cynicism of the Right.

There are certain phrases that immediately make me get my coat and leave the party: “Oh look, there’s Richard Littlejohn in the corner!” “Let me tell you about our holiday at a nudist camp.” “You’re Jewish? Cool. I’m a lifelong philosemite, you know."

So wrote Hadley Freeman a couple of years back, in a piece whose relevance to the present blogpost will become clear in due course. All the talk at the moment is not, however, of philosemitism, but of its apparent opposite.

Anti-Semitism is a problem. It is a problem in British society, shot through as it is with racism and religious intolerance. It is therefore no surprise that it is present to some extent in institutions that exist within that society, including the Labour Party. To be sure, it is unlikely that the Corbyn-led party could muster the levels of suspiciously anti-Jewish looking goings on achieved by the British Right. After all, it is no small thing to have one of one's most prominent youth organisations singing Nazi songs, or a tabloid ally running scare stories about Jewish areas of London. But then, few of us can aspire to the levels of the Conservative Party.

Aidan Burley - Google him

Nor am I convinced that the disturbing anti-Semitic strand running through some of the odder bits of the Left has any real hold within the Labour Party. This is not least because the Party has actually been fairly good at dealing with genuine cases of anti-Semitism. Luton councillor Aysegul Gurbuz, who praised Hitler, was rightly suspended. Gerry Downing, a veteran member of revolutionary socialism's batshit tendency, spoke about Labour's 'Jewish problem': as a consequence Labour no longer has a Downing problem, and I will be shedding no tears as a consequence. Similarly, dear reader, I can't get worked up about the plight of Ken Livingstone. For all that he has done over the years, and for all that I don't think he is an anti-Semite, he has at the very least a case of foot-in-mouth disease. Some time for quiet reflection will do him good.

If anything the Party machine has been over-zealous. This is not just through the troubling growth of a culture in which criticism of Israel is equated with anti-Semitism: witness the case of Jewish activist Tony Greenstein. The altogether eyebrow-lifting brief suspension of Jackie Walker, a long-time anti-racist of Jewish heritage, makes the machine look less guilty of the too strict application of decent principles as of a politically-motivated witch-hunt.

This suspicion grows once the case of Rhea Wolfson is considered. Chosen to replace Livingstone on the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance slate for Labour's NEC, Wolfson is a young Jewish woman, and an active synagogue-goer. Party rules mean that she needs the nomination of her CLP to make the ballot. She takes up the story on her Facebook page:

Over the past few weeks, I have been delighted to receive support for my candidacy for Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) from a broad spectrum of opinion within the party, including nominations from dozens of Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs). It is clear that many members want to see me elected to the NEC.However, I am now concerned that a faction of the party are trying to take that option away from the membership. To appear on the ballot I needed to secure, amongst other things, the nomination of my home CLP.

Last night Eastwood CLP, where my family home is, met to nominate candidates for the NEC. It was proposed that, given I am currently a member of the CLP, there would be a straight vote for or against my nomination. I made my case and answered questions from the room. I was then asked to leave the room while they discussed my nomination further. Once I had left, the ex-leader of Scottish Labour, Jim Murphy, appealed to the CLP to not nominate me. He argued that it would not be appropriate to nominate me due to my endorsement by Momentum, which he claimed has a problem with anti-Semitism. The constituency has a large Jewish population. The CLP then voted to not endorse me, before re-inviting me back into the room.

Needless to say, this is hugely disappointing. It is disappointing because I am the only Jewish candidate in this election, because the wide range of organisations endorsing me includes the Jewish Labour Movement, and because I have a long record of challenging anti-Semitism and have in fact faced it on a daily basis since my candidacy was announced. But above all, it is disappointing because I know there are many members who want to vote for me, who could now have lost that opportunity. I am considering my options going forward.

Quite apart from the unwarranted slur on Momentum, there is more than a hint here of the suggestion that Rhea is the wrong sort of Jew for Murphy. Put in those terms the scrutiny to which she, along with other Jewish Labour activists, has been subjected cannot itself be absolved of participating in a certain kind of anti-Semitism. It would be noteworthy enough were it an isolated case, but it isn't. It is partnered by a peculiar trend amongst the liberal commentariat. At the absurd end of the spectrum here lie Julie Burchill's various interventions on behalf of her bizarre understanding of Judaism, culminating in her sending poison pen-letters to a synagogue. Burchill is joined in her cause by a supporting cast of acolytes from the creepier regions of the internet, to whose various social media accounts and webpages I can't bring myself to link. Meanwhile Nick Cohen is an altogether more serious, and therefore more dangerous, arbiter of acceptable Jewishness. Sam Kriss' take-down, here, is compulsory reading.

This strange current deserves more critical attention to be directed towards it. In the meanwhile, Rhea's candidacy can be supported here.

Confessions of a confused socialist

It's a strange time to be active as a socialist in Britain. Hence, in part, the absence of much recent activity on this blog. I've written previously about my disquiet with the state of the left since Corbyn's welcome victory last autumn, and the uneasy feeling remains.

Back in December I think I saw the fundamental issue as being how we relate a bottom-up socialism that doesn't fetish parliament to the reality of a left-wing candidate having won the leadership of the Party. That is still at least of much of an issue as it was then. Fundamental questions have been asked: do we believe that capitalism is incompatible with human flourishing? If so, and if a socialist alternative is needed, how does a left-reformist Labour Party fit into with a strategy for moving in the direction of that alternative? Quite apart from this: what are we doing, individually, as a Labour left (organised in groups like Momentum and the LRC), and as the Labour Party to support the concrete grassroots opposition to Tory attacks? The junior doctors' strike is a prime example of something around which a good deal more organising should be happening

At the same time, of course, we can't ignore the reality of the Corbyn leadership, content in telling ourselves that the Labour Party or parliament don't really matter. If I believed that, I wouldn't be a Labour member; I won't bore you all on this Easter evening by rehearsing the reasons this is the case. The problem is precisely that these things matter, and that the left has, in an outcome slightly more antecedently improbable than Dapper Laughs turning out to be an expert in Jane Austen, won the leadership of the Labour Party. Its hold on this leadership is, however, at least as precarious as Laughs' actual grasp of Sense and Sensibility; if it loses that leadership, through pre-emptive backbench revolt or electoral failure, that will count against the intra-Labour left for years to come. "Your strategy has been tried and failed", the refrain will go, "now shut up, and listen to Dan Jarvis". And it may seem as though our critics would have a point.

The knives are being sharpened for Corbyn. Here's Jamie Reed's subtle Twitter account, for instance:

If the improbably named Rebel Alliance are not to have their way, the Party membership has to exert counter-pressure, making it clear to the PLP that we will not accept a coup. This will involve voicing our support to more sympathetic MPs, arguing the case with those who can be persuaded, and using mechanisms of accountability against those whose contempt for the membership is such that they want to reject last year's decisive leadership result. In this last respect, it is a serious tactical mistake for the leadership and elements of its organisational support to have downplayed talk of mandatory reselection. This is a basic democratic demand, whose time has come. Similarly, the present situation, where the left has the leadership and the membership without controlling the Party, is unsustainable. It's imperative that we organise to contest elections at CLP and other levels and, crucially, that we get Corbyn-supporting conference delegates sent this year: this conference will be a chance to consolidate his position, back left-wing policy, and set in motion democratic reform of the Party.

And the urgency of this task doesn't undo my initial point about not losing sight of the extra-parliamentary. There's a lot to be done.