There is a fight about the future of Labour left organisation Momentum.
A new grouping, Forward Momentum, is in conflict with those who run the Momentum office (which means, in Momentum as currently constituted, run the organisation). The office people seem to be supporting a counter-initiative, Momentum Renewal. Both will run candidates in the imminent National Coordinating Group elections.
Neither grouping presents a clear, concrete, politically adequate or honest line about how Momentum should function, what it should argue for and what it should do.
Forward Momentum's output has focused almost exclusively on Momentum's structures and procedures, but the changes it has advocated so far do not constitute real democratisation and membership control, so much as more regular and efficient consultation. Additionally, it has put forward essentially no wider political program, beyond a set of platitudes which almost no one on the left could disagree with.
We think it is necessary to discuss and hammer out common points about what the Labour left and Momentum should stand for, as well as a demands for thoroughgoing democratisation of Momentum. Workers’ Liberty has worked with other class-struggle, internationalist socialists in organising Momentum Internationalists - to put forward clear socialist ideas and proposals to enable the left to orient adequately in the current crises, and with the even more basic aim of repoliticising the debate.
Forward Momentum: a democratic process?
Forward Momentum held “primaries” on 12-16 May to select candidates for the NCG.
It said the left “is stronger when we’re inclusive and democratic; when everyone’s voice is heard”. It said it wants a “truly member-led Momentum”, with an end to “the assumption that only a handful of people in senior positions… can be trusted to lead”. And “an end to stitch-ups or slates decided behind closed doors”.
But in some ways those who run or have decisive influence in Forward Momentum have been less democratic and inclusive than the current Momentum regime. They banned Momentum Internationalists candidate Ruth Cashman from the primaries on a ludicrous and cynical pretext. Meanwhile some have participated in a campaign of slander against her, Momentum Internationalists and Workers’ Liberty.
Immediately before the ballot opened Ruth was informed by the FM “elections panel” they would not allow her to stand. They cited a 2015 article from the Weekly Worker (here) scandalising about her refusal to condemn a 2006 article on right-wing politicised religion – Christian, Islamic and other – by Sean Matgamna (see here for the article and the 2013 arguments about it).
The charge against Ruth is: “We expect prospective candidates to be committed to opposing racism… defending a racist article is not compatible with the values of this campaign.”
The charge is nonsense politically. Neither Sean, nor his argument in the 2006 article, nor Ruth is Islamophobic or racist. Much of the left refuses to seriously get to grips with the character of and threat posed by right-wing political-religious movements. More broadly there is a widespread “political” culture on the left which substitutes whispering campaigns and ritual denunciations on social media for meaningful discussion and argument with political opponents.
The elections panel has made no public criticism of Ruth's record on racism and sought no debate. In fact Forward Momentum have not even told their supporters about the decision to bar her – presumably in order to avoid having to explain themselves properly.
Ruth's initial response to the elections panel, which discusses the political issues in more detail, can be read below as a comment on this article.
Panel member Charlie Macnamara told Ruth she had been denied the chance to engage in any further exchange or discussion with the panel because she hadn’t answered the phone quickly enough – though she had told them she is a key worker and was not available until the evening. As it happens, most of the election panel’s members are full-time unelected union officials (including one in Ruth’s union, Unison).
Meanwhile some in Forward Momentum have also started to agitate around a reported sexual assault by one then AWL member against another referring to 2005. They falsely claimed our organisation orchestrated a cover-up. For extensive documentation on this, including the investigation we launched once our committees heard the charge (in 2018) and the measures we took, see here.
Some have claimed the AWL is top-down, secretive and undemocratic. Falsely, and ironically when you contrast our democratic constitution and practices (see here) to the practices we are discussing here.
There were a series of vicious and dishonest denunciation on social media, and it seems behind the scenes.
The official FM twitter account made the false claim, previously not made by anyone, that multiple candidates had been included on the Momentum Internationalists candidates list without their permission. This was duly repeated around social media.
A group of four prominent primary candidates in London put out publicity making hostility to the AWL one of their main campaign planks!
Would a Momentum run in this way be better than the current one?
What has gone on is not necessarily a simple matter of a unified machine orchestrating a top-down campaign. Forward Momentum is a relatively loose and fragmented organisation. Equally, the bulk of those who hold decisive influence over its functioning have either participated in these sectarian attacks or remained silent. FM supporters who are serious about open democracy, pluralism and political honesty need to challenge this culture and behaviour through all channels available.
Forward Momentum and the labour movement
Forward Momentum is not rich in labour movement activists. Leading Fire Brigades Union people are involved – comrades we have worked with closely on issues including the anti-union laws, the Green New Deal and migrants’ rights. They have protested against Ruth’s exclusion and the “fake news” attacks on us.
Ruth is co-secretary of a large and pretty militant union branch, and a rank-and-file workplace organiser with a strong record of organising workers’ struggles. That includes a lot of anti-racist campaigning, both as part of a branch with a majority black membership and on her own account. (For more on this see her response to the elections panel below.)
None of that exempts her from normal political criticism. But the attitude of those leading the attack seems to be that they are only interested in labour movement activists as window-dressing for their projects. We suspect Ruth’s record as a working-class militant is essentially of little interest to them.
The old regime
Some of those leading the attack on Momentum Internationalists and the AWL were recently connected to the dominant faction in Momentum.
This includes Socialist Action, who have members on the current NCG. They have been supporters of the old Momentum regime, diverging from it mainly to the right (for instance, they opposed the mild Labour for a Green New Deal motion to Labour conference last year as “ultra-left”). It includes people instrumental in the office’s hostile takeover of the Labour Against Racism and Fascism campaign (see here). It includes Christine Shawcroft, one of Jon Lansman’s key lieutenants in the “coup” which abolished Momentum democracy overnight in early 2017, who says she has not changed her mind about that!
Lansman is stepping down from the NCG and the Momentum leadership. The recently-proclaimed Momentum Renewal looks like the “continuity slate”. But it also seems that, as the old “office faction” has lost confidence and broken up, some from the old regime have joined Forward Momentum instead.
This is a consequence of Forward Momentum’s lack of clear politics on anything, including Momentum democracy.
What should the left fight for?
In these primaries, Momentum Internationalists has been far and away the main force advocating clear, substantial politics and policies. It has published extensively on what the left and labour movement should fight for in this crisis – see the statements and blog at momentuminternationalists.org. Its candidates have stood out for advocating clear, concrete democratic, internationalist and socialist ideas – for the pandemic, working-class struggles, the climate emergency and migrants’ rights.
This includes an orientation to grassroots workplace and working-class struggle, and to reorienting Momentum and Labour in that direction.
It includes proposals for genuinely democratising Momentum – establishing real membership-control, with a sovereign decision-making conference, not just more consultation (see here). And a program for democratising the Labour Party (here).
These are the kind of ideas and struggles we need to take forward in Forward Momentum and Momentum, in the party, the unions and more widely.
Forward Momentum results - some initial analysis
Three candidates who signed up to the democratic and socialist programme put forward by Momentum Internationalists were elected: Abbie Clark (Midlands and Eastern region), Nadia Whittome MP (elected officials section) and Ana Oppenheim (London region). So was Andrew Scattergood (Midlands and Eastern), who we have worked with closely in Free Our Unions and on other issues.
The slate includes two people, Sonali Bhattacharyya and Mick Moore (both London), whose election publicity made witch-hunting Workers’ Liberty one of its central planks. And one, Liz Smith (Northern, Scotland, etc), who has argued vocally that Momentum was not insufficiently but too critical and pushy towards Jeremy Corbyn and his leadership.
We also don’t know yet what political program and policies FM will adopt to campaign on. Its policy committee meets on 20 May. A fair number of MI supporters have been elected to the committee from local meetings.
Morning Star Momentum?
The Momentum Renewal faction, supported by many prominent figures and eleven MPs, bills itself as wanting “bottom up” reform of Momentum but looks more like a “continuity Momentum” campaign. To be more precise, it represents the wing of the old Momentum most influenced by Morning Star, Stalinist politics. More soon.