CLPD (Campaign for Labour Party Democracy) has published a new statement on the separate slates that it and Momentum are promoting in the current election of six additional members of the NCC (National Constitutional Committee), Labour’s senior disciplinary body.
CLPD alongside all the other organisations that have been taking part in the CLGA discussions, aside from Momentum, are calling for support for the same slate of candidates.
That slate is backed by the following organisations: the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD), Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL), Labour Briefing Co-op, Labour Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (LCND) and Labour Representation Committee (LRC).
The key political difference between the two slates is that Momentum are not backing a Jewish candidate who supports Palestinian human rights. That candidate is the main difference that was discussed within the CLGA, with a representative from Momentum strongly opposing him.
All the organisations that have been participating in the CLGA discussions, aside from Momentum, have included the pro-Palestinian Jewish party member on their slate, as they do not agree with excluding such valuable pro-leadership comrades from positions in the party.
Labour Conference last month overwhelmingly supported a pro-Palestine motion, that strongly endorsed Palestinian human rights.
It is necessary to correct inaccurate statements that, regrettably, some comrades on the left have made about the CLGA discussions..
No CLGA organisation pulled out of CLGA negotiations for a united left slate for the NCC elections. The CLGA regrettably could not reach an agreement prior to organisations needing to circulate slates.
The CLGA organisations met on three occasions to discuss achieving a common position for this election. Unfortunately even at the third meeting, on Wednesday 10 October, agreement on six candidates was not possible.
Many on the left, including the Skwawkbox blog had been led to believe that Momentum was backing Gary Heather, one of the candidates that CLPD is supporting.
All the organisations at the 10 October CLGA meeting, including Momentum, participated in the discussion that different left slates would be being circulated from after that meeting. Claims that Momentum was unaware that organisations would start promoting their candidates are entirely false. There has been nothing underhand in CLPD circulating its slate of candidates.
The question of geographical coverage is not at all the issue that dominated the CLGA discussion. The key issue that divided the discussion in the CLGA, was the attempt to block the Jewish candidate from a CLGA slate.
Jon Lansman confirmed earlier this week to the SKWAWKBOX that he is the ‘representative from Momentum’ who strongly opposed the presence of a JVL candidate, although Lansman described his ‘concerns’ rather than strong opposition and said Momentum’s intention had been to endorse JVL member Stephen Marks. Marks did not, ultimately, appear on the Momentum slate.
There appears to be no reason to believe that Marks was not endorsed because he is Jewish; rather, the political position of JVL concerning Israel and Palestine and the potential for offence among supporters of Israel seem to have been the issue.
The issue of the geographical locations of the candidates on the CLGA slate was thrown into sharp relief by the decision earlier today of CLGA-backed Kaneez Akhtar to stand down as a candidate. This was portrayed by commentators as an endorsement of the Momentum criticism, but for a Bradford-based candidate to step down in protest at a supposed lack of northern candidates would be an odd way to protest.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Momentum don’t have a prayer in this issue. They had better come to their senses.
The fact that the Momentum and CLPD slates share some candidates is encouraging. I am thankful for the simple honesty and clarity of this CLPD statement – an antidote to ambivalence and obfuscation. I wholeheartedly support their inclusion of a JVL member; I support their slate.
Lansman is really ruining the left-wing of the Party with his JLM support. I joined CLPD for this precise reason.
Lansman is a liability to Momentum and the LP. This is the type of person he is close to:
https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1190/couldnt-have-happened-to-a-nicer-man/
A timely reminder from Tony Greenstein and grim reading indeed.
Not selecting a JVL candidate will also give the dishonest MSM to use against the Labour. This would be ironic as the MSM, LFI, BBD et al without a doubt hate JVL as much as they hate Labour led by Corbyn. But does anyone doubt that they will use this as a beating stick?
I’m glad no-one caved in to the pro-Israel Apartheid supporting Lobby. TBH I really don’t know what anyone support the Netanyahu regime is doing in the Labour Party. And if there is ‘concern’ about those outside the Party then WHY?
We’ve had enough concessions made to RW Tory and Hard Right supporters – whatever their religion/culture!
We are gonna get beaten by sticks no matter what we do! So we might as well do what is right rather than ANYTHING cos we’re scared of what msm have to say. They make up their own stories anyway. Regardless. And that includes the Guardian.
As Landsman is on the NEC already should he be involved with selection of candidates? Could it be a conflict of interest? Poor call again from Momentum
Lansman
So, somebody is lying through his teeth, again! and we all know who it is. Is there no way of getting rid of this devious, power greedy, scrote?
This is misleading : “There appears to be no reason to believe that Marks was not endorsed because he is Jewish; rather, the political position of JVL concerning Israel and Palestine”. I’m a member of JVL and it does not has a “political position” on Israel excpt for ending the occupation and human rights. It does not have a stand on one or two states, and even not on zionism. Members have their on postion on these issues, but not as organisation.
Ron,
As you rightly point out, the JVL site welcomes and offers a platform for a range of contributions and viewpoints. It is not accurate however to say that they don’t have a collective and official position on a range of key issues. They most certainly do and most emphatically too. These are summarised as “official statements” on the site, but can also be witnessed in their campaigning work at local and national level, and in their letters, lobbying and petitioning.
If they were as politically un committed as you suggest, they wouldn’t have had a senior member of Momentum rejecting them because they are unacceptable to the “Jewish Community”, for which, read the JLM and the LFI.
JVL have debates and welcome opinions and they do have a view and they represent that other ‘Jewish Community’. There is not just one Jewish Community. The BOD is largely self selecting and not representative of 30% of the community in the the UK -Jewish Orthodox Charedis. It is also clear the voice of other Jewish people on the left has not been represented by either by the JLM and certainly not the current leadership of the LFI. so JVL was formed. It is only natural that this has happened. Its heartening in one way but distressing in another because we so need unity on the left. This is not the way to win. The opposition to a left aiming for political power know this, and we have played into their hands every time.
for “you suggest” please read ‘your comment might imply’ – apologies, since I realise you are not necessarily suggesting this.
It is misleading. But I think for different reasons. Its mischievous. Of course Marks being Jewish had nothing to do with his not being endorsed. It is entirely to do with Marks being JVL. JVL are seeking unity, but JLM don’t like another group that challenges them. It looks to me like Lansman is the one creating division for a number of reasons that remain completely obscure. His perception seems to be that the JLM needs to be brought on board and satisfied and that .he is the one to do that. If he is convinced that anti Semitism is as much a threat on the left as on the right he needs to offer that as his reason.. Justify your position Jon! I have never seen such evidence of rife anti Semitism. A few bad apples yes. One is too many. But, otherwise no. He has never engaged with the membership of either Momentum or Labour with his views. The TSSA General Secretary probably knows more than the rest of us do. BUT! And there is a BUT! We must remember that Lansman did more than anyone to get Jeremy elected, twice. And he has our data! We owe him. But he can’t walk off with our data without our permission. He needs to communicate with us -whatever the MSM do if he does or he will be voted off the NEC. We needed you Jon but we do not understand what you are doing or why. Is it about geo politics in the middle east and the threat to Israel? Is it about the USA, about Iran and Syria and Turkey? What is it that drives your behaviours on this?
I didn’t read Ron’s post carefully enough last night – the comment is accurate and apposite. I just worried that some might take it as suggesting an organisation less specifically committed than the actuality.
Seems like Lansman has got corrupted over the past year or so. His behaviour has become disruptive and damaging. It doesn’t look like he can be trusted any more.
Lansman has only ever had one mission, which is to protect the JLM and thereby Israel from serious threats to its status. Momentum is his cover. When it came to the crunch he publicly criticised Corbyn over his handling of the A/S accusations, That tells you all you need to know
You are reaping what you have sown. There is an unaccountable party within the Labour Party with its own agenda. Blind faith has its own rewards. You still believe in HIM; in JL not JC?