Red Labour backs CLPD slate for NCC


In the important elections for six additional members of the National Constitutional Committee (NCC), the Labour Party’s senior disciplinary body, the party’s left faces a choice between two ‘slates’ of candidates – or more accurately one and a half slates, as three candidates appear on both – put forward by Momentum on the one hand and by a coalition of left organisations led by the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD) on the other.

That coalition grew further today with a Facebook and Twitter announcement by the Red Labour group that it is endorsing the CLPD slate.

The group’s statement is also critical of Momentum, in particular its founder Jon Lansman and his objection to the inclusion of JVL (Jewish Voice for Labour) member Stephen Marks:

After some serious consideration, the group which organises Red Labour have decided to support the following candidates for the National Constitutional Committee (NCC), who have been endorsed by the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD), the Labour Representation Committee – LRC, Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) and a range of other organisations on the Labour left.

We share their concerns about the behaviour of Momentum representatives, Jon Lansman in particular, in the process of drawing up a Centre Left Grassroots Alliance (CLGA) slate and attempting to exclude leftwing Jewish voices, specifically Stephen Marks, who is a member of JVL.

It is not for any one person, no matter what position they have, to veto someone’s membership of a Labour Party committee or to try to block their representation on a slate which is drawn up on behalf of the whole Labour left, not Momentum.

The whole saga calls into question the way that slates are drawn up in private, and as Red Labour, we have been calling for a more transparent process for some time. If we are to have slates, socialist members from right across the Labour left should be involved and represented.

We are aware that the CLPD slate is not perfect (and that it is rumoured that one member of the slate may withdraw[*]), but on a matter of principle, we do urge members to seek nominations in their CLPs for the candidates endorsed by CLPD, who have at least shown themselves trustworthy when defending members’ rights. Nominations need to be in by October 28th.

Lansman told the SKWAWKBOX earlier this week that the objection to Marks was his own personal concern and claimed that Momentum as an organisation had been intending to back the JVL member. However, Marks did not appear on the Momentum slate.

Labour members need to press their CLP (constituency Labour party) secretary to arrange a nomination meeting before 28 October and to ensure that the nominations are submitted before that date.

*Kaneez Akhtar has indeed stepped down from the election. The announcement of a new candidate to complete the slate of six is expected tomorrow.

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.


  1. Unsatisfactory for Mr. Lansman to offer his ‘own personal concern’ as the only explanation for attempting to prevent someone standing for an important position.
    If Mr. Marks has something unsavoury to hide and Mr. Lansman has knowledge of it he should either offer Mr. Marks the opportunity to withdraw with his reputation undamaged – or make the facts known to those deciding the issue, depending on the seriousness of the accusation.
    Otherwise people might feel justified in assuming Mr. Lansman has something unsavoury to hide.
    Surely it shouldn’t be in anyone’s gift to be judge, jury and executioner in a democratic Labour Party?

    1. What is this about ‘if Mr Marks has something unsavoury to hide’. I have seen this nowhere except on your comment above. Where do you get this?

      1. I didn’t ‘get it’ anywhere. Read the post again – I made no accusation, just theorised a possibility.

        In politics it’s the threat of exposure of indiscretions that keeps people in line because it can be used over and over again. Once the indiscretion is exposed its power is gone.

        Mr. Lansman refuses to explain why he’s blocked Mr. Marks from the Momentum slate, if that’s what did in fact occur.
        Doesn’t “own personal concern” sound to you like somebody wanting to hold something over somebody else’s head?

  2. Who the feck are Red Labour? Really! How many inadequate wankers does it take to form another group who have a Facebook page but can’t find the time or talent to build a web page.
    Get a grip Skwawk.

    1. Intemperate harsh language, even insulting is a reminder of Alastair Campbell. Not good

    2. We’re all wankers kid – and lots of us only make comments on the blogs of others – and don’t even have a Facebook page.
      Imagine that!

      1. Giving us w……. a bad name, he says making comments on the blogs of others. I like to think of it as indulging in the ‘thinking man’s television’.

    3. Having skimmed the Facebook page my criticism would be substantive: they’re not very red. With a name like theirs I’d hoped for some commitment to a planned economy based on public ownership, but like the vast majority of today’s Labour Left they’re left-wing on everything except socialism. The Daily Telegraph has just started a ‘Campaign for Capitalism’ unaware that the Labour Left has no intention of getting rid of it.

      1. Thank goodness we have you to keep us on the revolutionary straight and narrow Danny.

    4. Lets not loose sight of the issue here and that is Jon Lansmans personal dislike of Mr Marks , for what ever reason it to me is unacceptable for one man at the head of a 40K strong organisation to be able to drag that entire organisation in direction that supports his personal likes/dislikes.
      NO ONE elected Lansman and no one can oust him either , now that reminds me rather of what some might call a dictatorship .If Lansman wants to act in this way he should now enable OMOV throughout the Momentum Organisation for electing ALL the officers who represent that Organisation, just as the Unions do and Labour .ITS CALLED DEMOCRISTISING THE ORGANISTAION
      We cannot have a large LW organisation operating in Labour with such influence and power to sway decisions made , and not be democratically accountable to it’s own membership .It was fine at the start with a small and committed band of vocal individuals ( Jon etc etc ) but now it has reached such scale it has to change and become a shining example of what a democratically accountable organisation looks like .

    5. Completely unnecessary Ceredig,this isn’t Guardian comments,where attacks on fellow travellers on the left are expected and encouraged.

      1. My language may be intemperate, I may be a wanker, but I always speak for myself and myself alone. Unlike Red Labour, Jon Lansman, and indeed, Skwawky, I do not pretend to be speaking for numerous other people, hence, and this is the important bit, I am extremely unlikely to cause a split in the party.

  3. ….but Khaneez Akhtar ticked all the boxes in your quota driven democracy by numbers, what she believes in, what she stands for is irrelevant. Who the hell cares what emperor Lansman thinks & who are ‘Red Labour”? This isn’t democracy in action, it’s internal power plays in London. Is it an example of ‘knowledge is power’ or ‘ignorance is bliss’? No it’s like swimming in the Med; just going through the motions.

  4. When we were in a desperate state – the JVL came to our aid. Now the JVL are being rejected – we need to support them. I can remember what a wave of gratitude I felt when the JVL spoke up for Corbyn and the left’

    1. “When we were in a desperate state – the JVL came to our aid ” EXACTLY ! and Lansman and Momentum best take NOTE OF THIS !

  5. Social and DEMOCRATIC ?. How can it be democratic to inform CLP’s LESS than 28days to vote on something and get 4 other CLP’s to endorse/support your decision !. This is no way to run a so called democratic party and should be called out for what it is a FIX !. for whom ?.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: