Carefully-worded claims say ‘candidates’ endorsed, but many will think support is for whole campaign slate
‘Momentum Renewal’ (MR), the questionably-named pro-Lansman campaign group, has issued a graphic for its slate of candidates in the elections to Momentum’s ‘National Coordinating Group’ (NCG) that its critics have attacked as misleadingly suggesting an array of MPs and leading political figures have endorsed the full slate.
In fact, the MPs featured have supported individual candidates who appear on the slate, not the slate itself – in some cases only a single candidate – but the careful wording of the graphic seems designed to suggest full-slate endorsements, as do some of the social media posts showcasing it.
MR’s tweet with the graphic makes no attempt to clarify that the support is for selected individuals – and reinforces the idea that it is for the whole set with its second sentence, “It is only by working together…”:
In some cases, the incorrect claim that the whole group is being supported is explicit, including by candidates on the slate itself:
The ploy has been criticised on social media:
The reality is very different from the claim. Some of those shown by MR as supporters have backed only a single candidate, such as Francesca Martinez and Alan Spencer.
And the list of those claimed by MR who have backed candidates from both slates is a long one, for example:
- Faiza Shaheen (Mick More and Sonali Bhattacharyya from rival Forward Momentum [FM] slate)
- Dawn Butler (Mish Ramen of FM)
- Richard Burgon (FM’s Andrew Scattergood)
- Aspana Begum (Mick Moore)
- Claude Webbe (Mish Ramen)
- Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Mick Moore)
Momentum Renewal has been described as a ‘front’ for Momentum founder Jon Lansman by insiders, who also say that it is run by a small clique of pro-Lansman ‘fixers‘ accused of stacking parliamentary selections in the north-west of England and will mean ‘business as usual’ for Momentum if successful.
Sharp contrast
The conduct of the rival ‘Forward Momentum’ campaign stands in marked contrast, with candidates stating clearly that support is for them as individuals, where applicable:
Momentum members who have yet to vote in the election should ensure that they are not misled.
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 or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. 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.
Skwawkbox what’s your historical beef with momentum?
Your political viewpoints seem identical yet you criticise them a lot
Many people including me lost all respect for Lansman and McCluskey when they voted against the membership on mandatory reselection, allowing the right to maintain their dominance in the PLP.
I don’t know whether SB has any kind of beef with momentum though.
I know Momentum run properly democratically can be a force for good for the left in politics, so many people work incredibly hard both locally and nationally but are……..well, flummoxed by Lansmans antics and lack of accountability. If the Forward slate don’t win a majority a lot of people will leave including me.
This is so unfair. I have posted individual endorsements for each candidate BEFORE posting the one that had all the MPs & activists who have supported MR candidate. I believe that many other MR supporters have done the same thing. There was no malice in it whatsoever. You must have seen the individual endorsements of MR candidates so why didn’t you mention them too? You’re undermining committed BAME and socialist candidates on MR slate because of your personal feud with Lansman. MR candidates are pro-Corbyn, not pro-Lansman – that much is clear from hustings. I had a lot of respect for you during the last 5 years but this is now gone. Your biased support for FM slate despite the fact that some of their candidates have shady backgrounds is unfair and undemocratic.
Either you are a fool,or you take us for fools.We are very well aware of who Momentum Renewal represents.
@Branka, I have sympathy for you; it could be that you and many others have done it without malice, I accept that. But you and others weren’t the ones that decided to promote the MR slate in this way, were you? So the person/people responsible knew what the were doing.
I like individual candidates of MR but I haven’t vote for them, because unlike FM they were selected in what I see as a “backroom deal” rather than by involving the wider membership. Plus, if we want to have a chance of having a single unified slate for the NEC, is best for MR no to win. I am sorry but MR has Lasman footprints all over it.
Branka, just out of interest, could you elaborate about these FM candidates you allege have shady backgrounds. Thanks.
”You’re undermining committed BAME and socialist candidates on MR slate because of your personal feud with Lansman.”
For those of us not as clued up as you so obviously are, would you care to qualify your accusation?
I have no ‘personal feud’ with Lansman, though I suspect the reverse doesn’t apply. You’re welcome to provide details of ‘shady backgrounds’ and if the information stands up I’ll happily feature it. But so far, the conduct of the two campaigns has been markedly different and the issues with MR’s campaigning have been the ones that merited coverage
A shame that you have taken such a partisan line on attacking MR since day one. Many of the candidates have gone through thick and thin in defending JC since day 1.
Anyway, I doubt this will get approved by you to appear on the website. Enjoy your new AWL friends I guess.
I’d like to be a member of a socialist party that was so dedicated to two-way communication with its members and the electorate that there’d be no thought of or need for external organisations like Momentum, or affiliates of any kind.
A party of the people really ought to be completely open to all the people and the discussion and feedback should be comprehensive and continuous.
All peoples’ needs are essentially the same and all our voices matter.
Initially it would be a cacophony but that would decrease to almost nothing as the party approached perfection.
Just kidding 🙂