Professor Cecile Wright –the Black Face of Lansman’s Coup

Paying lip-service to anti-racism for the advancement of a political career 

One of the less known figures in Lansman’s coup d'état is Professor Cecile Wright, one of two Black members elected to Momentum’s Steering Committee.  At least she was a member before Jon Lansman unilaterally dissolved it and all other elected Momentum bodies.

What you might ask caused Ms Wright to receive a vote of no-confidence on 21 January by 7 votes to 4 with 1 abstention from fellow members of the Momentum Black Caucus (MBC)?  Well the resolution was quite clear in this respect:

"Momentum Black Caucus has no confidence in Co-Chair Cecile Wright because of her failure to consult the Steering Committee or its Officers before being appointed a director of Momentum (Services) Ltd on 10 January 2017 over a possible conflict of interest.

We note Cecile Wright also failed to inform the SC or its Officers of changes brought in by Momentum's Steering Committee, on which she represents MBC, in Momentum's new constitution, which has eliminated MBC's representative role within the organisation and by 1 July will have removed key MBC Officers from their posts."

Cecile Wright was happy to step into the shoes of someone who had been subject to a political lynching

Ms Wright said in a statement for the meeting of MBC regarding her support for Lansman’s coup that:

The reading of the document assured me of the embodiment of black representation at all levels of the structure, in addition to the provision for MBC (see 12.2.) within the structures.  Thus the new structure offers the scope to build and develop sustained activism within our communities.

Cecile Wright has given no support to her Co-Chair of Momentum Black Committee - Marc Wadsworth - who was fitted up on an 'anti-Semitism' charge by US asset Ruth Smeeth MP

Or as Neil Young once wrote, ‘words, word, between the lines of age.’  It is no coincidence that Cecile Wright is a Professor of Sociology, an academic discipline notorious for its flowery verbiage and imprecision of meaning.  In sociology students compete as to who can waste the maximum number of words saying nothing at all.  Prof. Wright is clearly an accomplished practitioner of this art.

One of many racist tweets that Jackie Walker received - this did not stop Cecile Wright from taking up Jackie Walker's position as Vice Chair of Momentum from Jon Lansman

If we turn to s.12.2 of the new Constitution we find that it says nothing at all about ‘the embodiment’ (whatever that means) of black representation in the new structures.  Nor does it mention MBC.  Lansman’s Constitution reads:

12.2   The NCG shall encourage and support the development of liberation networks for women, BAME, disabled and LGBT+ people, and of Youth and Student networks in which members who self-identify as being within these categories are able to self-organise.

On October 2^nd Jackie Walker, the Black-Jewish anti-racist activist was removed as Vice-Chair of Momentum, by Jon Lansman with the support of Christine Shawcroft, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and Sam Tarry among others.  In her statement Wright quite correctly said of the removal of Jackie Walker that: ‘the removal of Jacqueline, essentially represented the contemporary public ‘lynching’ of a black woman and that the Steering Committee was in effect throwing a black woman to ‘the lions’ because she has a voice and dares to use it.’

Strong stuff.  But did she mean any of it? 

On 17^th September, two weeks before the Momentum Committee that ‘publicly lynched’ Jackie, I posted a blog ‘The Jewish Labour Movement and its Political Lynching of Jackie Walker’.  I did this because of the level of attacks on Jackie before the contested events at Labour Party conference.  There is no dispute that Jackie was the subject of a political lynching at the instigation of the apartheid supporting racists of the JLM and LFI.  People who, as the recent Al Jazeera programmes proved, have been destabilising and infiltrating the Labour Party, manufacturing false anti-Semitism allegations, on behalf of the Israeli state.  In order to do this they proclaim that their ‘Jewish identity’ is bound up with the Israeli state, thus demonstrating that Zionism is the other side of the coin of anti-Semitism.  Because to associate British Jews with the actions of Israel is in itself anti-Semitic.

You would therefore imagine that Cecile would want to have nothing to do with Jon Lansman after he had moved the ‘public lynching’ of her fellow BAME member of Momentum’s Steering Committee, wouldn’t you?  After all there can’t have been many Black people in the United States who joined hands with the KKK after a lynching.

However you would be wrong.  After voting against Jackie Walker’s lynching, Cecile accepted nomination as Vice-Chair instead of Jackie Walker.  Far from supporting Jackie and mobilising people against this naked act of treachery and racism, the good professor accepted what in effect was a political bribe to keep silent.

Ms Wright continued along the same path of naked opportunism by supporting Lansman’s imposed Constitution which destroys any vestige of democracy in Momentum.  Self-organised and liberation strands will not have separate representation within Momentum’s National Coordinating Group (NCG) unlike Police Commissioners, MPs and other public officials.  This is in marked contrast to the current position within the National Committee.

Jon Lansman, who has admitted to “working closely” with Jeremy Newmark of the Jewish Labour Movement,  Newmark is someone who is effectively a representative of the Israeli Embassy inside the Labour Party.  Nonetheless Lansman has taken a shine to the good Professor.  Cecile Wright has been made a co-director of Momentum (Campaign) Services Ltd alongside Christine Shawcroft.  Her reasons for not informing fellow members of MBC were that ‘I was required to observe the strictest confidence for legal reasons.’  This of course is utter twaddle.  There is no possible legal reason for not informing people.  The Register of Company Directors is a public document freely available on the Internet.  Cecile Wright’s reasons for not informing MBC could only have been political  - i.e. she didn’t want them to know the extent of her collaboration with the right-wing of Momentum and Lansman in particular.

By joining Lansman’s coup, Prof. Cecile Wright has ensured that what she calls the ‘Black Agenda’ in other words the agenda of a group of Black careerists such as herself will be advanced on the backs of other Black members of the Labour Party.  There is no other interpretation.

Cecile Wright has quite a chequered history.  She was at one time on the University College Union’s Executive but is no longer on the Executive having fallen out with most of those she worked with in the union.  She set up the Labour Black Network with ex-Hackney Labour councillor Patrick Vernon, a fellow wannabe MP who is the party's race advisor. But they too fell out and their network for black careerists became moribund. 

Wright then leapt onto the Momentum Black ConneXions bandwagon founded by former Lambeth Labour councillor Kingsley Abrams, who was banned from Labour Party membership and Marlene Ellis. Clearly not a team player, Wright first fell out with Ellis, before dramatically suffering a vote of no confidence at the hands of her MBC comrades. Wright has been an extremely divisive figure in MBC, treating it, Lansman-style, as her personal fiefdom.

Wright only escaped moves to get her to resign as MBC co-chair because the organisation has been rendered defunct within Momentum by Lansman's Constitution. So, like Wright's short-lived Black Labour Network, MBC has become pretty much moribund.  You can go to Cecile Wright’s own blog for further details.

Tony Greenstein 

Jon Lansman stages a Coup D’état in Momentum as the National Committee is cancelled by the Steering Committee

The  Long Awaited Founding Conference of Momentum Will Be a Virtual Conference!

Jon Lansman, Momentum's founder is determined not to share power with the membership

Matt Wracks Speech on Momentum at the LRC Conference from Percivale Productions on Vimeo.

In his farewell speech to the House of Commons Tony Benn repeated one of his most famous sayings concerning democracy and accountability.  It is particularly relevant at the present time given Jon Lansman’s coup against Momentum’s membership.

‘In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.’ 

These are the questions we should be asking of Jon Lansman and those on the Steering Committee who voted with him –does your power derive, to whom are you accountable and most importantly how do Momentum members rid themselves of your misleadership?

Jackie Walker - removed as Vice-Chair of Momentum by Jon Lansman and friends despite the overwhelming opposition of Momentum members and branches

On the evening of October 27, Jon Lansman, the sole director of ‘Jeremy for Labour’ company (renamed from Momentum Campaign Ltd in the summer), called an emergency meeting of the Momentum Steering Committee for the evening of October 28 – i.e., with 19 hours’ notice. Some members, such as Matt Wrack and Jackie Walker, were not able to attend at such short notice.  The meeting decided, by six votes to three, to cancel the November 5 meeting of the National Committee which was scheduled to take decisions on the organisation of Momentum’s founding conference in February 2017.   

It was the February National Committee meeting which elected the Steering Committee for the following six months, i.e. up to August.  Therefore what has happened is that Momentum’s Steering Committee, a lower body, has just voted to disallow the higher body from meeting!  Clearly constitutional theory is not Lansman’s forte!   

It also decided that the first Momentum conference should be in the ethernet, a virtual reality conference.  It would have no physical manifestation.  There would be no meeting hall, no delegates, no debates, just an atomised membership who  would vote on the different proposals put before them.  And who would decide the structures that allow such a vote?  Well you guessed it.  The same Jon Lansman and his coterie who have decided that, come what may, they can’t be removed.  Hence why Momentum’s Companies are in the sole name of Lansman, who is sole director.

Since the National Committee elected the Steering Committee it is unconstitutional for the latter body to effectively abolish the body which elected it.  It recalls the famous poem "Die Lösung" (The Solution) of Bertold Brecht after the workers’ uprising in East Berlin in 1953:

After the uprising of June 17th

The Secretary of the Authors' Union

Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee

Which said that the people

Had forfeited the government's confidence

And could only win it back

By redoubled labour. Wouldn't it

Be simpler in that case if the government

Dissolved the people and

Elected another?

In an email issued by Momentum to ‘key people’ “in local groups the decision was justified by the fact that “some Momentum members, groups and regional network meetings had raised concerns about the organisation of the 5 November National Committee meeting, the process leading up to it and democratic representation and participation for Momentum members more broadly”.  We are not told who these people are nor what were their concerns were.  Still less were we told whether they had called for the NC not to meet.

If it is true that people had concerns about the November NC then this is entirely the fault of the self-same committee that is now shutting down our democracy altogether.   This body gave branches and regional committees almost no time to meet and discuss proposals for the conference or to choose delegates for the November 5 meeting. In fact, most members have not even seen the various proposals on the future of Momentum and how the conference might be run.

One member, one vote

Lansman also pushed through a motion which stipulates that the conference must be organised via a system of “online voting for all members” – the full 20,000 of them! The merits or otherwise of the various forms of representation for the conference was to be decided by the November 5 National Committee which has now been conveniently cancelled.

An excited email sent to all members on 29^th October from Momentum centrally informs us that, “Over the coming months, members will propose their ideas on Momentum’s aims, ethics, and structure. We will use digital technology to ensure that all members can be involved and shape Momentum’s future.”

This is the very opposite of democracy. It is designed to atomise individual members and undermine conference as the collective decision-making body of Momentum. It underlines the extent to which sections of the left have internalised the defeats of the past decades.  It is Thatcher’s union ‘reforms’ writ large.

To add to the confusion, it is unclear precisely what Lansman and his allies are actually proposing. Jill Mountford takes a guess that “it seems what they mean is that delegates to Momentum conference will not take any decisions but votes will instead be taken by an online ballot of all members afterwards.  This is bizarrely reminiscent of Blairism, bureaucratic manipulation veiled in plebiscitary pseudo-democracy.”

This is worse than anything Tony Blair managed to foist on the Labour Party. How can we ever again gripe about the bowdlerising of Labour Party conference democracy if we acquiesce to the travesty that Jon Lansman and his cohorts are trying to foist on to us? 

We are still in the dark as to how motions might be proposed to conference. The original Lansman plan required an initial 50 signatures for a motion to progress further. After several more hurdles had been vaulted, 1000 signatures would be required for a motion to be heard by conference. Many branches and regional committees have criticised this, calling for the threshold to be lowered. It is very likely that the National Committee meeting of November 5 would have overturned restrictive stipulations like these and challenged many more of the plans of Lansman and co. 

Clearly it is much better to just stop the NC from meeting at all!  On 29^th October I received the following email, as did other Momentum  members.  It is a classic example of deception dressed up in the language of false bravado.  I omit the final flowery paragraph:

Dear Tony,

Momentum has had a big first year. We’ve established over 150 local groups across the UK, run national campaigns, formed the backbone of Jeremy’s incredible second leadership campaign - and now we have over 20,000 members.

Momentum helps the Labour Party to become a more open, democratic and campaigns-focused organisation. We need to be member-led ourselves. You must decide the future of your organisation.

Yesterday, Momentum’s Steering Committee voted to start the process of ensuring that Momentum becomes a truly democratic member-led organisation, reflecting the new kind of politics.

Over the coming months, members will propose their ideas on Momentum’s aims, ethics, and structure. We will use digital technology to ensure that all members can be involved and shape Momentum’s future. This process will culminate in our first national conference, with online voting for all members, in February.

In solidarity,

Team Momentum

It is a classic in Orwellian hyperbole and double think.  It talks about a member led organisation when the proposals from the SC are designed to achieve the exact opposite.  The decision of the SC to distribute the arguments of those opposed to these proposals were conveniently overturned as Lansman fondly imagines that if he doesn’t distribute them people won’t oppose know about them!  Dictators far more intelligent than Lansman have harboured similar illusions!  Momentum groups are up in arms, not only about this but the removal of Jackie Walker as Vice-Chair.  

The Statement Below is a precis from Labour Party Marxists

The last 48 hours have seen all hell break lose in Momentum.  It is essential that Momentum members and branches hurry messages and resolutions into Momentum centre to condemn this latest attempt to shut down democracy in the organisation. 

At the heart of what has happened lies a deep, morbid distrust of the members and democracy. As SC member Jill Mountford put it in her report: “Sam Wheeler and Jon Lansman spent far too much time arguing that local groups and the regional committees were undemocratic and unrepresentative.” 

Momentum branches are forbidden to send emails to all Momentum members in their area. All communications must be routed through Momentum nationally, presumably so the content can be vetted.

·         Momentum branches have been told not to bring their members together in constituencies and wards to work to maximise their political impact in these geographical units of the party. This makes it very hard to effectively cohere the Labour left in these locales. The official reason for this restriction is that the Labour Party does not allow the affiliation of organisations with a ‘mirror' structure, as the rule book dubs it. But then, Momentum is not affiliated to the Labour Party, it is not a party. Its members should be working together in cohesive units, sharing experiences and discussing in their democratic local forums the direction of their national organisation. 

·         Apart from sending out insipid campaigning news, the Momentum leadership does not communicate with its members. There are no minutes, no reports, no agendas of the organisation’s committees. Some “key contacts”, as they are dubbed, in some branches sometimes receive a little information. A few of these comrades forward this intel to some other people some of the time. In effect this has helped to create local cliques that monopolise key information. The vast majority of Momentum membership have no idea of who runs their organisation, what decisions they take and how. 

Momentum’s claim to represent some sort of clean “new kind of politics” is starting to look very much like the old type of politics – decisions taken before  meetings have even convened, a disregard of basic constitutional principles, an existing clique trying to preserve its own power.  In fact the  behaviour of Jon Lansman, Sam Tarry and co. seems to resemble nothing so much as the behaviour of Iain McNicol and Tom Watson.   They are the very antithesis of democratic socialism.

The London Momentum regional committee on October 29 voted by 31 to 0 (with 2 abstentions) for the following motion.  For a Report see here

This meeting of the London Momentum Regional Committee censures the National Steering Committee for cancelling the meeting of the National Committee that was scheduled for 5 November and agreeing a method of organising the national conference without waiting for the National Committee to discuss it.

We do not recognise the legitimacy of the Steering Committee to make these decisions. We call for these decisions of the National Steering Committee to be rescinded and for the NC to proceed as originally scheduled on 5 November.

 

2) The Labour Representation Committee:  

LRC national conference  passed this resolution at its October 29 conference:

LRC AGM condemns the decision of yesterday's Momentum SC to cancel the scheduled NC for 5th November and its decision to abandon a delegate conference in February.

3) Model motion from Labour Party Marxists:

This meeting condemns the decision by a hastily convened emergency meeting of the Momentum Steering Committee on October 28 to cancel the November 5 meeting of the National Committee. This NC was scheduled to decide the organisational details of our first national conference in February 2017.

Important decisions on the future of Momentum should involve as many members as possible. Six people on the national Steering Committee (a body that was supposed to be re-elected in August 2016) have decided to stop branches and regional committees to have their say on the future of our organisation.

We call for the National Committee meeting, re-arranged for December 10, to go ahead. It must discuss and make decisions on all issues pertaining to the organisation of our conference, including voting arrangements, delegate credentials and ratios, the future composition of the National Committee, etc.

 Jill Mountford who is a member of the Momentum Steering Committee has blogged on what happened at the meeting of 28^th October because of course Lansman and co. would not dream of distributing minutes or a report of the meeting.

Momentum Steering Committee cancels 5 November NC, but we win vote for new date (including who voted how)

* For cancelling 5 November: Jon Lansman, Darren Williams, Sam Tarry, Marsha Jane Thompson, Christine Shawcroft, Sam Wheeler.

Against: Jill Mountford, Michael Chessum, Cecile Wright.
Abstaining: Martyn Cook.

** For calling a new NC in December: Darren Williams, Martyn Cook, Cecile Wright, Jill Mountford, Michael Chessum, Christine Shawcroft.

Abstaining: Jon Lansman, Marsha Jane Thompson, Sam Wheeler, Sam Tarry.

I must confess to being surprised by the vote of Christine Shawcroft who is part of the split in Labour Briefing.  She voted for the removal of Jackie Walker as vice-chair of Momentum but I took that to be  because of bad blood between the groups.  This vote is inexplicable. 

Another member of the Momentum Steering Committee, Michael Chessum, explains his vote against Lansman’s proposals.

‘What do you call it when an executive votes to abolish the legislature?...

Momentum's steering committee met tonight in a meeting that was called with less than a day's notice, ostensibly to consider delaying the National Committee meeting which was due to meet on November 5th. I went to the meeting prepared to oppose the move (it's already 6 months since our democratic structures met) and expected to find myself in a minority. The NC was due to discuss (among other things) the composition and processes for Momentum's February conference, which would in turn decide our structures. In advance of it, local groups and regions had patchily met to discuss various proposals.

But my initial concerns were blown out of the water. Instead, the meeting not only voted to postpone the NC to December, but to bypass the NC entirely and make the decision that Momentum's conference should effectively not happen (instead being a live streamed national gathering), and momentum's structures decided by e-ballot. This was in a meeting called with 19 hours notice.

A lot of this was justified with an attitude of "it can't possibly be undemocratic to let all members vote, so pack up your deliberative structures and democratically agreed processes". Now I don't know about anyone else who's been around the Labour movement for more than 5 minutes, but I've heard that strain of logic before - and i dont mean from the left.

Now even if you think that literally all of the organisation's decisions should be taken by OMOV (personally I favour a mixed system with both OMOV and delegate meetings; but I can quite see how with a complex conference structures debate you might want a delegate debate rather than an atomized online vote), but whatever your view, this is just an outrageous, farcical way for that decision to be made.

Momentum is fantastic - and so are many of the people who frankly found themselves on the wrong side on this - but I really worry about the left sometimes, and how some bits of it have absorbed the modus operandi of blairism during the wilderness years.

Jackie Walker has also issued a statement:

"I am making a statement on the working of the Momentum Steering Committee.

Up till now, despite others commenting freely, and often in an uninformed way, I have agreed to be silent. However, events of the last few days have changed this.

'Almost immediately after the Jewish Labour Movement began to tweet against me after the training event, a 'senior member' of Momentum joined in, briefing the press, in particular a Guardian journalist, Joan Elgot. Interestingly those tweets have since been removed, though screenshots have been taken. This was very soon followed by full articles, both in the on-line and paper version, which said "The Guardian understands her removal from the post is likely to be confirmed when the committee meets on Monday. A spokesperson for the left wing grassroots movement, which was set up to support Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the party, confirmed members wanted her to go." I was also informed by the Guardian, as were others on the Steering Committee, at the same time as the Guardian Leadership, the date and outcome of the meeting to remove me. Included in this same article were comments by Manuel Cortes, Gen Sec of the TSSA, threatening to remove Momentum from TSSA premises if I were not removed. This came, I believe, soon after Cortes had publicly called me a rabid anti-Semite, or something to that effect.

While the press may have known when the meeting to remove me would be, as well as the result, I was given only 48 hours notice of the hearing and no details either of how it would be run or what the charges were against me, despite repeated requests. The extraordinary spectacle of a group of trades unionist treating a comrade in a way THEY would not accept had they been representing me as trades unionist was shameful to our movement. No statement was taken from me or from anyone who had been at the JLM training event. The irony is the SC used evidence from the same media sources that had recently condemned Jeremy as an incompetent, an antisemite and a terrorist.

After this kangaroo court, I asked for a complaint of this process to be forwarded to the NC and for an investigation to be launched about the leak. A meeting of the SC voted against giving me access to the NC. I know who leaked, as do many people on the SC.

As to the most recent example of the lack of democracy of the SC, on Thursday at 10:30pm I received a notification of an emergency SC meeting. There was no mention of a discussion on how the conference would be run. A number of people could not make, or would not agree to come to such a meeting. A number of people, including myself and Matt Wrack, protested as to undemocratic process. Some members agreed to phoned in. Imagine my shock the next morning at being informed both that the NC was to be postponed and that the decision had been made by the SC that conference votes would be made on line. This occurred even though at least 2 papers were outlining different process of voting at conference had been tabled for discussion at the (now cancelled) NC.

The sovereign body is the NC. The SC is there to implement their decisions. This is an outrage.

The two examples I describe here are just the most well known of a general culture of disdain which too many members of the SC have supported. It is crucial that this changes.’