Momentum, Democracy & IT Controls

I have written often on the need for transparency requirements for IT security controls and often how one might apply them to e-voting systems. I have specifically written about how this problem applies and is not solved in Momentum. I had a discussion today and recalled the voting results for Momentum’s Democracy Review e-consultation, in particular the vote on CLP governance issues where over 40 votes arrived in the dying hours of the vote, changing the result which up to that time, had been an important yet sectarian contest between “stop the purge” and “Labour against the witch hunt” as to who’s definition of fair expulsions should become momentum’s view. For clarity, I voted for the “stop the purge” proposal but, either of these positions would have embarrassed Momentum’s leadership, as from their actions, they seem quite prepared to use the exclusion mechanisms against political opponents and also the disciplinary rules even against former allies with a very limited support of natural justice.

This is important today as Momentum propose to change their OMOV systems for their central committee but voted not to appoint independent scrutineers. Whether what I saw is true and whether my suspicions are true is not the central test, Momentum cannot prove that the system is safe from an insider attack.

Since the private pages are not archived to the wayback machine, I have taken a screen shot of the final result as at 28th July 2019, showing the final results and posted it below/overleaf. …¬† …

Democratising Momentum, that would be nice

Democratising Momentum, that would be nice

You couldn’t make it up but Momentum have consulted (some of) their membership on new rules for the running of Momentum. It seems they don’t plan to change the bits that they can’t keep to, merely bits they find otherwise difficult for reasons I can’t fathom. Perhaps they’re just embarrassed but given what they’ve put up with, I can’t believe that. Simon Hannah describes the changes and the fig leave of a process by which they’ve done it in this article in the Clarion.

The changes relate to the composition, they plan to increase the number of directly elected members and the number of constituencies and term of office of the central committee, aka the NCG.

Simon expresses some cynicism about the pace of these reforms and forecasts the postponement of the next NCG elections. I think it will depend upon how rapidly they want the eight new members. He also points out they have failed to amend the rules pertaining to the embarrassingly absent, digital decision making platform and the strangely abandoned “Member’s Council”.

To be frank, I was waiting for the next elections but wasn’t hoping for much. Time to stop giving them money I think, although I might put in a DSAR asking if their selection for inclusion in the consultation was data based and what facts they hold on me which were relevant to this decision. …

Belonging to Momentum

A personal piece of unfinished business from the CLPD National Committee. People’s Momentum’s membership rules,

Momentum’s Rules 5.1

Membership is open to anyone who either was a financial subscriber of Momentum on 10 January 2017, or
(i) Is 14 or over;
(ii) Is a member of the Labour Party and no other political party nor an organisation disallowed by the NCG;
(iii) Agrees to be bound by the rules of Momentum, including its code of ethics and equal opportunities policy; and
(iv) Is accepted for membership by the NCG.

The “is 14 or over” is a tautology as you can’t join the Labour Party until you’re 14. Interesting that they have adopted powers to proscribe organisations not necessarily proscribed by the Labour Party. Most interestingly, if a member before 10 Jan 2017, then you remain a member. …