Show Hide image

Who rules Iran?

Our guide to power in the Islamic Republic

It is a question that has been asked repeatedly since the 1979 revolution, and one for which there are few ready answers. Commentators gloss over the tensions between the supreme leader, the president and the parliament -- let alone the power invested in the clerical establishment, the Revolutionary Guard and the bonyads (or foundations) that make up the Iranian state.

Yet it is exactly these relationships that determine the course of Iranian politics, from its nuclear ambitions to the chances of democratic reform. In step with this week's Iran issue, we introduce you to the power relationships that lie beneath the political picture, and the events that put them in place.

The supreme leader

Khamenei (left) gives a speech next to the newly appointed judiciary chief, Sadegh Ardeshir Larijani, during a meeting in Tehran in August 2009. Photograph: STR/AFP/Getty Images

The highest authority in the Iranian constitution, this dual political and religious role was made to fit Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's predecessor, Ruhollah Khomeini, in the aftermath of the revolution. It is based on Khomeini's doctrine of the velayat-e faqih, or the "guardianship of the jurisconsult"; the idea that the community should be guided by a religious jurist, in expectation of the coming of the Hidden Imam.

The supreme leader should be the highest spiritual authority within Shia Islam, a marja-e taqlid ("a source of emulation") or a grand ayatollah. The 1989 succession of Ali Khamenei to the role marked a shift in the Islamic Republic from religious attitudes to authority to political expediency, as Khamenei was only a hojatoleslam, or "proof of Islam" -- a lower clerical rank.

The supreme leader has power over the army, the revolutionary guard, the Basij militia and the judiciary, primarily through appointing the leaders of each group. It was this "mini-state" that his predecessor created in the aftermath of the 1979 revolution that allowed Khamenei to establish clerical supremacy. The supreme leader's power is almost without limit: Khamenei had the final word on last year's disputed presidential election.

The president

The current Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, gestures while waiting for the arrival of Oman's leader, Qaboos Bin Said, at the presidential offices in Tehran on August 4, 2009. The sultan of Oman became the first foreign leader to visit Iran since Iran's controversial presidential vote last year. Photograph: BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images

The most powerful political post in Iran that can be called democratic, the president of the Islamic Republic is elected from a list that is vetted by the Guardian Council. The president serves a four-year term for a maximum of two terms.

The power of the president is limited in the constitution, and is dwarfed by the influence of the supreme leader, the Guardian Council and other groups that make up the political centre. The presidency of Mohammad Khatami in 1997-2005 exposed these limitations; a reformer who offered a détente with the west, his foreign policy positions could never be anything more than symbolic, and his domestic reforms were obstructed by unelected loyalists to the regime.

Notionally, the president is the functional head of the executive. The president appoints the cabinet, subject to parliamentary approval, and is an international figurehead. In practice, however, power over defence and major foreign policy decisions falls under the authority of the supreme leader.

The Majlis: the Iranian parliament

Iranian students attend a parliament session in Tehran in November 2009. Photograph: ATTA KENARE/AFP/Getty Images

The Majlis represents the second democratic arm of the Iranian constitution, alongside the presidency. Its 290 members serve four-year terms. The Majlis has the constitutional power to vet and impeach cabinet ministers (and even the president), and introduces and passes legislation.

The major barrier to the power of the Majlis is the Guardian Council, which regularly bars candidates from standing, and vetoes parliamentary legislation. This constitutional deadlock has long been a feature of the politics of the Islamic Republic, and led to the creation of the Expediency Council in 1988.

The speaker of the Majlis, currently Ali Larijani, is an important spokesperson on domestic and international affairs. Even before the 1979 revolution, the Majlis was an important home of Iranian nationalism. Its roots are grounded in the constitutional revolution that took place between 1905 and 1911. Its importance should not be overlooked.

The councils

The head of the Iranian Guardian Council, Ahmad Janati, delivers the Friday prayers sermon at Tehran University in October 2009. Janati warned against an anti-government demonstration to counter an official commemoration of the storming of the US embassy. Photograph: BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images

Iran's executive is made up of councils with varying, low levels of accountability. The most important is the Guardian Council. This body is made up of six clerics appointed by the supreme leader and six jurists nominated by the parliament from a list prepared by the judiciary -- whose head, of course, is appointed by the supreme leader.

This body has the power to veto parliamentary legislation, shut newspapers and bar presidential and parliamentary candidates. Depending on your perspective, it is either the protector of revolutionary values or the scourge of political reform in Iran.

The two other important bodies are the Expediency Council and the Assembly of Experts, both headed by Ayatollah Rafsanjani, a key power broker in the Islamic Republic.

The supreme leader appoints the Expediency Council, a body created to resolve constitutional deadlock between the Majlis and the Guardian Council. In practice, its membership ensures a heavy bias towards the establishment. The Assembly of Experts is made up of clerics elected from a list vetted by the Guardian Council, and its nominal role is to appoint and monitor the supreme leader.

Qom

Iranians hold portraits of Iranian cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri during his funeral procession in the holy city of Qom on 21 December 2009. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

A short drive south-west from Tehran, Qom centres on the shrine of Fatima, the sister of Imam Reza, on the bank of the Qom river. The clerical centre of Shia Islam, it is also an immensely important political base, due to its proximity to the capital and the overlap between the spiritual and political authorities.

Housing tens of thousands of seminarians, the city has expanded since the revolution. Large sums of money -- in the form of Islamic taxes and alms sent by followers -- come to the marja-e taqlid ("sources of emulation") who reside there. Normally seen as a conservative body, the marja are among the few with any authority to criticise the supreme leader. Some have questioned Khamenei's right to be considered a marja.

The recently deceased Ayatollah Montazeri was a prime example of the power of Qom, and his death was seen as a rallying point for reformists. Once nominated as a successor to Khomeini, he was cast out of the political centre for criticising the supreme leader, and remained a vocal critic of the government until his death.

The Revolutionary Guard

Iranians carry the coffin of General Nur-Ali Shushtari, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guard's ground forces, killed near the Pakistani border, during a funeral in Tehran outside the Revolutionary Guard garrison on 20 October 2009. Photograph: BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images

A military force and corporation estimated to be worth billions of dollars, the Revolutionary Guard is the latest pressure point for those wishing to exert pressure on the Iranian state.

The Revolutionary Guard stands in command of the Basij, a paramilitary organisation that was established by the dictat of Ayatollah Khomeini. Its foot soldiers are known as "Basijis", a morality police that monitors the public for correct Islamic dress, makes sure that young, unrelated and unmarried Iranians are not walking or driving together in the streets, and so on.

After the hostage crisis of 1979-1981, the Revolutionary Guard moved into the US Embassy in the centre of Tehran, which was renamed "Den of Spies", and used it as a training base. It expanded to a full fighting force in the Iran-Iraq war. It was the Revolutionary Guard that captured the British sailors in the Persian Gulf in 2007.

The Revolutionary Guard is intimately associated with Iran's foundations, and is suspected of links to Hezbollah in Lebanon. The US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has said that the force is "supplanting the government" and creating a "military dictatorship".

The foundations

Hossein Shariatmadari, the director of the hardline Kayhan newspaper group, owned by Iran's largest foundation, sits next issues of the newspaper at his office in Tehran, 16 September 2007. Photograph: BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images

When Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was driven from Iran by the 1979 revolution, he left behind a huge swathe of assets. The Pahlavi foundation was renamed the Foundation for the Oppressed, a charity entrusted to helping veterans of the Iran-Iraq war. Thought to be worth as much as $12bn, this foundation controls large amounts of Iran's economy. Along with numerous companies, factories and mines, the foundation owns the Kayhan and Ettela'at newspapers.

The Foundation for the Oppressed is just one of several bonyads intimately related to the Revolutionary Guard and the political centre around the supreme leader. In the context of Iranian politics, the foundations represent the vested interests of the unaccountable and the spoils of the 1979 revolution. They have thus far proved beyond the reach of the democratic arms of the state. Any attempt to pull the Iranian state away from clerical hegemony comes up against the bonyads.

This piece accompanies Henry Smith's article, "Iran: the people"

RAY TANGT/ANADOLU AGENCY/GETTY IMAGES
Show Hide image

Losing Momentum: how Jeremy Corbyn’s support group ran out of steam

Tom Watson says it is destroying Labour. Its supporters say it is a vital force for change. Our correspondent spent six months following the movement, and asks: what is the truth about Momentum?

1. The Bus

 The bus to the Momentum conference in Liverpool leaves at seven on a Sunday morning in late September from Euston Station, and the whole journey feels like a parody of a neoliberal play about the failings of socialism. We depart an hour late because activists have overslept and we cannot go without them. As we wait we discuss whether Jeremy Corbyn will be re-elected leader of the Labour Party this very day. One man says not; a young, jolly girl with blonde hair cries: “Don’t say that on Jezmas!” She is joking, at least about “Jezmas”.

A man walks up. “Trots?” he says, calmly. He is joking, too; and I wonder if he says it because the idea of Momentum is more exciting to outsiders than the reality, and he knows it; there is an awful pleasure in being misunderstood. Momentum was formed in late 2015 to build on Corbyn’s initial victory in the Labour leadership election, and it is perceived as a ragtag army of placard-waving Trots, newly engaged clicktivists and Corbyn fanatics.

We leave, and learn on the M1 that, in some terrible metaphor, the coach is broken and cannot drive at more than 20mph. So we wait for another coach at a service station slightly beyond Luton. “Sabotage,” says one man. He is joking, too. We get off; another man offers me his vegan bread and we discuss Karl Marx.

A new coach arrives and I listen to the others discuss Jeremy Corbyn’s problems. No one talks about his polling, because that is depressing and unnecessary for their purpose – which, here, is dreaming. They talk about Corbyn as addicts talk about a drug. Nothing can touch him, and nothing is ever his fault. “There are problems with the press office,” says one. “Perhaps he needs better PAs?” says another.

One man thinks there will be a non-specific revolution: “I hope it won’t be violent,” he frets. “There have been violent revolutions in the past.” “I stuck it out during Blair and it was worth it,” says another. “They’ve had their go.” “We don’t need them [the Blairites],” says a third. “If new members come in, it will sort itself out,” says a fourth.

I have heard this before. Momentum supporters have told me that Labour does not need floating voters, who are somehow tainted because they dare to float. This seems to me a kind of madness. I do not know how the Labour Party will win a general election in a parliamentary democracy without floating voters; and I don’t think these people do, either.

But this is a coach of believers. Say you are not sure that Corbyn can win a general election and they scowl at you. That you are in total agreement with them is assumed, because this is the solidarity bus; and if you are in total agreement with them they are the sweetest people in the world.

That is why I do not tell them that I am a journalist. I am afraid to, and this fear baffles me. I have gone everywhere as a journalist but with these, my fellow-travellers on the left, I am scared to say it; and that, too, frightens me. MSM, they might call me – mainstream media. What it really means is: collaborator.

The man beside me has been ill. He talks sweetly about the potential renewal of society under Corbyn’s Labour as a metaphor for his own recovery, and this moves him; he has not been involved in politics until now. I like this man very much, until I mention the Jewish Labour MP Luciana Berger and the anti-Semitism she has suffered from Corbyn supporters and others; and he says, simply, that she has been employed by the state of Israel. He says nothing else about her, as if there were nothing else to say.

We listen to the results of the leadership election on the radio; we should be in Liverpool at the Black-E community centre to celebrate, but the solidarity bus is late. Corbyn thanks his supporters. “You’re welcome, Jeremy,” says a woman in the front row, as if he were on the coach. She nods emphatically, and repeats it to the man who isn’t there: “You’re welcome, Jeremy.”

In Liverpool, some of the passengers sleep on the floor at a community centre. The venue has been hired for that purpose: this is Momentum’s commitment to opening up politics to the non-connected, the previously non-engaged, and the outsiders who will attend their conference in a deconsecrated church, even as the official Labour conference convenes a mile away. But never mind that: this is the one that matters, and it is called The World Transformed.

 

2. The Conference

Later that day, outside the Black-E, a man comes up to me. Are you happy, he asks, which is a normal question here. These are, at least partly, the politics of feelings: we must do feelings, because the Tories, apparently, don’t. I say I’m worried about marginal seats, specifically that Jeremy – he is always Jeremy, the use of his Christian name is a symbol of his goodness, his accessibility and his singularity – cannot win them.

“The polls aren’t his fault,” the man says, “it’s [Labour] people briefing the Tories that he is unelectable.” I do not think it’s that simple but it’s easy to feel like an idiot – or a monster – here, where there is such conviction. As if there is something that only you, the unconvinced, have missed: that Jeremy, given the right light, hat or PA, could lead a socialist revolution in a country where 13 million people watched Downton Abbey.

But the man does say something interesting which I hope is true. “This is not about Jeremy, not really,” he says. “It is about what he represents.” He means Momentum can survive without him.

There is a square hall with trade union banners and a shop that sells Poems for Jeremy Corbyn, as well as a Corbyn-themed colouring book. When I am finally outed as a journalist, and made to wear a vast red badge that says PRESS, I attempt to buy one. “That’s all journalists are interested in,” the proprietor says angrily. That is one of our moral stains, apparently: a disproportionate (and sinister) interest in colouring books.

I go to the Black Lives Matter event. A woman talks about the experience of black students in universities and the impact of austerity on the black community. Another woman tells us that her five-year-old son wishes he was white; we listen while she cries. I go to the feminism meeting and change my mind about the legalisation of prostitution after a woman’s testimony about reporting an assault, and then being assaulted again by a police officer because of her legal status. Then I hear a former miner tell a room how the police nearly killed him on a picket line, and then arrested him.

This, to me, a veteran of party conferences, is extraordinary, although it shouldn’t be, and the fact that I am surprised is shameful. Momentum is full of the kinds of ­people you never see at political events: that is, the people politics is for. Women, members of minority communities (but not Zionist Jews, naturally), the disabled: all are treated with exaggerated courtesy, as if the Black-E had established a mirror world of its choosing, where everything outside is inverted.

When Corbyn arrives he does not orate: he ruminates. “We are not going to cascade poverty from generation to generation,” he says. “We are here to transform society and the world.” I applaud his sentiment; I share it. I just wish I could believe he can deliver it outside, in the other world. So I veer ­between hope and fury; between the certainty that they will achieve nothing but an eternal Conservative government, and the ever-nagging truth that makes me stay: what else is there?

There is a rally on Monday night. Momentum members discuss the “purges” of socialist and communist-leaning members from Labour for comments they made on social media, and whether détente is possible. A nurse asks: “How do we know that ‘wipe the slate clean’ means the same for us as it does for them? How on Earth can we trust the likes of Hilary Benn who dresses himself up in the rhetoric of socialism to justify bombing Syria? The plotters who took the olive branch offered by Jeremy to stab him in the back with another chicken coup?” I am not sure where she is going with that gag, or if it is even a gag.

The next man to speak had been at the Labour party conference earlier in the day; he saw Len McCluskey, John McDonnell and Clive Lewis on the platform. “Don’t be pessimistic, folks,” he cries. “On the floor of conference today we owned the party. Progress [the centrist Labour pressure group] are the weirdos now. We own the party!”

A man from Hammersmith and Fulham Momentum is next. “The national committee of Momentum was not elected by conference,” he says. “It’s a committee meeting knocked up behind closed doors by leading people on the left, including our two heroes.” He means Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell. This is explicit heresy, and the chair interrupts him: “Stan, Stan . . .” “I’m winding up!” he says. “We need a central committee of Momentum elected by conference,” he says, and sits down.

The following day Corbyn speaks in the hall in front of golden balloons that spell out S-H-E-E-P. It may be another gag, but who can tell, from his face? This is his commitment to not doing politics the recognisable way. He is the man who walks by himself, towards balloons that say S-H-E-E-P. (They are advertising the band that will follow him. They are called, and dressed as, sheep.) The nobility of it, you could say. Or the idiocy. He mocks the mockers of Momentum: is it, he was asked by the mainstream media, full of extremists and entryists? “I’m not controlling any of it,” he says calmly, and in this calmness is all the Twitter-borne aggression that people complain of when they talk about Momentum, for he enables it with his self-satisfied smile. “It’s not my way to try and control the way people do things. I want people to come together.” He laughs, because no one can touch him, and nothing is ever his fault.

I meet many principled people in Liverpool whose testimony convinces me, and I didn’t need convincing, that austerity is a national disaster. I meet only one person who thinks that Momentum should take over the Labour Party. The maddest suggestion I hear is that all media should be state-controlled so that they won’t be rude about a future Corbyn government and any tribute colouring books.

 

3. The HQ

Momentum HQ is in the TSSA transport and travel union building by Euston Station in London. I meet Jon Lansman, Tony Benn’s former fixer and the founder of Momentum, in a basement room in October. Lansman, who read economics at Cambridge, lived on the fringes of Labour for 30 years before volunteering for Corbyn’s campaign for the leadership.

The terms are these: I can ask whatever I want, but afterwards James Schneider, the 29-year-old national organiser (who has since left to work for Corbyn’s press team), will decide what I can and cannot print. ­Momentum HQ wants control of the message; with all the talk of entryism and infighting reported in the mainstream media, the movement needs it.

There is a civil war between Jon Lansman and the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL) and other far-left factions, which, I am told, “wish to organise in an outdated manner out of step with the majority of Momentum members”. Some of the Momentum leadership believe that the AWL and its allies want to use Momentum to found a new party to the left of Labour. Jill Mountford, then a member of Momentum’s steering committee, has been expelled from Labour for being a member of the AWL. It screams across the blogs and on Facebook; more parody. We don’t talk about that – Schneider calls it “Kremlinology”. It is a problem, yes, but it is not insurmountable. We talk about the future, and the past.

So, Lansman. I look at him. The right considers him an evil Bennite wizard to be feared and mocked; the far left, a Stalinist, which seems unfair. It must be exhausting. I see a tired, middle-aged man attending perhaps his fifteenth meeting in a day. His hair is unruly. He wears a T-shirt.

The last Labour government, he says, did one thing and said another: “Wanting a liberal immigration policy while talking tough about refugees and migrants. Having a strong welfare policy and generous tax credits while talking about ‘strivers’ and ‘scroungers’ unfortunately shifted opinion the wrong way.”

It also alienated the party membership: “Their approach was based on ensuring that everyone was on-message with high levels of control.” It was an “authoritarian structure even in the PLP [Parliamentary Labour Party]. Even in the cabinet. It killed off the enthusiasm of the membership. They never published the figures in 2009 because it dropped below 100,000. We’ve now got 600,000.” (The membership has since dropped to roughly 528,000.)

And the strategy? “If you have hundreds of thousands of people having millions of conversations with people in communities and workplaces you can change opinion,” he says. “That’s the great advantage of ­having a mass movement. And if we can change the Labour Party’s attitude to its members and see them as a resource – not a threat or inconvenience.”

That, then, is the strategy: street by street and house by house. “We can’t win on the back of only the poorest and only the most disadvantaged,” he says. “We have to win the votes of skilled workers and plenty of middle-class people, too – but they are all suffering from some aspects of Tory misrule.”

I ask about polling because, at the time, a Times/YouGov poll has Labour on 27 per cent to the Tories’ 41 per cent. He doesn’t mind. “It was,” he says, “always going to be a very hard battle to win the next election. I think everyone across the party will privately admit that.” He doesn’t think that if Yvette Cooper or Andy Burnham were leader they would be polling any better.

Upstairs the office is full of activists. They are young, rational and convincing (although, after the Copeland by-election on 23 February, I will wonder if they are only really convincing themselves). They talk about their membership of 20,000, and 150 local groups, and 600,000 Labour Party members, and the breadth of age and background of the volunteers – from teenagers to people in their eighties. One of them – Ray Madron, 84 – paints his hatred of Tony Blair like a portrait in the air. He has a ­marvellously posh voice. Most of all, they talk about the wounds of austerity. Where, they want to know, is the anger? They are searching for it.

Emma Rees, a national organiser, speaks in the calm, precise tones of the schoolteacher she once was. “A lot of people are sick and tired of the status quo, of politics as usual, and I think trying to do things differently is hard because there isn’t a road map and it’s not clear exactly what you’re supposed to do,” she says. She adds: “It is a coalition of different sorts of people and holding all those people together can sometimes be a challenge.”

Is she alluding to entryism? One activist, who asks not to be named, says: “I don’t want to insult anyone, but if you rounded up all the members of the Socialist Workers Party [SWP] and the Socialist Party and any other ultra-left sect, you could probably fit them in one room. Momentum has 20,000 members.”

The SWP were outside at The World Transformed in Liverpool, I say, like an ambivalent picket line. “Well,” James Schneider says pointedly, “they were outside.”

Momentum, Emma Rees says, “is seeking to help the Labour Party become that transformative party that will get into government but doesn’t fall back on that tried and failed way of winning elections”.

They tell me this repeatedly, and it is true: no one knows what will work. “The people who criticised us don’t have any route to electability, either,” says Joe Todd, who organises events for Momentum. He is a tall, bespectacled man with a kindly, open face.

“They lost two elections before Jeremy Corbyn. It’s obvious we need to do something differently,” he says. “Politics feels distant for most people: it doesn’t seem to offer any hope for real change.

“The left has been timid and negative. More and more people are talking about how we can transform society, and how these transformations link to people’s everyday experience. Build a movement like that,” Todd says, and his eyes swell, “and all the old rules of politics – the centre ground, swing constituencies to a certain extent – are blown out of the water.”

Momentum sends me, with a young volunteer as chaperone, to a rally in Chester in October to watch activists try to muster support for local hospitals. They set up a stall in the centre of the shopping district, with its mad dissonance of coffee shops and medieval houses. From what I can see, people – yet far too few people – listen politely to the speeches about austerity and sign up for more information; but I can hear the hum of internal dissent when an activist, who asks not to be named, tells me he will work for the local Labour MP to be deselected. (The official Momentum line on deselection is, quite rightly, that it is a matter for local parties.)

We will not know what matters – is it effective? – until the general election, because no one knows what will work.

 

4. The Fallout

Now comes the result of the by-election in Copeland in the north-west of England, and the first time since 1982 that a ruling government has taken a seat from the opposition in a by-election. Momentum canvassed enthusiastically (they sent 85 carloads of activists to the constituency) but they failed, and pronounce themselves “devastated”. The whispers – this time of a “soft” coup against Corbyn – begin again.

Rees describes calls for Jeremy Corbyn to resign as “misguided. Labour’s decline long pre-dates Corbyn’s leadership.”

This produces a furious response from Luke Akehurst, a former London Labour ­councillor in Hackney, on labourlist.org. He insists that Labour’s decline has accelerated under Corbyn; that even though Rees says that “Labour has been haemorrhaging votes in election after election in Copeland since 1997”, the majority increased in 2005 and the number of votes rose in 2010, despite an adverse boundary change. “This,” he writes, “was a seat where the Labour vote was remarkably stable at between 16,750 and 19,699 in every general election between 2001 and 2015, then fell off a cliff to 11,601, a third of it going AWOL, last Thursday.”

And he adds that “‘85 carloads of Mom­entum activists’ going to Copeland is just increasing the party’s ability to record whose votes it has lost”.

But still they plan, and believe, even if no one knows what will work; surely there is some antidote to Mayism, if they search every street in the UK? Momentum’s national conference, which was repeatedly postponed, is now definitively scheduled for 25 March. Stan who complained about a democratic deficit within Momentum at The World Transformed got his way. So did Lansman. In January the steering committee voted to dissolve Momentum’s structures and introduce a constitution, after consulting the membership. A new national co-ordinating group has been elected, and met for the first time on 11 March – although, inevitably, a group called Momentum Grassroots held a rival meeting that very day.

I go to the Euston offices for a final briefing. There, two young women – Sophie and Georgie, and that will make those who think in parodies laugh – tell me that, in future, only members of the Labour Party will be allowed to join Momentum, and existing members must join Labour by 1 July. Those expelled from Labour “may be deemed to have resigned from Momentum after 1 July” – but they will have a right to a hearing.

More details of the plan are exposed when, a week later, a recording of Jon Lansman’s speech to a Momentum meeting in Richmond on 1 March is leaked to the Observer. Lansman told the Richmond branch that Momentum members must hold positions within the Labour Party to ensure that Corbyn’s successor – they are now talking about a successor – is to their liking. He also said that, should Len McCluskey be re-elected as general secretary of Unite, the union would formally affiliate to Momentum.

Tom Watson, the deputy leader of the party, was furious when he found out, calling it “a private agreement to fund a political faction that is apparently planning to take control of the Labour Party, as well as organise in the GMB and Unison”.

There was then, I am told, “a short but stormy discussion at the away day at Unison” on Monday 20 March, where the inner circle of John McDonnell, Diane Abbott and Emily Thornberry “laid into” Watson, but Shami Chakrabarti made the peace; I would have liked to see that. Watson then released a bland joint statement with Corbyn which mentioned “a robust and constructive discussion about the challenges and opportunities ahead”.

Jon Lansman, of course, is more interesting. “This is a non-story,” he tells me. “Momentum is encouraging members to get active in the party, to support socialist policies and rule changes that would make Labour a more grass-roots and democratic party, and to campaign for Labour victories. There is nothing scandalous and sinister about that.” On the Labour right, Progress, he notes, does exactly the same thing. “Half a million members could be the key to our success,” he says. “They can take our message to millions. But they want to shape policy, too. I wouldn’t call giving them a greater say ‘taking over the party’” – and this is surely unanswerable – “it’s theirs to start with.”

Correction: This article originally named Luke Akehurst as a Labour councillor. Akehurst stood down in 2014.

This article first appeared in the 23 March 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump's permanent revolution