Mediaboss Marketing

Organisations which fund political parties are meant to declare all major donations they receive. Yet only one ever has.

Who is funding Theresa May's campaign? Image: Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Obscure organisations have been pouring millions of pounds into the Conservative party without revealing the source of their funds, new research from openDemocracy reveals today.

Since July 2009, the Conservative party has received nearly 12 million from a little-known type of organisation called unincorporated associations.

July 2009 is relevant, because that is when a new law kicked in, regulating these sorts of donations. But new research by openDemocracy has led to serious questions about whether that law is really doing anything to prevent a flood of secret donations.

'Unincorporated associations' are defined as organisations which have a constitution and at least two members, but arent registered in any other way for example as a company or a trade union. They might be a social club or a sports club or a campaign group.

Its not just the Tories who receive money from them. Over the same period, the Labour party got over 9 million from unincorporated associations; the Liberal Democrats, over 5 million; UKIP, 80,000 and the Green Party and the SNP, nothing.

In itself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with these sorts of donations. For example, when the Gillingham and Rainham Constituency Labour Party decided to give 1,500 to the central party this year, this was counted as a donation from an unincorporated association to Labour.

But they are also open to abuse. After all, if you wanted to funnel money anonymously into a party, circumventing transparency laws, why not do it through one of these groups? And so, in 2009 Political Parties and Elections Act laid down some rules. It was designed to ensure that these sorts of organisations werent used as fronts for donations to be hidden from public scrutiny.

If you wanted to funnel money anonymously into a party, circumventing transparency laws, why not do it through one of these groups?

As the Electoral Commission website puts it:

Unincorporated Associations that donate more than 25,000 in a calendar year are required to register with us and report gifts in excess of 7,500."

The register of Unincorporated Associations is here(.xls). It includes 62 different organisations, though it isnt complete: today, openDemocracy has revealed today that the Scottish Conservatives appear to have accepted a donation of 100,000 from an unregistered group not listed here. It isnt clear how many more groups have also donated more than 25,000 without registering.

But we can also reveal today that, since the Act in 2009, only one registered unincorporated association has ever admitted to receiving a donation of more than 7,500. The spreadsheet of registered donations on the Electoral Commission website only records six donations, made over 2013 and 2014, by two donors, all to the same Association, the Conservative donors the Trevelyan Campaign Fund.

The complete register of gifts to Unincorporated Associations, 2009-2017.

This means that every other unincorporated association donating more than 25,000 claims it hasnt received any donation of more than 7,500 over the course of 12 months from any individual since 2009. Either that, or its failed to comply with this key transparency law. So extraordinarily it seems that, with one small exception, all of the 12 million which has gone to the Conservative party through these organisations came in the form of small donations.

While it is of course possible that it is true and we certainly arent accusing any specific organisation of breaching this law it does raise serious questions about the extent to which the system is open to abuse. The 2009 Elections Act was passed to ensure that unincorporated associations couldnt funnel dark money into our election system. But in reality, there are still millions of pounds flooding our democracy through these organisations. We have no idea where it is coming from. We have no idea what they are demanding of our politicians. And we have no idea what they are getting from them.

See the original post:
How dark money is drowning British democracy - Open Democracy

Will Jeremy Corbyns leadership be challenged if Labour does lose the election, as the polls predict? And what will happen to his vision of changing the way the party makes decisions and forms policy? Jake Watts argues that issues of party organisation and democracy will return to the agenda in the event of a defeat on 8 June.

The General Election is an early opportunity for Corbyn and his supporters to put forward policy and argue their case in front of the electorate. However, reshaping Labours policy and political platform is only one part of the Labour lefts mission to change the party. In the wake of the election, and likely defeat, expect issues of party organisation and intra-party democracy to return to the agenda as Corbyn and those around him look to take the fight to Labours moderates and secure a more stable foundations for their project.

In the leadership election of 2015, Corbyn spent time articulating a new vision for Labour as a political organisation. He did so drawing on a clear narrative about the state of the party as it was, and drew on historical notions of the movements roots and ideas about intra-party democracy that had long motivated the Labour Left. He argued that the party, under the influence of successive leaders, had moved substantially away from its roots as a movement and that creeping centralisation and managerialism had stifled Labours radical member-led potential.

In response, Corbyn and those around him pledged that, under his leadership, the party would no longer be a top-down organisation. In its place, members would be elevated in their importance and would be more closely involved in making decisions about policy. But, beyond the crowd-sourcing of PMQs and the conduct of a membership survey about the manifesto, no changes to the way members are involved or the degree of control they have has yet been secured within Labours rules and procedures. Plans to hold a party democracy day back in November were abandoned as concern rose about the possibility of an early General Election.

Whilst these ideas of member involvement have been set aside in terms of rule changes, notions of greater control by Labours grassroots have been consistently drawn upon by the protagonists of Labours leftward turn. This has been particularly the case when Corbynism has appeared to be under threat. In this respect, thinly veiled discussion of deselections has never been that far behind any outcry from moderate MPs about Corbyns leadership or the partys standing in the polls.

This focus on Labours organisation has two particular functions. First, all the talk about party structure and the democratic rights of members to exercise direct control over party policy and representatives has constituted an important part of the Corbyn narrative about the Labour Party and its past failings. This narrative has been central to galvanising support, even in the face of a leadership challenge. Second, this talk signals what is a wider ultimate goal for the left: reshaping substantially Labours structural foundations.

In the wake of the General Election, it is highly likely that Corbyn and the Labour left will face significant challenges. Whilst the polls have tightened, a Labour victory still looks unlikely and signs of the blame game to come have already emerged. In the event of a loss on 8 June, the battle for Labours soul will recommence and a leadership contest looks likely. Getting an alternative Labour left candidate to Corbyn on the slate for any contest will not be easy unless the Parliamentary Party is substantially reduced. Any nominees for the leadership, aside from any incumbent, require the support of 15% of Labours parliamentarians. If it looks unlikely that a potential left-wing successor will find their way on to the ballot, the chances of Corbyn remaining in post and being challenged himself are increased.

In this leadership contest, and in the aftermath of Labours outing at the polls, expect organisational issues to resurface. In one respect, they are a consistent part of the traditional discourse of the Labour Left itself, they reflect a historical mind-set when it comes to Labours intra-party democracy, and constitute long-held goals of this wing of the party to secure a particular form of member- and activist-led politics. Beyond this, these visions of party democracy are part of Corbynisms appeal and remain a firm part of what Corbyn and those around him are ultimately looking to achieve. Reducing the threshold for leadership contest nominations to increase choice, reasserting the right of members to decide over policy, and reaffirming the entitlement of members to exercise greater control over Labours parliamentarians are all possible areas of focus.

How convinced the Labour leadership selectorate are by these arguments will be important for Corbynism in the short-term. Indeed, if members continue to support this vision, this may play a role in determining the outcome of any leadership challenge. In the long run, whether any of these elements are actually secured will play their role in determining the extent to which Corbyn and his supporters can secure control over Labours commanding heights.

____ About the Author

Jake Watts is a doctoral researcher in the Department of Politics at the University of Sussex.

See more here:
Intra-party democracy: how will Labour's organisation change after GE2017? - British Politics and Policy at LSE (blog)

Sunday 4 June: this updates an article originally written on Friday 2nd.

When it was called, it looked like the greatest foregone conclusion in election history. Prime Minister Mays standing among the public could hardly have been higher while Labour under Jeremy Corbyn appeared divided and archaic. The unassailable would crush the unelectable as the Conservatives were set to sweep to a majority of even 200.

Theresa May had called her snap election deceitfully. Her true aim was to cover up the EUs confounding of her plans for Brexit, as I explained immediately she made her announcement in Why is she Frit? Despite this, even the Labour leadership thought the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Tory domination was confirmed in the local election results on 4th of May. It was not just that Labour did badly and the Tory polling lead was humongous. UKIP collapsed. Should most of its 4 million Brexit-lovers swing behind Theresa May, as seemed inevitable, a tremendous victory for May was assured, thanks to Britains winner-takes-all electoral system. Eventually, it would turn out badly for her, I predicted, but her immediate triumph seemed certain.

In one of the strangest of elections, it is Corbyn who has captured the anti-system, anti-elitist spirit of Brexit while the Prime Minister embodies the crepuscular condescension of the old regime. He appears to be the populist and she the hateful elitist. He is the energetic insurgent seeking change and she is the evasive, manipulative representative of the status quo. With the polls swinging wildly, who knows what the outcome will now be? UKIP supporters in crucial northern constituencies are not natural Tories and might break for Labour or simply abstain. If so, Mays hopes of a massive plurality could prove to be no more than dust.

Then, on the evening of Saturday 3 June, seven people were killed in London by deranged, so-called Islamists, defaming the name of their prophet, one of whom apparently regarded voting as a form of blasphemy. The morning after, the prime minister emerged from Downing Street to report to the country on what had happened the night before.

Then, in an effort to pull back the advantage, May launched into a four-part programme on how the country should respond, saying. "Enough is enough" and "We cannot and must not pretend that things can continue as they are. Things need to change...". In this way, she exploited the campaign's pause to define the days news coverage as it opened the final, potentially decisive week of the campaign. She did so in the most effective way there is, by appearing to be 'above politics'. As she demanded powers over the internet, said the country and especially 'the public sector' had been 'too tolerant' of extremism and this attitude must be 'stamped out' to secure 'one truly United Kingdom', she sounded comfortable with herself, for the first time since since the campaign began.

She is, however, on the defensive. I am among those caught up in the embarrassment of upturned expectations. Just before the election was called I finished a book on the causes of Brexit and Trump that, among other things, looks at the remarkable similarities of last years campaigns the referendum and the US presidential. Both the rebellions of Brexit and Trump, were marked by an apparent authenticity. They seemed to be the real thing demanding change, while both the Remain campaign in the UK and the Clinton bid for the presidency were alike in being contrived and artificial.

But the UKs Leave campaign was divided. After the vote Theresa May stormed through the detritus of potential Conservative candidates to grab the premiership. In doing so she seemed to personify a new majority. A remainer, she spoke for the millions of Remainers who had secretly wished in their hearts to leave the EU. At the same time, Mays message to Brexiteers was that she would deliver the full Monty the people have spoken, she was their chosen vehicle, her Brexit would mean Brexit. Assisted by the Daily Mail, Mays commuter-belt anti-elitism was reinforced by a far-reaching one-nation conservatism, an endorsement of Brexits social revolution and a ruthless destruction of the Cameron-Blairite cohort that had led the UK for the previous six years - or was it nineteen?

If my books analysis of Brexit and Trump may help explain the current swing to Corbyn, it did not predict even limited success for him. On the contrary. When I looked at the huge contrast over globalisation between President Trump and Mays philosophy of Brexit, I mocked Daniel Hannan, the most eloquent advocate of her Global Britain. So confident was Hannan that the zeitgeist belonged to him and his fellow globalisers, he had dismissed the prospect of Trump becoming president out of hand. I wrote, May has embraced a Conservative Party vision of Brexit, whose master theoretician, the Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, thought (how wrong can you be?) that Trump was the Jeremy Corbyn of US politics.

How wrong can you be, indeed. With YouGov predicting a hung parliament and the momentum apparently in Corbyns favour, the delightful, if still most unlikely possibility arises that Jeremy Corbyn could become the President Trump of British politics! If so, both Hannan and I will be upturned (although he will not be celebrating).

The giant cross in the graph at the top of this article explains why such an upset is conceiveable. It plots the staggering generation gap that now commands British politics. Nearly 70% of those between 18 and 24 support Labour while over 65% of those over 65 prefer the Tories. Age rivals social class as a determinant of political behaviour in Britain, Nick Pearce and Gavin Kelly argued in April 2016, to be vindicated three months later in the referendum where the old won the day. The pensioners turned out while the young stayed in their lodgings rather than vote Remain, thanks to David Cameron and Peter Mandelsons lacklustre campaign to remain members of the EU. It was only afterwards that the Kingdoms youth woke up to the consequences of losing a continental freedom they took for granted.

This time they have been urged from the get-go to register and vote. Not so much by traditional politicians as by the masters of grime (see Dan Hancox in the New York Times) and websites like RizeUP UK and grime4corbyn. On the final day for registration, a quarter of a million under 25s got their names onto the electoral roll. Perhaps they were encouraged by Labours sudden pledge to write-off student loans for those currently in college (surely the largest direct election bribe since Thatcher said she would sell voters their council homes below market value). Polls now suggest high commitment among the young to turn out and vote on the day. We will see. But there is an enthusiasm for Corbyn amongst his supporters, old and young, which is not matched in the public appearances of Theresa May. Her voters may prove to be determined, clearly the core of her older support is, nonetheless, as the referendum showed, passion and excitement attracts extra numbers to the polling stations.

A striking analysis of social media responses across the web, by Jimmy Leachwriting in the Times, shows the positive impact Corbyn is making and the disasterous growth of negative responses aroused by Theresa May.

The election, then, will be decided by the turnout of the old. Their patriotism and longing for the past was stirred by the promise of Brexit. In the final week of this campaign the Prime Minister has reached in their direction to rally them to her cause. The generation gap was on full display in the final set-piece, TV appearance of the two leaders. May refused a debate in which she could be challenged by Corbyn and voters could compare them in direct combat. Instead, first May then Corbyn took questions from a blunt-speaking audience. Towards the end men who were past their prime challenged the Labour leader on his support for the IRA and unwillingness to press the nuclear button. Younger members who grew up after the Cold War and knowing only peace in Ireland were unmoved by obsessions with archaic forms of security.

But the Prime Ministers older supporters are reportedly aghast at the so-called dementia tax proposed in the Tory partys over-confident manifesto. It is a reasonable policy. If someone needs social care for a long-debilitating illness then the costs should be borne out of the value of their property after they die. For, as the Conservative manifesto puts it rather primly, many older people have built considerable property assets due to rising property prices. They propose to ring-fence 100,000 of inheritance should a persons estate be worth this (four times the current level). However, a sacred taboo was broken by this responsible suggestion. A Tory prime minister was suggesting a tax on wealth. The shock has still to subside, even though May ordered a rapid U-turn to cap the amount as the protests rose. The consequence of her forced change of mind, however, was even more damaging image-wise. It led to an instantaneous loss of her tough-girl persona as the strong leader capable of taking on the EU and her opponents derided her as weak and wobbly not strong and stable. Since then she has been unable to recuperate. She has fled from debates and looked uncomfortable with voters outside her privileged constituency.

They say that elections are never really changed by the short campaign and are decided by the prior settlement of opinion. Were that so, May cannot lose. But if you play snap maybe the rules do not apply. More important, it is clear and is now widely recognised thatthe prime minister has been tremendously damaged by the exposure of the campaign. She called it to be about Brexit. But she has nothing new to say about Brexit. As Labour is saying it accepts that brexit must take place, the only argument May actually wanted, over whether it should or not, has been removed from under her. Because the only argument she genuinly wanted was one about who is in charge. What Britian needs is a serious debate of what kind of Brexit, how it will work, what strategy the government intends. On this there is nothing. Or rather, the breakdown that is Brexit continues. To understand this we need to to take a step back and look at the manifestos of the two main parties.

They share a common rupture from the dominant neoliberal approach of the last 35 years, with its anti-state philosophy of market competition. In the night of media silence the old form of economic government is slipping below the waters, as the public distances itself from an epoch of military failure and financial crash. This extraordinary and far-reaching development has not been discussed on the BBC or in most of the media as they cannot use the term neoliberalism. By depriving themselves of any word to describe the UKs still dominant political-economy they are unable to ask how its approach is being repudiated by both the main parties. The only exception being a long and intelligent overview in the Economist by Adrian Wooldridge.

Of the two documents, the Tory manifesto is more philosophically explicit about its break from the past, better written and presents a sweeping redefinition of its partys approach:

We will run public services in accordance with their values as important local and national institutions. We will not only guarantee but enhance workers rights and protections. And we will develop our ambitious modern industrial strategy to get the economy working for everyone, across the whole of our nation.

we will need a state that is strong and strategic, nimble and responsive to the needs of people. While it is never true that government has all the answers, government can and should be a force for good and its power should be put squarely at the service of this countrys working people.

We do not believe in untrammelled free markets. We reject the cult of selfish individualism. We abhor social division, injustice, unfairness and inequality. We know that our responsibility to one another is greater than the rights we hold as individuals.

Mays Manifesto is not lacking in the modern either. It confronts the gig economy and supports the development of electric cars, neither mentioned by Labour, and states, we pledge to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it.

Labours Manifesto has no such general overview of its political philosophy. It gets straight down to business saying the rich are getting richer and instead we need to help the poor. Its commitment to a strategy of industrial investment parallels the Tory document while it is far more interventionist and egalitarian, calling for nationalisation of basic services.

In one way Labours manifesto is the more old-fashioned, seemingly setting out a return to the 1970s without even the zip of Tony Benn at his most radical. Its section on democracy makes no dangerous commitments that might directly threaten parliamentary socialism. But its pledge to explore options for a possibly full-scale constitutional convention that can consider 'the option of a more federalised country', along with the ambiguities and contradictions of its approach to Brexit, means, if I can use a form of double-negative, that a transformation of the way the UK is governed has not been ruled out.

The opposite is the case with the Conservative prospectus. While the energy released by Labour's approach is inventive, for all its 1970s Bennism, the spirit of Theresa May's approach is (as Wooldridge reports) a passion for the 1950s. The document demonstrates her sense that democratic reform endangers Our Precious Union. So May promises to reverse what her manifesto calls previous governments attitude of devolve and forget towards Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It says we must be strong and united to take a leading position in the world. It builds on a theme already clear from Mays speeches as Prime Minister a conscious aim to forge a single nation, We are a United Kingdom, one nation made of four. To this end, the electoral system will be reinforced not reformed with personal identification being introduced at polling stations to prove your right to vote. All this will prepare the way for the repatriation of power from the EU.

The authoritarian nature of the Tory manifesto runs against the grain of popular protest. It defines take back control as concentrating power in our prime minister for whom strength means not revealing her hand - not sharing it with self-governing citizens. The fetishization of 'strength' chimes with the attitudes of many an older voter, Labour as much Tory. And not just older ones. The image of her responding to saturday night's London terrorist attack and calling for action will reinforce this. The press will assail Corbyn for his alleged colusion with 'terrorists' in the past, and will do so without respite or granting any mercy to truth or fairness (for a vivid picture of their slant see Roy Greenslade). The problem for May is perhaps less the Manifestos approach than the fact that it was composed in the spirit of the centralisation it advocates.

In effect, its drafting was a coup within the Conservatives. Today, what passes for democratic debate in the oldest political party on earth is a private exchange of views between Theresa Mays joint chiefs of staff. If you are lucky there are anonymous reports that they have had a disagreement. The Cabinet were hardly brought into the discussion of the manifesto, its language and commitments. Its policy initiatives and wording were not shared or argued through. That is not Mays style. It is not just that the public does not like being taken for granted. The journalists and commentariat who are eager to shred Corbyn and his politics still retain a modicum of professional self-respect and cannot abide being taken for granted.

A devastating profile in the Financial Times by George Parker and Roula Khalaf quotes a former Tory minister, fighting for re-election. He said: People dont like the cult of personality and the apparent Stalinist control. The public can now see it and they dont like it. It is not often that a senior Tory accuses the party leader of Stalinism.

The FT report continues,

Senior figures in the Labour campaign privately agree voters are not about to gamble on Mr Corbyn in Number 10. Most Tory MPs also believe their prime minister will hold on, but some fear that this most unpredictable election campaign could leave her weaker rather than stronger if she is returned to Number 10 to negotiate Brexit. We will have had a bad campaign and win: Corbyn will have had a good campaign and will lose, says one minister. Then the minister adds: If she carries on like this, she will destroy herself. Thats the truth.

May is carrying on like this, in a defensive, patronising fashion, because she is hiding something: the dishonesty of her stated approach to Brexit. She is now running the final days of the campaign by proposing herself as the strong leader able to take on an aggressive European Union. To this end she declares, as often as she can, that No deal is better than a bad deal. Corbyn is not alone in saying that the UK is not at war with the EU and that there will have to be an agreement. No government can possibly risk a no deal as Martin Wolf has set out in his description of the idea as absurd. The price in terms of disruption is one the financial and exporting sectors cannot permit and will not allow. Will Hutton reinforces the point, conjuring the spectre of the 14,000 lorries that cross the channel a day, tailgating at Calais and the supermarkets running out of food. Theresa May knows this, of course. She is just strutting. Her claim that she will countenance no deal is just bluster.

Such posturing can work. However, the election has exposed the prime ministers deeper strand of contempt for democracy and openness. After she first laid out her stall I argued that the Daily Mail has taken power and that Mays politics were the expression of that papers editor, Paul Dacre, whose views, hammered out across thirty years, every Tory knew by heart. Dacre is notoriously averse to giving interviews or permitting himself to be held accountable. Although a far-more original and intelligent figure than May, he is a controller. She reproduces his dictatorial culture. To this can be added the ethos of the Home Office that she headed for six years and its blinkered, judgemental culture as described by Will Davies. Her statement yesterday after the Borough Market attack perfectly captures the combination of the Mail and the Home Office. It has given us a premier whom many in the public find increasingly repellent. Except, perhaps, when it comes to terrorism

The latest Ashcroft poll suggest a Tory majority of 60 and most doorstep reports confirm hostility to Corbyn. In other circumstances this would be a comfortable plurality for the Tories. Today, for May, it would be a rebuff. She needs at least 80 if not 100. When May called the election, she asserted that the country was united behind her plan for Brexit but Westminster was not. She felt obliged, therefore, to bring parliament into line with the people. At this rate, however, she will have divided the country even if she wins. Theresa is holy no more. She has lost her shine, and no longer personifies the nation. The main aim of her election gambit has failed.

A complete upset and a Corbyn victory of any kind, such as a hung parliament will be a tremendous blow against her hard and dirty Brexit - and could open the way for a more creative relationship with the European Union. As Theresa May's election strengthens opposition to her within the Tory Party and across the country, and breathes a new form of life into the Labour Party, her control over the meaning of Brexit has been badly damaged. What Brexit means is no longer just up to her. A process I thought would start only five to ten years hence might begin within a week.

Anthony Barnett, The Lure of Greatness, Englands Brexit and Americas Trump, can be pre-ordered from Unbound and will be in the shops at the end of August.

See the original post:
Corbyn catches the spirit of Brexit, then terror strikes - Open Democracy

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: British Prime Minister Theresa May has vowed a sweeping review of the nations counterterrorism strategy, declaring "enough is enough," following a terror attack in London Saturday that left seven dead and dozens injured. British police are holding 11 people. Attackers rammed a van into pedestrians on London Bridge and then stabbed people in nearby Borough Market. The three attackers were shot dead by the police. This is a witness to the attack.

WITNESS: It was fear on the streets of London, basically. Ive not experienced that before. Been there for 12-odd years, basically. Ive never seen that kind of fear, especially on a night out. And it was horrific to be involved in that kind of situation.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: This is the third terror attack in the U.K. in three months, following the car and knife attack on Westminster Bridge in March, in which five people were killed, and the Manchester bombing less than two weeks ago, in which 22 people were killed. The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for all three of the attacks.

Britains national elections are scheduled this Thursday. The Conservative Party and the opposition Labour Party temporarily suspended campaigning for the parliamentary elections out of respect for the victims, while the right-wing U.K. Independence Party said it would continue holding campaign events.

During an interview this morning, Prime Minister May chaired a meeting of the governments emergency committee Cobra with intelligence and security chiefs and said response to the attacks is ongoing.

PRIME MINISTER THERESA MAY: JTACthats the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centrehave confirmed that the national threat level remains at severe. That means that a terrorist attack is highly likely. The police have reported that they have put additional security measures in place to protect the public and provide reassurance, and this includes additional security measures at a number of bridges in London. The police are working hard to establish the identity of all of those who were tragically killed or injured in the event on Saturday night, but it is now clear that, sadly, victims came from a number of nationalities. This was an attack on London and the United Kingdom, but it was also an attack on the free world.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Prime Minister Theresa May vowed Sunday to conduct a sweeping review of Britains counterterrorism strategy, saying "enough is enough." Londons Mayor Sadiq Khan also spoke out after the attack.

MAYOR SADIQ KHAN: There arent words to describe the grief and anger that our city will be feeling today. Im appalled and furious that these cowardly terrorists would deliberately target innocent Londoners and bystanders enjoying their Saturday night. There can be no justification for the acts of these terrorists. And Im quite clear: We will never let them win, nor will we allow them to cower our city or Londoners. ...

Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. No reason to be alarmed. One of the things the police and all of us need to do is make sure were as safe as we possibly can be. Im reassured that we are one of the safest global cities in the world, if not the safest global city in the world. But we always evolve and review ways to make sure that we remain as safe as we possibly can.

AMY GOODMAN: Sadiq Khan is Londons first Muslim mayor. Following his remarks, President Donald Trump took to Twitter to imply the mayor had played down the severity of the attack, tweeting, quote, "At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is 'no reason to be alarmed!'" Well, in fact, Khan had been speaking about the increased police presence in the city when he said there was no reason to be alarmed. A spokesman for Khan later dismissed Trumps comments, responding the mayor, quote, "has more important things to do than respond to Donald Trumps ill-informed tweet that deliberately takes out of context his remarks urging Londoners not to be alarmed when they saw more policeincluding armed officerson the streets." In contrast to the president, other parts of the U.S. government tweeted more supportive comments. The acting U.S. ambassador to London, Lew Lukens, tweeted, "I commend the strong leadership of the @MayorofLondon as he leads the city forward after this heinous attack." All of this comes as British Prime Minister May has also called for increased web surveillance so the internet is no longer a, quote, "safe space for terrorists," unquote.

For more, we go to London, where were joined by Paul Mason, columnist for The Guardian. His most recent book, Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future.

Paul, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you first respond to the attacks and then talk about Donald Trumps attack on Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London, as he tries to calm and reassure Londoners?

PAUL MASON: Well, good morning, Amy.

Here in London, I think its worth saying we are implacable. We arewere standing firm. You know, ordinary British people fought those attackers back with chairs and bottles and whatever they could lay their hands on. Two unarmed British policemen fought them with their bare hands until, only eight minutes after the first emergency call, a squad of armed police went in and shot them dead, eight minutes after the incident started. So were pretty clear that we have an immediate response facility to this kind of terror attack, but the worrying thing is that they are increasingthree in the last 70 days, successful ones; five, its been revealed today, thwarted. So weve got an increased tempo of jihadi attacks on civilians here, ordinary people on the streets of Britain.

And just to situate things, Borough Market is a Saturday night venue for people to go and have fun. Its a bit like Venice Beach in L.A. Its like the district below Manhattan Bridge in New York in Brooklyn. Its that kind of place. Its full. Its teeming with people, doing what? Drinking alcohol, wearing as little as possible as spring turns into summer here, men and women having fun together, men and men, women and women. Its a very liberal place. Thats what those attackers were attacking. And the majority of British people, including the majority of Britains 3 million Muslim population, say no to this.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Paul Mason, youve pointed out that the number of attacks in the U.K., this was the third that occurred in as many months. What do you think accounts for the fact that ISIS is stepping up its campaign there?

PAUL MASON: Well, we dont know. We dont see all the intelligence. But my hunch is this. My hunch is that thethat many Islamist militants and radicals across the world have been inspired by the caliphate of ISISthat is, the semi-state they set up between Mosul and Raqqa in Syria. Now, the end of that state is soon to come. Thats becoming pretty clear. Now, I think, in other words, the United States, Europe, Britain, most Western democracies have to worry about what happens when the Islamic caliphate, that ISIS wanted to set up and did indeed set up, is finished off and wiped out. What happens? I thinkthats my hunch.

Now, the other problem we have here in Britain, and its a real issueI dont think its going to be solved by anyby blanket travel bans. The real issue is that we have 23,000 people on a list held by our security services who are at risk of becoming dangerous terrorists. Thats a very sobering number. Three thousand are on a watchlist that are being more or less continually under surveillance. And whats worrying is that the last three successful attacks involved people who were known to our intelligence services but considered not at risk of becoming violent. And we have to ask serious questions about how to deal with that, blame-free questions, because you have to learn from the experience.

But the political blame, especially this morning in Britain, is being laid at the door of the government, because the government cut 20,000 people from the police. Thats about a sixth of the number. They cut 1,300 armed officersagain, a largeits a big chunk of the armed contingent of the U.K. police. They cut them while doing what? Going to Libya, destabilizing Libya, pulling out of Libya, bombing Syria, taking part in numerous wars in the Middle East. The question is not the simply "Well, you know, if you attack a Middle Eastern country, expect terror." Thats facile and simplistic. The question is: If youre going to take part in globalin a global intervention into countries like Libya, where you create chaos, what happens then? Do youdo you need a better and more well-resourced police force to deal with the potential threat that then comes to you?

We dont know yet who did the onethe attack on London Bridge. It is known who they are, but the names are not released. So we dont know what their national background is. But the guy who did the bombing of the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester was a British Libyan, and it turns out his father was one of the fighters that the British had been allowing to travel freely between Britain and Libya because they were anti-Gaddafi.

So you have to join up the anti-terror aspect of policing and intelligence with the foreign policy. And this is what, many people are now concluding, our government just didnt do. They cut the police force. They dabbled in Middle Eastern politics. And itsunfortunately, were now paying the price of having a very much reduced capability in terms of what? Community policing. We want our cops to be out there walking around the streets where people live, picking up intelligence. Its come out this morning, for example, that one of the guys we think did Saturday nights knife attack had been kicked out of a mosque by that mosque, so the community had done its job. People had reported him to the anti-terror hotline. And then nothings happened.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, you know, this is all coming just before the national elections in Britain on Thursday. Prime Minister Mays opponent in the election, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, raised just this issue youre talking about, criticizing her role in the ensuring that police maintain public safety. He had previously questioned the wisdom of a shoot-to-kill policy but said on Sunday the police should use whatever force is necessary to save lives.

JEREMY CORBYN: We are ready to consider whatever proposals may be brought forward by the police and security services more effectively to deal with the terrorist threat. If Labour is elected, I will commission a report from the security services on Friday on the changing nature of the terrorist threat. Our priority must be public safety. And I will take whatever action is necessary and effective to protect the security of our people and our country. That includes full authority for the police to use whatever force is necessary to protect and save life, as they did last night, as they did in Westminster in March.

AMY GOODMAN: During his speech on Sunday, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn also made a scathing reference to President Trump.

JEREMY CORBYN: As London Mayor Sadiq Khan recognized, but which the current occupant of the White House has neither the grace nor the sense to grasp today, whether we are Muslim or Christian, black or white, male or female, gay or straight, we are united by our values, by a determination for a better world and that we can build a better society.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, that brings us back to, Paul Mason, Donald Trumps tweet against the first Muslim mayor of London and if you think even that weights in for the reason why he attacked Sadiq Khan.

PAUL MASON: Theres not a single person on the right or left of politics who sympathizes with what Trump is doing. The British prime minister, Theresa May, has eventually been forced, this morning, to distance herself and criticize Trump, but she did it very reluctantly. Others are just furious with it, because it seems like Trump has a thing about Sadiq Khan. It seems like the fact that one of the biggest, you know, liberal global cities on Earth has a Muslim mayor seems to annoy Trump every time he thinks about it. But this is beyond a joke, because, you know, we are allies in the war onin what is sensible about the war on terror, in finding out the terrorists, sharing intelligence and trying to target them and prevent their activities. Were supposed to be allies. And for Trump to carry on this knee-jerk political attack on a guy he clearly just doesnt like because the guy is a Muslim, lets be honest, is justits not helping. Its not helping.

Now, what else is not helping? Today, you reported earlier in your bulletin, weve got this huge diplomatic war breaking out in the Gulf, the very place both our countries have been obsessing about for 20 years. Weve got Saudi Arabia attacking Qatar, closing its airspace, disrupting the economy of the region. Why? Because Saudi accuses Qatar, this Gulf monarchy, of beingsupporting ISIS. The truth is, Saudi Arabia has been pumping out money and resources for extreme Islamism for decades. And so hasto be honest, Qatar has done its bit, as well, supporting the al-Qaeda groups in Syria, and so has Saudi Arabia. But why has this happened now? Because Trump visited Saudi Arabia. Trump gave Saudi Arabia some kind of green light to be much tougher rhetorically on Iran. And what is Saudi saying about Qatar this morning? Well, that Qatar is too soft on Iran. This, again, is Donald Trump meddling in issues and matters he just does not understand.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I want to go back to Corbyns speech on Sunday, because he also referred to Saudi Arabia, calling for, quote, "some difficult conversations" on Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states who he said were fueling extremist ideologies. He also accused the U.K. government, the May government, of, quote, "suppressing a report into the foreign funding of extremist groups."

JEREMY CORBYN: We do need to have some difficult conversations, starting with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states who have funded and fueled extremist ideology. Its no good, Theresa May suppressing a report into the foreign funding of extremist groups. We have to get serious about cutting off their funding to these terror networks, including ISIS here and in the Middle East.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So thats Jeremy Corbyn speaking, Labour leader, speaking Sunday night. Now, the elections are just in a matter of days, on Thursday. So, can you talk about what impact you think this attack will have, if any, on the election? And also, explain what this report is that Corbyn says the May government is suppressing.

PAUL MASON: Yeah. Well, were all trying not to politicize it. There are lessons to be learned from this attack that are just the technological and operational lessons of how you prevent and deter terrorism. But the fact is that Theresa May has visited Saudi Arabia, has sold arms to Saudi Arabia. And the report thats been suppressed is a report commissioned by her predecessor, David Cameron, the Conservative prime minister. We are told that it implicates Saudi Arabia in the funding of terrorism. And it is being buried and suppressed, which we think is a bad idea.

Now, your viewers must know that, by Friday, Corbyn could be prime minister. Its unlikely, because the Conservatives started this election with massive advantage. We have an even more biased press than you in the United States against the left and the Labour Party. But things are changing quite rapidly. And what I can tell your viewers is that if Corbyn is able to form a government on Friday, then the whole game is up for Western backing of these Wahhabi extreme dictators and head removers in Saudi Arabia, because Britainyeah, sure, we are a country thats equally implicated, in the long term, in backing that regime and other unjust regimes in the Middle East. And if Corbyn gets into 10 Downing Street, he will stop that as ayou know, day one, hour one, second one. And, of course, that will cause a big problem for Trump. But I think it is time we, in the West, had a long look at what is happening. Sure, Iran, Saudi Arabias traditional enemy, is equally a sponsor of terror. It is equally repressive. But we need to be trying to export, as it were, values and restraint and multilateralism into that Gulf region, not, as we in the United Kingdom are doing currently, arming the Saudis so they can bomb Yemen, bomb hospitals, bomb people into starvation.

So Corbyn represents a real change. And if any of your viewers feel like it, have British friends, please encourage them to have no hesitation in changing this government, because we want to do what you need to do. We need to get rid of the kind of dinosaurs of kind of the 20th century view of how one intervenes in the Middle East and, of course, the 20th century view of Islamophobia, which Im afraid TrumpsTrumps comment in that tweet about Sadiq Khan speak volumes subtextually about the Islamophobic nature of Trumps administration.

AMY GOODMAN: May said, in her speech about cracking down, that the internet has provided a safe haven for terrorists and that big companies that provide internet-based services have been complicit. What do you see coming out of this, Paul?

PAUL MASON: I think, before we say anything else, we have to say that the analysis is correct. You know, weve got big companies claiming that they dont have any interest in the content that they create. If a newspaper carried an advertisement for al-Qaeda or ISIS, that newspaper should be shut down. So, now, the internet, it is said, is ungovernable. That is also not true. It is governable in America, where most of those internet companies are based. I dont want to see the balkanization of the internet. I dont want to see increased surveillance. I dont want to see censorship. And, of course, in America, unlike here, you have your First Amendment rights. But what I think is likely, and Mays commentsI think May will be one of the last people to do this. People Ive been speaking to in the past couple of weeks are more and more confident that sooner or later in the United States those companies will be faced with a class-action lawsuit which accuses them of facilitating the distribution of terrorist propaganda. Now, they need to wake up and think about how to regulate what is done there more clearly.

And I would also say, in the United States, look, your First Amendment rights are very, very important, precious to you. So is your right to carry arms. Here in the United Kingdom, the only reason were not talking about maybe tens or hundreds dead is because those three guys could not put their finger on a 9mm pistol, let alone an assault rifle. They had to use knives, because they cant get guns. And just bear that lesson in mind, when we think about what bothyou know, the constitutional freedoms we all hold dear come at a price.

And how this relates to the internet, of course, is that ifI dont want to see a big crackdown on freedom of expression and freedom of speech, but we have to work out how we stop people being radicalized online. See, the community those guys came from, it is known, is a place in east London about two or three miles from here called Barking. And that community knew them. That community reported them to the police. But the other community they must have been part of was an online network where people are being recruited. Now, I think we do, as a civil society, need to ask ourselves what powers we give to the state in order to find those networks. I dont think breaking encryption or banning encryption works, but we need targeted surveillance. And I think, at that level, we do need web companies to start collaborating and cooperating with democratic states, because, otherwise, you justyou create a safe space online where these guys are getting radicalized and getting their orders.

AMY GOODMAN: Paul Mason, we want to thank you very much for being with us. Of course, well continue to cover this issue and many others.

PAUL MASON: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Paul Mason, columnist for The Guardian, filmmaker, based in London. His most recent book, Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future. When we come back, President Trump has raised the Muslim ban as a response to what happened in London, so well discuss it. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: "Liar Liar" by Captain SKA. The song is a protest against British Prime Minister Theresa May. It rose to number four on the U.K. Singles Chart last week, even as the BBC refused to broadcast the song and made it unavailable for streaming on the BBC website. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Im Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.

See the rest here:
Trump Attacks London's Mayor & Jeremy Corbyn Calls for Theresa May's Ouster After Terror in London - Democracy Now!

Communism is one of our top all-time lookups, and user comments suggest thats because it is often used in opaque ways. In some sources, communism is equated with socialism; in others, it is contrasted with democracy and capitalism. Part of this confusion stems from the fact that the word communism has been applied to varying political systems over time. When it was first used in English prose, communism referred to an economic and political theory that advocated the abolition of private property and the common sharing of all resources among a group of people, and it was often used interchangeably with the word socialism by 19th-century writers. The differences between communism and socialism are still debated, but generally English speakers used communism to refer to the political and economic ideologies that find their origin in Karl Marxs theory of revolutionary socialism, which advocates a proletariat overthrow of capitalist structures within a society, societal and communal ownership and governance of the means of production, and the eventual establishment of a classless society. The most well-known expression of Marxs theories is the 20th-century Bolshevism of the U.S.S.R., in which the state, through a single authoritarian party, controls a societys economy and social activities with the goal of realizing Marxs theories.

Communism is often contrasted with capitalism and democracy, though these can be false equivalencies depending on the usage. Capitalism refers to an economic theory in which a societys means of production are held by private individuals or organizations, not the government, and where prices, distribution of goods, and products are determined by a free market. It can be contrasted with the economic theories of communism, though the word communism is used of both political and economic theories. Democracy refers to a system of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised through a system of direct or indirect representation which is decided through periodic free elections. Democracy is contrasted with communism primarily because the 20th-century communism of the U.S.S.R. was characterized by an authoritarian government, whereas the democracy of the 20th-century U.S. was characterized by a representative government.

Read more from the original source:
Democracy | Definition of Democracy by Merriam-Webster