Who is to blame?

The media have helped to build up UKIP into a 'fourth political party'. Even though the Party still doesn't even control any councils in the entire country and have no representation in the House of Commons. The Green Party has representation in Parliament. Yet it is UKIP who are the 'fourth party' championed by the press, whether explicitly or in frantic fear-mongering. The facts that the Party has within its ranks types who want to do away with universal suffrage and universal health-care barely comes up. Caroline Lucas of the Green Party is a non-presence in the media, yet Farage is asked onto BBC Question Time more than any other politician.

Now the press are looking for a scapegoat. The blame has fallen on Ed Miliband in some quarters. Actually the truth about the UKIP 'revolution' and the reasons for it are less simplistic. My friend Chris Horner took this from The Guardian:

Ukip's share of the vote went down this week, not up. Yes, it scored impressively well, in the high teens of vote share according to BBC projections, but it did not come close to dislodging Labour and the Conservatives as the two frontrunner parties, while the Liberal Democrats remained far behind in the low teens. The 2014 elections, in short, look less like the eruption of a new political order than the partial solidification of the one that erupted a year ago. The earthquake was last year, not this.

This point was echoed by Dan Hodges and by others elsewhere. The media wants this to be a threat and they want it to hurt Labour more than the Conservatives. The entire establishment are to blame for their inability to deal with the nuisance of Farage. The reason why Nick Clegg couldn't win the debate with the UKIP leader was because he has already conceded the major issues. The same can be said of Ed Miliband and David Cameron. All of them accept Thatcherism as their starting-point. Only an outsider can tackle Farage and only an outsider can tackle Lib-Lab-Con.

The Boris Johnson Symptom.

 

In recent years there has not been a more significant symptom of disarray within the Conservative Party than the undiluted veneration of Boris Johnson. This is especially the case with the constant talk of Boris becoming Party Leader and maybe even Prime Minister one day. The Conservative Party must be aware of the fact that they haven’t won a majority government in more than 20 years. It’s hard to picture the traditionalists being massaged into ecstasy by a Prime Minister BJ, perhaps even less so than Prime Minister DC. So it must be about the desperation in the knowledge that the Party seriously needs popular appeal. The right-wing adoration for Boris ranks in high farce. There were those who claimed his re-election in 2012 was down to his strong conservative principles. Toby Young has bet £15,000 with Nigella Lawson that, by 2018, Boris will be Tory leader and, in the imagination of some, a prospective Prime Minister. Then in 2012, that custodian of the sacred foetus, Nadine Dorries came out in standard reactionary flair to berate David Cameron as a ‘sheep in wolf’s clothing’ before fawning over the imaginary prospect of a Boris Cabinet.

 

The prospect remains a realistic one in the minds of many. Yet we’d do better to examine the Boris phenomenon with more serious eyes. If we assume that Boris is sensible (a risk we may live to regret) then surely the Mayoral office is much more suited to his attributes. It’s not that he is an effective politician due to his strong conservative principles. The efficacy of the Johnson persona is his relatively detached relationship with power which lends great prowess to the anti-political role of a clown. As Mayor Boris enjoys the freedom to rail against the government and not commit to anything. In a higher office Boris would lose this non-committed freedom and be held to rigorous scrutiny within Parliament and in the press. No amount of bluster from foolish reactionaries and eejits will change this obvious flaw in the delusion. It was precisely the anti-political purity of Boris Johnson by comparison with Ken Livingstone that secured the glass testicle for the Conservatives. Boris doesn’t come across as a politician. He’s a combination of the Wodehousian aristo and a political tabula rasa. Behind the blank veneer you find, at best, the incoherence of market liberalism.

 

Last week Boris put forward a series of proposals for a ’2020 vision of London’ which he claims as his own. Apparently the future will be a ‘golden age’ in transport for Londoners. The programme is exactly what we would expect from the anti-political populist who has run City Hall for five years now. The prospect of 75% automation has the mouths of many commuters watering profusely. Smashing the last of the strong trade unions in this country is a cause endorsed by liberals as well as conservatives. It’s a broad based appeal to the urban poor who don’t want their lives disrupted regularly by strikes (and with good reason); as well as the suburban middle-classes who hope the roads may be less congested if the unwashed hordes are shuffling about underground. The regressive fare hikes are defended as necessary measures in austere times, yet it was Boris who closed the deal with Venezuela for cheap oil – a deal cut by Mr Livingstone to maintain low bus fares. There is no talk of necessity when it comes to slamming the breaks on the congestion charge to rake in petit-bourgeois votes. Simultaneously the £12 billion development of Crossrail 2 no doubt offers prospects for speculators, just as the extension of the Jubilee line cost £3.5 billion while it raised land values for speculators to rake in £13 billion.

 

Much has been made of the late date at which these proposals have been put forward. It is five years since Boris strode into City Hall on horseback leading a populist cavalry against ‘Red’ Ken and only three years until the next Mayoral election. It’s possible that the plan has been timed so that only a few of the proposals actually come into fruition. The safe bet would be that the transport reforms will pass, but the aim of building 400,000 new homes may not. After all this city is not for the poor, it’s for the wealth-creators in Canary Wharf. The London working-class find themselves battered by such regressive taxes as VAT and the exorbitant travel fares which absorb so much of the wage packet. Meanwhile the housing benefit reforms are likely to force many out of their homes as the question of extreme rents remains unanswered and even unacknowledged.

 

Take note, the so-called plan to build 400,000 new homes for the next decade amounts to releasing more publicly-owned land to be developed (probably by private companies) combined with greater borrowing for local government to boost building projects and a ‘use it or lose it’ measure to ensure private investment leads to development. The Mayor advocates the devolution of power – particularly over property taxes – to City Hall in order to further facilitate greater investment. All the while Boris Johnson argues that there is nothing to be gained from regulating the financial colossus in the City. It would seem this is more of a plan for profitability than anything else. It’s possible then that the houses may be built, but in what form we can only speculate. We can gauge as much from the fact that City Hall approved the construction of a block of luxury flats in Elephant & Castle as part of a billion-pound gentrification project. Just as we can expect similar efforts in Hammersmith around the Westfield centre where land values have risen. It’s plausible that the local working-class will be pushed out to make way for very nice houses for the more bourgeois.

 

With all this in mind, it seems there is an uncertain future for the Conservative Party with its shrunken talent pool. It seems probably that Cameron will hold onto his position simply because there isn’t a serious contender to unseat him. That goes for Ed Miliband, who poses little serious opposition to Cameron’s government in terms of policy. We can thank the Labour Party for helping to keep Margaret Thatcher in office for 11 years and we shouldn’t shirk to place the blame where’s its due come 2015. Not that we should really care that the Conservative Party seems a bit short of an effective leader, as it has been since the hag was slain, as what’s really lacking is opposition. The economy is still struggling to drag itself out of this slump, for the ruling-class there aren’t any clear answers at hand. Likewise, there aren’t any obvious ways for the Establishment to circumvent the problems incurred by economic crisis and electoral despair. In short, the signs of disarray within the Conservative Party are to be welcomed as much as the timidity of Labour and Lib Dem is to be despised.

This article was originally posted on the Third Estate on June 15th 2013.

A note on the Woolwich murder.

 

On Facebook I posted the following points as a status after the hours of coverage of the attack in Woolwich and I stand by them today:
1. Your sympathy belongs with the victim and their family. It should go without saying that this is a horrible crime.
2. The perpetrators are not representatives of Islam, or immigration, they are murderous thugs and will go down for this. That's a good thing. We shouldn't let a pair of murderers change our society. No death penalty. No deportation. To be a civilised country means treating the worst people in a way which doesn't lower ourselves to their level.
3. Don't concede any ground to racists and/or neo-Nazis who are clambering over one another to exploit the death of another human being. The EDL have been quick to get down to Woolwich, they deserve no attention nor should we pretend they have any serious claim to comment on this crime.
4. This looks like a political act, if so then we have to talk about the real reasons for anger against Western governments from the Muslim world. A question that is much bigger . That means we have to address the wars that have waged in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the dictatorships that have been supported by Western governments for decades.

 

In the discussion that followed this post I was told that point 4 is in contradiction with the first points and that it constitutes a 'mitigation'. That's simply not the case as I was making a more subtle point than some can appreciate. The fourth point is the last of the points because I consider it to be the last of priorities under such extreme circumstances. It's a sorry fact about the world that there is no time for criticism of American and British foreign policy after the war in Iraq and the on-going occupation of Afghanistan. There isn't a causal link between the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the murder of Lee Rigby. It's plausible that there are people who could've killed even if these events hadn't taken place. But there is a sense in which certain foreign policy decisions fed the narrative of radical Islamism. That is the narrative and set of ideas the media describe as 'ideology'.

Kick the Glass Bollock!

Until Victory, Always!

A little over a year since the March for the Alternative, George Galloway caught everyone off guard and was rushed into office in Bradford West. The execration could soon be heard. It came howling from the open jaws of the Labour Party machine with its entitlement to squat over the post-industrial North ever ready to defecate! The liberal commentariat managed to lower itself from the heights of mud-slinging to the lows of booing and hooting at the victor. How distasteful it was that the electorate had rejected the established Left? For almost 40 years Bradford had been a 'safe seat' for Labour and Ed Miliband was embarrassingly on his way to celebrate victory. This humiliation is not something the political class will take likely. And this is more reason to think that the Establishment will want to save face in the London Mayoral. It is a perfect opportunity to send a clear message to David Cameron: Fuck You! But it is unclear where an alternative figure would come from in the Mayoral.

We face a choice between Boris Johnson, Ken Livingstone and Brian Paddick. But really we just have two choices: more Mayor BJ or a return to Red Ken. There's no point pretending that the third party matters anymore after this government. Voting may not just be a right, but a civic duty that demands of us and makes us participants. And yet it is impossible to be enthused at the prospect of the same choice we had 4 years ago. Ultimately, the London Mayoral is a test for the Coalition and victorious Boris would certainly provide a much-needed symbolic vindication for this government. If the glass testicle fell into the hands of Ken Livingstone, once again, then we might hear talk of a coming Labour administration in 2015. The rejection of a softened version of what we're getting will be interpreted as a loving embrace of what we're enduring already. Only less or more austerity are viable, no real yes or no for us to choose from on the question of cuts.

The Genital of Patronage.

There is room for protest votes, as always, the BNP and UKIP are there to soak up the rage like the miserable sponges they are. Probably the best left-wing alternative to Ken Livingstone is the Green candidate Jenny Jones. You may hear that little voice inside that inquires rhetorically "How could she ever win?" No doubt people said the same of Gorgeous George. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the Green Party lacks the same potential to unify a mass-base as RESPECT had done in Bradford. It was a populist tidal wave formed by the white working-class, the Muslim community and the student population upon which George Galloway surfed. It's difficult to see a repeat of that in London with the line-up we have. At least at the level of appearances, the possibilities opened by Galloway's victory for the Left could be slammed shut by another term of Boris.

With all of this in mind Ken Livingstone is not the worst of Labour, far from a disgraced Blairite, even if we take into account his most cynical and opportunistic moments. Putting aside the hysterical attempts by the Right to vilify Ken. He remains one of a precious handful of politicians, like Tony Benn, who understand what is at stake when social democracy is being eviscerated before our eyes. And it is the preservation of social democracy which we, as citizens, should be concerned with most at this juncture. We have to keep in mind what this country could have been had it been kept out of the hands of people like Margaret Thatcher and her loyal successors. The welfare state won't save itself and the liberals have proven incapable of defending it. This is a time for pragmatism, not a detached anti-political purity of character.

Путин and il Cavaliere.

The Cult of the Strong Man.

Putin and Berlusconi have more in common than we might assume at first. The pair of them are thoroughly reactionary, the latter standing for a combination of liberal technocracy and right-wing populism while the former stands on a ruthless oligarchy and the tide of Russian nationalism. At the apex where ultra-politics (nationalist populism) converge with anti-politics (small state liberalism) Berlusconi managed to hold his balance for on-and-off 17 years. But the same can be said of Putin in Russia for the last decade, albeit in a more refined form of authoritarianism and on a much larger scale. The total cynicism with which this pair have governed may have no other match in this day and age. Putin was shameless when he announced he would be running for the Presidency once again, he openly admitted the arrangement he had forged with Medvedev. The two of them agreed, many years ago, to take turns running the state as President and Prime Minister. It is almost as though there is no need for illusions and facades, the erosion of democracy is bluntly acknowledged in public life.

The pair of them are creatures of the supposedly post-political age which holds us hostage. It was the fall of the Berlin Wall which set the wheels in motion to elevate Putin and Berlusconi to high office. Both of them have been active in the reduction of politics to a mere spectacle, which is not engaged in and no one really cares about. The cynicism takes a postmodern turn as Berlusconi became a parody of the cynical opportunist and self-serving scum-bag. The same can be said of Putin's particular brand of permissive nationalism, freedom from constraint joined with the strong-arm of the state. The crackpot populism of Berlusconi collides with technocratic liberalism, effectively it's rule-by-bankers and the only opposition comes from the immigrant-loving Communists who have infiltrated the Establishment. The same can be said of the criminal state in Russia which has exiled the oligarchs not aligned with Putin's inner circle. The only opposition permitted within Russia comes from crypto-fascists to which Putin stands in balance with the Russian oligarchy.

When Communism fell apart Boris Yeltsin destroyed civil society with economic reforms, Putin emerged at the end of the decade as the strong-man with the answer to Russia's illth. Once the Cold War ended then the Americans withdrew support for right-wing campaigns against the Italian Communist Party as it disintegrated, but then an enormous corruption scandal obliterated the major parties. As the dust settled Berlusconi emerged from the rubble with a political party named after a football team, it was composed of disillusioned liberals and self-described "post-Fascists". For a long time it looked as though the age of Berlusconi may only end with his death in public office. Thankfully the forces within the government converged amidst the economic crisis with popular discontent and Berlusconi was forced from office. Now we can see protests in Russia over the rigged elections, it would seem that the Russians are not simply barbarians who do not care for democracy and would leave Putin's gang to run amok in Moscow.

Good Riddance.

The Politics of Euroscepticism.

The strange history of Euroscepticism in Britain goes back decades, it was ironically the Conservatives who were much more keen on European integration and the Labour Party were opposed to the project insofar as it could potentially hold-back socialism. In fact, the labour movement was opposed to economic integration out of a staunch protectionist attitude towards British industry and a general fear of foreign competition. In this respect Bob Crow is a throw-back to a bygone politics. The opposition to integration within the Conservative Party first took the form of a campaign (which was led by the Earl of Sandwich) to prevent Britain from entering the Common Market in the early 1960s. It was based on a superstitious nationalism which elevated the British above the "frogs and huns" of the continent. So we find that the opposition to European integration included Michael Foot and Enoch Powell, it united the opposing elements of the Left and the Right.

 

The anti-Politics of the Market.

The specific tendency of right-wing opposition to the European Union goes back to the roots of think-tanks and Thatcherism in Britain. It was none other than Friedrich von Hayek who convinced Antony Fisher that the only way to bring about political change is to form think-tanks, which will propagate "second-hand ideas" and shape the discourse in doing so. Fisher went on to found the Institute of Economic Affairs and about 150 other think-tanks in his lifetime. For years Antony Fisher and Oliver Smedley had sought to undermine state-planning in Britain. Fisher and Smedley were convinced that the state-planning apparatus would lead Britain down the road to totalitarianism by its very nature. For them even the Milk Marketing Board and Egg Marketing Board were innately opposed to freedom. The Common Market was just a bigger state-system of economic planning, as Smedley and Fisher had introduced battery farming to Britain they were naturally sceptical of any government policy on agriculture.

The state-planning apparatus  had a scientific guise complete with a technocratic system, the ideals of classical liberalism looked out of date by comparison. The appeal of Hayek was that he had developed a technocratic theory of the market, so the old ideals were torn out of their original context and revamped for the modern age. So Adam Smith's invisible hand becomes a metaphor for a cybernetic flow of information exchange, whereby the abstract signals sent out by millions of people forms the price mechanism; and the key to order without central planning. It would be an automatic system of signalling which would be self-directed. This is the only alternative because it is not possible to hold all information in one central system. Major Smedley went further than just help found think-tanks and actually pioneered pirate radio in order to "liberate" information from state-control. The nostalgic look back on it now as the epitome of the cultural revolution which obliterated traditionalism in the 60s. In reality the first pirate radio-station was the beginning of the counter-revolution.

Smedley ran his radio-station with great success, but he was intolerant of competition and wanted a monopoly on his new venture. So when Reg Calvert popped up it was not unbelievable just how fast the situation deteriorated into violence. The rival station was raided by thugs-for-hire and Calvert was shot dead as he tried to confront Smedley, who went on to be acquitted of murder. Even though Reg Calvert represented the kind of individualist that the think-tanks, set up by Fisher, should have praised. The truth was Smedley represented the old aristocracy, which felt entitled to manage the system through the private sector. There was no room for people who genuinely wanted to act as free individuals regardless of the power-structure. To those with the upper-class sense of entitlement the doctrines of classical liberalism remain a useful tool in corroding the welfare state. As Adam Curtis has pointed out, the neoliberal aim was never to shake the established power-structure to its core and re-order it. Even for Hayek the state has its' role in a managerial capacity, to maintain a competitive order, which is not much different from economic planning in a sense. Of course, people like Antony Fisher and Oliver Smedley detest any kind of bureaucracy except when they are the managerial aristocracy.

It was in the midst of the economic stagnation of the 1970s that the "second-hand" ideas of the Institute of Economic Affairs were welcomed into mainstream politics, along with the doctrines of monetarism developed at the Chicago School of Economics by Milton Friedman. It was not until the 1980s that the welfare state was "rolled back" to make way for the market. It was then that the ideas of Hayek and Friedman supplanted Keynes as the economic orthodoxy. Thatcher blended these ideas with rational expectations and Goodhart's Law. The economy could not be managed by the state and there was no way to achieve full employment, so it was tossed aside as a goal that should even be considered. The post-war settlement of social democracy was torn apart bit by bit. The social planners had failed and so all other alternatives could be dismissed even as options in the new era of "popular capitalism". The promised dynamism of the free-market could be unlocked through the politics of 'commonsense' rather than ideology. The irony is that this is the ideology of the free-market, it becomes even more evident when the mission runs up against serious obstacles.

The Master and Medvedev.

So, it looks like Vladimir Putin will be President of Russia by March 2012 due to a convenient arrangement with Dmitry Medvedev, who succeeded Putin in 2008 though Putin stayed on as Prime Minister. By 2008 Putin had served two terms as Russian President and had to allow someone else to take office for at least a term because of a constitutional technicality. So Medvedev stood for the Presidency and Putin became Prime Minister for 4 years. In return Medvedev will serve as Prime Minister and lead United Russia. This is not a surprise to anyone familiar with the highly cynical and corrupt nature of Russian politics. It has reached the point that there is not even a whiff of shame to be found at such scenes anymore. It was in front of an audience of dutiful bureaucrats that the decision was announced, then came an embrace which the bureaucrats were keen to welcome with applause. Then it was openly stated that Putin and Medvedev had come up with this arrangement several years ago. The obvious had been admitted.

The possibility of 12 years of Vladimir Putin draws the inevitable comparison with Joseph Stalin in the Western media, e.g. if Putin retains power until 2024 he will be Russia's longest serving ruler since Stalin. When faced with a Russian authoritarianism the Western media can only refer us back to the shibboleths of the old Communist Party. Sadly it doesn't go without saying that the rise of Putin cannot be understood without context. The Economist would have you believe that it is Putin who has undermined Russian democracy before it got a chance to flourish; created a "Mafia state" of crony capitalism via the Kremlin and poisoned the benevolent experiment with liberal capitalism. The conclusion being that the West should adopt a tougher policy towards Russia, e.g. to support Ukraine and Georgia. There is no room for a deeper look at the roots of Putinism, because we might find that the post-Communist world is not just an orgy of consumerism where the sky is the limit when it comes to free-choice and rates of growth.

For the journalists at The Economist it was Putin's failure to shirk from liberalisation of the economy which will lead Russia into future crises. According to The Economist these "weaknesses may make Russia unstable and nationalistic, which will make it harder for foreigners to deal with." Even though nationalism has been a strong tendency in Russia for a long time and the economy was plunged into a deep crisis in the 1990s as a result of reforms. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, with the advice and support of the US, Boris Yeltsin initiated economic "shock therapy" - a wave of spending cuts, removal of price-controls, deregulation and a spree of privatisation. It was "creative destruction" as millions were plunged into poverty, prices shot through the roof and ruthless businessmen grabbed as much as they could. The country was effectively looted as the state became increasingly ensnared by the oligarchs that had managed to seize large chunks of Russian industry in the chaos. Ultimately the structural adjustments of the Russian economy provide the pretext and create the conditions for a figure such as Putin to emerge on top.

There is no attempt to even reflect on this point in the pages of The Economist. Of course, what really bugs the squealing pigs at The Economist is that the new Russia has yet to join the World Trade Organisation and that the rampant corruption in the country has a disruptive impact on the market. This is not a fundamental critique of Putinism. Primarily The Economist is displeased with Putin's specific choice of Prime Minister and would prefer it if he had chosen Alexei Kudrin over Medvedev. The reason: Kudrin stands for "fiscal responsibility" which means spending cuts for the plebs. The fact that Kudrin can balance a budget means more to this lot than the fact he's just another crony. Kudrin has an affinity for civil liberties, human rights and political pluralism, so he is much more appealing than Medvedev. But he is even more appealing as a "martyr" to liberal values in a barbarous land, it feeds into the self-serving narrative in the Western media. If Alexei Kudrin was Prime Minister under Putin then he would no doubt walk the same line as Medvedev.

The Economist notes that the swap between Medvedev and Putin "opens a new chapter in Russian history - one that may well end in crisis." The fact that it was a crisis in 1998 which allowed Putin to slither into the Kremlin in the first place. The "new chapter" began with the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which Fukuyama heralded the "End of History" and a pisshead named Boris Yeltsin became the President of the new Russia. The collapse of Communism left a void, it was as if all ideologies had failed and the world had entered a post-political age of managerial governance which fed into a climate of cynical anti-politics. Since then an ultra-nationalist populism has emerged, as well as anti-Communist hysteria and even a conservative nostalgia for the Cold War. In a similar way to Berlusconi in Italy Putin stands as a bulwark to the chaos of the marketplace which is conveniently situated at the apex where ultra-politics and anti-politics collide. The only "alternative" permitted by the Kremlin is the Russian Communist Party, everywhere the politics of Russia is riddled with ultra-rightist and proto-fascist groups such as the National Bolsheviks. All the while the Western media is only capable of liberal day-dreams about the new Russia.

The Politics of Berlusconismo.

La Rivoluzione Culturale 

For Italy the "End of History" did not just mean the end of the Cold War, the triumph of liberal democracy and global capitalism, it meant the end of politics as it had been experienced for decades. The fall of the Soviet Union led to a kind of domino-effect in Italy, in which the Communist Party collapsed in 1991 and then the Christian Democrats disintegrated in 1994 after the biggest corruption scandal in post-war Italian history. The Establishment was shaken to it's core. The Americans had withdrawn the Cold War level of support for the forces of reaction. The aim of which was to prevent the rise of Eurocommunism in Italy, which was a significant attempt by the Communist Party to take an independent line from the Soviet Union; to embrace the democratic norms of Western Europe and differentiate itself from Trotskyism at the same time. All alternatives to late capitalism were ruled out completely as 'failed experiments' as the mainstream politics collapsed and then came the emergence of Silvio Berlusconi.


The Italian version of Rupert Murdoch soon launched Forza Italia just as the five parties which had governed Italy since 1947 imploded. Since winning a term in 1994 Berlusconi has changed Italy in ways which were unimaginable before Tangentopoli. As social democracy began to 'disappear' the discourse narrowed to the point that the spectrum runs from technocratic liberalism to reactionary populism. The mass-media has been complicit in the imposition of a new discourse narrowed to benefit a regenerated band of old politicians in a supposedly post-ideological era. Berlusconi went even further to fuse technocratic liberalism with reactionary populism. As politics are rendered an apolitical spectacle in which the minimal dignity of state authority is obliterated and the state is left to function as cynically as possible. Ironically it was Berlusconi who was behind the "cultural revolution" in Italy. To paraphrase Erik Gandini, the TV empire Berlusconi built subjected the Italian people to a culture which is a reflection of Berlusconi himself.

The crisis of the early 90s also facilitated the rise of Lega Nord, a secessionist pack of racists, in precisely the working-class areas of Northern Italy which had supported the Communists. These are the natural allies of Berlusconi. It appears that Silvio Berlusconi has a knack for reawakening the darkest tendencies in Italian politics. It was Berlusconi who also brought self-described "post-Fascist" Gianfranco Fini in from the cold in 1994. Until last year, if Berlusconi had died of a Viagra-overdose he would have been succeeded by a man who considers himself the heir to Benito Mussolini. So beneath the buffoonery of the regime there is a sinister strand in which Silvio Berlusconi is truly at home, in the grizzly shit under the surface of the public persona which has been enhanced over the years through plastic surgery and hair-dye. Remember it was Berlusconi who first said "What is on TV exists, what is not on TV does not exist."

As Gandini goes onto explain, il Cavaliere is linked with il Duce on a physical wavelength as both of them were very physical in a way that Italian politicians are not normally. Berlusconi used his body language, his virility and even his smile to reach people in a way that the bespectacled politicians of the Establishment cannot. He resurrected the same kind of physicality as Mussolini. All the while he remains totally contemporary, Berlusconi belongs to the post-political era of savvy managerialism which can easily be imported from the TV industry. In the world of television it is all about emotive imagery and the consequent impressions. The way Berlusconi used the attack on him in Milan served him well, the scandals were 'disappeared' from the media for a while and he could play the victim even as he is the most privileged man in the country. It is about gut reactions, passions and rages. This is the way to turn TV stars into politicians as Berlusconi has done in the past.

As il Cavaliere has resurrected the "Fascism Lite" of Italy, so it could be that he embodies Italian ultra-politics. Slavoj Žižek would specifically designate forms of right-wing populism and fascism as ultra-politics. The ultra-political leader is charged as the commander-in-chief to destroy the enemy, a military task that forms the basis of his legitimacy. Rather than the regulated opposition between social antagonists, the political here requires the physical destruction of enemies. The enemy is whoever poses a threat to our way of life, which is decided by the leader. As ultra-politics is authoritarian by definition, the depoliticisation of conflict is accomplished through the militarisation of politics. This is done as the conflict is reformulated as between "us" and "them", where there is no common ground for symbolic conflict. The class struggle is reformulated in order to instigate a working-class rebellion against the corrupt elites and the corrosive effects of immigration.

Silvio Berlusconi presents himself as the stereotypical Italian male: corrupt, sexually promiscuous and bombarded by legal problems. To the average voter, this says "I am one of you." The mockery of politics along with the larger than life persona of Berlusconi functions to depoliticise the most political of events. The persona feeds into the populist paranoia of anti-communism and anti-immigrant campaigns.  Anyone who opposes him - which includes the majority of the population - is a part of the corrupt elite of communists which has imposed immigration on Italy and wants to open the floodgates of African immigrants into the country. The anti-political tendency in society can bifurcate into two seemingly separate strands, business-oriented authoritarianism in one corner and militant anti-statism in the next. The potential forms of which each take can be horrifying, just take the Oklahoma City Bombing which was a reaction of the angry white men against Big Government that was to hold responsible for all evils in society.


It is not that Berlusconismo is purely anti-political or ultra-political, but rather it is the apex at which anti-politics meet ultra-politics in a way which has changed Italy in ways that were unimaginable before Tangentopoli. The natural reaction to the unprecedented corruption scandal in a post-political age was disillusionment with the political class in general and despair at the Establishment. The anti-political Forza Italia offered a libertarian line originally, which was highly popular in the North. Typically the party consisted of the cynics who once filled the ranks of the fallen Establishmentarian parties and has picked up the vote of the disillusioned. The rise of Berlusconi as a political force has complimented the "cultural revolution" - which turned his values into national values - he had already achieved before he ever ran for office. The fallout from the Cold War necessitated a resurgence of the radical Right as the only force which could take-up the popular appeals of class against the Left.

The Obscenity of Berlusconi.

"I am absolutely sure to be the most democratic man to ever become Prime Minister in Italy." - Silvio Berlusconi

The long awaited and final downfall of il Cavaliere may come in the form of a conviction for paying an underage girl for sex, as well as other charges of fraud, it is clear that these allegations are just the tip of the ice-berg with this man. For Berlusconi it is all an elaborate conspiracy cooked up by communists, just like the months of legal battles over corruption allegations, constitutional crises, political infighting and a lot of sex scandals - which have become an obsession for the media. These scandals and crises left Berlusconi hanging in power by a thread. Back in February women demonstrated against Berlusconi, who personifies the rampant sexism and misogyny which is endemic in Italian society. The sexual excesses of Berlusconi have been widely documented and chewed up by the media, though we ought to remember that, as Noam Chomsky once said, "When the press focuses on the sex lives of politicians, reach for your pocket and see who's pulling out your wallet."


The glorious accomplishments of Berlusconi style authoritarianism include a stagnant economy, one of the world's highest levels of public debt and 30% youth unemployment. He has seen to it that the state will sanction the murder of illegal immigrants, the boats they use to travel over to Italy can be sunk. As for those people who dare to try and climb aboard fishing boats can be beaten without any serious chance of prosecution. Berlusconi has also been keen to introduce legislation to raise the prison sentences for illegal immigrants to a third higher than for an Italian. With the state of emergency implemented in 2008, thousands of soldiers were deployed to "combat" illegal immigration, organised crime and sexual deviancy... Oh the irony! Berlusconi was eager to speak to the hysterical fears of Italians with a populist line of delivery on policy which was supported by the mass-media that he dominates. At it's weirdest and most disturbing moment Italy saw Jewish-Italians voting for neo-fascists on the basis of Berlusconi's support for Israel.

The populist campaign Berlusconi has launched against the judiciary, who were heroes after Tangentopoli in the early 1990s and to whom Berlusconi is partly indebted in that sense. Since then he has consistently portrayed the judges as agents of the radical Left and has succeeded in doing so, the judiciary has been left widely discredited. In 2009 it seemed as though the separation of powers had been seriously undermined by Berlusconi in this way. Through the mass-media which he dominates directly and indirectly, a new commonsense supplanted old values and ideas. There was a common belief that there was no alternative to Berlusconi, which has some ring of truth to it as the Italian Left has yet to recover from the collapse in the early 90s. Then there is the notion that he embodies the country and that the Party of Freedom is the people of Italy. Meanwhile, the Italian state has become a shadow of Big Business as Berlusconi hurled himself into politics to defend his empire from the Left.

"The real Italian anomaly is not Silvio Berlusconi but communist prosecutors and communist judges in Milan who have attacked him again and again since he entered politics." - Silvio Berlusconi

Keep in mind that Berlusconi first came to power in May 1994 in the shadow of Tangentopoli - the biggest bribery scandal in post-war Italian history - which led to the collapse of the major political parties in a quagmire of corruption charges. As Forza Italia was founded in the midst of the crisis prosecutors found that Berlusconi had made a payment of 23 billion lire, the equivalent of more than £10m, to Bettino Craxi. It was the single largest bribe ever paid to an Italian politician. Berlusconi was convicted in that case but the conviction was quashed because of the statute of limitations. The Socialist Party which was led by Craxi collapsed and the former Prime Minister fled to Tunisia rather than face a prosecution. In retrospect, the current Prime Minister of Italy has made Richard Nixon look polished and not just clean in morals. The lurch to the Right in the midst of political turmoil in the 1990s might be matched by a lurch to the Left after Berlusconi finally falls.




It appears that the regime that he has been constructing all these years may not last until 2013. The conflict within the government over major issues like the intervention in Libya. Even Gianfranco Fini has abandoned il Cavaliere to found a new party of his own after he helped to secure the five-point programme of the incumbent administration back in September. It is seems quite strange in retrospect that it looked as though Berlusconi would no doubt serve a full 5 year term in 2009. It should also be noted that there is still a need for a Gramsci or a Togliatti, just as there was in 2009. There has been a resurgence in support for opposition parties in local elections which has further undermined Berlusconi's position. There is also a growing youth movement to force him from office on the streets, it looks as though the government might finally crumble. But there is still a serious need for a viable alternative to Berlusconi, which is the only reason he has been able to hold on this long. 

The lack of formidable opposition to Berlusconi has been made evident over the years by his unsettling ability to constantly reinvent his political platform and relaunch himself. Even when Romano Prodi won the General Election of 2006 by a small majority Berlusconi could resort to the game that he was "robbed", the insinuation of vote-rigging and the refusal to concede victory. Then the legal wranglings, which constrained the ability of the opposition to gain a majority in the Senate, he had personally crafted contributed to the crisis which led to Prodi's downfall in 2008. Remember this is the same fellow who claims to be the target of intense scrutiny from a left-wing elite which has exercised a campaign against him through the judiciary and the media. The line that there is a conspiracy against him is constantly used even though he dominates the media in Italy. After Avvenire questioned the moral fibre of the Prime Minister il Giornale, which is run by his brother Paolo Berlusconi, vilified the editor of Avvenire as a closet homosexual who had harassed the wife of his lover.

"I always win, I'm cursed to win." - Silvio Berlusconi

The man is no underdog, which is clear as Silvio Berlusconi is the only Prime Minister in the history of the Italian Republic to rule for a 5 years. He has had unprecedented influence on the country's culture in the last 30 years and has dominated the political discourse for over 15 years. Two years ago he commanded the biggest majority in Italian political history. He has garnered the hospitality of such political leaders as Vladimir Putin, Muammar al-Gaddafi and Tony Blair. To each of whom he has "donated" at least nine watches. He has used the money he has accumulated over the years to purchase splendid homes at home and abroad, including one in the Bahamas. The paranoia of elites is befitting of an aging reactionary, similar to Richard Nixon in that sense, who sees a sinister network of enemies unfolding before his very eyes. Though it is also a convenient way to explain away the flaws of policy, fall in approval ratings and mass-demonstrations in the streets.

The result of a referendum has undermined legislation Berlusconi introduced in favour of nuclear power, the privatisation of water and trial immunity for cabinet ministers. In spite of il Cavaliere's call for a boycott of the referendum 57% of the electorate turned out and 95% of them voted against Berlusconi in effect. So it looks like Silvio Berlusconi might actually face trial for the liaison with an underage prostitute Karima El Mahroug, whom he saved from a prison cell with the pull of a few strings. Then there is the case in which David Mills, the estranged husband of Tessa Jowell, was sentenced to four and a half years in jail by a Milan court for taking a bribe. In spite of the fact that the conviction was annulled on appeal, because of the statute of limitations, magistrates in Milan are bent on prosecuting Berlusconi for bribing Mills. Two other cases pending concern alleged tax evasion by Berlusconi and his son Pier Silvio, as well as the sale and purchase of rights to American TV shows by Berlusconi's companies.

In spite of all this the man has managed to win the last vote of confidence by just 24 votes, with a great deal of help from Lega Nord in spite of the frustrations with the coalition. The coalition government he leads is about to initiate the first series of cuts which will amount to $57 billion by 2014. Of course, a crackdown on tax evasion would be out of line even though that is the only way to reduce taxes in the long term. Clearly it would seem that the resistance to austerity measures in Italy has the same problem as the anti-cuts activists in Britain. The mass-media has no room for the alternatives to spending cuts, which is bad news for the Left in Italy and elsewhere. With an approval rating of 29% it would seem that Silvio Berlusconi is doomed, it might be that the Italian people do not require a viable alternative to shunt Berlusconi out of office. But it remains unclear what would come from that in regards to real change, even if Berlusconi is left to die in jail, another political vacuum could follow as seen in the early 90s and the damage done will reverberate in Italy for a long time.

WAD.

 

Western affluence disease, also known by the acronym WAD, is contagious and has not been contained to the West where it originates in the 18th Century. The symptoms are as follows:

1. Politicised cynicism - an inclination to believe that all governments are corrupt because the party-system is motivated by self-interest, no politician can ever solve our problems and we need to resolve our problems outside of the state. We might as well not vote, nothing will ever change and we should just accept that.

2. Obligatory jouissance - the injunction to enjoy, you can therefore you must, to indulge. This is not the realisation of freedom as it lacks the freedom from enjoyment. Instead it leaves you trapped on a hedonic "hamster wheel" constantly chasing gratification.

3. Commodity fetishism - to derive meaning, value, status or identity from possessions and money. Products seem to take on a life of their own, there value determined by "mysterious forces" and not by the market, leaving people working to attain them.

4. Permitted rebellion - hedonistic escapism, e.g. raving, which does not defy the confines of our so-called "permissive society" but remains embedded firmly in the dominant ideology. A rebellion which is permitted, controlled and provided at a price.

5. Sport-enhanced jingoism - aggressive nationalist tendencies evoked by sport events, which act as a substitute for warfare, in a controlled area and is usually characterised by an overtly homoerotic drinking session in which there is a distinct absences of gays.

6. Liberal communism - the tendency to seek a progressive outcome from a system which undermines such an outcome, in accordance with a logic of private vices reap public rewards. For instance, you cannot end world poverty within capitalism as the economic system is partly driven by poverty.

If you suffer from any of the symptoms above notify a dialectician (preferably one with a beard) as soon as possible.

The Road to Fascism.

Angry White Men.

In 2009 we have seen the rise of mass movements on both sides of the Atlantic, I am of course referring to the Tea Party Movement and the English Defence League. In both instances these movements are thoroughly politicised and are growing in strength. In the US the Tea Party Movement has risen to prominence in conservative politics in reaction to taxation, fiscal irresponsibility and what they consider "socialism". In the UK the English Defence League has become a prominent movement in right-wing politics and is supposedly dedicated to combating the "Islamization" of Britain. Both movements appear to consist of various right-wingers united by a few key issues. The Tea Parties consist of "Birthers", gun-toting survivalists and Christian fundamentalists etc. while the EDL consists mostly of football hooligans and far-right activists formerly associated with groups like Combat 18. The latter movement became prominent due to the protests against Islamic fundamentalism outside a mosque in Harrow on September 11th 2009. The former emerged in direct reaction to Barack Obama's bailouts and health-care reforms.

The reasons for the sudden emergence and rapid growth of these particular reactionary movements are not as obscure as the media pretends. Typically in recessions people are desperate for answers in such situations and often flock around identity markers, e.g. religion or nationality, in search of comforting answers. The popularity that the far-right experiences during financial crises is due to the vulnerability people have for easy answers. This is the way that Hitler came to power in Germany during the Great Depression. So there is a definite connection between socio-economic troubles and far-right politics as a "solution" to such troubles. The critique these groups present of society's problems are drawn along populist lines, sometimes reminiscent of leftist attacks on capitalism, but focusing more on individuals and groups than the system itself. Thus, fascist groups like the EDL require a scapegoat, the Muslim community as the source of a destructive radicalism and the Left as dangerously capitulating to that force.

In the case of the Tea Party Movement the scapegoat is the Obama administration, as the enemy of the American way of life, and the Federal government, as a source of incompetence and corruption of the free-enterprise system. The Tea Party see the reason for the financial crisis, not as a lack of regulation but as too much regulation and too much state interference in the financial sector. For them, it is an imaginary elite of liberals, secularists, communists, feminists and progressives who are responsible for the fiscal irresponsibility and "big government". Therefore, the political system needs to be "changed" so that fiscal responsibility, the Constitution and free-markets can be restored in America. Ironically this was a method of communists used to justify a further purge and yet more economic planning. The failures of communism were often blamed on an imaginary elite of capitalists that was still functioning somehow to deprive the workers of their utopia. The system is not at fault, just corrupt individuals that we must purge.

In America and Britain the last 30 years have been difficult for working-class people, to say the least. Communities centred around factory work, mining and manufacturing, were torn apart through privatisation and deregulation on both sides of the pond. The government has effectively abandoned these communities, creating pockets of deprivation. The labour movement and unions were smashed, weakening them considerably, reducing the power of workers to improve working conditions, obtain pay rises and shorter work hours. As a result, wages went into decline or stagnated and work hours have increased. The gap between the wealthy and the poor increased rapidly. This is reflected by facts such as in the year 2000 1% of Americans owned over 40% of stock while 80% of the population owned less than 10%. In Britain we are now seeing the greatest gap between the rich and the poor in 40 years.

The economic policies that have created this inequality is not scrutinised in the working-class press anymore, because the working-class press does no longer exist. It was eliminated by the growing dependence on advertising revenue in the media, which influenced the content of the news as advertisements could be withdrawn if businesses dislike the content. As a result, the cheapest and most commonly read newspapers are thoroughly right-wing. In Britain we saw The Daily Herald replaced by The Sun owned by Rupert Murdoch, in the US it is Fox News. Today the only answers available to the majority of working-class people, regarding the current state of affairs, are from those who blame everything on "do-gooders" whose sensitivity - to immigrants, single-parents and gays - will bring down society as we know it. Political-correctness and multiculturalism are depicted as a source of weakness, leaving our society "vulnerable" to moral decay by "alternative life-styles" and destruction by radical Islamists.


Both the EDL and the Tea Parties have a palingenetic tendency, reminiscent of the fascist movements of the 1930s. Palingenesis being a rebirth or reincarnation of something, in Nazism the Third Reich was the "rebirth" of the First and Second Reich, in Italian Fascism it was the goal of "recreating" the Roman Empire. Today, the EDL "seeks" to take Britain back to a time when British values were safe from Islamism and to do so intend to fend off the "Islamization" of our society. Similarly, the Tea Parties aim to "rejuvenate" the ideals of Revolutionary America, ending the "tyranny" of the Obama administration in the name of individual liberty and responsibility. Of course, the ways they aim to bring about this "rebirth" involves the infringement on the ideals and values they claim to be defending. It is a sad fact that there are such crypto-fascist movements, who claim to stand for freedom while promoting causes that are radically opposed to freedom, in countries that helped bring down fascism in Europe and the Pacific.

Significant Links:

EDL - Inside the violent world of Britain's new far-right 

The Tea Party Patriots - Mission Statement 

English Defence League - Who are the EDL?

English Defence League - Exposing the Myth 

Keith Olbermann - Racial discrimination in the Tea Party Movement 

PM Debate No.2 - After Cleggmania.

Since the first TV debate between the candidates for Prime Minister, we have witnessed the rise of "Cleggmania" and the way in which the Liberal Democrats have surpassed the Conservatives, as a viable alternative for a new government. Though, it seems more likely that the public are now flocking to Nick Clegg out of pragmatism, better than Conservative or Labour, rather than a liberal sentiment reawakened by Clegg's performance last week. It seems as though the "popularity" of the Lib Dems has yet to sink into the minds of Labour and Conservative. The best David Cameron could muster was an attack on the possibility of a hung parliament, failing to notice that people probably couldn't care less about "hanging" the parliament. At the same time, Gordon Brown has tried to make himself look like the "Economist of the Year", a last ditch grab at all he has left to run on. But in all fairness, the three candidates do not differ so greatly in their economic policies and even on domestic policies regarding immigration.

 The central issue of this TV debate was international affairs and some more general issues, it was televised on Sky News and chaired by Adam Boulton. The debate was held in Bristol and the audience consisted of people from the South-West. The set up should be noted for it's nationalistic symbolism, the use of the Union Jack was reminiscent of the way the Old Glory has been used on Fox News. There was also a potential for a conservative bias as Cameron has met with Rupert Murdoch numerous times in the past. Though, Nick Clegg was placed literally at the centre of the debate, instead of Cameron in the last debate, literally giving him the middle ground between Cameron and Brown. In the opening statements, Brown was keen to criticise the possibility of a hung parliament and present a "majority Labour government" as the best way to solve Britain's problems. Cameron, on the other hand, brought up his idea of the "Big Society" again. Whereas, Clegg hit Labour hard on the Iraq war and alleged human rights violations, implying that Labour had betrayed the ideals of British society.


The first question raised was on the European Union. David Cameron put a great deal of emphasis on Britain, keep the pound and maintain sovereignty, as he insisted that we should be in the EU but not controlled by Brussels. Nick Clegg used his past experience with the EU for leverage, while criticising the lack of "democratic efficiency" in Europe and pointing out that there are certain things we as just one country cannot deal with alone - international crime being a main example. Gordon Brown stressed the importance of jobs, trade and business; the way in which British economic growth is partly reliant on European economic growth. Brown also pointed to isolation as particularly bad, as strength in numbers is the only way to deal with international crime. David Cameron flashed his Eurosceptic credentials and attacked Labour and the Liberals for "handing over" power from Westminster to Brussels.


Cameron moved on to advocating referenda on instances where yet more power might be "handed over" to Brussels. Though, it should be pointed out that the comfort Cameron showed, in permitting the people to determine British policy in relation to the EU, is not reflected in other areas of Conservative policy. For instance, the Conservatives do not favour extending democracy to economic issues, as they prefer to let the public make decisions which they approve of. Nick Clegg could have capitalised on this, but instead he attacked the Conservatives for backing off on their guarantee of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Though, Clegg thinks that we need a referendum on whether we should stay in the EU and he is openly for Britain increasing it's presence in the EU. He made that clear as he praised an operation, in which the EU was instrumental, that brought down a paedophile ring.


Essentially, the candidates all came out as for the Union, only David Cameron opposed greater integration and specifically Britain entering the Euro zone. Though, in practice the Labour Party are not exactly enthusiastic at the possibility of swapping the pound for the Euro. Brown attacked Cameron, for taking such a stance on the EU, on economic grounds. To which Cameron quickly reacted with a populist assault on the Lib Dems and Labour, accusing both parties of lacking "trust" in the people. But Gordon Brown soon attacked Cameron and the Conservatives for leaving Britain isolated and mixing with "right-wing extremists". At which point, Nick Clegg also attacked the Conservatives for associated with the Eurosceptic Right, which he sees as homophobic, anti-Semitic and in denial about climate change. As Cameron and Clegg began to bicker, Brown compared them to his children squabbling at "bath time". He went on to accuse Cameron of being "anti-European" and Clegg of being "anti-American".


At this point the debate moved on to British interventions in far away lands. Clegg made it clear that he supported the war in Afghanistan and opposed the war in Iraq, highlighting strategy and equipment as major issues, leaving open the possibility of intervention under a Lib Dem government. Brown launched into the kind of rhetoric reminiscent of the early half of the last 10 years. Describing al-Qaeda, in neoconservative terms, as a highly sophisticated network of terrorist cells stretching across the world, that could strike at any moment. Brown pointed to Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan as countries where al-Qaeda is active. Thus, military intervention can never be ruled out completely. Cameron reverted to the issues of strategy and equipment, stressing that if we are to intervene in the future it should be done "properly" - with better equipment and strategic planning. Just like the first debate, the real issue of the war's legitimacy is marginalised in favour of "safe topics" like resources, strategy and terrorism.


The following question was on climate change, the question was given a personal framing to trigger a wave of anecdotes, and bring the personal qualities, of the candidates to the forefront of the debate. Brown immediately claimed to be travelling mostly by train and to have installed a solar panel on his home in Scotland, the "bad weather" of which he emphasised. Cameron stressed the importance of insulation of houses and showed off his opposition to the third run-way at Heathrow. Clegg claimed to travel by train, but made sure that the audience understood he wants to do more like most people. He went on to criticise taxes for punishing people, with a notable reference to "plane tax". Where the Labour and Conservative candidates agreed on nuclear power and renewable energy resources, Clegg argued that nuclear power is too expensive and the transition would be too slow. Insulation and efficient energy use is a better way to curve climate change according to the Liberals.

On the Pope's upcoming visit to the United Kingdom, all of the candidates essentially welcomed the visit and emphasised "openness". Though, all three of them attacked the Catholic Church's track record and policies on gay rights and contraception. David Cameron and Nick Clegg pointed to religious tolerance as important, while trying to appear understanding of the "anguish" of Catholics. Prime Minister Brown focused on the abuse and stressed that the Church has to deal with the failure to protect the young, though as pointed out previously, he too welcomed the visit. Though, this is a complicated and difficult matter as Catholic Church is the largest Christian Church in the world. And Christianity is the biggest religion in the world. The Pope being a deeply controversial figure does not help the situation, let alone the horrors of paedophilia and Ratzinger's disgraceful role in the cover-up.


When voting and faith in politics came up, Nick Clegg was all to "eager" to stress his party's dedication to reform and proportional representation in Parliament. Brown and Cameron were also keen to emphasise their "eagerness" for reform, namely the decentralisation of power, sacking corrupt MPs and referenda to decide the future of the House of Lords. Where Brown stressed that voting matters, Cameron attacked the idea of a hung parliament. This is where, the populism of the Conservative campaign came in. Cameron spoke of giving "power to the people" and how the government has been "treating the people like mugs". Brown appeared weak by comparison, only expressing "shame" at the actions of MPs. But Clegg may have appeared the most calm and focused of the three, as he had to bring the debate back to the issue after Cameron and Brown descended into a round of bickering.


On pensions, Brown talked about linking pensions to earnings to deal with poverty among pensioners and ensuring that every woman should have a pension. Cameron argued that his party would "uprate" the pensions to earnings, insteads of just prices, increase the retirement age and put a great deal of emphasis on desert - as in what people deserve - as opposed to need. We should not be asking the question, do old people deserve pensions? As to do so misses the point of pensions completely, most retired people need a pension to fall back on. Whether or not the government deems a person worthy of a pension is an irrelevant matter. Clegg argued to restore earnings link and cover the fuel costs of pensioners. At this point, Brown attacked Clegg and Cameron on fuel allowances. But not on the grounds that one's fuel costs should be covered by the pension system. Cameron accused Labour of fear mongering and tries to appear "trustworthy" by comparison. Once again, none of the candidates proposed a method of resolving or preventing the pensions crisis.


On the possibility of a coalition government, Cameron and Brown appeared to prefer a "decisive government" as opposed to a coalition between two parties. Though, Cameron pointed out that the parties should work together when they have to and Brown stressed that it was up to the voters. Clegg praised bipartisan politics and appeared to favour a coalition government on the grounds of "openness". Cameron tried to make himself appear unique by clarifying that his party would make the "best of a coalition" but that he disagrees with the other parties. If we take this debate as accurate of the three main parties, they do not differ so greatly on many issues. On pensions all of them agreed that the link to earnings should be restored. All three claimed to favour firing crooked MPs and reforms. Neither of the three condemned the Afghan war and instead focused on issues of resources, strategy and counter-terrorism. On the EU, only Cameron openly opposed greater integration into the EU. But apparently, a coalition wouldn't work as they "disagree" on so many "issues" and a coalition would be "inefficient" as a consequence.


Nick Clegg went on to point out that the "world is not going to end" if there is a hung parliament, the public deserves a government which represents them and puts their interests first. Whereas, Gordon Brown tried to appear bipartisan, pointing out that he has worked with Liberals and business people in the past. David Cameron bragged about the support of over 1,000 businesses, in other words the support of  over 1,000 rich white men, and attacked Brown on national insurance or the "jobs tax" as the Conservatives call it. It is this kind of nonsense rhetoric and deceptive sound-bites that is furthering the descent of the electorate into apathy. If a politician dared to stop attacking their rivals for a moment so they could deliver an honest and intelligent message on their policies.


Immigration was the final issue and the cherry-picked question was asked by a woman of foreign ancestry, obviously to ensure the avoidance of any racist connotations. Clegg proposed tightening border controls and spoke a lot about his regional policy, to avoid putting "strain" on public services. Though, it should be pointed out that out of the 300,000 migrant workers from Eastern Europe, less than 1% have gone on benefits. But you won't read that in the right-wing press. Neither will you read that 2% of housing in the last 10 years went to people who are referred to as "foreigners" by Daily Mail columnists. Brown reacted by attacking the Lib Dem policy of amnesty, in it's place he advocates the point system which acts as a filter letting only immigrants who have skills needed in Britain to settle here. Later, Brown went on to come out in support of ID cards for immigrants, which is indicative of the Labour Party's right-ward shift. Cameron talked bluntly about putting a cap on immigration and also attacked the Lib Dem amnesty.


During the closing statements, Brown emphasised pragmatism, the importance of the recovery, and the "responsibility" he takes for Afghanistan. He went on to attack Cameron and Clegg as risking Britain's recovery with deep cuts and putting Britain's national security at risk on foreign policy. Cameron attacks Brown as a "desperate" fear mongerer, presenting his party as "new" and "fresh". Cameron put a great deal of emphasis on values and the right leadership, references to 'One Nation Conservatism', while topping it off with talk of a "clean break" with "30 years of failure". The implication being that the breakdown of society and politics goes back to the early years of Thatcherism. This is more than likely a purely populist assault on the woman he hopes to emulate. Clegg came out with a more optimistic vision of how "we" can make Britain a force for good in the world, emphasising the "different" behaviour of his party. Clegg referred to the Conservatives and Labour as "old choices of the past". This debate was littered with the usual buzzwords and soundbites, but it was far  less interesting than the first, but it will no doubt contribute to the electoral turnout. Whether or not that contribution will be positive remains to be seen.