Brand Obama - Four More Years.

As far as I can see there are a hand full of important reasons for Obama's victory that we should keep in mind. We should never kid ourselves that the US is a shining beacon of democracy atop a hill. In this election the American ruling-class had largely no reason to initiate a seat change. This was reflected by the pressure on the Republican Party to churn out a saleable extremist candidate, only to dress up 'moderate' Mitt as 'reactionnaire' Romney - it was a cop-out from the start. I think we'll probably find from analysis of the campaign funding that Obama had a lot more institutional capital behind, while irrational types like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers poured cash into Romney's doomed campaign. This may indicate that the composition of capital may be even more important than the actual concentration of wealth. Romney was chosen given his record for stable continuity and adaptability, if he lost it wasn't a big deal - the real opportunity for the GOP is 2016 and I suspect that is well understood in the belly of the Republican beast.

There is some evidence to suggest that voter-turnout was actually lower than in 2008, with a difference of maybe 10 million votes give or take. I suspect that the majority of voters were mobilised on the basis of cultural fears of either candidate, while the liberal vote went automatically for the Democrats and the rest stayed home. This is the standard culture war theory of American politics. It's possible that the Tea Party voters were even put-off by Romney, difficult to say at this point. It was a matter of continuity, of maintaining the status quo. Here we find the slim majority of votes converged with an enormous exercise of financial power on the part of the bourgeoisie to bloat Obama's campaign chest, thereby enabling him to reach as many voters as possible. The lesser evilism of Michael Moore and Bill Maher triumphed as there was no perceived left-wing alternative to Obama. But it was more about the defeat of the Right, it was a negative victory and not positive in other words. Putting aside cultural issues, there is the materialist issue of immigration.

Much has been made of the changing ethnic makeup of America, specifically the burgeoning Latino-American population. It's even been predicted that the US will not be a majority white country in a matter of decades. It's worth noting that the impact this could have on the Republican Party, given that it's share of the Hispanic vote collapsed from 44% for Bush in 2004 to 27% in 2012. It was partly due to Romney's own inconsistency, his warming to the most reactionary positions on abortion and homosexuality could not reconcile the Catholic vote given his endorsement of racist policies on Mexican immigration. These votes eventually went to the Obama campaign. Bush had managed to appeal to a broad Catholic base with socially conservative positions on gay marriage, abortion and stem-cell research. Notably Bush maintained a moderate position on immigration and even produced an absurd campaign ad in which he claimed to be proud of his 'Latino heritage'. So we've seen that this contradiction might only be resolved by burning a policy plank or two.

 

It remains to be seen whether or not the GOP will moderate it's positions in order to appeal to a much wider base. It's plausible that the Republicans will get crazier and crazier as their voters get whiter. But it is also possible that they will have to concede ground in order to gain greater influence. After all that is the major priority of the Party's primary constituent, namely the American bourgeoisie. This is an instance of the capitalist system undermining it's own interests ultimately. It was the US that has enforced an appalling economic programme on Mexico and Latin America, that has led to Hispanics migrating north just to earn a mediocre living. The militarisation of the border offers only a way to temporarily mobilise a shrinking white voter-base, but the question of Latin-American voter-base still looms large. It's out of the realm of the possible for the Republicans to seek to improve the economic conditions in Mexico in order to limit immigration. The same goes for the prospect of a unionisation of Mexican immigrants.

 

In either case these measures would improve the living standards of Latin-Americans, yet it's also the case that the rising number of Latinos may be inevitable. To put it briefly, America will be skin deep for many years to come. I digress, I've already noted that it was the logic of the lesser evil that was behind a great deal of left-wing support for Obama, but there's another angle here. The late Alexander Cockburn argued in 2010 that Obama may actually be more susceptible to left-wing pressure than Clinton, so the problem is that there's not much of a Left left in America to push the Democrats around. There may be some hope in the charged discourse we now live with thanks to Occupy Wall Street. For a long time it looked as though the era of a lively culture of organised and disciplined politics is dead in the US. We should not kid ourselves that with Occupy Wall Street this era will be reborn. We might hope that the discourse has been impregnated with a certain potential. Though there needs to be something more than a lively grass-roots base to win this thing.

Really Existing Democracy.

The incumbent President has come out of the Democratic National Convention smiling only to be confronted with upheaval in the Middle East. Yet the approval rating of the candidates, the atmospheric desperation and mediocre speeches of the Conventions are more or less irrelevant. As Mark Hanna would remind us "There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can't remember the second." Follow the money and you'll find the winner. It was Bush who outspent his opponents in 2000 and 2004, he didn't even need to win over enough votes - the cash was enough. When Obama got in there was a gap of over $400 million between his campaign and McCain's. Incidentally the Obama campaign won the award for the best marketing campaign of 2008. What's the situation in 2012? It was predicted that campaign contributions would exceed $1 billion. So far Romney had raised over $193 million whereas Obama had raised almost $350 million.

What does all of this signify? Well it's important to take from this that the United States is not really a democracy in the strict sense. Instead it might be better understood as a polyarchy. Polyarchy can be understood as a system in which a multiplicity of political parties - who represent a coterie of powerful interests - compete with one another to govern the society. The political class faces a dual constituency, in which the needs and wants of the poor come second to the needs and wants of the rich. The convergence of interests plays a huge role in political concessions and development in general. But we can debate the extent to which interests overlap and produce a particular outcome. After all, there is an opposition within capitalist relations between the interests of workers and bosses. The political processes may even be seen as purely managerial in this sense, the working-class has to be managed in such a way as to slot into a mandate.

It seems more or less compatible with Thomas Ferguson's investment theory of politics, where the political parties represent blocs of investors. The standard split in American politics can be drawn between high-tech capital intensive and low-tech labour intensive business, the latter being more nationally oriented than the former. The Republican Party responds to the interests of a specific slice of American capital, which seeks to drive down labour costs through anti-union measures and insulate itself from foreign competition. By contrast the Democratic Party was capable of the New Deal because it represented a portion of capital which could tolerate unionisation that would leave it unscathed. It's worth noting that the major support for Franklin Roosevelt came out of banking and oil. So the New Deal reforms could scathe the interests of industrialists to improve the living standards of workers because it did little to harm the interests of finance and energy.

There are said to be ten lobbyists for every member of Congress looking to shoot down any attempt at significant financial regulation. That's not all. The situation has worsened since then and the Obama campaign accepted over $745 million in 2008 and the campaign team went on to win an award for the best marketing campaign of 2008. Since then the Supreme Court has removed all obstacles to even greater corporate influence on elections and has legalised the unrestricted flow of corporate dough into the campaign war-chests. We shouldn't forget that the Bush administration set a major precedent in US history. Bush did not need to win over the electorate to attain office, the immense support from Big Business was enough and the US Supreme Court made sure the interests of Corporate America were not opposed in the election. At least there may be cause for celebration in the fact that the contributions have not yet reached $1 billion as predicted.

Brand Obama - Prospects for a Second Term.

It has become fashionable to attack Barack Obama not just from the Right but from the Left as well. We should not lose sight of the magnitude of the election of the first African-American to the Presidency, especially as it was slavery which built the White House and provided the material conditions necessary for American capitalism. But the election of Obama was not the fulfilment of the dream that we all pay lip-service to. The ideological goal-posts of America have been shifted under Obama in a way which was unthinkable under just another white male politico. With that in mind it is impossible to deny that Obama would be a better President if he had not backed the coup in Honduras and slashed the wages of Haitian workers in the aftermath of the earthquake. The same goes for the way Obama has extended the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan. Let alone the drone attacks on Somalia which have been conveniently ignored in the mainstream media.

It has been a long strange trip since 2008 when the first African-American became President-elect and the American people were ready to say "Adios!" to George Bush. That year the Obama campaign team won the award for the Best Marketing Campaign, with commiserations to Apple and Nike. The election was the subject of an enormous flow of corporate dough and grass-roots campaigning which succeeded in electing Obama. Soon the word was out that the US had finally gotten over it's silly little race problem, it had become a "post-racial" society overnight and just around the corner the 'birthers' were on their way to tell the world that the President was a "closet Kenyan". There had already been attempts to pin the label of Muslim to Obama's lapel, the point being to call him a "terrorist" without actually saying it. Soon the favourite substitute for the n-word was "socialist". By now we can listen to the odious Newt Gingrich calling Obama a "food stamp President". Notice all of this has no relation to reality.

There is very little of substance for Republicans to complain about. Obama has conceded on health-care reform (which were conservative changes anyway) as well as the Bush tax-cuts, the National Defense Authorization act and on the stimulus which was wiped out by cuts at other levels. So the GOP shout about debt and they would love to run on economic issues, but they can't win on the economy because their policies only appeal to the top income brackets. The Republicans need more than just the ultra-rich to vote for them, the Democrats can appeal to ethnic minorities, gays and women to seek refuge in their party. The GOP are in a truly desperate situation. It was most astonishing to see the Republicans take a contorted anti-capitalist position last year, when they tried to block the rise of the debt-ceiling and in doing so acted to undermine the accumulation of wealth. At this point Karl Marx would just smugly remind us that "the contradictions of capitalism work in mysterious ways."

It is common knowledge that the outcome of American elections are basically bought. Back in September, Obama had the lead on Romney with a gap between them of over $50 million. Now we find the Republicans have leaped in front of the Democrats by almost $6 million. In 2008 Obama raked in around $750 million which was far more than McCain could muster. The estimates for the costs of 2012 are running as high as $11 billion and probably about $2 billion poured into the campaign war-chests. The core base of the Obama campaign were the same financial institutions which caused the Crash of '08. The small donors to Obama's campaign should not be ignored, but they amounted to $300 million at most which still leaves $450 million on the table. Large donors have been donating enormous amounts of cash in small chunks as to appear as small donors in the stats. This is something the Obama campaign encouraged from day one and probably still does.

It is corporate interests which shape American politics and every so often there is a convergence with working-class interests. The Obama health-care reforms were designed to drive down the costs entailed by the private system on manufacturing companies. It costs General Motors $1,000 more to produce a car in the US than it does in Canada. A system of universal provision would have a significant impact on the deficit, it would reduce it heavily. This is why a national health service is an inevitability.  In fact the Republican Party put forth these proposals when Clinton pushed for health-care reform in the 1990s. The former draft-dodging pothead Newt Gingrich is still a defender of the individual mandate and Mormon vulture Mitt Romney imported the same reforms in Massachusetts. Both Gingrich and Romney have been attacked for this by the ultra-Right for whom there is no "pure" conservative. These are the people who want to reduce the deficit through cuts and no tax increases, but insist on a "strong military" which costs $1 trillion.

The deciding factor could be turnout in this election, there is an extreme disillusionment in the electorate and both parties could feel the brunt of this. But it isn't just apathy in this situation which could tip things over. The GOP are well aware that the White House could be seized if they the opposition simply doesn't vote against them. Remember George Bush only came to power because the GOP managed to disqualify black voters in Florida. On average the Americans who earn less than $100,000 lean towards the Democrats, that actually accounts for 75% of the population - which only had 36% of the vote in the 2010 midterm elections. The forces of reaction are well aware of this, thus the Republicans have opted to make it as difficult as possible for Americans to vote. It was conservative Paul Weyrich who told a gathering of evangelical leaders in 1980 "our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." Almost 40 states have introduced measures to deliberately hinder voters.

The voter is now expected to provide proof of citizenship before registering in some states, ex-felons have been barred from voting, in some states you'll need to produce a government-issued ID before you can vote. This would exclude that 10% of American voters, 18% of the youth and 25% of black voters. This is comparable to the use of poll taxes and literacy tests to prevent blacks from voting out the racists in the South. Ironically, the Republicans have pulled this off on the grounds that there needs to be tighter guidelines to eliminate "fraudulent voters". Naturally the same billionaires who bankrolled the Tea Party are in the shadows seeing to it that the cogs in the machine are well oiled. This could be the divine, or should that be satanic, intervention to save the Republicans grabbing at political power wildly. It's even possible that the GOP are looking towards 2016 at this point. With that in mind, we should remember the words of Hunter S Thompson "The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but to those who see it coming and jump aside."

The League of Ugly Gentlemen.

The Time for Populism.

The very suggestion that there is a ruling-class might be dismissed as a "conspiracy theory". It would no doubt be met with rage from some who would unroll the accusation that this is just a backward attempt to take us back to the politics of class. Because apparently we have moved beyond class and into an age where all the old battles have been won. Nothing will ever change for the reason that all the necessary changes have already been accomplished. Even as the British elite hold around £4 trillion in the form of antiques, paintings and pensions, to speak of 'class' is to resurrect flat-earth politics. This huge concentration of wealth in a few hands is not unique to our little island. The total liquid wealth of the global rich (around 10 million people) came to $40 trillion in 2009 and it has been increasing in spite of the crisis. In the advanced capitalism of today, we are led to believe, the class structure has been obliterated and the individual now rises in accordance with their own merit, specifically talents and work ethic.

There was an interesting study covered in the New Scientist on the matter of a global ruling-class. In an analysis of the relations between 43,000 multinational corporations it has become evident that a relatively small group of companies that hold onto a disproportionate amount of power in the global economy. The work revealed a core of 1,318 companies with interlocking ownerships. On average each of these companies had connected to around 20 other companies. These 1,318 companies represented 20% of global operating revenues and it appears that the 1,318 own through shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing corporations - representing a further 60% of global revenues. The team went further to untangle the network and found that just less than 150 companies control 40% of the wealth in the entire network. The dominant companies include Barclay's Bank, JP Morgan Chase & Co and Goldman Sachs. In light of all of this can we really maintain that the idea of a ruling-class is so outlandish? 

The British elites still carry some of the remnants of the privileged position that they held in the old feudal power-structure. Consequently, the political class has not yet gotten used to ratifications, not even at the symbolic level which the Americans "enjoy" so much. This is the reason that the Americans have a much stronger Freedom of Information act than Britain. Of course, the US has a sophisticated network of mass-media and public relations which muddies the water to keep a great deal of Americans in the dark. There is a similar network in Britain, except we lack the same formidable free access to information. The consequence is that the insights into the political and ruling-class are much more difficult to come by. Occasionally the information seeps out of the liberal end of the mass-media press, to the chagrin of the reactionary gutter-press who would rather announce the triumph of socialism than acknowledge the bitter truth of class and deplore the horrors of capitalism. The discourse is casually limited by the influences and interests that ensnare the media.

So we know that the Conservative Party received £7.3 million in the campaign for 2010, while Labour received around £5.3 million. Since David Cameron became party leader we know that the Party has received £42 million from financial institutions, over half of the total donations that the Party received altogether. This is chicken feed compared to the US elections where the outcome is always pre-bought, Obama received around $750 million which is $400 million more than his opponent. In 2012 it seems we will see campaign contributions surpass $2 billion thanks to a decision by the US Supreme Court. We should view the corporate circus run-amok in the American government with wary eyes in Britain. The tales of the links between Tories and the private sector should not surprise anyone, nor should the proximity of lobbyists to power even at the highest level in this country. Out of the convergence of interests invested in the state we find policy emerges, there is a potential for political stagnation as well as radical change. Right now the situation is one of stagnancy.

The Labour Party has often been thought incompatible with the Conservative Party for the reason that the former is embedded in the labour movement, whereas the latter has long been the party of business. It has to be noted that the decline of trade unions in this country as a political force has made it possible for Big Business to share the Labour Party with them. As long as the unions are powerless then it is possible for Big Business to dominate the Party, the clashes of interests can be easily managed. It has to be noted that the industries unscathed by union-influence at all are impervious to the decisions of militants and moderates alike in the labour movement. This is the reason that it is perfectly possible for financial institutions to hold out for the Labour Party. The financial colossus cannot be broken by the labour movement and it cannot be stopped from leaping from Labour to Conservative whenever it has to. The commentariat don't like to say that the Con-Dem Coalition could have easily been the Lab-Con Coalition.

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found, the overall effect of the Treasury's new plans will be to reduce the incomes of those in the bottom 30% of earners and to benefit those in the top 60%. The top 60% would include the 10% of the population who own £4 trillion in wealth already and this is the primary constituency of the Coalition. It is not that the government is incapable of serving the people, it is that the government has a dual constituency torn between the interests of working-class people and the elites. So any appeal to one has to be made to the other at the same time, often on the terms of the constituents with greater clout and influence. This is the reason that David Cameron will talk of "muscular liberalism" and the "failure" of multiculturalism as an appeal to working-class people riled up by the press about Muslims and immigration. It is perfectly compatible with the austerity measures which are set to destroy what was accomplished in the immediate aftermath of World War II. To put it crudely the economic policies appeal to a particular base while the social policies and political rhetoric appeal to the masses.

The Tories are still Blue.

 

Some of you, my fellow coach potatoes, will note the debate over the "Big Society" was reignited with a notable appearance from Phillip Blond on 10'Clock Live back in February and it will no doubt come up again in the future. As the proponent of a new kind of a communitarian conservatism Blond has found himself influential in the Conservative Party in recent years. The impact of the 'Red Tory' has been to shift rhetoric from the "compassionate conservative" limbo to a consistently conservative message. 'Red Toryism' has been posited as a viable alternative to the failures of the egalitarian Left and the pro-market Right, socially conservative but sceptical of neoliberalism. Though the commentariat have yet to buy it and many feel it is simply a "cover for cuts". On 10'Clock Live he took part in a discussion with liberal columnist Johann Hari and Conservative Shaun Bailey hosted by David Mitchell. The clashes between Hari and Blond were notably entertaining, though the government has still failed to promote the "Big Society" especially in this time of public spending cuts. 

The progressive credentials of David Cameron can easily be seen. Cameron is the product of affirmative action for rich white-men, he was born the fifth cousin twice removed to the Queen and got his first job with the Tories after he was recommended by an equerry at Buckingham Palace - not to mention the recent revelations about Clegg's internship. Aligned with the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party David Cameron has joined his German and French cousins in his opposition to multiculturalism. Cameron also maintains the Atlantic alliance between the US and the UK, whilst he is also a friend of Rupert Murdoch as well as to homophobes and anti-Semites in Europe. Never mind his advocacy of small government, austerity and Victorian family values on top of all this. These are not the credentials of a progressive, these are the warts of a reactionary which are hidden behind the well crafted veneer of a youthful, soft and modern conservative. This is an inversion of the 'Nixon in China' principle. Only Nixon, the anti-Communist, could sip tea with Mao and only a progressive can slash and burn the welfare state.

The only sense in which the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats could be considered progressive is in the Enlightenment sense of history as Progress. Conveniently this interpretation of history eliminates the need for radicalism of any kind: We will get there in the end, so why make big changes now? This is compatible with the economics of market liberalism, from which we might hold that there is full employment in the long-run so current trends of unemployment are only temporary. Along this road of Progress towards a liberal utopia, reminiscent of North Oxford, there are numerous obstacles that must be removed swiftly. There are the barbarous ideas and the dangerous enablers of such ideas, in the way that Islamism is supposedly empowered by liberal multiculturalism. Not that there is a need for a common project to unite people, as that would presuppose a different take on history, but rather that a "muscular liberalism" should succeed the multicultural order. Similarly, the culture of dependency has to be jettisoned along with all inefficiencies in the public sector.

Then we have the shattering revelations over the very warm relationship between the Conservative Party and the financial hub of the British economy should not be a surprise to any serious commentator. And if we lived in a free society there would be such a degree of transparency that the ordinary citizen would be informed of all the details, by which I mean all the figures of contributions to the parties. Contributions from the City of London to the Tory Party have risen since Cameron became Party leader in 2005. When David Cameron just came to lead the Party, funds from 'Big Finance' accounted for just less than £3 million which would represent around 25% of total donations. 5 years later and the Conservatives had received over £40 million in funds from Canary Wharf. Though it would be interesting to see the details of all three major parties, as in the US every election is won by the candidate who spends the most on the campaign trail. As I suspect the rich dumped New Labour  in favour of the Conservatives in the run-up to the 2010 General Election.

Keep in mind the strong support Cameron received from over 1,000 business leaders and the blessing of Rupert Murdoch, which may well have swung the election in 2010. Notably Blair received similar support from business leaders before his victory in 1997. The Murdoch media empire has been notably influential in elections for a long time and has acted as a base of media support for Thatcher, Major and Blair. From 2006 to 2009 the contributions added up to £16 million and in 2010 the Party raised £11 million from Canary Wharf - this is equal to the amount Labour raised from Unite from 2006-2009. Until recently this is all we knew about the financial ties to the Conservative Party, but now we know that the donations received by the Party are over £40 million since 2005. Under the leadership of David Cameron financial support procured from 'Big Finance' has literally doubled, the wealthy have leaped from 'Blue Labour' to 'Red Tory'. The same old platform has been recycled and refined slightly, it's pursuit of class interests even more brash and vicious than before.

When asked by Dylan Jones as to what his views on the City, and whether a Conservative Prime Minister can be a meaningful critic of the banks, Cameron responded "I think a Conservative Prime Minister can and should be a friend of business, where you praise and reward good business practice and then feel absolutely free to criticise bad business practice." Cameron went on to clarify that he does not believe the answer to every problem is regulation and legislation. Instead he opts for public debate and advocates responsibility in the business community - this is as shallow as it gets. Note Mr Cameron's words as we can now read of the Black and White Party, formerly known as the Winter Ball, where each of the 900 guests paid a minimum of £400 and went on to bid for City internships which could pave the way for their children to become hedge-fund managers and stock-brokers. Five were sold for £14,000 that night. All together the event may have raised £500,000 for the Conservative Party, funds which will be used to tell us all that "We're all in this together."

The "Virtual Parliament" of investors who vote on government policy minute-by-minute and will seek to undermine particular social policies and reforms - that strikes at the interests of the rich - through capital flight, this is the result of the financialisation of the economy over the last 30 years. We're talking about the global ultra-rich now, the people who have accumulated $40 trillion by 2009. The bailouts of 2008 to 2009 were a way of maintaining high rates of profit which could not be gained from the exploitation of labour. The same can be said of the bailouts of Greek, Irish and now Portugese banks. As a man of corporate public-relations David Cameron knows a good slogan when he sees one, which might explain why he ripped off the Obama theme of "Change". But at a time when profits have to be wrested through accumulation by dispossession we are already seeing the re-use of methods of race-baiting and military aggression. The current global situation could lead to movements for independence emerging in developing countries, as seen in the Middle East recently, as well as attempts by organised labour and the radical Left to fight against austerity.

A Very British Democracy.

Last year the electoral crisis in Iran was widely criticised in the West. Though something was lacking from much of the critique of the events in Iran. The implicit message of the critique was that this crisis was simply a product of "guided democracy" and the Iranian people need democracy in the Western liberal conception. What is missing from this critique is the admission that liberal democracy in the West shares some similarities with the "guided democracy" of Iran. Before the individuals could enter as candidates for the Presidency they had to be approved by the clerical establishment in Iran. In the West candidates for high office often have to pander to the economic establishment for sufficient campaign funding. This functions to diminish political pluralism, reducing the candidates to representatives of varying degrees of evil. The choice we typically face is the greater evil and the lesser evil. The candidate who receives the most support from the establishment and the electorate wins the election. There are occasional blips of course, these would include the electoral triumphs of George W Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

With the victory of the Conservative Party, with a little help from the Liberal Democrats, we have seen the continuing triumph of a polyarchical establishment in Britain. Polyarchy being a system in which a small number of political parties take turns governing the state. But nothing much changes as all of these parties are representative of powerful groups - namely the wealthy - as opposed to the majority of the population. Unlike a totally dictatorial and hegemonistic society in a polyarchy there is room for participation and contestation. Thus, we have participation in the political process through elections and occasionally referenda. While the mass-media, the recent televised debates and programmes like Question Time functions to present the political class as more "diverse" than it actually is. Through debate and media coverage, the small differences of the parties are exaggerated and the greater similarities ignored. But the average voter is perceptive enough to see the similarities. The "guided democracy" of Iran differs in that it partly lacks this contestation and the media remains largely servile to a quasi-hegemonistic state.


The democratic deficit in London is one such sign of a polyarchical system. The candidates were almost the same and only differed on pedantic technical details like immediate spending cuts as opposed to spending cuts after a year. Sadly, it could be argued that the current state of democracy is quite appropriate to contemporary Britain. For instance, the United Kingdom is one of the few states in the world that does not have a written constitution.  Instead of a written constitution we have an unwritten constitution. Meaning that we rely on a substance of tradition to guide our political system. But the way the media has covered the hung Parliament, with constant references to a British Constitution, one would think that we have a constitution. So in a sense we have a constitution without a constitution. Similarly, we have democracy without democracy. Except this time, we as a nation lack the substance of democracy as opposed to the mere formality of voting once every 4 or 5 years to "justify" the status quo on the grounds that something worse than it might replace it if we do not vote for it.


Just like in Iran, where candidates have to appeal to the religious establishment, here in contemporary Britain candidates seek support from the economic institutions. It is public knowledge that the Conservative Party received over £5 million in funding from Michael Ashcroft, a non-dom billionaire and a member of the House of Lords. Lord Paul being the Lord Ashcroft of the Labour Party. But what is less widely known is that the Conservatives have received £16 million in funding from Canary Wharf since 2006. Though it could be argued that this isn't much different from the fact that Labour has received over £10 million from the Unite Union since 2007. Everyone knows that The Sun backed David Cameron in the campaign, adding another name to the list of Prime Minister it helped elect. Others include: Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair. Not everyone knows that David Cameron met with Rupert Murdoch, agreeing to remove constraints which prevent Murdoch from competing with the BBC. In reaction to this, Murdoch has thrown 40% of the British media behind the Conservative Party.

During the campaign David Cameron made a point of bragging about the support from the business community that he is receiving. We see that the Labour Party as having won elections on the back of this support from businesses. The fact that these grotesque features of our "democracy" are held up with pride is indicative of the cynicism of the political class. In the run-up to the election many politicians claimed that the government would either be Conservative or Labour, this further conveys the cynicism. Over 1,000 businesses support the Conservatives, the stated reason is that they oppose the "jobs tax" of  Labour and have the interest of their employees at heart. It was pointed out by the media that 'New Labour' received the same support in the run-up to the victory of 1997. No mention of the fact that in many cases, the cost of an increase in national insurance is equal to, or less than, the cut management take from company revenue. No mention of the "incentives" these businesses are seeking from the Conservative Party. No mention of the fact that this is a case of rich white men supporting rich white men.


There is a lack of political pluralism in Britain today. The Conservatives have remained firmly on the Right, sticking to the kind of positions that demonise single-parents while pushing for further deregulation. On the other hand, Labour has shifted dramatically from the Left to the Right becoming a neoconservative party. This is reflected by Brown's love of Gertrude Himmelfarb's work and the common description of Blair as a "neoconservative" by the likes of Richard Perle. Distinctions between the parties are drawn along policies on immigration, the EU, multiculturalism, political correctness etc. by the right-wing press. The aim of this is to further diminish what little pluralism there is left. Thanks to the media, there are a large amount of bigots who vote on single issues like immigration. This is how UKIP have become increasingly sought after by the working-class. Whilst issues relating to the economy, deregulation and tax-cuts are of central importance to the wealthy. In appealing to this dual constituency, of the interests of the wealthy and the interests of the working-class, the likes of David Cameron end up swinging the "big stick".


All of the candidates agree that severe cuts in public spending are necessary, as do the mainstream media, on the grounds of "common sense". The way in which this hard-nosed pragmatism requires no justification, in the minds of public servants and journalists, is indicative of the way ideology functions in the West. The Right has no need nor time for real justifications and intellectual argument, all they need are "common sense" arguments to accomplish their goals. These arguments typically play to the primal desires and fears of individuals. The dominant ideology does the rest for them, all they have to do is shoot down any dissenting views as "unrealistic". Thus the candidates only have to argue about where and when cuts are to be made, because "common sense" writes off any alternatives to making savage cuts as "unrealistic". Any deviations from the party-line of "necessary cuts" are knocked down by the media or by civilians riled up by the right-wing press, whenever the common man gets a chance to question the politicians. So the working-class have voted against their own interests for the sake of "common sense" spending cuts.

Significant Links:

Polyarchy by Robert Dahl

UK Parties 2010

Brown's Guru

The War Party 

The Truth behind the General Election

Vote with Your Mind, Not Your Wallet.

In the days since the Chancellors debate, we have seen major captains of industry come out in support of the Conservatives. The mass-media coverage of this recent development is particularly informing of the nature of British politics. That's an interesting theory in itself, upper-class people backing the Conservatives must mean that the working-class do too. They tell us, we the people are supporting the Conservatives because the rich are supporting the Conservatives. They have even compared the support of the Tories to the support New Labour received in the run-up to their victory in 1997. The dependency of the political class and the establishment on "Big Business" for power, this is reflected by the way the media has claimed that corporate support is reflective of mass-support from the working-class. This is just like the scandal surrounding Lord Ashcroft and Lord Paul, the political class is reliant on wealthy backers and that is a major problem. The difference is that we are told this instance is a positive sign that we should embrace, as it means the Conservatives have our best interests at heart apparently. The fact that the Conservatives are aiming to demolish poor estates in West London doesn't seem to register.


It should be noted that a few of these businesses used to support New Labour, while the most have been staunch supporters of the Conservative Party all along. And that all of this just days after Tony Blair popped up out of nowhere to support Brown, which may suggest the publicity of the rich backing the Tories is in reaction to Blair's appearance. Though, support from a war criminal like Blair is hardly going to gather much support. It is also significant, that the wars for oil have been largely ignored and the focus has been on the economy, taxes and public spending etc. It is insulting to the 1 million dead Iraqis and the thousands killed in Afghanistan that our politicians choose to bicker over taxes than confront real issues like war and mass-murder. The same was done during the run-up to the 1993 Presidential Election in the US, the debate was turned towards the tax system. In which, Bill Clinton ran against George HW Bush. The Republicans accused Clinton of intending to raise taxes, but ultimately lost the Presidency because Bush had raised taxes in direct contradiction of his electoral manifesto. Bush had publicly stated "Read my lips: no new taxes." Never mind the thousands slaughtered in South America.


The discourse around the upcoming election has been shifted toward aspects of the tax system. The Liberal Democrats are running on a claim of being the only party that intends to cut taxes for those who deserve it. This is a traditional Conservative claim, though it is widely believed that the Tory Party cuts taxes for the wealthy. Whereas, Labour is stuck with the reputation for raising taxes to "unjust" rates. Of course, what no one is saying, what no one dares to say, is that people abhor taxes because they have no say in what their hard-earned money is spent on. It is perfectly understandable that the public hates the idea of their money being used to cover MPs expenses, bail-out banks and provide bonuses for Canary Wharf. And the idea that our money is being spent on wars that corporations benefit from is even more unsettling and unpopular. If we lived in a truly democratic society, most of us would view paying taxes in a positive light if we felt politicians were actually representative of us and that our money is going to a causes which are beneficial to our society. But the right-wing media needs something to exploit in order to further the country's descent into neoliberalism.


Instead of seeking to reform the political system, the mainstream media focuses in on taxes that effect the well-off. The stated reason for the corporate backing of the Conservatives is the increase in national insurance by Labour. But what goes unsaid is that part of the Conservative Party's economic policy is to "incentivise" business. "Incentivise" being a euphemism for subsidies and tax-cuts for the wealthy, combined with deregulation. The subsidies will be paid for with the funds cut from spending on the public sector. There has been no mention of this, as "Big Business" has flocked to the side of Tories, which says something we all already know about the Conservatives. It says the "need" the wealthy have for tax-cuts, subsidies and deregulation are not only imperative, but that "need" does not even require commentary. As "incentivising" business is so essential it cannot be challenged or even mentioned, nor can the dedication of the Conservatives to these policies. The practices of the Labour Party over the last decades, which have been nothing out of step of the Thatcherite orthodoxy, are also ignored by the commentators and the media.


This election is not going to result in a government representative of the populace if the real issues go on ignored. Thus, the debates should not be personality driven and the media's focus should not be on the campaign posters and the populist slogans, essentially spin cooked up by a public relations firm. The parties may use rhetoric about fighting poverty and building community spirit and so fourth, but where is the substance behind the rhetoric? The media should be pushing for the details of policy. The parties are still hiding the substance of these policies behind deceptive language like "incentivise" turning subsidies and deregulation into a something which no one would oppose. But sadly, it would seem as though this is going to lead to yet a lower voting turnout than in 2005. There is no optimism around this election or any of the parties. It could be said all that is being offered to the public is austerity and more of the same that we've seen over the last 30 years. If anything these elections may accomplish the continuing devaluation of the right to vote.