Without
prejudice Blair's Italian fiasco
The Prime Minister's friendship with Berlusconi shows how invulnerable
he thinks he is
Nick Cohen Sunday August 15, 2004 The Observer
Like its owner, the Villa Certosa on Sardinia's Emerald Coast is extravagant, phoney and probably illegal. If they have the eyes to see it, the Blairs will catch the wretched state of Italy in microcosm when they begin their free holiday at Silvio Berlusconi's retreat tomorrow. If they are truly prescient, they will also glimpse their own political mortality hovering in the heat haze. Berlusconi has laid on everything the dedicated freebie-taker could desire. Should the Blairs want a swim, there is an embarrassment of pools to choose from: six in all, and an artificial lake. Gardeners have been busily planting citrus and olive groves and a collection of 2,000 species of cacti for guests to enjoy. Workmen have just finished a fake ancient Greek theatre from whose marble seats the Blairs will hear Pavarotti sing.
After the swims and the walks and the appreciation of the trills of the tenor, they can prepare for bed in the villa's bathrooms. According to the local newspaper, the windows are large so the visitor can enjoy the magnificent views, but 'with a simple release of a switch' the glass is tinted 'in order to guarantee the privacy principle'. Just so. Privacy is indeed essential for a man who is worth about four billion euros. I say 'about', but no one can be sure, not least the Italian tax authorities. Berlusconi has made honest Italians despair of their country. After the great effort of the early 1990s to sweep the Mafia and the corruption out of Italy, a battle which cost brave magistrates their lives, he has proved with two election victories that the Italians aren't as keen on clean politics as they claimed.
To many of his critics what is disturbing about his governments is that they have included the remnants of Italy's fascist parties. But while it would be hilarious to hear the circumlocutions of the great human rights lawyer Cherie Booth as she defended her husband's association with what is quaintly called 'post-fascism', the fact that the descendants of the men in black leather are in office is beside the point. Fascism is in the past while Berlusconi offers a vision of a dystopian future. He has shown what you can achieve in a European democracy when you combine immense wealth, control of the media and political power. His Mediaset company has a virtual monopoly of Italian commercial television. He owns a sizeable chunk of the press and, as Prime Minister, is the de facto boss of state television.
Thus what is scandalous in other countries isn't news in Italy. After there was a catastrophic power failure in September 2003, Berlusconi was able to commandeer all the television channels. He didn't feel obliged to mention that the lights had gone out. Instead he bashed the unions and exhorted viewers to support his government. The left calls him the new Mussolini while he poses as the Italian Thatcher. In truth, he's done next to nothing since he regained power in 2001 except defend his business interests. Anti-corruption magistrates have been scandalously vilified by his hacks. Berlusconi denounced them as 'mad' and wasted the time of Parliament to pass laws which made it impossible for corruption charges against him to proceed.
As David Lane notes in Berlusconi's Shadow, to be published later this month, the besieged and battered judiciary is in no position to take on the Mafia, which is back in business and expanding its market. Such is the record of the Blairs' friend. When they arrive at the Villa Certosa's jetty they will see a Bond-villain entrance: a tunnel that goes through the cliff face to the villa. Local greens say the construction of the Dr No set was illegal building work on a protected coastline. Berlusconi says that the tunnelling was essential work to protect his guests; it was built in the interests of national security. But the villa isn't an Italian Chequers. You can't draw a line between the public interest and the private interest in Berlusconi's Italy.
In the unlikely circumstances of your being invited for a short break, you are as likely to meet an executive from one of his companies as you are to meet Tony Blair, a corporate lawyer fighting corruption allegations as Vladimir Putin. If you are very lucky, you will bump into Rocco Buttiglione, a minister in Berlusconi government who last week was appointed European commissioner for justice. Never let it be said that the EU doesn't have a sense of humour. In a land where the Prime Minister can fight the judiciary to stop investigations into his business interests, the line between the public and the private has been rubbed out.
At first, Tony Blair seemed to appreciate that there was something wrong in this, and was wary of Berlusconi. He joined with him in a common struggle to limit workers' rights, but whatever you think of the cause, he was just following the standard Foreign Office policy of seeking allies in Europe to counter-balance the power of the Franco-German axis. His body language at early meetings was stiff and correct. He's loosened-up now, and the men are friends. The war on terror explains the blossoming affection. But it won't do to say that whatever the crimes of Berlusconi and his post-fascists, they are nothing in comparison to the crimes of the actual theocratic fascists who haunt the new century. The Italian centre left who once translated 'tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime' and talked of following Blair's Third Way, now despise the man. It's not only the left.
In Britain the conservative Economist declared that Berlusconi was unfit to govern Italy. As with the re-resurrection of the career of Peter Mandelson, the holiday with the Berlusconis is a sign that the lesson that Blair has learned from the Iraq crisis is that he can get away with anything. If respectable opinion on the left and the right is outraged, why should he care? It won't hurt him. He can flaunt his affection for Euro-trash without a flicker of fear because everyone in Westminster agrees the next election is in the bag. And why shouldn't it be? Unlike Berlusconi's Italy, Britain is living through one of the better periods in her history. The economy is booming, unemployment is down, crime is down, inflation is low, the children of the poor are being helped as never before and schools and hospitals are getting better.
But the British electorate is a hypocritical beast. It says it despises focus-group politics and is then appalled when the Prime Minister ignores the polls and the demonstrators and invades Iraq. It says it wants strong government, but then says it hates Prime Ministers who get too big for their boots, and think they can swan off with every rogue. The consensus in Westminster may be that Blair will walk the next election, but it's a good rule that whenever there's a consensus it's usually wrong. Professional gamblers, being sensibly sceptical, have taken a cool look at their country and are putting their money on a dismal Labour performance. If you search for politicalbetting.com, you will see how advisers to spread betters are taking the conventional wisdom apart.
'The "experts" are calling it wrong,' when they predict a three-figure Labour majority. They are applying 'the swings to the parties' vote shares in pre-election opinion polls on a uniform national basis' when it's far from clear the country will behave in a uniform manner next time. Complacent Blairites are taking no account of a potential collapse in tactical voting. Last time Labour won about 40 seats as a result of Liberal Democrat supporters voting tactically for Labour. Although the high-rollers predict that Labour supporters will happily vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out, they doubt that Lib Dem supporters, and there will be a lot more Lib Dem supporters, will vote Labour. Because of Iraq, because of tuition fees, because of David Blunkett.
Without tactical voting, the Tories will be able to come through the middle in many seats. The gamblers also note that the Tories are in slightly better shape than they were and that the collapse in Labour Party membership will make it harder to get the vote out. Put these together and, they say, there's only one conclusion: 'sell Labour'. I know quite a few of the Westminster pundits, and in the rare moments when they're not drunk or in the grip of an egotistical mania, they're a fine bunch of men and women. But I would trust a punter over a pundit any day. At least the gambler puts his money where his mouth is.
L'articolo tradotto in Italiano.
by www.osservatoriosullalegalita.org
___________
I CONTENUTI DEL SITO POSSONO ESSERE PRELEVATI CITANDO E LINKANDO LA FONTE