Nope. For instance, Norway’s social-democratic coalition where re-elected with a handsome margin last month. So where Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel.

A competent incumbent certainly have the chance to survive an election during a recession. Incompetents, however… May not.

Don’t forget John McCain was polling 53% in the US before Lehmann. Incumbent parties always lose during a major recession. Always. If you had a socialist government during a recession, they will get beat. If you have a conservative gov’t during a recession, they will get beat. There’s nothing else going on here… It’s merely the incumbent parties which are getting ousted, has nothing to do w/ left vs. right.

Compare it to the 1920s. Then too globalization had reached a top. Then too inequality was also at a top. But was it the cause? Then too finance was grossly oversized and the governments had grown very tolerant towards corporate crime. So in my view what really was/is going on was that the balance between merit and equality – as reflected in government policy and public opinion – has reached an extreme point in the favor of “merit” whereby the mere possession of money is seen as the reflection of some kind of merit. In the 1930s the balance swung back with increasing social security legislation and pro-trade union legislation.

As I see it globalization has contributed to this swing, but it certainly is not the only factor.

”Lower taxes mean less revenues, so you sell assets.”

Depends on how you see it. If you expect that after privatization you will have to pay more you will think twice. If you believe that the private sector is always more efficient you will jump at it. Social-democrats have traditionally been suspicious towards business in this respect, but the last decades they have fully embraced the faith. Yet actual experience is rather mixed.

>>”It is that the middle class has changed its identification with the rising prosperity. Much more people than in the past have shares in companies.”<<
” Interesting theory. If this is so we should see correlation with ownership rates. Do we?”

This is a rather common explanation why traditional social-democratic themes didn’t work anymore. Take a bus driver. Traditionally working class. Now he may own a house, a holiday cottage in Spain and still have some ten or twenty thousand in the bank to play with on the stock exchange or to invest otherwise. He may have a big mortgage too, but that doesn’t take away that he now feels himself “middle class” instead of “working class”. It changes also his political outlook. He will feel less attracted by politicians who see him as disenfranchised and instead be more attracted to politicians who claim that his tax money is wasted.

At the moment you see more and more of these professions under stress and getting large pay cuts. At the moment here in Holland the postmen are facing a huge pay cut. The reason is a government policy of liberalization.

So times are changing and I think that you can expect that “equality” themes will come back in the political debate.

I would say that traditionally the European Left was a cooperation between intellectuals with a special emphasis on equality and people who want to improve the lot of the working class. It seems to me that the latter kind of people has left. But why is this so? Again I do blame globalisation. It makes the working class left seek illiberal solutions which horrify the intellectual left.

“Globalization is often used as an excuse. But you can’t use that as an excuse when you are privatizing public transport, electricity or health care”

Why not? Lower taxes mean less revenues, so you sell assets.

“It is that the middle class has changed its identification with the rising prosperity. Much more people than in the past have shares in companies.”

Interesting theory.
If this is so we should see correlation with ownership rates. Do we?

Really? The present leader of the social-democrats in Holland is a former Shell manager. His predecessor had done some business school. If you go to party meetings you will find middle and upper class people; the underclass is almost completely absent. In my perception they have gone from a party for workers to a party for people with working class parents and idealists. Initially those ideals centered on economic equality, but nowadays they are mostly about women and gay rights, the environment, the third world, etc. The party has nothing left to offer to the underclass and if you look at their internal discussions you will see that the rising inequality is hardly a subject. When occassionally the party does pick up an inequality issue it is always about protecting existing rights, not an effort to find creative solutions for our time.

Globalization is often used as an excuse. But you can’t use that as an excuse when you are privatizing public transport, electricity or health care: all natural monopolies.

There is another explanation for this change of the party. It is that the middle class has changed its identification with the rising prosperity. Much more people than in the past have shares in companies. But we saw the same thing happening in the 1920s and we know how that ended.

But why? They didn’t do it gladly. Globalisation made them.

The problem of immigration in France plays may be a role, but generally in France the right is on charge 3/4 of the time. The right is generally at 55% of the vote.
Unless the right is worn down by the exercise of power the win elections.

I don’t believe that the nation-state is outdated. I still don’t see any alternative. Nation-states tend to be about language. And given the connection between language knowledge, education and jobs that is crucial in modern society. I don’t know a country that has found an alternative.

In my opinion the main reason for the decay of the social-democrats is that they have surrendered to the neo-liberal belief. In both Western Europe and the US inequality is steadily rising – also under left governments. For example: here in Holland we got just a decrease in the inheritance tax, while the government is considering to increase the VAT. Brittain is more unequal than ever – thanks to 12 years left rule. So why should people vote social-democrat? If they are poor and they want someone to represent their interests this doesn’t seem the right party. If they prefer “merit” above “equality” they will vote for the real thing: right. My expectation is that the social-democrats will have to choose: either they incorporate some of the ideas of the parties to their left (Die Linke in Germany, SP in Holland) or they will be replaced and may at best find a place somewhere in the center.

Any thoughts about the Butmir negotiations in Bosnia?

Italy doesn’t have that emotional investment into gov’t that we do. Culture feels ‘healthier’ than most; no drink problem (they like pot, sometimes), money’s rarely an issue as the parents often have an extra apartment for the kids when they finally move out, salaries are ‘relatively lower’, food’s great due to the volcanic ash and how they cook.

Every country has their own immigration problem, but Italians address it by marrying them into their society……and yes, drug n crime problems down south, racist issues up north, but very, very isolated….no country’s perfect to be sure…just a perception

Immigration/the unwashed hordes were a big factor in France and Italy’s elections, and that’s two of the big four. If they had left wing governments, no one would be talking about a collapse. Centre-left parties have furthermore moved significantly to the right on immigration, but often do not appear sincere. The political movement is clear.

Note that two of the recent victories of the left came in countries with huge immigrant populations: Greece and Norway.

Don’t know anything about Greek politics, but Norway has definitely gone to the right on immigration. Fremskrittspartiet is a major factor, it is the dominant opposition party, and but for immigration / Muslim / nationalist issues the social democratic parties would be permanently in power. As soon as a Norwegian Anders Fogh Rasmussen shows up, the right wing bloc will solidify and take over.

– I notice you mentioned “jihadi bombs”. The bombs on the London Tube had surprisingly little long-term effect on British politics, and have absolutely nothing to do with Labour’s current problems. The bombs in Madrid… I’d say those make a tolerably strong argument against your position, since they resulted in the conservatives getting kicked out and the center-left party taking power for the next five years (and counting).

Political contingencies. Immigration, while a strong factor (and one you didn’t mention at all), is one among many others. The 7/7 bombs certainly did have a very chilling effect on the UK, but the Tories looked complete shite back then, pre-Cameron. That’s the two-party system for you. Meanwhile the Aznar government simply lied about the Madrid bombs and unsurprisingly were devastated at polls a few days after. As for Germany: The right wing parties definitely use anti-immigration rhetoric, though of course outright racism is for historical reasons a third rail. Personally I think it’s the shadow of Schröder.

Again, nobody’s saying that xenophobia isn’t an issue. But connecting it to the decline of center-left parties across Europe is something else again. I’m not seeing a convincing case for that.

Then I suggest there is no single cause for the decline, and each country should be looked at separately. With regard to immigration, for example, various countries have different political customs: What passes in Denmark as mainstream would be taken as fascism in Sweden. As a result, the anti-immigration party in Sweden, Sverige Demokraterna, is far more extreme (with clear ties to the Nazi underground) and hence far less influential than the Danish People’s Party, even while gaining significantly in strength lately.