Italian Election 2018: Can progressives settle their differences and work together? The heavy right-wing leaning of other possible governments makes cooperation a must

The Palazzo Montecitorio, home to the Italian Chamber of Deputies. Photograph: Palazzo Montecitorio by Nick Kenrick (License) (Cropped)

On Sunday, Italy goes to the polls. Considering how turbulent the past few years have been, it is astonishing that the last election was a full five years ago now. In 2013, with help from the electoral system, the Partito Democratico - led by Pier Luigi Bersani - came out on top.

Things did not go to plan for the Democrats. Without enough seats for a majority, the three way division of Italian politics became an insurmountable obstruction. Bersani failed to form a government and stood down. With tentative agreements, successive Democrats have been Prime Minister: Enrico Letta, Matteo Renzi and Paolo Gentiloni.

It was Renzi who had the longest run at the head of the government, but his popularity waned as he kept pushing for reforms and he was toppled by his own constitutional referendum - to change the electoral system - which he staked against his own position and lost.

Since Renzi left office in the December 2016, Paolo Gentiloni has led the government and has proved fairly popular, with good approval ratings, back by most centre and left parties. However, he is not running at the head of the Centre-Left on Sunday.

In his absence, it is instead the centre-right, that look most likely to gain enough seats to form a government. The question for the centre-left, and the leading Democrats, is how to recover to the position they had early in Renzi's tenure, when they topped the European Parliament polls with 40% of the vote.

The Centre-Left

Matteo Renzi speaks at a university in October 2015. Photograph: Matteo Renzi a San Giobbe by the Università Ca' Foscari Venezia (License) (Cropped)

The 'centre-left' is led by Partito Democratico (PD), with Matteo Renzi returned as leader. A dispute over methods led to an ultimatum from left-wing Democrats, including stalwarts like former leader Bersani and former Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema, that if Renzi ran to return as leader of the party, they would leave.

Renzi ran again, and won. So they left - leaving the party largely in the hands of the Renziani faction, as many of their followers went with them. As a result, the party's more left-wing factions departed, and gone with them are a number of small left-wing parties that the Democrats previously counted on for support.

The PD's main allies this time around will be centrists and liberals, such as radical Emma Bonino's +Europa and Beatrice Lorenzin's Civica Popolare list of the centre-right Alternativa Popolare. These allies reflect the reality that the Democrats have found themselves under the consolidated control of the Renziani faction.

For the Renziani, this election is about defending their policies in government. Under his watch, civil administration was reformed, labour laws were relaxed and taxation simplified - it was these policies, a typical neoliberal agenda, that their left-wing critics found intolerable.

However. While economic reforms they oversaw are broadly accepted by the Centre-Right, they were accompanied by social measures, such as same-sex civil unions, which are likely to be targeted by the Centre-Right if it returns to government. It is also possible that Italy's fidelity to European commitments may also suffer - especially where they require unpopular fiscal sacrifices.

In the name of protecting such policies, a small part of the dissenting left has stuck around. As a result, the PD will get a little support from the left through from 'Italia Europa Insieme', or Insieme (Together), which gathers parties including Partito Socialista Italiano (Social Democrats), Federazione dei Verdi (Greens) and others from the recently faltered Campo Progressista.

The Centre-Right

Silvio Berlusconi, through controversies and legal battles, has intermittently held the post of Prime Minister of Italy during nearly a quarter century on the political frontline. Photograph: Silvio Berlusconi by paz.ca (License) (Cropped)

The name 'centre-right' is a bit of a misnomer, as it is composed of parties ranging from right-wing to far-right. Silvio Berlusconi is still there (or back, if you prefer) with Forza Italia, his vehicle of some twenty five years, leading the right.

He is joined once more by his long time, on again off again, allies, though they have expanded their appeal to all of Italy, quietly dropping their call for Northern separatism. Also in tow once more are Fratelli d'Italia, Brothers of Italy - the successors on the far-right to the National Alliance.

Despite everything, the octogenarian Silvio is still in the middle of everything. But he isn't having it all his own way. He faces strife within his own coalition list, with Lega leader Matteo Salvini - the influence behind taking the party national - not happy to play second fiddle. How that power struggle plays out could have a huge impact.

It wouldn't be an election featuring Silvio Berlusconi if there weren't some wild promises. The Forza Italia electoral pitch includes a basic income of E1000 for all Italians, along with free vet treatment for pets. Silvio has also promised tax breaks for adopting pets and to cut VAT on pet food.

It would be unwise for progressives to be seduced by these trinkets. These are pitches to win over any supporters of the populist party M5S who aren't looking too closely at the rest of the centre-right agenda, which - with the influence of FdA and Lega - would be terrible for virtually anyone except white male Italians pleased by tax breaks.

That is reinforced by Berlusconi's commitment to cutting income taxes across the board. Italy has a top rate of tax well above the European average and Silvio's solution is the darling of right-wing libertarians: a flat rate income tax set at 23%. As ever, the question arises as to how any of these promises can be paid for.

The particular driving force behind the campaigns of the right-wing parties is immigration. While tensions of been heightened by murders and revenge killings in recent months, the refugee crisis has been feeding anti-immigrant, nationalist rhetoric for some time.

Matteo Salvini and his party Lega, slogan 'Italy First', have been allowed to set the tone on the immigration debate and their tone has been aggressive. Salvini refers to a 'tide of delinquents', 'drug dealers, rapists, burglars' and says he 'wants to send them home'.

That aggressive, oppressive tone has been softly mimicked by Berlusconi, as you might expect, but also been followed by the Five Star Movement - the populist rival to the two main coalitions. The Democrats have not shied away from appeasing this stance either.

The Populists

Beppe Grillo talks to the crowd at party event in 2015. Luigi Di Maio stands in the group behind him, second from right. Photograph: Italia 5 Stelle at the Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari - Imola by RevolWeb (License) (Cropped)

Movimento 5 Stella were the surprise of the 2013 election, presenting themselves as a true third force in Italian politics - much to the dismay of the centre-left and centre-right. Founded by comedian and blogger Beppe Grillo, the party built a following that came for the establishment with a fire for tearing it down.

Or at least, that was the impression they liked to give. Led in the Italian Parliament by the 31 year old Luigi Di Maio, they present themselves as Anti-establishment, almost anti-politics, Eurosceptic and outspoken against administrative corruption. Di Maio has tried to professionalise that outline, in order to steer the party into government.

The M5S quest for respectability included an attempt last year to join the pro-EU liberal group in the European Parliament. The liberals gave them a hearing, but declined their application after members of the group objected (the other groups in the parliament had quietly turned them down, while the Greens overtly stated their mistrust of Grillo).

Yet they are a party filled with contradictions. M5S has found itself mired - from laughable amateurishness, like their programme apparently being copy-pasted from Wikipedia, to being itself caught up in corruption. Virginia Raggi's time in office as Mayor of Rome has been dogged by corruption allegations. And nationally, delegates were forced to resign after it was discovered they had fiddled commitments to donate parts of their salaries and expenses.

The party, or Movement, has also been linked to the spread of fake news, and propaganda from Russian sources. The party leadership has been accused of making money off the back of a fake news aggregator. This shouldn't come as a tremendous surprise.

The party itself is a spawn of Grillo's blog, and the party's branding remains his property. That makes it as much a controversialist media business venture as a political movement - much like that of a certain president in North America, with his penchant for crying fake news of mainstream media journalism included to boot.

But what are the controversialists standing for? They have been described as an anti-representative democracy movement - calling for direct democracy through digital means. But Di Maio has focused on more practical measures in his campaign.

Their policies include a basic income, which Berlusconi has felt the need to copy, but also cutting public debt and simplifying many laws. The left should be concerned with just how much common ground M5S has with the parties of the so-called 'centre-right' grouping.

Dissenting Left

The outspoken Pier Luigi Bersani, pictured during his time as leader of Partito Democratico, was instrumental in the breakway of the Movimento Democratico e Progressista and the formation of it's coalition Liberi e Uguali. Photograph: Floris e Bersani, Non stop Banda Larga PD venerdì 18 giugno 2010 by Bee Free - PGrandicelli (License) (Cropped)

The dissenting left has, after it's recent exodus from the Renziani dominated Partito Democratico, gathered a number of like minded parties in an alliance by the name of Liberi e Uguali (Free and Equal) - under the rather familiar slogan of "For the many, not the few".

It's leader is the former antimafia prosecutor Pietro Grasso, at present the President of the Senate. It's leading figures include former Premier Massimo D'Alema, former PD leader Pier Luigi Bersani, former leader of the left-wing Sinistra Ecologia Liberta party Nichi Vendola, and Laura Boldrini who is currently the President of the Chamber of Deputies and formerly the spokesperson for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

The LeU groups unites the breakaway factions of PD in the form of Movimento Democratico e Progressista, with other left-wing groups gathered into Sinistra Italia (Italian Left) - that acts as a successor to the Sinistra Ecologia Liberta party that has been a significant left-wing block in recent years.

The joint programme for LeU promises that the group will fight to turn the tide of globalisation, to counter the trend towards precarity, to put education and work back at the centre of people's lives. While the reforms under Renzi increased jobs by one million, they haven't arrested the slide of 18 million people into poverty, with most new jobs being on a part time basis.

In practice, the LeU programme comes as a pledge to restore 'good employment' with a Green New Deal, an investment programme to convert and expand the economy across many areas; to undo the 'blackmail' of precarity by restoring restoring Article 18; to undo recent school reforms and boost investment - along with abolishing university fees; to reorganise taxes to be more progressive and close loopholes - with the money being used to fund reformed health and welfare provision; and to shore up inclusion of LGBT people, particularly couples.

It may be that this pitch is more about shifting the position of the Democrats back in their direction than expecting to implement these plans in government. But it is an ambitious programme which has brought together a number of left-wing, democratic socialist parties and factions - not an easy task in Italian politics.

But what unites LeU as much as politics is a deep mistrust of Renzi and his methods. Pier Luigi Bersani - former leader of the Democrats and one of the founders of the breakaway Movimento Democratico e Progressista that formed LeU - has taken particular exception to Renzi's tearing up of the root of what Bersani considers his party.

Bersani has gone as far as expressing the belief that Renzi plans to form a government with Berlusconi - the old enemy as far as the left in Italy is concerned. It is perhaps notable then that the party's main objectives require largely dismantling the changes to job security and pensions that the Renziani faction oversaw.

Polling and Possible Governments

Despite spending since 2013 in government, and even riding high in the polls during that time, the Centre-Left has a lot to do if it wants to end up in government. The Democrats have fallen to around 22% - with their allies +Europa on 3%, and their whole coalition list sitting at just 27%.

Even if the dissenting left could be reconciled, that would at present add just 5% more support. Bersani is optimistic that Free and Equal can take double their poll numbers - perhaps hoping their borrowed slogan brings a little of Corbyn's campaigning fortunes. But even if the party reaches towards 12-15%, they will still need allies. Can they work with Renzi?

Unless there is some serious turn in favour of the Democrats - such as winning well in FPTP constituencies - it may be that forcing a fresh election might be their best outcome. With support for a progressive government struggling to crest 30%, things do not bode well for other options.

While the LeU want nothing to do with Renzi, would it be possible to attract the support of sufficient centrists to cobble together a (very) broad centre-left government under someone like Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni? It seems unlikely at this point.

As a result, the Centre-Right finds itself perhaps best positioned to form a government. But it would be a government of fractious interests and hostility to otherness. However, collectively at 38%, they hold the strongest position - though who will lead such a group after the election is another question - it is too close to call in the polls between Berlusconi's Forza Italia and Salvini's Lega.

For Berlusconi's part, he has ruled out both a grand coalition, or national unity government, and even a limited confidence & supply arrangement between the Centre-Right and Centre-Left. He says there will be a new election if his coalition falls short of a governing majority. Renzi has agreed with this - but such proclamations may be taken with a pinch of salt, as pragmatic dealmaking rules in Italy.

So the renewal of the Centre-Left/Centre-Right grand coalition should be considered very possible. The denials of the leaders of both coalitions have been offset by voices among the allies of both, who note that a grand coalition is the most likely outcome. But will it be a long term option or just a stop-gap until a fresh election?

It could presented as stop-gap but run as long as needed. What is clear is that neither Renzi nor Berlusconi could lead such a government (in Silvio's case, because he is still banned from holding political office). That would mean the appointment of some third figure - such as current Premier Paolo Gentiloni.

The current Prime Minister Gentiloni is, personally, Italy's most popular leader. But people know he isn't the leader of the PD, and so his polling has yet to figure into the election. With his record - at present overseeing Italy's GDP up on 2010, while both deficit and debt are falling, thanks to reforms that have received praise in Europe - he might assemble a stable government, for a time.

But it will likely be seen as another stitch up. Stirring up the pot will be the M5S, and the share of votes and seats they are able to capture this time. Contrary to previous elections, M5S seem keen to get into government this time. But the question is: who with?

The nightmare outcome for the left is M5S throwing it's lot in with the right-wing parties. It does not seem like a big leap for M5S to work with the Centre-Right in a small state, Eurosceptic, socially conservative government.

There is an outside prospect for M5S, in the form of fleeting hints that the dissenting left group 'Free and Equal' might be prepared to work with them in government. It seems unlikely with so much ground between the two - but it would certainly be considered change. It is more likely that M5S will tip the centre-right into government.

Advent of Populist Government?

However, from our perspective, the prospective government for progressives to be most concerned about  is some sort of tie-up between M5S and Lega. It would, of course, require both to have particularly strong elections - though they are currently polling at around 26% and 15% respectively, and Lega particularly may punch above their weight in seats thanks to regional concentration.

Both parties have a history of being aggressively anti-establishment. That is not, in itself a reason for dismay, but it is something they may find common ground on. But what is worrying are their common ground on pushing anti-immigration stances and their criticised ties to the wider populist and nationalist waves that have been backed by Russian interventions in Western democracy.

If these two were able to patch over their differences - and Grillo has shown himself to be very flexible about making friends, allying with Farage and UKIP in Europe, praising a certain US President - they might assemble between them the kind of low tax, protectionist, nationalist and hostile-to-difference socially conservative agenda that will spook every country around them.

More pressing is that this toxic brew - the mix of Grillo's anti-representative democracy, Salvini's 'promotion of the family' at expense of LGBT people, and both party's scapegoating of refugees and immigrants - might do significant damage to the rights and wellbeing of a lot of people.

Salvini has certainly indicated a desire to shake off Berlusconi and assert his own leadership. An alliance with M5S could give him an outlet to pursue a government built on the exploitation of the kind of unrestrained nationalism and disaffection that a certain US President rode into office.

Don't expect a clear result on Monday morning

The complicated electoral system will play a role in which of the possible governments Italy ends up with and a lot will ride on the performance of the smaller parties. The election has two components: a third of seats are first-past-the-post constituencies, while two thirds are proportionally distributed according to the popular vote - above a 3% threshold.

It is important to note that just reaching the popular threshold delivers a substantial number of seats: just 3% would award 11-12 seats. Meanwhile, the FPTP element, just as seen in Britain with the SNP, favours small but regionally concentrated parties and rewards them very heavily.

For instance, the smallest of the parties allied to Berlusconi is Noi con l'Italia, which is standing locally known candidates, against very little opposition, in the poor Southeastern region of Apulia. Standing in just 34 seats, if it were to win even half that would be 17 seats - even if it took less than 3% of the vote.

It will take days to sort through the permutations. But whether Italy has a functioning government will be in the hands of many competing factions, across the spectrum, doing deals long after the distribution of seats is decided.

For progressives, there is no clear route to building a government and everything depends on a big shift come polling day. If voters turn out to give the Centre-Left and the dissenting left sufficient seats, they must sort out their differences and work together, because the other possible governments do not bode well for progressive values.

What to expect from President Trump? To see how an opportunist backed by the far right will fare in government, look no further than Italy's Silvio Berlusconi

Silvio Berlusconi, through controversies and legal battles, held the position of Prime Minister in Italy for nine years out of seventeen on the political frontline. Photograph: Silvio Berlusconi by paz.ca (License) (Cropped)

If progressives are going to start building a meaningful opposition to the global rise of far right populism, seen most recently in the Trump Presidential Campaign, they first need to understand what they will be standing against. What will the representatives of the far right pursue when actually in office?

When considering what to expect, its important to look to history. For Trump in particular, there are obvious comparisons to Ronald Reagan (Rich, 2016) - though, it seems, except for those who really buy into the Myth of Reagan but don't like Trump, and so want to distance the two as much as possible.

But perhaps a better guide for expectations, both for Trump and beyond, might be the rise of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy in the early 1990s, out of the wreckage of the Italian political system that imploded with the exposure of  huge corruption under the Mani Pulite investigation.

Amidst massive political disillusionment and a global downturn, a seeming outsider, with business credentials, and in alliance with parties of the far right, put themselves forward as the champion of the populist opposition to the corrupt old establishment - despite plenty of their own legal battles, to which their support seems immune.

Sound familiar? Trump's rise mirrors Berlusconi's own route to power. The media chief, and chairman of football club AC Milan, began his long relationship with political power in Italy at the head of his party Forza Italia - named for a popular football chant.

If that does not say enough, as a measure of the man consider that Berlusconi once claimed, with extravagant outrage, that one of his longest running political opponents, Romano Prodi, called him a drunk during a 2006 election debate - and offered him a "no, you are" in return (Popham, 2006). What Prodi had actually said was:

"He uses statistics like a drunk uses lamp-posts, more for support than illumination."

For those who want decency and reason in the political arena, this level of obfuscating outrage is infuriating. When a political candidate is willing to twist anything, to play whatever role happens to be convenient to the relevant situation, coherency be damned, it makes it impossible to get to grips with what that candidate actually believes - and so to have a meaningful political exchange.

But whether that was what he actually believes is besides the point. What that exchange presented was an opportunity. And the seizing of such opportunities defined Berlusconi's career - as it does Trump's as well.

Silvio Berlusconi rose to power on the back of a career as a media personality, a celebrity, just as much as he did on his career in business. His media company took on the establishment and broke through the state owned monopoly on broadcasting - though in part thanks to his connections in that very same government establishment.

And when that - again, very same - government establishment collapsed amidst one of the biggest political corruption scandals ever seen, Berlusconi took to the political field - despite his own connections and the spreading of investigations into his own businesses (The Economist, 2001).

Berlusconi promised to keep Italy pro-Western and pro-Market, create a million new jobs and protect the country from the communists - the Italian Communist Party successor, the Democrats of the Left, were virtually the last party standing in the Italian political system after the corruption scandal.

The coalition he put together to achieve those promises - with the separatist Lega Nord in the North and the post-fascist Alleanza Nazionale in the South - backed by a massive publicity campaign on his own TV channels, received the most votes and seats in the 1994 Italian general election.

His first government collapsed after only nine months, torn apart by its own internal contradictions. Yet, though often with only a tenuous grip, Berlusconi returned to power time after time, with rebuilt coalitions that pushed the same mix of social conservatism and economic neoliberalism.

And he was never far from controversy. Berlusconi was accused of being sexism in Italy's most powerful apologist, as his personal life often spilling over into the political and even sparking protests (Marshall, 2016). His legal troubles also followed him constantly.

The same kinds of fate are now being predicted for Trump's Administration, as he tries to marry his misogynist and nativist support with the Republican mainstream - itself a contradictory collections of libertarians and nativist Christian nationalists.

Just as legal scandals chased Berlusconi throughout his career, they're likely also to follow Trump. With numerous cases still outstanding against him, some commentators are even predicting that Trump may ultimately end up being impeached by the Republican-controlled Congress (Oppenheim, 2016).

The election of Trump answered one question to which the answer was already known: that negative campaigning is used because it works - even, it seems, in its most extreme forms. It also drew parallels between Trump and Berlusconi, that suggest that far right populism is unlikely to hurt the Reagan-esque tax-cutting, laissez-faire, pro-business establishment.

But what about about in Europe, where far right parties have pushed their way into the mainstream with fewer compromises and mainstream alliances? As with Trump, promises of social conservatism, anti-immigration and harsh law and order policies have abounded. Yet on economic policy, the stances of far right movements have been inconsistent.

Trump's one elaborated economic policy was for a massive tax cut. That matches up with UKIP's policies, which have historically leaned toward less compromising version of Conservative manifestos, with tax cuts, especially for those at the top and large amounts of deregulation.

Yet while Trump has hinted at protectionism, it has been more strongly pushed in Europe. For instance, Front National have travelled over time from aggressively, anti-welfare, 'parasite' opposing, Reagan neoliberals, to ardent advocates of state control and protectionism (Shields, 2007).

Other far right parties in Europe, such as the Freedom Party of Austria and the Party for Freedom of the Netherlands, or elements of the Five Star Movement in Italy, have expressed a kind of national liberalism, to which the French Front National seems aligned.

The parties are standing, ostensibly, to 'protect' their 'national values', which have over time extended to include liberal tolerance, particularly of native homosexual and Jewish communities; and attempted to reconcile what amounts to 'national welfare', claiming to expel outsiders from the system, with the neoliberal capitalist system.

These positions express profound contradictions: between the rousing of intolerance and promises of social protection, and between deep connections to the low tax, low regulation and big business neoliberal order and promises of economic protection.

Berlusconi showed that these contradictions can be maintained, though not without difficulty and obvious fragility, over a long political career. So whichever way these parties break, caught between intolerant, nationalist and statist demands and their neoliberal connections, progressives need to have a strong argument that counters the flaws of both. And that argument needs to bring together radicals and moderates, democrats and liberals.

Justice, Liberty and Progress; equality, cooperation and sustainability; these values drive progressives. The far right stands opposed to them, picking and choosing between them as it suits their cause. Progressives need to unite around them - whether against neoliberalism or nationalism, as both are disastrous.

Petty squabbles are the opportunities that the Berlusconis and Trumps exploit. They disillusion the public and open the doors to opportunists and extremists. That pattern needs to end, in the name supporting those made most vulnerable by the rise of such forces: women, minorities, refugees, immigrants and the impoverished.

The UK general election result appears to be no big surprise when seen alongside results from across Europe

The number of seats won aside, the UK general election produced a result pretty close to expectation. The big mainstream parties, austere conservatives and austerity-leaning social democrats - in this case the Conservative and Labour parties - saw their stranglehold on voters slipping away, with liberals struggling to avoid obliteration while a new challenge arose in the form of various anti-establishment parties.

While Britain might see itself as a special case, this pattern certainly isn't isolated to those islands. It has been repeated right across the continent.

Spanish Regional Elections

In Spain, where the ruling Partido Popular - the conservative, pro-austerity party - are struggling with 20% unemployment and trying to suppress separatism in Catalonia, the end of last month saw regional and municipal elections (BBC, 2015). Since the last round of regional elections, Partido Popular had recovered a substantial lead in the polls in many of the regions.

But it was a polling lead that looked large mostly through comparison to a divided opposition. The opposition to Popular was split between the traditional social democratic, Left-wing party, Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol (PSOE), and two rising anti-establishment groups, reflecting trends across Europe.

Podemos and Ciudadanos, the Left-leaning radical and Right-leaning populists respectively, represent a growing, organised, mass movement against the politics of the old order. While Ciudadanos has recognisable party appearance - offering a Centre-Right, fiscal conservative, balanced budget, anti-corruption ticket, kind of like UKIP without the intolerant overtones - Podemos has been built by forming alliances with, and offering support to, local campaigners and regional movements, pouring mass support into decentralised, grass roots campaigns.

Yet their rise has helped to divide the response to austerity, and allowed the conservative narrative to hold its own. But it hasn't all been the result of splitting the vote - the Centre-Left response has been weak or uncertain all across Europe, and so has been displaced in many regions and provinces by the new radical and populist parties.

However, despite Partido Popular polling  fairly well, and the opposition being split between at least four parties nationally - plus a number of regional parties strong in their own provinces - the vote share in the Spanish regional election was even more fragmented than in the UK's general election.

Partido Popular took only around 31%, falling from a previous 46% (Buck, 2015), and the PSOE also fell to 25%. The two anti-establishment movements, Podemos and Ciudadanos, took 14% and 11% respectively, and could well find themselves in government in Madrid and Barcelona (Kassam, 2015). The nationalist and regionalist parties took between them a combined 15% of the vote.

With the establishment parties only taking 56% of votes, and the main opposition to Partido Popular taking 65% of the vote divided up between three parties and a range of regionalist and nationalist groups, the results of Spain's election tell us that the political establishment is in disarray (Buck, 2015{2}) - with Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy expressing disappointment at the fragmented result (Kassam, 2015{2}).

Italian Regional Elections

In Italy, the situation was initially balanced a little differently. At the 2013 election Prime Minister Matteo Renzi's Partito Democratico (PD), which represents the Centre and Centre-Left of the spectrum, became the biggest party on just 30% of vote - though Renzi himself only became Prime Minister after months of wrangling over how to form a government saw two Democratic Premiers, Pier Luigi Bersani and Enrico Letta, come and go.

The PD, which groups together some vociferously socially democratic voices, has under Renzi, considered by some to of the same mould as Tony Blair (Day, 2013), nonetheless imposed elements of austerity on Italy, seeking to make the country's economy more 'competitive' (The Economist, 2015). Those moves have damaged their position, with trade unions striking against 'reforms' to the labour market (BBC, 2014).

Yet over the past couple of years the party has benefited from an opposition that has crumbled. The controversies facing Silvio Berlusconi, the long time leader of the country's Centre-Right movement, has split the Right-wing group into two blocks (The Telegraph, 2013). Berlusconi's own return to the political limelight has been rather less than spectacular, with the former Premier turning to up in support of the wrong party's candidate in Lombardia (Johnston, 2015).

These divisions have left the opposition to the Centre-Left Democrats split up between a Berlusconi rump, the broad anti-establishment group Movimento 5 Stelle (M5S) and the Right-wing Northern separatist group Lega Nord. In recent months Lega Nord have moved, from a fringe regionalist party on the Far-Right, to overtake Berlusconi's group in the polls and in local elections, under their controversially popular leader Matteo Salvini (Sanderson & Politi, 2014).

In the regional election Renzi's Democrats took over 40% of the vote in five of the seven regions. Meanwhile Berlusconi's party struggled, falling as low as fourth in some regions behind Lega Nord, who made huge gains (Kirchgaessner, 2015) - even in areas on the fringes of their traditional heartlands. However, despite Renzi's Democrats winning outright in five of seven regions - including two gains in the south - they lost in Liguria and, when the concurrent municipal reforms are accounted for, popular support for the party was 24%, even as it remained the largest party (Ellyat, 2015; BBC, 2015{2}).

German Regional Elections

For those concerned as to what comes next, the results in German over the last two years look like being an interesting guide - appearing almost to be a couple of years ahead of the European trend. Back in 2013 - in what now seems like an indication that the Liberal Democrats in the UK should have expected their poor performance in May - the liberal Frei Democratische Partei (FDP) lost every single one of their seats in the German Bundestag, down from a previous total of 93 seats. However, in the regional elections held over the last two years there have been signs of a recovery.

Having fallen below five percent of vote, the FDP did not meet the threshold to qualify for Bundestag seats. Amongst the problems the party had faced were many that will be familiar to the UK Lib Dems: struggling to recover votes lost to their former Centre-Right coalition partner (who they partnered with for primarily economic reasons), and being squeezed for votes by their antithesis, a popular anti-EU party, plus faith lost due to a failure to deliver promised tax reforms. Two-thirds of votes the party lost went to the CDU, many whom still wanted the FDP to keep the CDU in check but had lost faith in the party after internal party struggles (Wagstyl, 2013).

After the FDP's federal election defeat, the party suffered further losses: just 3% in the 2014 European Parliament election, 7th place with 3% and no seats in Saxony, 7th place with 2% and no seats in Thuringia, and down to 1% and 7th place with no seats in Brandenburg. Yet by February 2015 the party was polling back up at 6% nationally, and then took 7% of the vote to retain all 9 of its seats in Hamburg, and 6.5% with 6 seats, all brand new, in Bremen.

At the present rate they look on course for 6-9%, from down at 3-4%, by the time of the next federal election in 2017, which could mean a recovery to as many as 40-60 seats - reflecting a recovery to their 2005 position. That should at least give liberals hope that when they are gone, they are quickly missed (The Guardian, 2015), and boost their efforts to restore credibility (Wagstyl, 2014).

What the German results also show is that liberals are not alone in the struggle to restore electoral credibility. As has been seen in Spain and Italy, and with Labour in the UK, social democratic parties are struggling to come up with an electorally successful alternative narrative to conservative austerity. In Bremen, Germany, the German Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) has governed continuously since the end of the second world war and yet even here support for social democrats has weakened (The Economist, 2015).

The conservative ascendancy is not all it appears to be

The struggles of all of the main parties have been largely to the benefit of conservatives everywhere except Italy, which is being governed from the Centre by Democrats struggling for support. But the conservative is not all that it seems to be. The message from voters in Britain seems to be a match for the voices of voters across Europe: austerity has been allowed to limp because the opposition has not yet managed to construct a compelling alternative narrative. In all of these countries all of the establishment parties are teetering on the brink.

Yet, even in the face of the grip of austerity, disillusionment and anti-establishment movements, there is hope for the recovery of lost ground on the Left. But a recovery will require the Left to learn the lessons of the past few years and to adapt to the times by changing its methods. More decentralisation, co-operation, and an end to the mainstream chic of sycophancy towards the established order is essential. Only then can any party on the Centre-Left hope to gain the support of radical movements and find a broad consensus behind a real alternative to austerity.