The truth is that Russia has not as yet changed from the cruel autocracy it has always been; it does not look set to do so either. The only apparent difference is the rise of a new elite: the oligarchs.

The question that many ask of this nouveau riche is where did their power and wealth come from? How did they become the phoenix that rose out of the ashes of the broken Soviet state in the 1990s? The most honest explanation is the result of the small reforms pushed through in the 1980s by Gorbachev. These reforms succeeded an embarrassing attempt by the Politburo to reinvigorate Lenin-Marxist economics by clamping down on ‘unearned incomes’. What this quite meant was beyond the understanding of the Soviet security services.

One result of this order was the prevention of privately sold vegetables. The militia searched vehicles coming into major cities – searching for, as the newspaper Nezavisimaia Gazeta put it, “Criminal Tomatoes.” Gorbachev was extremely embarrassed by this, and realising the need for reform, changed the law in order to allow small privately owned businesses to exist – these were called the cooperatives.

So finally, as the tyrannical fire of the Communist state was starting to dwindle, the freedom of capitalism was permitted in small doses. This is where the oligarchs enter the stage – one of whom is the prominent billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

Although his first few businesses, such as a café at the Mendeleev Chemical Institute, were a failure, his fortunes soon changed completely (as did those of hundreds of other Russians) when they exploited a small loophole in Soviet law.

Khodorkovsky took a bunch of temporary workers, called them his labour collective, and claimed subsidies from the Gosplan (the state institution for economic planning). He then took these subsidies, told the banks he had to pay his workers in real money, and was allowed to redeem the subsidies for actual cash, which he immediately turned into dollars, freeing this wealth from the dragging burden of the failing rubles.

Hundreds of entrepreneurs exploited this loophole, and the Soviet state, in an effort to save their economy unwittingly gave more and more subsidies to the cooperatives – the result of which simply multiplied the fortunes of these Russians. By the collapse of the Soviet Union, hundreds were fast becoming, or had already become vulgarians with a rosy future – persons who succeeded as the state failed. This success had its integrity challenged however – it was marked with shady loans and sales of banks for fractions of their worth.

Not all oligarchs came to prominence with this relative honesty. Many of the wealthy are petro-oligarchs, men who have made their fortune by buying up the State’s largely untapped reserves of oil. In the 1990s, Yeltsin gave oil, metal and banks to the sycophants of his administration. The other prospering Russians seemed to have simply had the fortune to be in the right place at the right time. Poorer Russians will give each other knowing looks and say, “KGB, or Politburo…” These are often unproved rumours, but who was better placed to cash in on the rise of the most prosperous industries in the world than those who had controlled it not a few years previously?

One example is Vagit Alekperov. He was the Deputy Minister of Fuel and Energy under the USSR, and miraculously managed to acquire numerous oil assets in the 1990s. He now enjoys a personal wealth of $1.3 billion. And what of Vladimir Gusinsky? He built a huge media empire, starting this effort in the 1980s, while enjoying a close relationship with Filipp Bobkov, a KGB general who personally supervised Soviet repression of political dissidents, Christians and Jews.

When Putin arrived on the scene in 2000, he told the nouveau riche that he would not carve up the Russian economy but he warned them to keep out of politics. Wealth may not always buy power, but it certainly gives certain ambitions – and some oligarchs could not resist trying their hand. Vladimir Gusinsky and Boris Berezovsky were the first casualties of the oligarchs’ foray into politics, resulting in their exile just a short time later. The brutal retaliation of the Russian state has targeted journalists, political dissidents and the wealthy – men and women who have been threatened, attacked and murdered at home and abroad.

Putin plays a clever game however, and regularly meets with business leaders, in order to inform them that they will be tolerated but that they must not think or act against the state. The Russian newspaper Kommersant reported a meeting in 2007: “The topics under discussion were chosen to show business its place (as was last year’s meeting, devoted to ‘the social responsibility of business before society’).”

The oligarchs are shining trophies of success for Russia, and the state is eager to show them off. Yet that same state is desperate for Russia to not become an overt plutocracy. The occasional fervent repression of rich individuals and removal of their political voice could be the wish of the state for itself to be seen as proletarian.

Putin is careful to never display his wealth, but some suspect it to be vast. Anders Åslund wrote in his book, ‘Russia’s Capitalist Revolution’: “Everybody around Putin is completely corrupt, but many think that the president himself is honest.

In February 2004, presidential candidate Ivan Rybkin named three men as Putin’s bagmen, including Gennady Timchenko, the co-founder of the Gunvor oil-trading company. After Rybkin made this statement, he vanished from the political stage.

In September, the Polish magazine Wprost wrote that Timchenko, a former KGB officer and member of Putin’s dacha cooperative in St. Petersburg, has a net worth of $20 billion. Officially, Timchenko sells the oil of four Russian oil companies, but how are the prices determined to generate such profits? In an interview in Germany’s Die Welt on Nov. 12, Stanislav Belkovsky, the well-connected insider who initiated the Kremlin campaign against Yukos in 2003, made specific claims about Putin’s wealth.

He alleged that Putin owned 37 percent of Surgutneftegaz (worth $18 billion), 4.5 percent of Gazprom ($13 billion) and half of Timchenko’s company, Gunvor (possibly $10 billion). If this information is true, Putin’s total personal fortune would amount to no less than $41 billion, placing him among the 10 richest in the world.”

In response to these allegations, at a press conference in February of this year, Putin replied: “This is true. I am the richest person not only in Europe, but also in the world. I collect emotions. And I am rich in that respect that the people of Russia have twice entrusted me with leadership of such a great country as Russia. I consider this to be my biggest fortune. As for the rumors concerning my financial wealth, I have seen some pieces of paper regarding this. This is plain chatter, not worthy discussion, plain bosh. They have picked this in their noses and have smeared this across their pieces of paper. This is how I view this.” This is a very Russian answer.

This state of affairs is reminiscent of feudal Europe. When William I conquered Britain, he rewarded flatterers of his court. Men such as the Earl of Northumbria, who had not fought him, were given large amounts of land. And although the Russian emancipation of the serfs was back in 1861, the Russian people are still very much subservient to the state and the oligarchs, that is, the Tsar and the landowners.

The financial turmoil that has engulfed the World economy has revealed the remnants of the Soviet state that still subsists in Russia. The oligarchs lost a huge amount in the recent stock market crashes, in which shares have fallen by 75% since August. Vladimir Lisin, the steel magnate owner, has lost $11.2 billion since July; Vagit Alekperov, the President and one of the biggest shareholders in Lukoil, has lost $5.13 billion; and Uralkali Dmitry Rybolovlev has stacked up losses of $7.3 billion. Meanwhile, ordinary Russians know very little of their country’s and their oligarchs’ failures.

A recent poll found that 57% of Russians believed their country to be flourishing, up from 53% a few months previously. And the state-controlled media have been banned from using words such as, “crisis” and “decline”.

Just as Soviet propaganda films purported, Russians are still told how terrible life in the West is. Supposedly desperate Britons are throwing themselves in the Thames; we can no longer afford to bury the dead; and the Queen is pawning her jewellery. Russia tells its people that the Motherland will be the rescuer of Europe. The state affirmed this by giving a large loan to bankrupted Iceland recently, while Western countries refused to help. The media asks Russians to thank the genius and leadership of Vladimir Putin for their country’s stability and strong position during the financial turbulence.

The truth is that oligarchs are simply pawns of the state, at the mercy of the current tolerance of the Kremlin. Putin is preparing to reinstate himself as President – so completing the transition to an authoritarian method of rule – but as the economy worsens, his forbearance from destroying the providence of Russia’s financial elite is looking to lessen fast.

As in Soviet times, it is true in Russia that if one pulls oneself up, out of the misery of the bottom of the pile, then one will risk the painful drop from the top right back to the bottom; albeit from the nocuous control of the state, the lethal prison, forced labour, Siberian exile, or the gun. Ten years ago, life had never looked better for the oligarchs – through both serendipity and dishonesty they looked set to live a comfortable life. Now they find themselves in a collapsed attempt at democracy, in an atmosphere that is breeding wanton ideals of despotism. A recent Russian reality television show has Stalin set to win ‘The Greatest Russian Ever’ award. Stalin – a man responsible for the death of tens of millions of people.

The sensible oligarchs, such as Roman Abramovich have moved to Europe, partly because of the larger number of crimes accused by the Russian state and business partners against them.

Abramovich in particular, emerged triumphant from the so-called ‘Aluminum Wars’; he left behind him over 100 gang fighters dead, a fellow oligarch exiled to Siberia and “numerous officials and executives” found murdered.

Russia never became a state with a free economy. Most of the oligarchs made their fortunes in a dying state through cruel and backhanded measures. Just as they rose so spectacularly, they will fall so too – especially as oil prices continue to plummet.

They are bizarre figures – successors to the KGB heads and party officials – all of whom enjoy a limited autonomy in their respective areas of control; but they are still, and will always be ultimately at the mercy of the callous Russian state.

The times are truly changing for this small party: It has branched out spectacularly and is very keen to announce that its image as a one-policy party is now dead and buried under the fresh and alternative policies that mark UKIP so far apart from the practically identical three major parties.

Their leader, Nigel Farage, has used new policies to dig himself and his party in well for the 2009 European elections. What is truly alluring, however, is UKIP’s noticeable distance from the draconian wishes of the other parties – from energy to detention without trial.

UKIP has emerged as the only major libertarian party in the current lie of the land. Many of their policies reflect this mantra, such as the decision made at the conference not to take a dogmatic stance for or against the case for human-caused global warming – the decision is instead to be left to the individual.

So if the mood of the audience can reflect the mood of the people, UKIP looks to be on its way up. They recently celebrated the defection of Dr Bob Spink – MP for Castle Point in Essex – from the Conservative party; UKIP’s first MP. This achievement will add to the energy leading up to the European elections next year. After the very noticeable public dissatisfaction with the government’s referendum charade, these are elections that UKIP should, and most probably will, be able to cash in on spectacularly. The EU has become perceived as being more and more dangerous over the last few years – from the threat of a continental police force to the justice system that is forecast to destroy the concept of the sovereign state.

Although Britain is not a nationalistic country on an American scale, there remains a patriotic backbone to the British people. Fishermen rue the loss of their livelihoods, stolen by EU policies; the European weights and measures are implemented, the street traders arrested for rebelliously refusing to conform; 75% of our laws now come from Brussels; And membership of the EU costs Britain 139 million pounds each day – UKIP alone stands strong against these tides of insanity.

The conference speakers all very excitedly heralded the ‘young aspect’ of UKIP. In fact, so did the aging conference audience. The Chairman, leader, and the Young Independence branch were all hoisted aloft as a shining trophy of youth. This is probably a very welcome move for UKIP – they have unwillingly obtained an image of a disgruntled pensioners’ party at times.

As you look around at the younger UKIP members, many of whom have recently left school or university, you can’t help but suspect they feel a little like Hansel and Gretel at times – lured in, fattened up, and watched hungrily by their eager captors.

But UKIP may have actually struck gold. The youth aspect is immensely important as the vote-eligible youth are often filled with a political zeal and solitarily represent a potentially huge share of the voters.

There are, however, a few reservations.

One statement released by UKIP announced, that if it were in power, immigration would be frozen for five years to deal with the backlog. This is not mentioned at all in the 2005 manifesto, and as yet, a paper has not been published on immigration for the 2008 manifesto. Furthermore, there was no mention at the conference of how the problem of immigration was to be tackled.

A five-year freeze seems like unmanageable and impractical solution, and raises some serious questions: What of the Iraqi translators who risked their own lives and those of their families in order to help their country and the coalition? What of the brave Ghurkhas? Does this include asylum? Mehdi Kazemi was an Iranian homosexual student whose partner had been murdered back in Iran by the state. What of him?

One does fear that, as the economy worsens, a real resentment against immigrants will manifest itself and could actually benefit UKIP.

All in all, this is a very exciting time for UKIP. They stand for the most part in a truly unique position: The increasing anti-European sentiment, the worsening economy, the appointment of their first Commons’ MP, the fast-growing size of Young Independence (the youth movement), and their position as the only party promising libertarian, free market politics. In the following year the European elections will be crucial to UKIP’s future – the impressive change they have undergone in the last decade gives them a political appeal to a diverse range of voters. They are a small party that has shrugged free the crippling divisions noticeable in the larger, more commercial parties – they represent the collective views of a large percentage of voters; it all depends upon how astutely they can capitalise on the current political climate.

It is an old story, especially in the United States, that the media fails to predict correctly the election performance of conservative politicians. It is fair to say that the majority of the American media is fairly liberal; the noticeable exception is Fox News. These left wing media outlets spout ideas and opinions that are often adopted as ideals by society. An important and misleading consequence of the political position of the mainstream news services is the fallacious polls.

One classic example is the so-called ‘Shy Tory Factor’. This term was coined by British opinion polling companies in response to the 1992 General Election. Despite the Conservative Party trailing 1% behind Labour, the Tories won the election with a lead of about 7.6%.

This discrepancy can be explained by a number of theories. The first is that the greater representation of the political left by the media gives rise to false hope and perhaps even can provide a dangerous sense of complacency to left wing politicians. The second theory is this: If a government at the end of its second or third term is unpopular with the mainstream left, then while publicly the virtuous middle class may denounce the ‘failing government’, those same ‘principled’ men and women will rush to vote for them when the polls open – perhaps because of a private admiration or quiet understanding of the abhorrent government’s policies.

The third possibility for the inconsistency between predictions and realities is a word that has governed the concept of equality in the last hundred years: race. It seems apparent that race is a defining factor in the human consciousness, and however much equality is sought, there is a part of each single soul that craves identity. For example, most Muslims will support a Palestinian state whereas more Jews will support the Jewish Israeli state. The concept of identity is prevalent in the quest for independent opinion, and for this reason Obama has bastions of support among some communities but not others. A recent YouGov poll found that Obama has an 82% lead among black voters, whereas Obama is trailing by 5% among white voters. In some states Obama appears to have almost 97% of the black vote.

Obama has a huge amount of support from the black vote, but this is not enough to win the election alone. Obama’s election team knows this and that is why they have campaigned so heavily amongst the white middle class America. These efforts appear to have worked and the polls are in Obama’s favour. Many newspaper columnists are speaking of Obama’s victory as if there need be no contest at all.

This could be a huge mistake. America’s answer to the ‘Shy Tory Factor’ is called the ‘Bradley Factor’. This is named after Tom Bradley, the black candidate for the California Governorship in 1982. Despite enjoying a position far ahead in the polls, Bradley lost to his Republican rival. It was attributed to white voters privately voting differently from their public declaration to pollsters. There are many other examples of black politicians experiencing the effect of the Bradley factor: Harold Washington in 1983, Wilson Goode in 1987, Jesse Jackson in 1988, and David Dinkins in 1989.

In fact David Duke, the Nazi sympathizer and KKK member, experienced an inverted Bradley factor when he received a much larger proportion of the votes than polls had shown. The same happens in the Britain: the BNP regularly does much better than expected, and no one is ever more surprised than the liberal media.

Juxtaposed against the Bradley factor is a suggested reverse Bradley factor and a concept known as the ‘Fishtown effect’. Douglas Wilder, the first black state governor has suggested that many Republicans will secretly vote for Obama while publicly declaring otherwise. The ‘Fishtown Effect’ however is the suggestion that usually bigoted white voters will vote for a black candidate because of economic concerns; in the present financial climate this theory could have a significant influence on the election.

But is the Bradley factor truly an example of cold, calculated racism? It is a quest for identity and fraternalism, rather than the wish of one race to dismiss another. These uncertainties and confusion results from the furious denunciations from the media, who vilify individual figures, cultures and ideas. If Obama loses the election, the voters will be accused of anachronistic racism; if Obama wins, some will be accused of lacking integrity and letting fear of inequality dictate their vote. Stanford University has worked hard to be ahead of the game. They suggest “that racial prejudice is eroding as much as 6 percentage points from Senator Obama’s support. One commentator has even suggested that white racism would be the only explanation for an Obama loss this November.”

The true villain is actually the media – their shameless selective reporting, their composition of supercilious ideals and their lack of objectivity have irrevocably destroyed the continuation of a nonpartisan candid and free press. Although keen to malign other Democrats and the Republicans, the media has been hesitant to report news and rumours about Obama: from the incongruous gap between the discovery and the media report of the villainy of Reverend Wright’s speeches, to the bizarre association with Bill Ayers, and now the LA Times is overrun with requests that they persistently ignore, to release videotape they possess of Obama with a suspected PLO terrorist named Rashid Khalidi. Why would a very large newspaper not release a sensational news story so pivotal as this?

Are the associations with Obama uncovered by the right as serious as some would paint them? Not at all. However, the burnt soul of the unscrupulously bias media is poisoning the democracy of the Western countries. This same media is to blame for the misinformation and intolerance in politics that breeds bountifully during times of wanton ideals. Furthermore, there is always independent thought, which leaves the opinionated editors and columnists shouting at deaf ears. And certainly the hurly burly media world can no longer explain a truth or encourage an honest purpose; it is an impotent force, multiplying in presence but with a fading influence; useless in a world of disobedient readers.