Australian Liberals - when ideology is a bad thing

Political people often decry that political parties do not stand for anything any more. They (often myself included) hark back to a happier time when parties took strong positions on issues and offered voters a real choice. All too often now we see parties becoming mushy groups who offer the barest differences between them as a 'choice', and often ignore issues that seem too hard or too controversial.

However, there comes a time when pragmatism must win. Major political parties are by definition big tents. First Past the Post governments are as much coalitions as proportional representation governments - except the coalition is within the party, rather than between them. And as such there will be issues that will fundamentally divide parties and risk major splits and the flight of support from one party to another. This appears to be happening in Australia to the conservative Liberal Party.

The party has been rent asunder by the Rudd Labor Government's Emissions Trading Scheme, that has already destroyed one leader, as well as a challenger for the leadership. Malcolm Turnbull, the former leader, was rolled after (perhaps imprudently) committing the party to vote for an amended Emissions Trading Scheme, after a very fractious party meeting, and a vote that was, by all accounts, decided by a single member while leading sceptics were out of the room. This is perfectly reasonable. A party leader does not have the right to commit a party to a course of action if the majority of members are opposed to it (are you listening, Mr Cameron?). However, this is where things start to break down.

Mr Hockey, shadow chancellor and the man expected to carry the leadership, decided on a pragmatic policy on the ETS. He said he would offer every Liberal MP and Senator a conscience vote on the issue - meaning there would be no party whip and they could vote however they chose. This was the best solution. There were obviously a large number of MP's who opposed the ETS, and a large number of supporters. With a party so evenly split, the best solution was let each MP and Senator make their own decision, and justify it to their own constituents and local party organisations. However, climate sceptics announced this was unacceptable and backed hard-right candidate Tony Abbott (by a single vote).

Abbott has committed the Liberals to oppose the ETS. It was voted down in the Senate yesterday (where the Government does not have a majority). The Government has announced the bill shall be voted on again in February. Assuming Abbott still has control of his party room, the bill will be defeated again. Under the Australian constitution, multiple defeats in the Senate gives the Prime Minister the right to dissolve both Houses of Parliament and call what is known as a 'double dissolution' election. Which Rudd probably will. The Liberals then risk not only losing more seats in the House (where they are already reduced to a 1997-like rump), but will almost certainly lose seats in the Senate, and probably hand control of the chamber to Labor, ending the ability of the Liberals to at least delay laws in the Senate.

Abbott will certainly not become Prime Minister. Rudd has been handed a second term - and for once, maybe, pragmatism should have trumped ideology...