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...

What are the chances of a hung Parliament? And what would it mean?

There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth (or, alternatively, cheering and... not gnashing of teeth) over the Ipsos/Mori poll released on Sunday in the Observer claiming that there has been a six-point swing back to Labour, and they now are only six points behind the Tories. If those results were repeated on election day (with a uniform swing), then the Conservatives would have the most seats (16 seats over Labour), but would be 30 seats short of a majority.

There are a number of reasons why I believe this prediction is wrong:
1) The poll appears to be an outlier. There is no reason to doubt Mori's fieldwork - they have been a respected pollster for years - but the poll has been contradicted by polls before and after it was released. A ComRes poll had the Tories up by 14, and an Angus Reid poll released on Monday had the Conservatives leading by 17 (and Labour and the Lib Dems fighting for second place).
2) There has been some anecdotal evidence that the a part of the increase in Labour's support has come from an increase in their supporters likelihood to vote, rather than a swing from the Tories. Mori, unlike other polling companies, only use people who are 100% certain they will vote. Previously Labour voters have been much less inclined to vote than supporters of other parties. In the aftermath of the Tory refusal to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, there are likely to be a number of Eurosceptic Tories who will tell the pollster they are not sure if they will vote, or that they will vote UKIP, but will vote Tory on election day. Also, the financial crisis has made Labour voters more inclined to vote than previously. However (and this is a BIG however), a lot of this support is in safe Labour seats, rather than marginals. Gordon Brown's government is more popular in Labour heartlands than in the marginal districts in the South and Midlands. Therefore it is very likely that an increase of support would increase majorities in the North and Scotland, while not helping them hold seats in the South and Midlands.
3) The belief that the Tories couldn't win an overall majority on these numbers is based on previous election results that appeared to show an inbuilt advantage for Labour. However, while there is an inbuilt advantage to Labour, it has been exaggerated by tactical voting during the past three elections. Why? Because people in a lot of constituencies were not voting for Labour, but AGAINST the Tories. Therefore, tactical voting meant that Liberal Democrats voted Labour in some seats, and Labour supporters voted Lib Dem in others, in order to keep the Conservatives out. For example, exit polling showed that one in ten Labour voters in the 2005 election voted Labour as a second choice. Next election it is Labour that is the disliked party. Most tactical voting will be based on keeping out a Labour candidate, rather than a Tory. This could see some big swings in some unexpected seats - and maybe some surprising Liberal Democrat victories.

However, it is of course possible that the polls could narrow to the point that a hung parliament occurs. What then? There have been some commentators who have claimed this would be a disaster for democracy. I am not so sure. In the aftermath of the expenses scandal, a hung parliament that meant power lay less in the hands of the government and more in the hands of backbenchers would be beneficial for Parliament as an institution. Each individual MP would have a lot more power in a closely divided House than one with a huge majority either way.

Others have said that a hung parliament would lead to a coalition government and a lot of cabinet seats for either Liberal Democrats or Nationalist parties (and the Northern Ireland parties). Well, looking at Canada, which has had hung Parliaments for the past five years. we have seen minority governments, rather than coalitions. While I certainly do not want to see the same results as Canada (three elections in five years, and probably another one in the next 18 months), it does show that a hung parliament can lead to a minority government.

But, a hung parliament would also be a disaster for government in Britain. A hung parliament, while handing more power to Parliament, would prevent any party from being able to introduce the necessary measures to deal with the financial crisis. Large necessary budget cuts would be opposed. Therefore, while I expect and hope for a Conservative victory, I agree with Ken Clarke that 'a Labour majority would be better than a hung parliament'.

Obama is risking the war in Afghanistan with his delay

Obama came into office with a policy of leaving Iraq, in order to fight 'the good war' in Afghanistan. Earlier this year he agreed to a 'surge' strategy. However, he has now been sitting on a decision on the number of troops he will commit for a dangerously long time. Why? Because as he dithers over the decision Americas allies are falling away. Without America's leadership more and more countries are finding it difficult to keep public support for the war - and more and more difficult to support the Afghan campaign in the face of that lack of support. In Britain a spate of casualties and a sense of lethargy from government (caused, mostly, from Washington) has seen support for the campaign fall, and the numbers calling for an immediate withdrawal rising precipitously. While the three main parties are still committed to the campaign, the Liberal Democrats have already backed away from wholehearted support - there is a chance they will move to a withdrawal position before the General Election.

Gordon Brown, whatever his faults (and heaven knows there are no shortage of those) has been a strong supporter of the campaign. But even he may be unable to fight public opinion without more obvious and loud support from Washington. If Obama wants to continue the Afghan campaign and continue to have wide support from America's allies in that campaign then for the love of mercy, Mr President, make a decision!

Climate change supporters need to debate science

I am not a scientist. I do not know, or understand, any of the science of climate change well enough to say what is going on. But I do know something. The era of climate change supporters saying 'the science is settled' is over. Why? Because the climate change sceptics are starting to make some damn good points, and if the supporters of climate change aren't willing to debate them on the merits of the argument then it just makes them sound like they do not have any answers. What has led me to this point?

Last night I went to a fascinating debate on climate change, with a for and against speaker on the science, and a for and against speaker on the economics.

The 'for' scientist stood up and spoke about policy, rather than science. The sceptic scientist spoke well, giving a number of clear examples of where (he claims) the science shows that climate change is a mostly naturally occurring phenomenon. Then in the rebuttal speeches I fully expected an argument to be made as to why these claims were wrong, or alternative evidence presented. Not at all. Which, naturally, led many in the audience to wonder whether this was because there was no counter-argument.

With polls showing that well under 50% of Britons believe in human-caused climate change, and an economic crisis that has made many think of global warming policy as far less important, I think the pro-climate lobby needs to get off their high horses and have the debate. If they are right, they should easily defeat sceptics. If they won't, it starts to look like they can't.

The law is an ass

Well, it is official. The law has completely lost it's sense of justice. Paul Clarke, an ex-soldier, has been convicted of possessing an illegal firearm - after picking up a discarded weapon and taking it to the Police station! When I first came across this story, I thought "oh, there must be more to it". But no, there isn't. He found a shotgun at the bottom of his garden (which backs on to a public park), took it to the police and handed it in. By touching the weapon, he was in possession of it, and as the offence is strict liability (ie, his intention does not matter, only his actions - so the fact he only possessed it to hand it in has no bearing on the case) he was convicted this week. The minimum sentence is five years imprisonment.

Believe it or not, as a rule I am strongly in favour of strict liability offences. But only when you can rely on the discretion of officers to identify dangers to society and act accordingly. For the love of all things, when you have Police handing out caution notices for assault and sexual assault, I would have thought the officer in question would have been smart enough to recognise that Clarke was not a risk to society and acted accordingly. Apparently I am wrong about that - and that is very concerning!

Police officers aren't thoughtless automatons. You often see officers using their discretion - especially with the young (the number of times one hears about drunk university students being given a warning or other summary punishment rather than spend a night in the cells). This discretion helps the justice system work fairly and justly. The police officer in question appears to have forgotten that, and his actions will make other less inclined to help the police serve and protect the people of Britain.

Result in Glasgow

What will almost certainly be the last by-election of this Parliament was held last night in Glasgow North-East, the seat of former Speaker Michael (now Lord) Martin. Labour held the seat, which was expected, but they also won it with a surprisingly large majority. Labour ended up with a majority of 8000 over the Scottish National Party on a turnout of 32%. The Conservatives came third another 3000 votes back, closely followed by the British National Party. In a very disappointing result for the Liberal Democrats, their candidate came 6th with 2.3% of the vote.

So what does this mean? Does it mean anything? Well... yes and no. Glasgow North-East is one of the safest Labour seats in the country. Anything other than a massive victory would have been truly shocking. Coupled with the Glenrothes result from last year, it appears that the Scottish vote will hold up for Labour in the General Election, which might stymie some expected gains for the Tories, Lib Dems and SNP. It could also mean less of a defeat for Labour in a General Election, since they will have a strong base of Scottish seats to fall back on.

However(!!!), there are other readings of this result. This result, coupled with Norwich North and Crewe & Nantwich, may well prove that Gordon Brown is successful in getting hardcore Labour partisans out to vote - but is disproportionally bad at keeping swing voters and casual Labour supporters to the ballot box to vote Labour. This may mean an unexpectedly bad result for Labour - since rather than a uniform fall in their support (so marginal and safe seats lose approximately the same number of votes), Labour is still winning the same number of votes in safe seats, and losing disproportionally more votes in marginal seats, which would see more of these marginal seats fall to the Tories. More importantly, most of these marginal constituencies are held by those on the right of the party. A clear out of these members could see Labour fall into the same position as they did in the early 1980's.

Expenses criminal Julie Kirkbride trying to stand again

I'm not usually someone who rushes to anger, but in this case I am most certainly angry. Julie Kirkbride, for those of you who do not know, was one of the worst expenses fiddlers. She, along with her MP husband Andrew McKay, set up an elaborate con where they both claimed second home allowances - she claiming for their flat in London, and he claiming for their home in the constituency.

At the time Judy did the honourable thing and announced she would not seek re-election for her seat. But today she has announced that she will seek reselection. Congratulations, Judy. In one foul swoop you have undone the hard line David Cameron took on the expenses saga and also risk becoming a local news story that will lessen the chances of up to eight Conservative gains in seats around the Birmingham area - not to mention risking a safe seat.

And precisely what is your reasoning? Surely you cannot think Mr Cameron can trust you with a ministerial job now? Please, pack up what is left of your dignity and say that it was a misunderstanding and you will not seek or accept nomination for the seat