News roundup, 10 Jan 2024

- Economic losses from the fires in the Los Angeles area are now estimated to be at least $135 billion. Thousands of buildings, including celebrities' homes, have been destroyed; at least five people have died.

- Justin Trudeau now calls abandoning electoral reform his "biggest regret". And indeed, it was one of the more regrettable aspects of his tenure; too bad he's only acknowledging this now when there's no time to do anything about it. Of course, up until recently he didn't have to worry about his party being pushed into third place; coincidentally, the Liberals had fewer seats than the NDP at the time they promised electoral reform in the first place. And it turns out that his decision to abandon electoral reform came not long after a committee recommended some form of proportional system, rather than the instant-runoff system preferred by the Liberals. Meanwhile the party plans to have Trudeau's replacement selected by March 9, giving the winner 15 days before Parliament reconvenes (and probably votes non-confidence in the government).

- Elon Musk has heaped praise on Pierre Poilievre. This should come as no surprise to anyone, of course, except maybe those who hoped that he would be too busy heaping praise on the likes of Alice Weidel of Germany's AfD to remember who Poilievre is. I guess it's possible that stuff like this might harm the Tories somewhat after a while, but it's unlikely to hurt them sufficiently to stop them from winning a pretty solid majority.

- While most have until now dismissed Donald Trump's musings about annexing Canada to be a joke, some federal cabinet ministers, including Finance Minister Domenic LeBlanc, aren't so sure anymore now that Trump has repeatedly declared the intent to "use economic force" to compel Canada to join. One thing that's kinda, sorta reassuring is that he says he wouldn't use military force against Canada, even if he won't rule out using it against Denmark or Panama if they won't hand over the territories he wants to take from them. Perhaps he's seeing from his buddy Vlad's experience that invading and taking over your next door neighbour isn't as easy as it might look on paper. Or, more likely, Musk and Vance are seeing it and talking him down; I'm not sure Trump has the mental capacity to figure that out on his own, even with the evidence right in front of him.

- At a sentencing hearing for the Coutts border blockade trial, the prosecutor has called for prison time for two men convicted of mischief over $5,000 as a result of their actions during the protest. They're still likely to get off pretty lightly compared with two others who each got 6½ years each for weapons charges related to the same protest.

- Frances Haughen, the whistleblower who reported a few years ago about how Meta knew that their products were harming children and teens and damaging democracy, thinks it's no surprise that Meta is now doing away with fact checking in jurisdictions where they can get away with doing so. She believes that the company has "heard the message" from Trump; perhaps Zuckerberg isn't keen on the idea of falling out of a window.

Independents win significant concessions in Australia

It looks like the major parties are willing to do quite a lot to get the support of the independents:

They just had to ask. The three country independents got all they wanted from the PM. Tony Abbott's response was a little more qualified but they did well out of him too. There's nothing like desperation to make leaders generous to a fault to those whose support they need.

The most fundamental concession is that both Gillard and Abbott say they would not have an election before August 2013. Gillard is even willing to ''work with'' the independents in setting the precise date.

For those used to Victoria's fixed term, this mightn't seem much. But federally, terms are flexible and the PM's ability to decide election timing is an important power. Giving it away is no small thing.

From the Sydney Morning Herald. What's interesting, though, is what Abbott is not willing to agree to:

The scrapping today, however, will be over what Abbott would not agree to - the independents want his promises officially costed.

It's not surprising he is resisting this. If Treasury/Finance found holes in them - as is very likely - this would undermine not just Abbott's credibility but his pitch to the independents.

Interesting. And the fact that Gillard has not resisted this doesn't exactly make Abbott look very good... but assuming some coalition appears, that won't matter (it will probably be forgotten by the time the next election rolls around in three years). I'm inclined to think Gillard will ultimately get the nod from the independents actually; despite being ex-Nationals, they seem to be on poor terms with their former colleagues. Also, a Labour government could accomplish much more than a Liberal-National one, because the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate and thus a Liberal-National government would have a hard time getting legislation through the upper house.

The thing is, whoever does form the government will likely have a majority of one, which will make for some interesting times. If nothing else, MPs on both sides of the house are likely to have excellent attendance in the next three years...

A side note -- those unfamiliar with the quirks of Australia's political system may find the coverage of this minority parliament particularly confusing, because the possibility exists of the independents forming a coalition with the Coalition. The existence of a long-term coalition between the urban and rural right (the Liberals and Nationals respectively) seems to be made possible by instant-runoff voting; the Liberals and Nationals simply trade preferences, whereas they'd be spoilers for each other under FPTP.

And a further tangent from that -- how would IRV play out if introduced in this country? I'm not entirely sure. At the federal level I suspect it would lead to a lot of NDP-Liberal coalitions, though at the provincial level I could see the Manitoba Liberals supporting the Tories rather than the NDP.

Minority parliament in Australia

It appears no party will be able to command a majority in the lower house of Australia's House of Representatives:

With a single seat, Hasluck in Western Australia, still in doubt, Labor has 73 and the Coalition 72 of the 150 seats in parliament's lower house.

Brisbane was this morning called for the Liberal National Party's Teresa Gambaro, unseating incumbent Labor MP Arch Bevis.

Denison in Tasmania was also in doubt, but was this morning declared for Labor by the Australian Electoral Commission, dashing the hopes of high-profile independent Andrew Wilkie for a surprise win.

In Hasluck, the sitting Labor member Sharryn Jackson trails the Liberals Ken Wyatt.

Tony Burke, the Gillard government's minister for sustainable population, says he has faith Mr Katter, Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor will reach a deal to form a stable government.

From the Sydney Morning Herald. This story raises several issues:

• Australia has almost 2/3 the population of Canada. So why does its lower house have less than half the number of seats? That doesn't sound like good local representation to me (and I thought that was the point of single-member constituencies!)
  
• The instant-runoff voting system used in Australia hasn't helped minor parties to the extent that the casual observer would expect. Sure, there are four independents, but only one Green has been elected, and nobody from the other parties. I have heard it claimed that IRV can be even more unfair than first past the post; these results seem to support that thesis. Their upper house has multi-member STV, and the Greens have the balance of power in that house, so it's not like they don't get support, but they are badly underrepresented in the lower house. Nick Clegg, take note!
• Regarding particular results, it seems that most of the independents are former Nationals, which could mean that, on the one hand, they'd be disinclined to support Labour if they could avoid it, but on the other hand, there may be some bad blood between them and the Liberals. If they do decide to support the Liberals, they'll have a hard time getting their agenda through the Senate, while if they support Labour it may not be for very long. So whatever government forms when the smoke clears is likely to be short lived.
  

Even Brown's resignation couldn't save Labour

It's now official; David Cameron is the UK's new prime minister. What went wrong is unclear; as George Eaton points out, in settling for Cameron and the "alternative vote" the Liberal Democrats have retreated considerably from their previous position on electoral reform. But maybe it was seen as political suicide to side with Labour; alternatively, perhaps Labour figures that they're better off not being in power right now (some have suggested that the new PM is going to be extremely unpopular very soon, owing to the austerity measures that will be necessary). Also, Clegg and company might believe that AV is a foot in the door that could eventually lead to the adoption of multi-member STV at a later date (it would at least get the public accustomed to preferential balloting).

Incidentally, for some suggestions as to how the past election would have gone under AV and under multi-member STV, check this out (this is of necessity rather speculative, as in the real world many voters would have given their first preferences to a different party if they had confidence that their vote would count).

Interesting developments in European politics

Firstly, Gordon Brown has decided to take one for the team:

The British political landscape was transformed last night as an unbridled bidding war for power led to Gordon Brown proffering his resignation as prime minister in a dramatic attempt to secure Labour a power-sharing government with the Liberal Democrats.

Brown's surprise announcement on the steps of No 10 prompted an extraordinary Tory counter-offer to the Lib Dems: a referendum on the alternative vote electoral system, and a coalition government with seats for Nick Clegg's party in the cabinet. The proposed Tory coalition deal would last at least two parliamentary sessions.

The hurried Tory offer, previously seen as completely beyond the ideological pale for the party, was swallowed by shell-shocked Tory MPs.

Cameron said he would whip a vote in parliament to ensure there was a referendum on the alternative vote, but the Tories would then be free to campaign to keep first past the post in the referendum itself.

From the Guardian. If Clegg is as smart as I think he is, he won't bite on the "alternative vote" system, which is another term for instant-runoff voting. While it can be viewed as a special case of the single transferable vote system preferred by the Lib Dems, it is one in which proportionality is sacrificed for more local representation. To my mind this system is at best only marginally better than FPTP and under some circumstances can be worse (if introduced in Canada, for instance, it would likely lead to a never-ending string of Liberal majorities). I suspect that Clegg would probably rather work with Labour than the Conservatives anyhow, and with Brown out of the way he'll have more credibility making such a deal.

This isn't the only big thing to happen across the pond either. Angela Merkel just suffered a significant setback in Germany:

Results from Sunday's poll show Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) won 34.6 percent of the vote, down a full 10 percentage points from the last election in 2005 and their worst showing ever in the state. The center-left Social Democrats (SPD) were only marginally behind, winning 34.5 percent of the vote.

The business-friendly Free Democrats, the CDU's current coalition partner in North Rhine-Westphalia and at the national level, gained half a percentage point, winning 6.7 percent of the vote. The environmentalist Greens did the best, almost doubling their showing from the last state election, securing 12.1 percent. The Left Party won 5.6 percent, and is now poised to enter the NRW state parliament for the first time.

The election outcome means that the opposition Social Democrats and the Green party could narrowly form a governing coalition in Germany's most populous state with a slim one-vote majority, but would likely require support from the Left Party.

From Deutsche Welle. What's critical to this is that state governments appoint members of the Bundesrat, the upper house of the German parliament, and as a result of this Merkel is expected to lose control of that house. And a big reason for this is Germany's reluctant approval of the bailout of Greece, which pleased the markets but had a rather different effect on the electorate. We'll have to see how this goes; Merkel is not up for reelection until 2013, unless her coalition somehow collapses, so she could find herself stymied for quite some time by an uncooperative Bundesrat.

Whither electoral reform?

The latest Harris-Decima poll is probably bad news for those of us who want electoral reform in this country. In this poll, 64% of respondents said they prefer a majority to a minority government. Unfortunately, this will make the job of selling electoral reform harder, since under proportional representation majority governments are almost unheard of. There are still ways to do it (for instance, pointing out that if no party has any realistic hope of a majority, the parties will have to change their strategies and perhaps be less acrimonius) but I have my doubts about PR coming in in the next couple of decades. Declan at Crawl Across the Ocean seems a bit more optimistic, but I'm not sure I like all of his solutions either. For instance, he advocates instant-runoff voting as a step in the direction of PR. Others, though, fear that IRV would make the situation worse; it would tend to favour the party that is the second choice of a lot of voters... thus likely cementing the Liberals' role as "Canada's natural governing party" for a long time to come.