After a campaign that’s been long by local (but not US) standards, Australia will hold its Federal election tomorrow. The polls are close but generally favour the incumbent conservative government.
Whatever the outcome, I expect it will be treated in the international press as something of a referendum on the Iraq war – Australia was the third country to join the Coalition of the Willing, after the US and UK, while the Labor opposition has consistently opposed the war. I can’t complain too much about this, since I predicted at the start of the campaign that the war, and also the Free Trade Agreement with the US, would be major issues. In fact, the FTA has been ignored completely, and the war has played only a minor role in the campaign. The election has been fought almost entirely on domestic policy, with both sides promising lots of increases in public expenditure.
The obvious explanation for the absence of the war, and the FTA, from the campaign debate, is that both sides have vulnerabilities that prevent them from raising the issues.
On Iraq, Opposition leader Latham had the best of the argument when it came up during his debate with John Howard, but defence policy is never likely to be a winner for Labor. The obvious failure of the war, and the lies that led up to it, have given Howard obvious reasons to keep quiet on the specific issues and hope that a more general appeal not to change horses in midstream will produce the right outcome. On the other hand, no Australian soldiers were killed in the war, and most were withdrawn about the time of “Mission Accomplished”. In these circumstances, Labor’s policy of withdrawing remaining forces by Christmas is vulnerable to attacks on the theme of “cutting and running”.
As regards the FTA, the battle over amendments to the implementing legislation, designed to protect our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, ended in a draw, and neither side seems eager for a rematch. In the absence of a clear winning line for either side, the whole issue is too eyeglazingly complicated for an election campaign. A pity, since it’s going to raise big problems almost immediately after the election is over.
Neither government has certified that the legislation passed in the other country actually implements the agreement, and the US side has floated the possibility of rejection. My guess is that, if the government gets back in, the Americans will demand an exchange of letters, designed to nullify the PBS amendments. On the other hand, if Latham gets up, I wouldn’t be surprised (or unhappy) to see the Americans pull the plug altogehter. There was some talk about the possibility of an “October surprise”, with the American side springing a rejection just before polling today, but it’s too late for this now.
{ 17 comments }
bad Jim 10.08.04 at 9:05 am
Let’s hope Labor wins. No one who backed the war should get away with it.
Maree 10.08.04 at 9:29 am
Good post – since I live in a bluest of blue Lib seat I actually tend to vote maverick in the lower house & carefully choose my upper house order. However the blatant pork-barrelling [to borrow a US term] of John’s mob make me hope that they are given a real fright if not turned out but, frankly, both sides are a depressing mob. Personally I’d go a long way to avoid P Costigan as PM
Matthew 10.08.04 at 12:20 pm
My hope (for both US and Aussie elections) is that the fear of “changing the horses in mid-stream”, or blind trust in the incumbent on defense policy, that comes from a sort of paternal instinct, will disappear on the actual day of the election. When an actual choice is concretely present, then maybe people will see things differently…
jet 10.08.04 at 1:50 pm
“The obvious failure of the war, and the lies that led up to it”
Completely unfounded and unsupported. I respected your opinion until you made that remark and unless you know something the rest of us don’t, that seems like slander. I can only assume you are referring to the WMD’s and since no WMD’s were found, I assume that is why you are calling Howard and Bush liars. But since every international intelligence agency with an opinion sided with the conclusion that Saddam had WMD’s, the word lie doesn’t fit with the reality. You can be wrong and not a liar. But calling someone wrong doesn’t have the same rhetorical propoganda value. And while that might have some place in changing the minds of the politically ignorant, it certainly turns my ears deaf to the rest of your arguement.
Sandriana 10.08.04 at 2:05 pm
Oh dear, oh dear, Jet. Yes, you can be wrong and not be a liar. But the Bush administration hasn’t been just wrong, it has also lied about being wrong. Even given the best interpretation, Bush has been incompetent, and he’s lied about being incompetent too. The lies have been so blatant, so egregious, that you’d’ve had to’ve had your head stuck *very* deep in the sand not to notice.
You may just as well have posted ‘lalalala, I’m not listening’.
To ignore the opposing facts on clear display and hold to an opinion anyway is the mark of a true believer, who will stick the point despite all evidence to the contrary and with whom there is no point engaging in argument.
Uncle Kvetch 10.08.04 at 2:07 pm
But since every international intelligence agency with an opinion sided with the conclusion that Saddam had WMD’s, the word lie doesn’t fit with the reality.
That’s unmitigated nonsense.
Various intelligence agencies around the world had varying degrees of suspicion about Saddam & WMD’s, because Saddam’s regime was not fully forthcoming in accounting for stocks of WMD’s that he claimed to have destroyed.
The Bush administration chose to take those suspicions and turn them into “irrefutable evidence” that there were, in fact, large stocks of WMD’s in Iraq, and Saddam was just rarin’ to use them.
This was, in fact, a lie. The evidence was far from “irrefutable,” it was sketchy and vague and much of it came from sources that have since been utterly discredited.
Then they used this “irrefutable evidence” as justification to launch a unilateral war.
Jet, the “yeah, well the French thought he had WMDs too” argument is utterly unconvincing. “The French” didn’t invade Iraq; the United States did. That’s not a trivial point–it’s the essential point.
Nathan McDonald 10.08.04 at 2:08 pm
Jet, while I agree that Howard, Bush and Blair can easily use the excuse that they relied on bad intel, there are many other lies that surround the whole mess. One of the obvious ones is the alleged ‘connection’ between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. As for the obvious failure of the war, if you can point out anything apart from the removal of Saddam that can be deemed success, please do so. Slander? I think not.
Brian Weatherson 10.08.04 at 2:42 pm
Which part of the story about the aluminum tubes wasn’t a lie? Perhaps the part that they were tubes, though frankly I wouldn’t trust Cheney, Rice et al on even that much.
Go Latham!
ChrisDA 10.08.04 at 2:54 pm
It seems beyond doubt now that B&B took the decision to attack Saddam before any evidence was before them; the “intelligence”-gathering was an afterthought, a means to the end of convincing the UN/Congress/Parliament. And, as others point out, inconclusive evidence was described as conclusive.
Jet – do you disagree with this? And if so, do you still call it “slander” to characterise this as misrepresentation?
People – any idea why “true believers” are even reading this post? Baffling.
John Isbell 10.08.04 at 4:23 pm
As a pure partisan right now, I have to say I like the election coming after tonight’s Bush-Kerry debate. By the 3rd debate it will be oldish news.
Derek 10.08.04 at 6:08 pm
Long story short: It wouldn’t have been a lie to say “we think Saddam has WMDs”; it was a lie to say “we *know* Saddam has WMDs”.
Giles 10.08.04 at 8:12 pm
If Latham looses you’d have to see him as a sho in next time as Howard seems virtually devoid of new ideas (and as is his likely successor of Charisma)
No Preference 10.08.04 at 8:47 pm
I was a little depressed to see the lead editorial in today’s Sydney Morning Herald saying
the Government’s handling of the postwar situation has been more helpful than has Mr Latham’s contribution, which more damaged our critical relationship with the United States than assisted any prospect of lasting peace in the Middle East.
This makes it Australia sound like a one-horse client state like Palau, Estonia, and other members of the “Coalition of the Willing”.
I think the SMH is Australia’s leading newspaper, which makes it even more depressing.
John Quiggin 10.08.04 at 9:32 pm
“That makes Australia sound like one-horse client state”
On the contrary, we have lots of horses. The rest of the characterization is, unfortunately, pretty much appropriate.
You’ll be happy to know that the SMH is (with the Melbourne Age) the most left-wing of the leading Australian papers. The other main papers, Murdoch’s Australian and the Financial Review is pretty much appropriate.
Zak Catem 10.09.04 at 10:45 am
I’m hoping that Howard wins and is quickly succeeded by Tony Abbott when he hands over the reins. I’m just tickled by the idea that we might someday be governed by Abbott and Costello.
lms 10.09.04 at 6:32 pm
“I expect it will be treated in the international press as something of a referendum on the Iraq war”
Oh, I do hope so!
kyan gadac 10.10.04 at 5:33 am
The Rodent won, thousands of green lemmings suicided.
Comments on this entry are closed.