Casualties of war
To a country fair in the fabled parliamentary constituency of Eden Monaro, the sort of event where candidates go in search of voters and reporters go in search of metaphors.
Had the race been full of drama, this backdrop would have lent itself to frenzied talk of rollercoaster rides, and white-knuckle tension. But the Labor Party continues to command an election-winning lead going into the last week of campaigning, just as it did entering the first.
Aside from a spectacular cock-up in the final days, or an unforeseen event, Labor’s main concern, perhaps, is the geographic distribution of its supporters: that it could win the popular vote but still fall short of the 16 additional seats it requires to secure a parliamentary majority.
It has happened before, of course. At the 1998 election, the then Labor leader won 50.98% of the national vote, but still fell short of the 76 seats needed to oust John Howard as Prime Minister (although the party achieved a net gain of 18 seats, it won only 67 in all).
Eden Monaro has long been a good place to take the pulse of the nation. This vast rural seat in the south-eastern corner of New South Wales is a classic bellwether, which has fallen to the party of government at every election since 1972. That’s a staggering 13 federal elections in a row.
The sitting MP is , a popular and genial former surveyor who reckons he has clocked up close to a million kilometres in the 11 years that he has represented a seat the size of Belgium.
Such is the vital importance of this seat, that Labor has fielded one of its "star candidates", as they have been called: , a moustachioed former colonel in the Australian Defence Force, who has served in Somalia, Bosnia, East Timor and, most recently, Iraq. As a military lawyer working for the Coalition Provisional Authority, he – warning of the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Graib long before the New Yorker broke the story. He also exposed some of the sanction-breaking financial kickbacks paid by the Australian Wheat Board, AWB, to Saddam Hussein.
I caught up with Mike Kelly at the country fair, and asked him about the impact of Iraq in this campaign. Like foreign affairs in general, I suggested that it had not featured that prominently.
"It’s one of those issues which has concerned people in a package of things, which have concerned about the reliability and credibility of the government," the 47-year-old told me. "But people do talk to me about the war in Iraq, and how it’s been mishandled."
Iraq is not as explosive an issue here as it is in the US and the UK. For a start, the Australian Defence Force has not sustained anywhere near the same number of casualties. is the only "digger" to have lost his life in Iraq, and he was killed with his own pistol . (in Kuwait in June, 2005.)
Similarly, the Iraq war has not divided the Liberal Party in the same way that it has split the Labour Party in the UK or the Republican Party in the US.
Still, my sense is that Iraq has ultimately damaged John Howard, largely because it has become yet another symbol of his almost umbilical relationship with the Bush administration, much like the and the failure to ratify Kyoto.
And while international affairs have not loomed large in this election - a foreign policy debate in Canberra last week made headlines only because the foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer decided to break into French – it has contributed to Mr Howard’s unpopularity over the past twelve months. In other words, the damage has already been done. Iraq helps explain why Mr Howard is trying to make up a deficit in the polls which has suffered from all year.
Kevin Rudd has promised the . As a former diplomat, he fully understands the likely impact on relations with Washington. But he probably suspects that George W Bush will be replaced by a friendly Democrat in January 2009 (he is already on record as favouring Hillary Clinton).
In the shorter term, he clearly believes that the promised troop withdrawal is a vote-winner. The presence of a candidate with the military track record of Mike Kelly lends its political credibility.
I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
I think the election campaign has mainly focused on national politics rather than foreign policy because alot of Australian voters are quite insular in their thinking and views.
I would love to hear views and suggestions for East Timor, Burma, nuclear deals with India, etc, but to alot of people these places seem to be in another world.
I've read Nick's blog each day of this dreary election campaign. I feel sorry for Nick because it's been like putting off a visit to the dentist. We all know the tooth has to come out and that we'll feel better afterwards, but the wait......
Post election party .... all welcome Kirribilli wharf Saturday Nov 24.
In celebration of the King of Spin, and as the entertainment highlight, the Kirribilli Wharf Rat will be invited to a spell of pole sitting on the shaft of the last splintered wharf pole in Sydney Harbour.
We can "count" too ....
.... Drac.
I disagree with john's comment I don't think Australians are insular. We come from a country which although large in size is very small in population. We don't have the people or the money that countries like the USA, UK, France, Germany, Japan and China have to be influential on a world stage.
I believe Australians recognise this and although world affairs interest them we know we hold little sway in the grand scheme of things. Therefore any politian that big noted our influence in world affairs would be seen right through, so they therefore concentrate on local issues.
You are right to highlight Australian's insularity - we are just so far away from things that domestic issues trump anything that happens overseas - frustration with our presence in Iraq is one expression of this. The cultural gulf between us and our nearest neighbours (with the exception of New Zealand) also makes for a tendency to focus inwardly.
Your article did however neglect the single biggest Liberal Party policy influencing a likely loss - the hated Workforce Choices laws. John Howard misunderstood the reaction of Australian's (rich and poor) to an assault on cherished ideas of fairness, and income equity. It would appear his support for small-minded, small business (who reap the rewards of this US style minimum wage/condition free-for-all) will ultimately cost him his job. Whilst his treatment of refugees and shamelessly divisive exploitation of Muslims for electoral gain makes us slightly ashamed, Workforce Choices will be his nail. Howard's a venal little man that even the average never-had-it-better Anglo-Celt has had enough of!
You are right to highlight Australian's insularity - we are just so far away from things that domestic issues trump anything that happens overseas - frustration with our presence in Iraq is one expression of this. The cultural gulf between us and our nearest neighbours (with the exception of New Zealand) also makes for a tendency to focus inwardly.
Your article did however neglect the single biggest Liberal Party policy influencing a likely loss - the hated Workforce Choices laws. John Howard misunderstood the reaction of Australian's (rich and poor) to an assault on cherished ideas of fairness, and income equity. It would appear his support for small-minded, small business (who reap the rewards of this US style minimum wage/condition free-for-all) will ultimately cost him his job. Whilst his treatment of refugees and shamelessly divisive exploitation of Muslims for electoral gain makes us slightly ashamed, Workforce Choices will be his nail. Howard's a venal little man that even the average never-had-it-better Anglo-Celt has had enough of!
Pretty accurate summary for a blow in. But you failed to mention that of the six parties (government and oppositions) in the coalition of the willing, Australian Labor is the only party to have consistently opposed involvement in Iraq.
As to insularity, Australia is prospering like never before. Is there another country which would not somewhat pre-occupied by hip pocket issues in an election? But as the campaign has progressed, that pre-occupation has waned more towards issues concerning the common good.
The US has now lost more in Iraq than in the twin towers, Britain has also suffered considerable losses yet it appears to pass almost unnoticed. I suspect, if we lost ten, Iraq would have been the major issue bar none.