October 14, 2004

REFERENDUM WON WITHOUT A VOTE

Maybe John Howard won the referendum on Iraq before the election. Greg Sheridan writes:

The other critical conclusion to come out of this election is that it was a total vindication of John Howard over Iraq. This is very painful for the commentariat – perhaps the Government should set up special psychiatric triage clinics for commentators unable to cope with their grief over the electorate's decision on Iraq.

But the conclusion is inescapable. Labor did not buy a single ad on Iraq. Nor did Latham mention his troops-home-by-Christmas pledge in his policy speech. Indeed Iraq only figured in the last line on page 13 of a 16-page speech by Latham.

Both parties poll the electorate to within an inch of its life. If Iraq were a negative for Howard, Labor would have campaigned on it.

Far from seething with resentment at Howard over Iraq, voters, according to the polls, all through the campaign gave Howard a huge lead over Latham on national security, very nearly as big a lead as on economic management.

It was rather strange that we have troops at war and they were hardly mentioned in the campaign. This is actually a bigger victory for Howard than if the election had been fought on Iraq and he had won. His victory in the Iraq argument was so comprehensive that Labor did not even raise it in the campaign. This is because Labor understood that while it had campaigned brilliantly on Iraq among ABC and Fairfax journalists, all these people put together still don't make a single marginal seat.

No ... but they sure are marginalised.

Posted by Tim Blair at October 14, 2004 07:19 PM
Comments

It would have been a different story if Australian troops were in a combat role.

I think the outcome could have more closely matched Spains elections and the subsequent outing of Jose Aznar if there were casualties - not that is any reason to stop a war.

Posted by: Will S at October 14, 2004 at 07:47 PM

They are in a combat role. They're not protecting the airport with feather dusters.

Posted by: gaz at October 14, 2004 at 07:55 PM

"If Iraq were a negative for Howard, Labor would have campaigned on it."

On the other hand, it is not possible that Latham dropped the issue as a result of the embassy bombing? The terrorists have little incentive to try to bomb Australia to its knees if the opposition candidate isn't sufficiently on their side.

Now, I don't pretend to have any real insight into Latham's alleged brain, but is it not plausible that he had too much pride to climb into office over the dead bodies of his fellow countrymen -- Zappo-style? That he did not want to encourage the beturbaned baby-killers who seek to apply Middle East political techniques to Australian elections?

If not determinative, surely this factor would have been a consideration for any rational human being in Latham's position.

Posted by: Eliza at October 14, 2004 at 07:59 PM

tim blair sez [see comments]:

"So if everybody else claims that 2+2=5, they're right, yes?"

apparently the correct answer is no, unless of course it's greg sheridan asserting 2+2=5, in which case the answer magically becomes yes.

Posted by: snuh at October 14, 2004 at 08:02 PM

I don't see Australian troops sweeping through insurgent held towns gaz.

Posted by: Will S at October 14, 2004 at 08:07 PM

Several other right-wing bloggers have claimed that this election was a 'win' for the pro-war camp. Seems silly, the undecideds, who ended up deciding this election and voted overwhelmingly for The Rodent (total 52 vs 48 = "landslide, yeah!") cared nothing for this war, as is bleedingly obvious without lowering myself to pointing at polls.

Simple facts (my style):
The war is still wrong.
The war is lost, all original objectives save 'get saddam' have failed or are doomed to failure.
Few Australians care about the war, those who do tend to oppose it.
The war was no competition for interest rates.
The war was silly form the outset.

Posted by: Lyndon at October 14, 2004 at 08:23 PM

So those Troops patrolling the streets of Bagdhad are what? On holiday?

Posted by: Wombat at October 14, 2004 at 08:24 PM

Very scientific Lyndon. I'm convinced.

Posted by: C.L. at October 14, 2004 at 08:51 PM

As much as we like to glorify our involment in Iraq, it was more symbolic than anything . 350 troops wasn't a large enough force to bother pulling out by christmas.

Posted by: Will S at October 14, 2004 at 08:57 PM

Too true Lyndon...
Lifelong is going to need as much policy input from the rank and file as possible.
Please ensure he gets yours.
9 more years, 9 more years (think written chant)....too easy.

Posted by: TT at October 14, 2004 at 08:59 PM

Lyndon wouldn't know a fact if it painted itself purple and danced naked in front of him.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 14, 2004 at 09:03 PM

Will S

You haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Posted by: murph at October 14, 2004 at 09:04 PM

Here's a post about some of the "symbolic" contribution the Australian forces made.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 14, 2004 at 09:09 PM

By the way Will S, it was 2,000 army personnel Australia contributed to the effort, not 350.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 14, 2004 at 09:13 PM

Will S,

The Aussie force may be small in number but they are charged with an incredibly important and difficult task, to wit; keeping the southern ports open and safe so that trade, reconstruction, and prosperity can return to Iraq.

The terrorists are doing everything in their power to stop that which places a big fat target on the backs of the diggers.

The military leaders of the Coalition obviously see the quality and commitment of the Aussies and if more are required, Howard has proven to be man enough to send them.

I'm sure those guys that are there now would love to be home, drinking beer, quality time with the wife, etc. so please do not denigrate the contributions of Australia.

They're building a better world.

Posted by: JDB at October 14, 2004 at 09:16 PM

total 52 vs 48 = "landslide, yeah!")

Err..do you know anything mate?

It was Labor's worst primary vote since before the Second World War. The Opposition has now gone backwards in three elections and is a bad off as it was after its 1996 landslide defeat.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 14, 2004 at 09:16 PM

Will S......

The Australian SAS unit that beatup shitheads in the Afgan Mountains received a lot of decorations recently.

The Australian SAS unit in Iraq is heavily involved in cutting down the influx of terrorists from Syria into Iraq.

Will... next time you go out of your cozey shithole for a holiday leave your Honda generator at home.

Posted by: Shaun Bourke at October 14, 2004 at 09:19 PM

Tim B,

The PM has gone out of his way to state that the election was not a referendum on the wisdom of the government's entrance into the war in Iraq :

"I think the issue was there. It wasn't the dominant factor," he said in an interview on cable news service CNN.

But having gotten in, by hook or crook, the general popular feeling is that we should see the thing through:

"But the overwhelming majority of Australians believe very strongly that having gone there, we should stay and finish the job.
"That is of course a view that I put very strongly."

Stepehn Kirschner puts says that the election was a referendum on those who wanted the election to be a referendum on Iraq.

the election was less of a referendum on Iraq than on the relevance of the people who said it should be. As far as the actual election result is concerned, the left became the authors of their own nightmare.

It was that, and the popular verdict was anti-anti-Howard. Be careful what you might wish for, lest you get it.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at October 14, 2004 at 09:24 PM

great post jack. pffft!!

Posted by: rosceo at October 14, 2004 at 09:43 PM

great post jack. pffft!!

Posted by: rosceo at October 14, 2004 at 09:43 PM

Notice that still no mention of Richard Butler, UNSCOM, and WMD's (apart from Miranda Devine) by the usual suspects?

Posted by: Louis Hissink at October 14, 2004 at 09:44 PM

please disregard my second post. thank you.

Posted by: roscoe at October 14, 2004 at 09:46 PM

The war is still wrong.

Still right, in my book, to get rid of Saddam, remove the regional threat he posed, shut down for good and all his mothballed WMD programs, get rid of Iraq for as a haven and funder of terrorists

The war is lost, all original objectives save 'get saddam' have failed or are doomed to failure.

See above post. Check back after the elections for yet another major objective accomplished. Plus we have the additional bonus of terrorists flocking in to get butchered!

Few Australians care about the war, those who do tend to oppose it.
The war was no competition for interest rates.
The war was silly form the outset.

These are, I think, self-refuting.

Posted by: R C Dean at October 14, 2004 at 09:55 PM

Jack Strocchi.........

You misunderstand/misconstrew what the PM convayed in the interview. The bombing in Bali confirmed in the vast majority of Australians the requirement to take the battle to the enemy in its own backyard. And the recent bombings in Jakarta and Beslan only reconfirmed that opinion. This is why it was not brought up much by the ALP out on the hustings but parroted quite often to the press.

Throughout the campaign the PM allowed Latham and his cohorts to lead the debate in public thereby allowing Latham to dig his own grave..... the PM only intervening to give him better equipment to dig it deeper and faster.

The PM's biggest challange in the coming years is not in how to continue guiding Australia's future which is much more secure now but mearly how to amuse himself with such ankle biters as Sen 'Captain Planet' Brown and the various other wacko leftist fringe kooks viying for a say.

Posted by: Shaun Bourke at October 14, 2004 at 10:01 PM

Sounds like the anti-war types (Will, Lyndon, and snuh) are still in denial about the election.

Perhaps the Australian government could expand those psychiatric triage clinics to include those who whine, er, post on blogs?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 14, 2004 at 10:05 PM

"So those Troops patrolling the streets of Bagdhad are what? On holiday?"

No, they're helping pick up the pieces after we tore the country apart looking for WMDs that didn't exist. By all accounts our troops doing a top job, and making a real difference in the reconstruction. I think they should stay.

Posted by: Alan Green at October 14, 2004 at 10:58 PM

Iraq is a magnet, drawing terrorists from all over the world - like moths into a flame. The longer the war goes on, the more international terrorists die there.

Posted by: Sue at October 14, 2004 at 11:13 PM

Lyndon, those are not facts, those are opinions. Simply believing that your opinions are correct does not make them so. I know this comes as a shock to you, please try to cope.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 14, 2004 at 11:19 PM

Aw, let 'em go on for a bit. Some folks have a lot of bitterness to let out. As for me, I happen to rather like the Australian effort here in Afghanistan, thank you very much.

Posted by: Major John at October 14, 2004 at 11:20 PM

Alan Green, don't be an idiot.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 14, 2004 at 11:20 PM

Sounds like the anti-war types (Will, Lyndon, and snuh) are still in denial about the election.

actually, i'm not.

what none of you seem to understand is that my this-was-not-about-iraq type arguments are not wishful thinking. speaking for myself, the fact that labor ran hardest on health and education, and went backwards, hurts far worse than a loss in a "referendum on iraq" would have. frankly, i wish the referendum on iraq story were true; the fact that labor played to its traditional strengths in health and education and still lost is for me about as crushing a defeat as can be imagined.

Posted by: snuh at October 14, 2004 at 11:49 PM

The ALP ran dead on Iraq because I'm sure their private polling indicated it was a non issue.

The Luvvies just can't accept that fact, plus outside of the Luvvies the current ALP bears little resembelance to modern society.

17% of people are in Unions yet they provide 60% of ALP members of parliament, not only that but when the ALP has safe seats they hand them to dills and or nepotism takes hold.

Just have a look at some of the winners taking up scarce parliament seats, Kelly Hoare in Charlton (her dad Bob Brown was the previous member, Joel Fitzgibbon (dad Eric held the seat before him) even Sharon Bird, a new HoR member, what exactly is she bringing to the table. The old guard is deserting Lacker and his front bench will be full of dills and plodders.

The ALP is quite frankly, an embarassment, and i couldn't be happier.

Posted by: Nuffy at October 15, 2004 at 12:15 AM

...the fact that labor ran hardest on health and education, and went backwards...the fact that labor played to its traditional strengths in health and education and still lost is for me about as crushing a defeat as can be imagined.

Sorry, snuh. No, you aren't in denial about the election. You're just bitter, and in denial that the left knows what it is doing. If Labor "played to its traditional strengths", why did Labor go "backwards"?

Perhaps those strengths aren't so traditional.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 15, 2004 at 12:23 AM

Nice to see that Timblair blog attracts the fascist far right-types. Hey, do you guys have an organization i can join? I don't have a trench coat or docs though. do i have to pay for these?!?!?!

Seriously! You fools think that your arm chair commentary is perdurable. I was merely putting forward an opinion.

Thanks JDB for your response. I totally and wholeheartedly agree with you. In both Iraq and Afganistan Oz special forces, naval and auxillary personnel played a huge part in the campaigns - there is absolutely no denying it. And yes i heard about the SAS - i am sure they are still out there quietly dispatching insurgents as they polish their kalashnikovs :)

Posted by: Will S at October 15, 2004 at 12:35 AM

You're just bitter, and in denial that the left knows what it is doing

do you think this might have something to do with me calling the defeat "crushing"?

If Labor "played to its traditional strengths", why did Labor go "backwards"?

because the liberal party was seen as having stronger economic credentials. boy, this is very difficult to understand.

Posted by: snuh at October 15, 2004 at 12:38 AM

Will S, Lyndon, snuh, et al.
You lie safe in your beds at night, and exercise your God given rights to shitcan those that protect you and your way of life.

You are cowards, slanderers, liars, and traitors to your own country, and yet you will never ever see an Australian soldier let you down when it comes to the crunch.

Despite your crapulous statements, you are Australian citizens, and your ADF will protect you at the expense of their lives.

You are pathetic weaklings who rely on others to keep you safe.
Pathetic.

Posted by: Pedro the Ignorant at October 15, 2004 at 12:44 AM

btw to clear things up in Australias current involvement .

sorry to step on the toes of those who had romanticized exactly what australia is doing in the reconstruction of iraq...

"So those Troops patrolling the streets of Bagdhad are what? On holiday?"

"...it was 2,000 army personnel Australia contributed to the effort..."

oh and i particularly like this one -

"Will... next time you go out of your cozey shithole for a holiday leave your Honda generator at home"

Posted by: Will S at October 15, 2004 at 12:54 AM

WillS shrieketh:

"Nice to see that Timblair blog attracts the fascist far right-types. Hey, do you guys have an organization i can join? I don't have a trench coat or docs though. do i have to pay for these?!?!?!

Seriously! You fools think that your arm chair commentary is perdurable. I was merely putting forward an opinion."

I am glad to see you handle being disagreed with well. (You aren't in any job that involves interacting with small children or heavy machinery, are you?)

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 15, 2004 at 12:57 AM

hehehe ...

i guess we should quit the flaming contest - im over it now... thanks for understanding

Posted by: Will S at October 15, 2004 at 01:00 AM

If Labor went on about the Iraq War in the election campaign, they would have only been speaking to the converted. The media has relentlessly attacked Howard over Iraq for months (years?) on this issue, to little effect. Perhaps Labor strategists are more perceptive than we give them credit for; perhaps they really don't believe their own propaganda. All that absolute rubbish about being an "illegal" war was only for the "true believers" who apparently will believe anything, as long as the ABC/Labor spokesmen tell them.

Posted by: David McBryde at October 15, 2004 at 01:06 AM

You are cowards, slanderers, liars, and traitors to your own country, and yet you will never ever see an Australian soldier let you down when it comes to the crunch.

what the shit are you talking about? how is a disagreement with the healthcare and education policies of the australian government equivalent to treason against my country? and what does this have to do with the crunch-iness of australian soldiers?

did you even read my prior comments?

Posted by: snuh at October 15, 2004 at 01:08 AM

...when it comes to the crunch...

Did pedro steal that from a nutragrain ad ?

Posted by: Will S at October 15, 2004 at 01:15 AM

"You fools think that your arm chair commentary is perdurable"

We at Janjaweed International believe that nothing is "perdurable" forever. We believe that if we don't understand it we should exterminate it.

HAVE CAMEL, WILL TRAMMEL

Posted by: jlchydro at October 15, 2004 at 01:16 AM

This is actually a bigger victory for Howard than if the election had been fought on Iraq and he had won. His victory in the Iraq argument was so comprehensive that Labor did not even raise it in the campaign.

if the libs were so unassailable on iraq, why didn't they actually push it harder? why were there no, say, liberal-sponsored tv ads about iraq? sheridan may see significance in the fact that "Labor did not buy a single ad on Iraq", but somehow the fact that the same was true of the libs escapes him.

i note also that sheridan's nonsensical column is nevertheless inconsistent with the idea recently floated here that iraq was an important issue in the campaign. as he states, our troops in iraq "were hardly mentioned in the campaign".

Posted by: snuh at October 15, 2004 at 01:17 AM

The blinkered worldview of the left, particularly in the media, is fascinating. Why, of course Iraq was not an issue in the election - if it had been, Howard would have lost, because the only opinion about the war that makes sense is to be against it!

The notion that the electorate could support his Iraq policy is, literally, inconceivable.

This is one of those cases where the bias is not deliberate, but wholly organic. They don't even know they're doing it.

It's like a Christian who sees a sinner's bad luck as a punishment from God, but sees his own bad luck as a test of faith. Or maybe not. That analogy blows. I'll stop now.

Posted by: Dave S. at October 15, 2004 at 01:19 AM

I believe a basic point is being missed here which is what libs want to be missed. The Aussie polls predicted a tight election. The Aussie pundit 'experts' predicted a tight election. Same thing is happening in this country. The libs are using red-herring by saying 'this is different or that is different' but bottom line the experts (POLLS and PUNDITS were WRONG and should not have been listen too). The Libs are deathly afraid that may be the case in this country. They are afraid of a repeat of 1994. Again, 'experts wrong'. (Maybe easiler to say when they were right).

Posted by: James Brewer at October 15, 2004 at 01:59 AM

Will S......

It always amuses me how leftists bandy around the word Fascist.

Mussolini was the leader of the Fascist Party..... and a leading Socialist Intellectual of his day.

Posted by: Shaun Bourke at October 15, 2004 at 02:06 AM

People - the only thing that counts is the scoreboard, and the scoreboard says a convincing victory for Howard. Congrats from the U.S.

Posted by: Don Mynack at October 15, 2004 at 02:12 AM

James Brewer....

You are exactly right. The vast majority of the pundits in Australia's mainstream press were betting big time on a Labor victory and pulling out all the stops.

With the recent fiascos in your media like Blather at CeeBS and Halperin over at ABC's The Note you are watching a full blooded drive against President Bush the results of which are starting to show-up in the internals of some of the polling especially in the DNC's considering how over the top they have become.

Zell Miller was quoted the other day as saying President Bush's win will be much wider than many expect.....40 plus states.

And best of luck to you all.

FOUR MORE YEARS.

Posted by: Shaun Bourke at October 15, 2004 at 02:20 AM
Perhaps Labor strategists are more perceptive than we give them credit for;

No. They are every bit as perceptive as we give them credit for.

perhaps they really don't believe their own propaganda.

They've got a funny way of showing it.

Who waits for the planes to come
When everybody's got us on the run

Posted by: Clem Snide at October 15, 2004 at 02:29 AM

Well, if someone as plainly level-headed as Zell Miller says so...

Posted by: trojan at October 15, 2004 at 03:10 AM

Hey Lyndon-
"The war is lost"? Based on what evidence? Yes, there are still so-called insurgents, who can (and do) cause us trouble, but a true, nation-wide uprising against the coalition and the interim Iraqi government? No where in sight. As for your comment "The war is silly," what a vacuous, insubstantial cooment to make. Not worthy of consideration.

Posted by: Njoriole at October 15, 2004 at 04:33 AM

Njoriole:

You misunderstand. He's not stating facts, he's trying a magical invocation which he hopes will make things true if he repeats it enough.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at October 15, 2004 at 06:25 AM

I am rich and thin! I am rich and thin! I am rich and thin!

FUCK! The magical invocation STILL doesn't work.

Posted by: Sortelli at October 15, 2004 at 08:25 AM

Dave S.....

As usual Orwell does a good job with that..

"the process [of mass-media deception] has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt…. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary" (George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four).

Posted by: TT at October 15, 2004 at 09:11 AM

Greg sheridan of Lauris Brereton will be foreign Affairs minister if Iron Mark wins fame. One week later Hard Hat Laurie announces his retirement.

Everyone got the swing wrong. Leftwing bloggers, roghtwing bloggers bloggers with no loyalties either way. left journos ,right journos even bloggers who are mocking those now thought Iron Mark would win by how many seats?

Even Johnnee was worried hence his whitlamite spending spree..

Everyone should just admit it yeah I thought howard would win but I didn't expect such a swing.

It isn't hard we all get things wrong sometimes.

Posted by: Homer Paxton at October 15, 2004 at 12:04 PM

Hey Will S., thanks so much for "clearing things up" with those pesky deployment numbers (850).

But hang on,.. aren't you the one who claimed 350 in the first place, and then made a very bold assertion based on that (wrong) number? - you know, as in: "350 troops wasn't a large enough force to bother pulling out by Christmas."

Don't you mean 'clearing up your own mess' mate?

Posted by: Sweet sweet Bundy at October 15, 2004 at 04:45 PM

Bundy -

yeah my and others mess - it was a collective clean up. BTW i was just quoting an 'economist' article with those 350 - and linked to it.

Build a bridge or drown trying.

Posted by: Will S at October 15, 2004 at 05:20 PM

At least the other poster was partially correct Will S. - there were approximately 2000 personnel posted around the start of the war. There were never 350.

But now you just want to make it seem like nitpicking. How very slippery of you Clarice.

And 'no', you weren't "just quoting an article". You downplay it now, but your assertion, as per your quote, was really that the troops were so sparse on the ground that you wouldn't even bother bringing them home and that such low numbers (350) was merely "symbolic", to quote you.

Well Genius, now that you have found out there are more than TWO TIMES that number serving and risking their lives, (sadly for you as well, you unappreciative treacherous little snot), would you upgrade your mealy-mouthed, limp-dicked assesment from "symbbolic" to, ooh, say 'significant'??

Probably not.

Oh and how about I build a bridge and encase you in it troll-boy?

Posted by: Sweet sweet Bundy at October 15, 2004 at 06:22 PM