Jonathan Milne: It's war already - and there's nothing phoney about it

Check the small print on the political hoarding that went up on the grass verge at the bottom of the street yesterday. Made in the USA? Made in Australia?

Labour began its election campaign in earnest yesterday, to capitalise on a week of attacks on National's links to Washington DC.

Normally this period would be called a phoney war, but this year the campaign has commenced with such aggression that the announcement of the election date seems a mere formality. Assume it will be held on September 17, unless otherwise advised.

It doesn't really matter. This election will not be fought from Parliament's debating chamber. This war will be fought on the beaches, fought on the landing grounds, fought in the fields and in the streets.

National warns of the beaches being taken by Maori; Labour warns of them being taken by US billionaires.

National leader Don Brash came across as inept, perhaps even duplicitous, in his refusal this week to say whether he would send fighting troops to Iraq if Uncle Sam asked. Labour sought to capitalise by rolling out platoons of mobile billboards and slogan-daubed scooters on Friday.

But General Trevor Mallard made a clumsy assault on National as being funded by Americans, its policies written in Washington. Whatever, Trevor. The former was irrelevant - given that Labour accepted $500,000 in donations from an Australian businessman - and the latter could not be sustained.

Worse, Labour's left may have overestimated New Zealanders' antipathy to the United States. Though polls show most New Zealanders oppose the war on Iraq, it is only a fringe minority that opposes America. An entire generation remembers with affection the American soldiers who based themselves in New Zealand in the 1940s to fight the war in the Pacific.

And with another bombing in London this week, many New Zealanders will feel the Government should stand next to Britain, Australia and the US - not attack them for domestic political gain.

Brash accused Labour of "the most sustained, misguided and dishonest assault on a senior political figure for many years", which would carry more weight if he didn't make the same claim every second month.

This is all reminiscent of one of the dirtiest election campaigns in modern New Zealand history, when National used advertisements featuring dancing Cossacks to suggest Labour policy was driven from Moscow.

By bringing out the big guns, Labour and National will hope to knock out the smaller players, to turn the battle into one between the two big parties as in those halcyon days of first-past-the-post. But it may well have the same effect as in 2002: voters could be offended by the arrogance and aggressive tactics of Labour and National, and look to take their party votes elsewhere.

In 2002, United Future with its mantra of "common sense" was the lucky recipient. But this week United Future showed it is as dirty a player as anyone with its attack on any prime ministerial aspirant who had not sustained a marriage and raised a family, who had a Singaporean wife or who (gasp) was not a keen rugby fan.

The Greens have engaged in similar attacks, comparing Winston Peters to Adolf Hitler, while Act needs a miracle to return it to Parliament.

So where do disgruntled voters turn? Well, where have they turned before?

Who is sitting quietly in the wings; avoiding any controversial policy launches; placating those who fear the instability of the 1996 government; saving his public appearances for a few carefully choreographed events; and avoiding personal attacks on other politicians?

Step up, Winston Peters - the last ally either National or Labour wants.


- HERALD ON SUNDAY