Still Too Early To Give Election To Underdog Labor

Alan Ramsey.
878 words
17 October 2001
Sydney Morning Herald
15
English
Copyright of John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd

Although Beazley performed well on Sunday, one debate does not a campaign make, writes Alan Ramsey.

SO WHY the surprise? Three years ago the quality of Kim Beazley's performance in the 1998 election debate was apparent. His confident effort on that occasion enhanced his leadership like little else since he replaced Paul Keating 21/2 years earlier. Why? Probably because he had nothing to lose. Labor was never expected to win in 1998. Thus Beazley was under no pressure. And in ultimately losing that election, relatively narrowly, Beazley won the campaign.

Three years later and we've come to learn that pressure is the achilles heel in Beazley's leadership. Put him under pressure and he falters, sometimes badly. Too often since the last election, when circumstance has demanded clarity and boldness, Beazley has seemed so unsure of himself. His indecision has been manifest. Thus it was always true he would be found out when voters came to look hard at him in times of stress. His leadership standing has suffered accordingly.

Yet nothing of this was evident three nights ago.

What we saw on Sunday night was what we saw three years earlier. This was the Beazley that out-debated and out-campaigned John Howard in 1998. It matters little if Beazley ``won'' the debate this time or not. What matters to Labor's campaign is that Beazley's strong performance has lifted his party's spirits and and given his people heart. Until Sunday, after the events of the past seven weeks, there wasn't much of either.

The difference, I suggest, is pressure.

In a real sense, Beazley is now back where he was three years ago. Expectations have changed dramatically. Labor, in a political climate suddenly turned on its head, is no longer favoured to win. All the polls have the Government far ahead. Well, they can be wrong, of course, but nobody except the truly prejudiced thinks so. Labor is where Beazley performs best: as the underdog. No pressure. Beazley's best chance still remains if voters think he has no chance.

Foolishly, some have rushed to judgment after Sunday's debate in enthusing that Labor is back in the race. We'll see about that a week out from polling day. One debate does not make a campaign. The Government remains secure. It is enough for the moment that an invigorated Beazley has re-emerged on the field of battle with no sign of the vapours.

You'll notice, though, Labor's strategy has Beazley's minders keeping him well away from crowds. No street walks among ordinary (ie, unscreened) voters, for instance. Beazley's round-the-clock security guard of seven federal police is the same as for John Howard. What some in Labor fear most are demonstrators and ugly protests against boat people arrivals with their man at the centre of it.

Yet the first casualty of the campaign is no politician at all. It is television's Ray Martin. If ever a TV anchor did himself in the eye, at least with this Government, it was Martin as Nine's host of Sunday's debate.

After letting the two combatants argue interminably on terrorism, national security and illegal boat arrivals, rather than keeping the format tighter on a broader range of issues, Martin shamelessly shirt-fronted Howard at the debate's conclusion. He first asked an eager Beazley ``if you'd like to come back'' for a second debate, ``any time'', before polling day, then made the same offer to Howard, knowing he'd already told Beazley beforehand there'd be one debate only.

Howard's face was thunderous. If he could have strangled Martin and got away with it, he'd have done so. Instead, Howard was left to waffle in weakly saying no before a national television audience, in excess of 2.2 million, according to the joint Nine/ABC ratings in the five mainland state capitals.

Even then, Martin wouldn't let it go.``You don't want a face-to-face again?'' he persisted, all syrup. ``I think we've done very well tonight,'' Howard replied darkly. The debate could not have ended on a more humiliating note for the Prime Minister. Beazley must have been delighted. Labor was still chortling next day.

If you were entertained, informed, bored or a bit of all three by the debate, of one thing you can be utterly sure: that's the end of Ray Martin with John Howard. However the election goes, even if Howard were to change his mind and debate Beazley again this campaign, Martin will never, ever host another television event of any sort involving Howard. Neither, I'm sure, will the Nine network.

Howard has every reason to feel he was very deliberately set up and done over. Nine's political editor, Laurie Oakes, didn't help with his gratuitous comment immediately after the debate that Howard had ``chickened'' out of a second debate. Just like Bob Hawke when he refused to debate Howard even once in the 1987 campaign and Peacock more than once in 1990.

No prime minister ever willingly gives his opponent a free kick.