And the winner is……..

1:11 PM, 4/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

At 5:30 last night, the great debate between Isobel Redmond and Mike Rann was beamed into the living rooms of the small percentage of South Australians that are actually home from work or study at that time. Political tragics like myself had to make do with snippets of the debate on 891 ABC spliced in between self conscious commentary by Matthew Abraham about the tastefulness of his suit selection. Having missed seeing the debate in person, I must rely on second hand reporting and the reactions of both parties for my analysis. There is much to discuss even from these meagre pickings.

Mike Rann was immediately tweeting his readiness to engage in another debate upon emerging from the Thebarton television studio where the debate was filmed. Everything Mike Rann does has a political objective behind it. What was his objective behind offering another debate, when in previous weeks he had ruled out doing so? There are various possible explanations. Firstly, he could have been trying to exude confidence in his performance and thus skewing the public’s perception of the outcome in his favour e.g. “ I have seen what Isobel has to offer, and I am not threatened. I can handle that any day of the week”. All the commentators, however, have scored the debate as a draw. Given this fact, I think it is likely that there were other motivations behind his call for further debates.

One of the major concerns of Labor commentators prior to the debate was that Mike Rann (a proven media performer) would be so dazzling in his debate performance that he would appear condescending or bullying in comparison to Isobel Redmond. There would have been concerns that this disparity in performance would garner sympathy for Redmond, and distract viewers from the substantive issues of the debate. As it turned out, it was something else that distracted viewers and the press from the substantive issues; the Michelle Chantelois apology. The vast majority of post debate coverage has focussed on this one issue. I suspect that the Rann media team anticipated this fact and were desperate to force another debate, which would allow both sides to explore the holes in each others policies. Rann, by changing his tune after the fact (possibly because his performance did not appear as overbearing as feared) has played into the Opposition’s hands.

Isobel Redmond has always stated her willingness to engage in more than one debate, whereas Mike Rann was always of the view that one would be sufficient. This fact gave the Opposition the moral upper hand when determining the format of the second debate (although technically the incumbent always has the power in this respect). The Liberals have used this advantage to bolster their “Labor is anti Country” message. Their call for a “town hall” debate in the Riverland would certainly resonate throughout rural SA, which will be useful in the crucial seats of Chaffey, Mt Gambier, Frome and Light. It also puts the Government on the defensive in the crucial policy issue of water, which is one of its biggest policy failings. I am quite sure that the chances of a rural debate are extremely slim. Mike Rann will never accept a debate on the Opposition’s terms. If he was more confident in the lead up to the first debate, however, and expressed a willingness to engage in multiple debates prior to the fact, he would never have had these problems.

It is not necessarily in the interests of the Opposition to take part in a further debate. The Opposition must overcome two hurdles if it wishes to take Government; they must prove that Isobel is a capable leader, and they must prove that they have the policies to improve the wellbeing of the State (or avoid the Government proving that they are incompetent). As stated earlier, Isobel battled the media savvy Mike Rann to a closely contested draw in the debate. A draw in a television debate is often a victory for the Opposition leader. The incumbent has all the perks of office, while the Opposition has none of the baggage of governing. When a Government is on the nose like the current Rann Government is, all the public needs is the assurance that they will be safe if they follow their instincts and boot them out. Isobel managed to prove that in the debate. She also managed to avoid detailed public scrutiny of the detail of her party’s flimsy policies. She has emerged in an ideal position. All she needs to do now is stand firm for her desire for the second debate to be held in the country, wait for the inevitable refusal, and then use this reason to deny any further debates. Mike only wanted one anyway.

Another talking point out of the debate is the appearance of Mike Rann. It is clear that he has aged markedly over the eight years of Government, and this is inevitable. Rann is notoriously a hard worker, and as such, he should wear the bags under his eyes as saggy badges of honour. As Richard Nixon found out all those years ago, however, politics is a visual medium and appearances matter. If the Premier looks drained and haggard on tv, it further reinforces the message that the Government is haggard and drained. Of course these superficial factors are not enough in themselves, but when they reinforce existing perceptions, they can become immensely powerful. Another interesting point that came out of the debate is the respective slogans of both sides. Mike Rann only had “South Australia Labor” on his lecturn, whereas Isobel had “Redmond is Ready”. Perhaps the Labor party is trying to distance itself from Federal Labor with this strategy. It is curious, however, that they didn’t use the “keep South Australia moving forward” slogan that they spruiked at the start of the campaign. This slogan is certainly wordy, and I suggest that whatever PR firm the ALP engaged should not be used in the future. In modern politics, the ability to “cut through” with your campaign slogan is often a vital sign as to the effectiveness of the campaign as a whole. Rann Gets Results, Kevin 07 and Yes We Can are striking examples of this. That brings me to the central dilemma of the ALP’ s campaign. No matter how hard they try, in every forum, the message they are trying to sell is getting lost amongst peripheral matters. This means that voters will enter the polling booth with two possible points of view; either the point of view advanced by the Liberal party, or the point of view they have arrived at based on the Government’s performance over the past 8 years. The ALP may not lose Government in this election, but they will certainly lose the campaign.