Did Anyone Actually Watch The Australian TV Debate?

So here I am, sitting with my family on a Sunday night watching the number one Australian TV show, "Australian Idol". I flick channels during an ad break and what do I find? Why, it's the one - and presumably only, since Howard hasn't committed to any more - Australian pre-election TV debate.

Now, as you might guess, I am perhaps a bit more politically curious than the average Australian. I watch TV news and scan the news pages, domestically and internationally, as a matter of habit. Yes, I knew there was a TV debate scheduled, but I had no idea it was coming this quickly. In fact, I watch the Channel Nine news most nights, yet I had no idea it would be on Channel Nine. I've even been covering stories on 60 Minutes in this blog, yet I had no idea it would be on 60 Minutes. Why not? Am I stupid?

John Howard is using every political trick up his sleeve this year, folks. By calling the election 6 weeks ahead of the polling date, he has given himself every opportunity to dodge and weave. By committing to only one TV debate and scheduling it four long weeks ahead of the polls, in the same TV time schedule as the top-rating show of the past year, he ensures that a minimum number of viewers will actually tune in. He also gives himself time to massage the message as post-debate polls dictate.

Howard is scared. He is running on a campaign of fear - "be afraid of Labour, afraid of the Greens, afraid of deficits, afraid of terrorists, afraid of change, afraid of boat people, and foreigners in general, and Muslims in particular..." - yet he himself is running scared, as he ahs been all his life.

I missed the debate's opening salvos on Iraq, but I did hear Howard repeating the old so-what-if-we-were-wrong "think what you may about the reasons for going to war..." line. Yeah, that's old hat, folks. Who cares now that we were wrong about the WMDs and so much else? Strangely, though, when Latham started talking it sounded like the same dull narrative: "blah blah terrorists blah blah defence blah blah..."

I was waiting for Latham to hammer Howard on the war, but he didn't. He also missed a big chance later, when a reporter asked him a question about "lies". Instead of attacking Howard's record, Latham rolled with the punch. The rest of the debate was kind of same-old same-old, with lots of talk about health and education policies.

Howard at one point leaped back astride the Be Afraid Of Deficits horse with some considerable enthusiasm, pointing out how his governments since 1996 had delivered surpluses. Well, I thought, it's easy to deliver surpluses when you are screwing everybody dry, isn't it? His closing words reinforced the point. He said people should vote Liberal "because we've run an Industrial Relations system based on high productivity". Nothing about values there, eh? "High productivity", that's the bottom line. Unfortunately for Howard, the voters on October 9th will be real people, not shareholders.

I guess the big story in the morning will be that Howard repeatedly refused to commit himself to a full three year term. That surprised me. Given his record of lying, why wouldn't he just lie on this issue? A year later, who will care? Again, I think Howard is scared. He made a deal with George W. Bush to invade Iraq long before he told the Australian people about it, and he's made a deal with Costello. One assumes there will be some political repurcussions for Howard - a cabinet revolt or some leaked memos, perhaps? - if he dares pledge himself to a full term.

Finally, there was the dreaded Worm, the live recording of viewers' reactions as the candidates spoke. Howard suffered terribly here (although the debate seemed fairly even on the surface) and the issue of Iraq was a huge downer (no pun intended). Expect to see the liberals avoiding the issue of Iraq assiduously for the next month.

The Worm also showed some interesting upward movement when Howard pointed out that the Australian elections will be on the same date as the Afghan elections, where women will be able to vote perhaps for the first time (strange that Howard didn't know that for sure). Most Australians do not realise what a sad farce the Afghan elections will be, with warlords still controlling 90% of the country, Al Quada and the Taleban claiming they still run the place, and 10 million people enrolled to vote in a country with only 9.8 million eligible voters! As for the women voters issue, what do you think happened to those women who dared throw off their burquas as the US troops marched into Kabul? Afghanistan has gone nowhere in a hurry, my friends.

So the final tally from the 90 "undecided" live viewers, as recorded by The Worm, was Latham 67% against Howard 33%. But don't get excited. It's exactly the same tally by which Beazley beat Howard in the first TV debate three years ago.

UPDATE: Well, the figures are in and they confirm Australian Idol winning the timeslot with 1.98 million viewers, the debate second with 1.47 million viewers and another 1.18 million viewers watching some crap on Channel 7. ABC attracted 800,000 viewers for its program on the life of Donald Bradman. No word yet on how many tuned in to the ABC's delayed telecast of the debate at 10 pm on a Sunday night (not many, I'm guessing!).