Competition squash, unlike Parkinson’s bureaucracies, has a two-way movement.
Professor C. Northcote Parkinson, you will recall, devised Parkinson’s Law – “that work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion”.
He also devised the Peter Principle – that people in bureaucracies keep getting promoted until they get a job at which they are incompetent and are promoted no more. This is why most bureaucracies have so many incompetent people in senior positions.
In competition squash (and other racquet sports), however, as the ravages of age and unfitness take over, you can get demoted to your level of competence.
Incidentally, “Parkinson’s Law or the Pursuit of Progress” was published in 1957 and in Penguin in 1965. It is one of the funniest and most insightful books you will ever read.
I was pondering this after crashing 0-3 in this week’s game when it came to me that politics – far from being a team game like football or a one-man presidential game like golf – is much more like the racquet sports.
Kevin Rudd and John Howard are out there on the court. Their “teams” are little more than spectators, cheer squads, drink-carriers and amateur coaches who have never played in the top position themselves. They help a bit and they can hinder, but they are not vital to the success or failure of the player on the court. Nothing has changed in the Labor Party but its leader – the player on the court.
The critical similarity between racquet sports and two-party politics is that a player’s performance is profoundly affected by the playing standard of his opponent.
In golf it would not matter whether you played against Tiger Woods or Long John Silver, your game would be the same. Similarly, the most brilliant or dismal football captain only influences, and rarely determines, the fate of the team.
John Howard’s performance on the court has been enormously affected by the playing ability of his opponents. He has had a very lucky draw.
His first opponent in the run for top player was Andrew Peacock, famously referred to in Parliament as the soufflé. Howard won, but even against such a weak opponent he lost in the re-match. Between those matches there was the match against Bob Hawke. There was a fair amount of distraction from off-court, but Howard had no chance against such an opponent.
But his next opponents made life easy.
He took the leadership of the Opposition from a very green Alexander Downer.
You see, the thing with racquet sports – and two-party politics, is that you can look so competent and athletic if your opponent is struggling. You have time to get yourself into position; time to watch the ball; raise a backswing; watch your bumbling opponent and place the ball where it will make your opponent look off-guard; under pressure and indeed fluff the next shot.
Downer was easy pickings.
Paul Keating was next. He was a skilled player. But if you are on the court for a long time, your legs tire. Even a middling player can easily beat someone on their last legs who has little moral support from the crowd.
Kim Beazley was not agile enough. He stayed in one place. He made himself a small target – but he was a stationary one. Even with such a waffling opponent Howard almost lost. He lost the popular vote, but got a majority of seats – a bit like a tennis player who wins a match with fewer points and even fewer than his opponent, but with the right number of sets.
External factors affect tennis matches. Winning the toss and getting the wind and shade at the right time help, just like a terrorist attack or a refugee boat can help in politics.
Howard’s next opponent was Mark Latham. Now a maverick can often win some early points and games in racquets sports. But mavericks often go for too many winning shots and make unforced errors. Their opponents look impressively in command without having to do very much at all.
Up to that point Howard was on top of the Australian political ratings mainly because of his opponents’ lack of ability. He was mistaken for a political Roger Federer — invincible. But, other than Hawke, he had no opponents of any real talent.
In two-party politics a party leader’s standing is as much dependant on his opponent’s performance as his own. The performance of one affects the other. Howard looks the poorer player because Rudd is playing better than any of the four Labor top players before him. He is forcing Howard to the back of the court; to miss shots and to play desperate shots.
Bear in mind, too, that Rudd is facing a fairly mediocre but lucky political performer. He won’t look so good against a better one.
Bill Hayden – dumped as top Labor player on the day Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser called the 1983 election (it’s never too late to change leaders) – famously said that a drover’s dog could have won that election. Not so. Sure Fraser was on the nose but Hawke did much to win that election which Hayden might never have done, particularly throwing back the Fraser line about stashing your money under the bed because savings won’t be safe under Labor with the retort that you could not do that because there were too many commies under the bed.
Sure, players can come from behind. And in racquet sports, as in politics, you have to watch the spin. It can outfox opponents. But there comes a time in racquet sports and politics when the game is up.
All the polls are suggesting with some longevity and consistency that Australia’s over-rated No1 political player has met another player who will cause him to be demoted to his level of competence.