 |
| |
CRITIQUING THE DEBATE - Bruce won even when measured against expectations
Published in the Jamaica Gleaner: Monday | August 13, 2007
Keith Collister, Contributor
In measuring who won the leadership debate Saturday evening, I believe one has to accomplish the difficult task of gauging the pre-debate expectations of the population of Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller and Opposition Leader Bruce Golding.
Mr. Golding is seen as a good technical debater, with a strong grasp of the underlying economic issues facing the country. The Prime Minister, with a higher favourability rating than Mr. Golding, is regarded as better at reaching ordinary Jamaicans,
To win, Mr. Golding had to deal with questions of his trustworthiness, the associated 'flip flop' charge and his decision to return to a garrison such as Tivoli, while the Prime Minister had to deal with the issue of whether she was up to the job.
Mild jab
Golding argued that garrisons were not a physical structure, but a state of mind, and that by returning to Tivoli, he had chosen to deal up front with the problem. A mild jab from the Prime Minister that his statements on garrisons needed clarification was countered by Mr. Golding noting that the Prime Minister's own garrison had a record of overvoting "unmatched in the past".
Concerning trust, Mr. Golding indicated he had left the JLP because of his principles, and his return to the JLP was predicated on having his principles adopted as JLP policy. He dealt with the 'flip flop' issue by listing all the changes of mind of PNP leaders over the decades.
Simpson Miller's frequent mention of her budget refrain "balancing the books, balancing peoples lives", coupled with appeals for support largely based on her personality rather than party policy, are unlikely to have provided the uncommitted with much evidence of the substance required for the job of Prime Minister. She looked at her weakest when her earlier pledge that she would take the strongest possible action against "anyone involved in anything [corrupt]" was set against a question as to why Minister Paulwell was still a member of the Cabinet.
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
