Barbara Gloudon

IF the behaviour of parliamentarians at last Tuesday's sitting is any indicator, the "noise and din of battle", carried across the nation by television, is a clear warning that the days of "huggie-kissie" are rapidly coming to a close.

Mr Golding and Company are not afraid of "bangarang". They're quite unimpressed by the adulation accorded the prime minister and seemed determined to put an end to the "love affair" which she has been enjoying with the public.
Strengthened no doubt by the polls which have been recording the steep decline in the PNP's standing with the public, as well as the rise in approval for the JLP under Mr Golding's leadership, members of the Opposition went after the PM in no uncertain manner on Tuesday.

It is hard to imagine that the PM and her advisers didn't see the "border clash" coming. They should have known that the newly released Sandals Whitehouse audit would inflame the passion of the Opposition and send them to "battle stations alert".

The prime minister fell into their trap and, truth be told, did not come out so well. While it is true that Cabinet ministers have responsibility for their individual portfolios, prime ministers are expected to be able to fill in all the dots in the bigger picture. When this was not forthcoming from the PM, the battle was on.

By Wednesday morning, table talk and street talk was about the scenes depicted on TV news the evening before. Some critics trimmed points from the PM's scorecard, others defended her stoutly. Another stream of thought addressed itself to what is acceptable behaviour for Parliament, a matter which has come up for discussion often before.

In the current political climate, where it is widely held that general elections are imminent, there are other implications arising from the event. The findings of the recent polls, which claim that the prime minister's personal approval rate is dropping dramatically, are even more significant.

It is obvious now that the ploy being used by Mrs Simpson Miller's opponents is to demythologise her, to make her face the bowling, as it were. It could not have been an easy pill to swallow last week when no less a prestigious publication than Forbes magazine proclaimed her to be among the World's Most Influential Women.

In other societies, much would have been made of such an accolade. Our media, and by extension the wider public, gave it but passing notice. It deserves better than that. Forbes magazine carries weight and without even speculating as to how our prime minister was chosen for the honour, it was a plus for the name of Jamaica. Why we were so "under-whelmed" could be put down to our tendency to be blasé about everything or, as I overheard someone saying, we like the negative much more than the positive.

Whatever it is though, while it is evident that the adulation which was expressed for the PM at the start of her tenure is on the wane, it shouldn't be interpreted that she has lost the love of the people who love her. Despite the drop in her popularity rating, she is still ahead in the polls. It is that which is driving her opponents to put on the pressure. She has to build up back the numbers if she is to go into the elections with a hope of victory.

BACK TO THE TUESDAY BANGARANG and the street response. Supporters of the PM were particularly displeased at what they interpreted as disrespect to her and her office. The Opposition had no right to address her the way they did, some people were heard saying. Perhaps the more interesting comments for me were those which sought to define what is the prime minister's responsibility and what is not.

I heard persons say that she should not be asked to answer questions about Whitehouse/Sandals because she had not been the minister responsible for the project. She should not be held accountable for anything now, according to their reasoning. One man even suggested that it is Mr Patterson who should be called back to Parliament to answer the questions. It seems that there are supporters of the PM who would wish to see her kept free of any suggestion of "mal-administration". Meantime, the election machine is gathering speed.

A NEW DIMENSION has entered our political culture and it is in the sphere of campaign advertising. For the first time that anyone can recall, a candidate is commending himself to the electorate through family endorsements.

Mr Bruce Golding has kick-started his campaign with a series of radio ads, utilising his wife, daughter and son giving testimony of his influence on their personal development. His son, a Rastafarian, says his father has taught him tolerance. His daughter says he imparted to her the value of education. His wife speaks of encouragement when she decided to go into business. The campaign, which is running on some radio stations, is obviously intended to place Mr Golding as the ideal family man.

As noted, there is no record of any other aspirants for national leadership (or local for that matter), using family values to reach the electorate. National Hero Sir Alexander Bustamante had no children and it didn't deter him or his followers. NW Manley's sons were full grown when he sought for national leadership and though there was much that he could have talked about, in the accomplishments of his super-talented wife and sons too, there's no evidence that he did so.

Michael Manley had wives to spare and beautiful children as well, but he didn't 'go there' in his campaign to woo the Jamaican people. Edward Seaga married a Miss Jamaica, had attractive children but that was not a subject for campaigning. PJ Patterson's choice of singleness after becoming a widower, left him open to scurrilous attacks on his sexuality, even as he celebrated his son, daughter and grandchildren. Mrs Simpson Miller's family life is kept private, but there is public recognition of the loyalty and support of her husband.

Now, Mr Golding moves family to the front burner. It cannot fail to win him points. It will be interesting to see if this will be the start of a trend for other aspirants to play the family card, a strategy long-known in the American political arena and now imported to our shores.

With our capacity for imitation, it will be only a matter of time before others appropriate it, but will it suit everyone? Lucky are they who have an ideal family. What of those who will not be able to make the cut, as they say? Leave the family at home or look another work? Exciting times!

Trousers in Denim

Cream of the 'Crop'

Cheeky's World