LAST night’s political leadership debate was scored as a win for Prime Minister Andrew Holness by Nationwide Radio journalists Cliff Hughes and Damion Blake, while their colleague Emily Crooks opted to reserve her judgement on a victor until this morning, adding that the debate was anticlimatic.

However, all three agreed that Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller gave a creditable performance, even as they pointed to weaknesses in some of her answers to questions on tough issues.

“It was a spirited debate,” Hughes said in his post-debate discussion on Nationwide Radio, which broadcast the highly anticipated debate live. However, he said Holness won based on his command of the stage and the issues.

“I think the opposition leader more than held her own tonight. She was obviously well prepared. She came there with her notes. But the weaknesses did come through from time to time,” added Hughes, one of Jamaica’s most respected journalists.

He gave as an example Simpson Miller’s answer to a question on changing the Westminster system of government, saying that it “was reduced to real puff”.

Simpson Miller, in response to the question posed by a member of the audience, said she thought it was time for Jamaica to change the system so that we can have our own Jamaican queen.

Hughes, in his analysis, said that Holness lost an opportunity to score points in his rebuttal.

Hughes and Blake also said that Simpson Miller showed a lack of understanding of how international agreements really work when she said

that a Government led by her would renegotiate the IMF, JPS and JDIP

contracts in two weeks. The verdict is still out on whether the much-touted leadership debate between Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller and Prime Minister Andrew Holness lived up to expectations.

Already, some commentators, including callers to radio programmes held after the debate and persons who attended the debate at the Faculty of Law at the Mona Campus of the University of the West Indies, are of the view that the showdown did not materialise.

Both Holness and Simpson Miller have also been accused of skirting some of the questions raised by journalists Franklin McKnight, Dionne Jackson-Miller, as well as from a select group of audience members.

In addition, there were very few instances in which either debater rigorously challenged the other’s position, as happened in the team debate, which featured young politicians from both parties as well as in the economic and financial debate between Finance Minister Audley Shaw.

However, all three gave her kudos for her response on the issue of homosexuals serving in the Cabinet.

Holness, to whom the question was posed, sought to sidestep it with a long answer. However, Simpson Miller said she would appoint people to her Cabinet based on their ability and would go as far as having the buggery law reviewed.

“One of the new things that came out was what I consider to be a substantial advancement of the PNP on the issue of homosexuality,” said Crooks. “For the first time I’ve heard a leader of the PNP saying ‘I’m open to having people of whatever orientation depending on ability in my Cabinet and in fact I would have us look at the buggery law and ensure that people vote on their conscience in Parliament’.”

All three journalists, however, said they found the structure of the debate restrictive, as it did not allow the leaders enough time to answer questions fully.

“I think the Debates Commission is going to take a hit because the 60 minutes was awfully too limited for the leaders to go at it,” said Hughes. “You really needed 90 minutes, if not two hours to see who can stand up under the pressure, who can remain consistent, and to give them more time.”

He said that part of the difficulty was that the moderator, who is under instruction, had to keep on interrupting when Holness and Simpson Miller were not finished answering the questions posed to them.