Reactions to the last two political debates between the senior leadership of the two major political parties yesterday weighed in favour of the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), with commentators saying that Bruce Golding did a better job of outlining his party’s policies than People’s National Party (PNP) president and prime minister, Portia Simpson Miller, while the JLP’s Audley Shaw proved stronger, in some instances, than Finance Minister Dr Omar Davies.

Golding and Simpson Miller debated leadership issues Saturday night in what most television analysts that night concluded was a poor showing by the prime minister who, they said, showed very little grasp of the topics raised.

The night before, Shaw faced Davies in what turned out to be a bruising encounter on the economy.

“I thought both men did reasonably well,” said political analyst and panelist in the leadership debate, Lloyd B Smith.

Smith said that while Shaw’s debating skills ensured that he came across stronger and more forceful, he failed to answer some of the more “biting questions”. However, Smith said Davies appeared laid back at some points in the debate. “However, he did manage to score some telling points in rebuttal,” Smith said.

Executive director of the Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CaPRI), Kim Marie Spence, said the leadership debate went straight away to Bruce Golding, who did a better job of articulating the JLP’s plans, even going beyond the party’s manifesto.

“Bruce Golding did an excellent job of telling us what the thinking of the JLP was,” Spence said, adding that Simpson Miller’s presentation was essentially, “I’m staying the course and I love you”.

She said she used a guiding philosophy of CaPRI: “Comment is free, but fact is sacred” to gauge the debate. Spence also said the economic debate was lacking.

“I think neither did a particularly good job in enlightening the people as to what the plans were,” Spence said.

However, publisher of Investor’s Choice magazine and financial analyst, John Jackson, said the economic debate was the best in the series of three. At the same time, Jackson said while the debate covered a range of issues, there were other important issues that got left out probably due to the “absence of someone with economic and financial training on the panel”.

Additionally, Jackson cited dishonesty in Davies’ responses regarding how the JLP would fund its proposals and the circumstances that led to the creation of FINSAC.

“My disappointment in the economic debate came out of a certain level of lack of honesty in the answering of a few questions by Minister Davies,” Jackson said.

In response to how the JLP would fund its programmes, including the removal of tuition fees and the $150-million allocation to each constituency, for example, Davies intimated that he did not know where the party would get the money. But, said Jackson, the JLP “has been at pains last year to say, ‘It’s not new money’. It was all over the papers. He (Davies) must have heard it,” Jackson said.

Regarding the funding of the removal of tuition fees and the health services proposals by the JLP, Jackson said “anyone who is honest about the country” knows that based on the cost figures provided by the JLP, savings in interest costs and additional savings will be more than adequate to fund the proposals.

The JLP has said the total cost of the health and tuition proposals would amount to less than three quarters of one per cent of the budget.

Regarding the leadership debate, Smith said Simpson Miller seemed to have “lost her bearings in the middle”, while Golding came across as assured and sincere. He also said the prime minister used “the ‘I’ word too much”.

“Government is about collaborating, collective responsibility, team work. She alone cannot and will not be able to run this country,” Smith said.

He also expressed disappointment with Simpson Miller’s response to why she had kept Phillip Paulwell in her Cabinet, after what appears to have been mismanagement of a few projects under his watch.

Accounting professor at Northern Caribbean University Anthony Hutchinson, said in the economic debate Davies was more organised than Shaw, who did better than expected.

“I thought Davies was what I expected – organised, clear and defensive in respect to details,” Hutchinson said. “Shaw was more offensive, attacking, in terms of going out to find new business, new ways of doing things, new business in different fields,” he added.

Hutchinson said that in the leadership debate Simpson Miller failed to provide details, which he felt spoke to preparation.

“Her handlers need to spend more time with her,” Hutchinson said. “As a prime minister, she needs to be more in tune with details.”

Overall, Jackson said the debates appeared to have been more beneficial to the JLP.

“From my assessment, the outcome has been more advantageous for Bruce Golding himself and for the Labour Party,” Jackson said.

Smith said the debates as a whole demonstrated the possibility of political discussion without violence.