ONE analyst and researcher has said that the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) battering at the polls Thursday could have been worse.

Anthropologist of social violence and host of The Complete Picture discussion programme aired Mondays to Thursdays on News Talk 93fm, Dr Herbert Gayle told the Sunday Observer: “it could have been worse — on the basis that Jamaica voted against them more than it did for the PNP. In fact, if the voter turnout was higher; and the PNP momentum (which became obvious only a month ago) allowed to run for longer (meaning that elections were held about mid-January), the loss of JLP seats would be ‘near irreparable’ — even allowing space for a third party to develop,” suggested Dr Gayle.

The UWI researcher and lecturer, who conducted several ‘snapshot’ studies in the run-up to the general election to inform his radio show, also said that the 41-22 landslide is not the only indicator of the people’s rejection of the JLP.

“The majority (12) of JLP seats were won by sheer ‘political muscle’, experience, and good old-fashioned luck,” said Dr Gayle, pointing to the following MP’s, whom he said “won unconvincingly or with less than 60 per cent”:

* Andrew Holness

* Audley Shaw

* Rudyard Spencer

* Daryl Vaz

* James Robertson

* Edmund Bartlett

* Everald Warmington

* Christopher Tuffton

* William Hutchinson

* Kenneth Baugh

* Gregory Mair

* Shahine Robinson

Dr Gayle said that most of these incumbents could have been unseated if the PNP had targeted them.

“The sad reality for the JLP is that, at worst, they could have won only nine seats — and that this was not only possible, but was almost realised.”

He pointed to his own data from the Complete Picture snapshot study done December 14 -19, 2011 and declared that, in his opinion, former prime minister Andrew Holness, could have been beaten if the PNP had put the charismatic, young Damion Crawford to run against him.

In a snapshot study done between July 6 and 14, Dr Gayle’s research team tested the five primary qualities that Jamaicans want to see in their politicians. Honesty (defined as not corrupt; will not use public funds for self, family or friends) was the most critical to Jamaicans. This was followed by Credibility (defined as ‘I can believe the person – he/she does what he/she promises and tells the truth’), Hard-working, Brilliance and Stewardship.

Holness came out as the most popular JLP candidate across all five qualities. However, Dr Christopher Tufton scored above him on the two most important qualities: Honesty and Credibility.

Professor Ian Boxill and others also did quantitative studies that showed Holness as popular, but the snapshot was the first to reveal that Dr Tufton was actually a better choice, as reported in the Sunday Observer of July 24, 2011.

Tufton then topped the list of Jamaica’s most dynamic and favoured politicians — having been identified as not only honest and credible, but also hard-working, brilliant and a true public servant in Dr Gayle’s Complete Snapshot study of July 6 to 14, which sampled 240 people from the Kingston Metropolitan Region, St James, St Mary, Westmoreland, and St Thomas.

“If Jamaicans perceive you as corrupt and an habitual liar you cannot win an election, said Dr Gayle.

Dr Gayle, in analysing the JLP defeat at the polls, also pointed to factors gleaned from another snapshot study done between December 14 and 19, 2011, on why people would or would not vote.

“We found that as high as 71 per cent of persons wanted to vote. Nonetheless, we also found that a half of those who were reluctant to vote had reservations about both political parties. This was followed by a significant number of JLP persons who had developed distrust for Andrew Holness. These JLPs made up 15 per cent of all the respondents who were reluctant to vote. In fact, this number turned out to be 34 per cent of all JLPs who claimed they were not going to vote,” he said.

The thoughts of the respondents who expressed distrust in Andrew can be summarised as follows:

* Credibility issues (nine of 17)

* “He (Holness) is too prone to telling a controversial story or twisting the facts.”

* “I do not know if I can believe him and I am a JLP, can you imagine how the PNP people feels about him. How is he going to unite this country?”

* “That stone incident was the last straw! I pray each time he is going to speak!”

* “This man calls the name of God and says he is a Seventh- day Adventist, but cannot give a presentation straight … and look how many faults the PNP have.”

* I never see him lead, too inexperience, too young (five of 17)

* I would have preferred Christopher Tufton (three of 17)

Dr Gayle said that Holness was selected by the JLP as a candidate who could win, based on his selling himself as “honest and credible”.

He said that Holness successfully showed that he was not a part of the corruption. Nonetheless, according to the researcher, Jamaicans connected honesty with credibility, and “Holness flopped on the latter.

“His Mandeville presentation, his reference to a ‘Bustamante Rastaman’ and the incident in Central Kingston all came together to present a picture of a person who could not be trusted with speaking the truth always. Talk shows, presentations by civic groups, and regular people in neighbourhoods started to attack the prime minister for his choice of examples used to illustrate points in his presentations. Some persons became openly angry with his style of presenting material. If Holness was presenting himself as a regular candidate he would have been forgiven, but he and the JLP were presenting him as the ‘Rescuer’ of both the JLP and Jamaica,” Dr Gayle said.

The researcher also suggested that Jamaicans gave up on Holness nine days before the election.

“The Labourites were less convincing than their Comrade counterparts in the (national pre-election) debates. ‘Prince’ Andrew was supposed to be the redeemer once again. Again, the expectations were too much,” said Dr Gayle.

The researcher also feels that Simpson Miller’s credibility shot through the roof after her debate with the then prime minister, pointing to 13 respondents calling his research team and asking to change their previous response to the question of whether or not they would vote.

“They all wanted to vote for Portia. Previously, they had stated that they would not vote as ‘no party is better’ or ‘I am a PNP but do not like Portia’,” said Dr Gayle.

He said that people had told researchers that Holness decided to ‘hustle’ when it came to the issue of homosexuality and that he answered in a way that politicians would. Respondents also felt that Simpson Miller showed guts and responded directly.

“The night of the debate I told colleagues that the JLP would lose the election. Nonetheless, I promised not to push this line, as my intent has never been to directly influence an election outcome but provide information that the Jamaican public can use to make its own decision. Even on the morning of the elections I refused to express my position that the JLP would lose badly as I am aware that such a declaration could impact voters,” said the anthropologist.

He noted that after the 2007 election he interviewed 30 middle-class PNP and uncommitted women. Only four (13 per cent) had voted for Portia Simpson Miller, following her embarrassing public displays captured in the JLP’s carefully designed advertisements.

The researcher said that it was different this time around as after the debate, advertisements that were deemed funny relating to Portia Simpson Miller became ‘distasteful’. “This time, they were puny and even irritating, as they tried to target Portia,” he said.

“December 30, 2011, the day after the 2011 general election, I called all 30 respondents. I found 27 middle-class PNP and 18 uncommitted had voted for her.”

Some women explained their turning to Simpson Miller in the following ways:

* “We have to bring down this club. These men take us all for idiots. I did not like Portia but God knows she cannot be worse than these corrupt men.”

* “These people have all kinds of letters behind their names and they do not make any sense. So why are they better than Portia?”

* “I am a Christian but homosexuals do not sin more than these corrupt politicians. It is all about the vote and they underestimate our intelligence and our tolerance as a people,” the UWI lecturer said.

According to the last snapshot study, four of five Jamaicans claimed that they vote for the party above all other factors. However, nine of 10 persons who like a political party, also like its leader.

“Any party whose leader fails will also fail,” said Dr Gayle. “This is the core reason the PNP failed in 2007 and why the JLP failed this time. Holness was given a task too big for him to achieve — and he squandered his chances at even doing a good job by not distancing himself enough from the failing men of the JLP. The public assessed him and branded him as a hustler… especially after the leadership debate.

“People listed a number of errors he made on talk shows across the country. One of the worst errors was to fire Mike Henry as minister but keep him as (JLP) chairman. People also accused him (Holness) of paying little attention to the fire at the Solid Waste Management head office; not speaking fully on the ‘No plane was over Tivoli’ matter; and not telling G2K to back off Portia when it became clear that their continuous attack had become counterproductive. In summation, Jamaicans bunched him with Bruce Golding. In fact, the term ‘Baby Bruce’ used by PNPs soon became a part of the lexicon of frustrated JLPs,” he told the Sunday Observer.

In the July snapshots, Portia Simpson Miller had emerged as Jamaica’s best public servant, the most likely person to put the country before self.

“Simpson Miller, as a female, became seen by the poor in the snapshot as ‘Caring’, ‘Warm’, and ‘One of us’; the JLP men became seen as ‘Cold’ and ‘Selfish’, ‘Arrogant’, and ‘Unsympathetic’.

According to Dr Gayle, in the December snapshot, JLP and PNP (especially) complained that they had never seen so many scandals in only two years. When asked to say whether or not issues were important as a deciding factor, a significant 38 per cent of the 340 respondents who claimed that they intended to vote, answered in the affirmative.

Of the 154 respondents who claimed that issues were critical, 70 per cent had tertiary education. This educated group listed corruption as the primary problem or issue.

“When asked why she put corruption ahead of economics, a medical doctor said that they were the same issue, “The corruption must be more serious, as that was money that we already had and it got wasted or stolen by the people we elected to manage our little much.”

One JLP male, who decided to vote for Simpson Miller, stated: “Me a Labourite but me not just going to stay at home, me going to give Portia my vote for me cannot understand how the PNP come fi be more honest and dem know how to hustle we money.”

The anthropologist listed what respondents in the study ranked as scandals that the JLP had to address in a very short time leading up to the general election:

* JDIP (61 persons)

* Manatt (58)

* Scrap metal (42)

* $800-million roadway in Christiana (36)

* Shooting of a JLP by another in Mandeville (23)

* Purchases of large houses by politicians (12)

* Destruction of files at the Solid Waste Management office (nine)

* Disappearing carpet and chairs in Montego Bay (seven)

* Unnecessary massacre and abuse of Tivoli residents (six)