THE tit for tat between the ruling People’s National Party (PNP) and the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) appears to have no end in sight with the latest round in the ongoing contention between the two sides resulting in the abandonment of two separate 90-minute question-and-answer fora, which were planned by the RJR Communications Group.

The PNP, in a late morning release, said it had agreed to participate in the forum, which it described as “a feasible and indeed an equidistant” opportunity to the national debates in which the party has refused to take part as a matter of principle.

However, by mid-afternoon the media group issued a release advising that the forum was off.

“Both parties had previously confirmed their participation, including JLP Leader Andrew Holness in the forum for the JLP and PNP President Portia Simpson Miller in the forum for the PNP. JLP Leader Andrew Holness this afternoon advised that he would now decline participation as the RJR fora is being positioned by the People’s National Party as an alternative to the Jamaica Debates Commission (JDC) debates,” the RJR Group said.

The PNP’s campaign team said it was planning to send a contingent of leading party members, led by Party President Portia Simpson Miller, to field questions from RJR journalists.

Speaking with the

Jamaica Observer yesterday, head of news at the RJR Group said the decision was taken to invite the two political parties “to let them ventilate issues relating to policy positions and their plans for the country, as well as the issues which have arisen on the campaign trail”.

He stressed that this was planned only after it became clear that the JDC debates would no longer be held, noting that RJR had written to the parties on February 16. Walker said the JLP had in fact already provided the list of persons who would have participated in the session.

PNP General Secrtary Paul Burke, in response to the cancellation of the session, said it has robbed “the public of an opportunity to hear both parties defend the policies they have proposed. The PNP’s actions today demonstrate that those who say the party or our leader fears debates are voicing their own wishful but malicious and illogical thinking”.

There would, however, be two separate sessions and so they could not be considered a debate.

In wake of the initial announcement of the RJR sessions, the JDC expressed its support for the opportunity as the electorate would have been better informed about the proposed programmes and policies of the two parties who are battling to form the country’s next Government.

Vice Chairman of the JDC Brian Schmidt made it clear that the commission would have supported such a session regardless of which media entity made the initiative. “We support the fact that the public would have an opportunity to get better information than they do now. It really is a different kind of approach, one that we (the JDC) could not accommodate. The commission is in the business of holding and staging debates with two contending sides, a forum that is completely different from what the RJR Group proposed,” he stated.