Tweet
Simpson Miller gets mixed reviews
Analysts say PM may have gained in her loss in political debate
BY PETRE WILLIAMS Observer senior reporter williamsp@jamaicaobserver.com
Monday, August 13, 2007
ANALYSTS have given Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller mixed reviews for her performance in Saturday night's national political debate against Opposition Leader Bruce Golding, who, they said, won hands down.
Sociologist Dr Orville Taylor said Simpson Miller may well have gained more than she lost.
"There are people who will feel that in the loss last night she gained enough. Whereas with Bruce, he did what people expected of him - the eloquent Bruce Golding, who is not trying to drum up support and who is in his kind of a forum - she did better than they expected," Taylor told the Observer.
"She didn't just dry up, though there were signs of nervousness."
Anthropologist Herbert Gayle said the prime minister had earned herself points for her closing statement, which resonated with many people.
"The issue is that Bruce did what he was expected to do. Portia did better than she was expected to do. She lost, but the issue is whether she lost more than she gained. The point is that she had something that affects people's hearts," said Gayle, who watched the debate among a group of some 30 working-class Jamaicans - both JLP and PNP supporters - at a shop in Westmoreland.
"When you look at these working-class people at the shop, the identity with her was there as she ended, appealing to them irrespective of people being JLP or PNP. So, it means, therefore, that Portia as her natural self - not trying to bat in a sophisticated debate - is acceptable," Gayle said.
One political analyst, who spoke on condition of anonymity, was not as generous in his assessment of the PM's performance, noting that the only thing to her credit was that she had been "present".
"It was rather lopsided. I don't think the PM was in the debate at all. She seemed to have been in a different world. I don't know if all of this is beyond her capacity or what, but what it did was to further enhance Golding. It allowed him to shine. He clearly indicated a true grasp of all the issues - as a national leader and a party leader," he said.
"She could hardly have done worse. Other than the little final statement she made, which is what she was coached to do, and even then, she gave the impression that she didn't know what she was talking about," the analyst added.
Gayle, however, cautioned against overstating the opposition leader's victory with an evaluation of whether his Achilles heel - that of trust - had been addressed.
"Bruce won handsomely in the debate itself. The issue is how much did Bruce win? His Achilles heel is related to trust. That is what the PNP has been hammering him with. Here is the problem, and this is why I think it can be concluded that he may not have benefited as much as some people feel," Gayle told the Observer.
"His Achilles heel is more complex than Portia's. So while Portia may not be able to win a debate with him, it may become an issue of 'that is beside point'. Why? Because a single debate cannot erode or make a total repair job of a lack of trust."
Taylor said Golding's victory may also have served the 'cause of Simpson Miller'.
"It might have backfired because there are some people who said she had the courage to try and to come and do something that everybody knows she can't do well. Remember, she is taking him on in his strongest area, so she has stepped up to what people thought she was running from for years," said the sociologist.
"She turned up with her game face and Bruce kinda talked down to her. And believe it or not, the people who like that kind of thing already are with him. But you have some people who feel he needs to be nice or polite. We still don't like the idea of a man making a female look bad in public. And the large majority of voters, who happen to be in the lower classes, and even some of the middle class, will have some sympathy for her. So it may turn out that she gets a lot of sympathy votes because of last night," Taylor added.
The political analyst disagreed, saying Golding had been generous toward the PM.
"Mrs Simpson Miller was just rambling on. It seems to me like along the way Mr Golding was doing a kind of protection thing for her. There were a lot of questions she answered that lacked coherence," he said. "I imagine he must have utilised restraints and tried not to overkill. To be honest with you, I see everybody giving Golding seven/eight and giving Portia six. It's ridiculous. I would have to give her four or 4.5."
Simpson Miller, for her part, said she was pleased with her own performance.
"It went well, and I am satisfied with how I handled myself," she told the Observer, adding that she was happy to have been a part of the debate, which she considered valuable.
"I think it is a valuable debate because people get to see both of us and to experience both of us together discussing certain issues - agreeing and disagreeing and I think it is good for the country," she said.
Golding was more reserved in his assessment of his own performance, saying he was "as good as I am capable of delivering".
But the question of whether Golding had outperformed Simpson Miller aside, Taylor and Gayle said the debates had left something to be desired - attention to details and to such critical issues as crime and youth development by all participating speakers.
"We have a corruption problem. We have a violence problem. We have a problem of overall youth development. Those three areas should have been hammered in the debate. The people asking the questions, when they realised that they were either not asked or asked and not answered, they should have come back to it," said Gayle. "So that was lacking in the debates - practical details about how we are going to solve our problems. Too much of the debate was based on the issue of who wins."
Analysts say PM may have gained in her loss in political debate
BY PETRE WILLIAMS Observer senior reporter williamsp@jamaicaobserver.com
Monday, August 13, 2007
ANALYSTS have given Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller mixed reviews for her performance in Saturday night's national political debate against Opposition Leader Bruce Golding, who, they said, won hands down.
Sociologist Dr Orville Taylor said Simpson Miller may well have gained more than she lost.
"There are people who will feel that in the loss last night she gained enough. Whereas with Bruce, he did what people expected of him - the eloquent Bruce Golding, who is not trying to drum up support and who is in his kind of a forum - she did better than they expected," Taylor told the Observer.
"She didn't just dry up, though there were signs of nervousness."
Anthropologist Herbert Gayle said the prime minister had earned herself points for her closing statement, which resonated with many people.
"The issue is that Bruce did what he was expected to do. Portia did better than she was expected to do. She lost, but the issue is whether she lost more than she gained. The point is that she had something that affects people's hearts," said Gayle, who watched the debate among a group of some 30 working-class Jamaicans - both JLP and PNP supporters - at a shop in Westmoreland.
"When you look at these working-class people at the shop, the identity with her was there as she ended, appealing to them irrespective of people being JLP or PNP. So, it means, therefore, that Portia as her natural self - not trying to bat in a sophisticated debate - is acceptable," Gayle said.
One political analyst, who spoke on condition of anonymity, was not as generous in his assessment of the PM's performance, noting that the only thing to her credit was that she had been "present".
"It was rather lopsided. I don't think the PM was in the debate at all. She seemed to have been in a different world. I don't know if all of this is beyond her capacity or what, but what it did was to further enhance Golding. It allowed him to shine. He clearly indicated a true grasp of all the issues - as a national leader and a party leader," he said.
"She could hardly have done worse. Other than the little final statement she made, which is what she was coached to do, and even then, she gave the impression that she didn't know what she was talking about," the analyst added.
Gayle, however, cautioned against overstating the opposition leader's victory with an evaluation of whether his Achilles heel - that of trust - had been addressed.
"Bruce won handsomely in the debate itself. The issue is how much did Bruce win? His Achilles heel is related to trust. That is what the PNP has been hammering him with. Here is the problem, and this is why I think it can be concluded that he may not have benefited as much as some people feel," Gayle told the Observer.
"His Achilles heel is more complex than Portia's. So while Portia may not be able to win a debate with him, it may become an issue of 'that is beside point'. Why? Because a single debate cannot erode or make a total repair job of a lack of trust."
Taylor said Golding's victory may also have served the 'cause of Simpson Miller'.
"It might have backfired because there are some people who said she had the courage to try and to come and do something that everybody knows she can't do well. Remember, she is taking him on in his strongest area, so she has stepped up to what people thought she was running from for years," said the sociologist.
"She turned up with her game face and Bruce kinda talked down to her. And believe it or not, the people who like that kind of thing already are with him. But you have some people who feel he needs to be nice or polite. We still don't like the idea of a man making a female look bad in public. And the large majority of voters, who happen to be in the lower classes, and even some of the middle class, will have some sympathy for her. So it may turn out that she gets a lot of sympathy votes because of last night," Taylor added.
The political analyst disagreed, saying Golding had been generous toward the PM.
"Mrs Simpson Miller was just rambling on. It seems to me like along the way Mr Golding was doing a kind of protection thing for her. There were a lot of questions she answered that lacked coherence," he said. "I imagine he must have utilised restraints and tried not to overkill. To be honest with you, I see everybody giving Golding seven/eight and giving Portia six. It's ridiculous. I would have to give her four or 4.5."
Simpson Miller, for her part, said she was pleased with her own performance.
"It went well, and I am satisfied with how I handled myself," she told the Observer, adding that she was happy to have been a part of the debate, which she considered valuable.
"I think it is a valuable debate because people get to see both of us and to experience both of us together discussing certain issues - agreeing and disagreeing and I think it is good for the country," she said.
Golding was more reserved in his assessment of his own performance, saying he was "as good as I am capable of delivering".
But the question of whether Golding had outperformed Simpson Miller aside, Taylor and Gayle said the debates had left something to be desired - attention to details and to such critical issues as crime and youth development by all participating speakers.
"We have a corruption problem. We have a violence problem. We have a problem of overall youth development. Those three areas should have been hammered in the debate. The people asking the questions, when they realised that they were either not asked or asked and not answered, they should have come back to it," said Gayle. "So that was lacking in the debates - practical details about how we are going to solve our problems. Too much of the debate was based on the issue of who wins."
Comment