Tweet
The kiss of death for the PNP
Mark Wignall
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Even though I found the three national political debates to be too sterile for my liking, I believe that they gave us all a hint as to the thought processes driving policy in both the Jamaica Labour Party(JLP) and the People's National Party(PNP). I would have preferred more controlled crosstalk between the rival participants and the inclusion of questions (via telephones) from the public.
In the first debate, Dr Ken Baugh of the JLP was aced by the PNP's Dr Peter Phillips simply because, at heart, Dr Baugh is not really a politician and he is too much of a gentleman to indulge in a bruising "fight" on national television. Which is not to say that Dr Phillips was without decorum. Through no fault of their own, both men are boring speakers and were it not for the fact that they were debating at this particular time, most viewers would have turned to cable for a good movie.
In the second debate between Audley Shaw and Dr Omar Davies, Shaw came out on top. After Dr Davies' stewardship throughout the 1990s, it is difficult to imagine him winning any debate against anyone, especially where economic policy is the main focus. That said, it seemed to me that Dr Davies was deliberately soft, probably because he had seen the latest poll done for the PNP showing the JLP four percentage points ahead of his party. Maybe he was worried because his leader was slated to be next in line in the debates. I could almost hear Dr Omar Davies echoing the first line from John Holt's old hit, "My heart is gone, I need, I need someone to lean on."
It is my belief that Dr Davies could have used the "blind-them-with-science" tactic to win the debate, but decided against it and went half-heartedly into the debate. Hints of continued factionalism?
Political debates, like budget presentations, are hardly ever listened to or watched on television. Because of the popularity of Portia Simpson Miller, it is my belief that maybe as high as 75 per cent of the electorate listened (watched) parts or all of it. And therein lies the problem for the PNP.
It seemed to me that where Bruce Golding entered the debate supremely confident of a victory, Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller approached it with trepidation, almost like Little Red Riding Hood skipping through the forest to mask her fear of the big, bad wolf. That the big, bad wolf did materialise did not make Mrs Simpson Miller's passage any easier.
It was a deliberate tactic of the JLP that Golding's objective in the debate would be to defend his JLP to NDM to JLP moves and his interface with garrison politics, set out his party's position with regards to funding the programmes in the JLP's highly impressive manifesto and do all of that without beating up on the lady. In that regard he was highly successful.
On the other hand, from the first question, it was obvious that the prime minister was in deep, treacherous waters. I have pointed out in a number of articles that Jamaica is probably the only country in the world where a prime minister was elected/newly installed and more than a year later, there has been no one-on-one with the press. Had the prime minister embraced the media rather than throwing hostility at it, she would have made errors, but the one-on-ones would have made her into a more seasoned campaigner in her face-off with Golding.
At times, it seemed that the nervousness was about to overwhelm her, but then again, if it were nerves alone, it would not have been so bad. In instances it appeared that she plainly didn't know what she was talking about.
One well-known PNP activist called me and said: "A minister of government called me and asked me if I am watching it. I told him yes. He asked me what I thought about it. I asked HIM what he thought about it. He said he was watching it with one hand across his face and peeping through his fingers."
When the prime minister said, "Watch me work, I am a hard worker," I almost wanted to rush to her, embrace her and say, "It's OK. That's life. This is not your time now." Although I find myself instantly liking people who are willing to break with stiff-upper-lip protocols in order to gain a strategic advantage in a particular situation, I think the prime minister went too far in that respect with her mention of "Mama P" and "Portia". The fact that she used the words when she was stumped only made it worse.
I spoke to a few PNP diehards who watched the debate and ALL agree that Golding came out on top. And ALL agree that they will be voting PNP come August 27, 2007. It is among the weak PNP supporters, the lukewarm JLP supporters and the uncommitted that the JLP will likely gain support via the debate.
To the extent that some among the rural and urban poor will see themselves in the prime minister as she stood like a statue at first and being unable to answer questions successfully, the support will be to the PNP's advantage.
It is after the debates that the real madness began. First, the prime minister told a PNP crowd in Marverly that she demolished Golding. Really? The crowd roared. It is indeed the silly season. Then Danny Buchanan, that most unfortunate voice in the PNP, has been telling anyone who will listen that Portia soundly trounced Bruce in the debates!
In the end, the debates have to be more than who triumphed over whom. It has to be about the future of the country and the happiness of its people. In the debate, I saw a prime minister who was not even half up to the task of the job she was presented with via her February 25, 2006 win in the PNP's internal election. In the debate, I was very definitely not convinced that this country can present her with any other responsibilities which she may crave by way of that event to come on August 27, 2007.
In Golding I saw Jamaica's next prime minister, fully in charge of a tightly-knit party, and easily able to wend his way through explaining the difficulties of creating and managing policies in a JLP government.
The prime minister's many references to "Portia" and "I" indicates to me that the PNP "team" is a fallacy. There is still disunity in the PNP camp and even though all seemed to have come on board for the sake of the coming elections, many in the hierarchy of the party do not have their hearts in it because the empress has no clothes.
What we had all suspected was made plain to us last Saturday night.
Jamaica deserves more than just being made a laughing stock in the region. If Jamaicans in the diaspora had a vote and the people could be slotted in their last places of abode in Jamaica, the PNP would not win more than 10 seats come August 27. That debate last Saturday was the kiss of death for the PNP.
observemark@gmail.com
Mark Wignall
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Even though I found the three national political debates to be too sterile for my liking, I believe that they gave us all a hint as to the thought processes driving policy in both the Jamaica Labour Party(JLP) and the People's National Party(PNP). I would have preferred more controlled crosstalk between the rival participants and the inclusion of questions (via telephones) from the public.
In the first debate, Dr Ken Baugh of the JLP was aced by the PNP's Dr Peter Phillips simply because, at heart, Dr Baugh is not really a politician and he is too much of a gentleman to indulge in a bruising "fight" on national television. Which is not to say that Dr Phillips was without decorum. Through no fault of their own, both men are boring speakers and were it not for the fact that they were debating at this particular time, most viewers would have turned to cable for a good movie.
In the second debate between Audley Shaw and Dr Omar Davies, Shaw came out on top. After Dr Davies' stewardship throughout the 1990s, it is difficult to imagine him winning any debate against anyone, especially where economic policy is the main focus. That said, it seemed to me that Dr Davies was deliberately soft, probably because he had seen the latest poll done for the PNP showing the JLP four percentage points ahead of his party. Maybe he was worried because his leader was slated to be next in line in the debates. I could almost hear Dr Omar Davies echoing the first line from John Holt's old hit, "My heart is gone, I need, I need someone to lean on."
It is my belief that Dr Davies could have used the "blind-them-with-science" tactic to win the debate, but decided against it and went half-heartedly into the debate. Hints of continued factionalism?
Political debates, like budget presentations, are hardly ever listened to or watched on television. Because of the popularity of Portia Simpson Miller, it is my belief that maybe as high as 75 per cent of the electorate listened (watched) parts or all of it. And therein lies the problem for the PNP.
It seemed to me that where Bruce Golding entered the debate supremely confident of a victory, Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller approached it with trepidation, almost like Little Red Riding Hood skipping through the forest to mask her fear of the big, bad wolf. That the big, bad wolf did materialise did not make Mrs Simpson Miller's passage any easier.
It was a deliberate tactic of the JLP that Golding's objective in the debate would be to defend his JLP to NDM to JLP moves and his interface with garrison politics, set out his party's position with regards to funding the programmes in the JLP's highly impressive manifesto and do all of that without beating up on the lady. In that regard he was highly successful.
On the other hand, from the first question, it was obvious that the prime minister was in deep, treacherous waters. I have pointed out in a number of articles that Jamaica is probably the only country in the world where a prime minister was elected/newly installed and more than a year later, there has been no one-on-one with the press. Had the prime minister embraced the media rather than throwing hostility at it, she would have made errors, but the one-on-ones would have made her into a more seasoned campaigner in her face-off with Golding.
At times, it seemed that the nervousness was about to overwhelm her, but then again, if it were nerves alone, it would not have been so bad. In instances it appeared that she plainly didn't know what she was talking about.
One well-known PNP activist called me and said: "A minister of government called me and asked me if I am watching it. I told him yes. He asked me what I thought about it. I asked HIM what he thought about it. He said he was watching it with one hand across his face and peeping through his fingers."
When the prime minister said, "Watch me work, I am a hard worker," I almost wanted to rush to her, embrace her and say, "It's OK. That's life. This is not your time now." Although I find myself instantly liking people who are willing to break with stiff-upper-lip protocols in order to gain a strategic advantage in a particular situation, I think the prime minister went too far in that respect with her mention of "Mama P" and "Portia". The fact that she used the words when she was stumped only made it worse.
I spoke to a few PNP diehards who watched the debate and ALL agree that Golding came out on top. And ALL agree that they will be voting PNP come August 27, 2007. It is among the weak PNP supporters, the lukewarm JLP supporters and the uncommitted that the JLP will likely gain support via the debate.
To the extent that some among the rural and urban poor will see themselves in the prime minister as she stood like a statue at first and being unable to answer questions successfully, the support will be to the PNP's advantage.
It is after the debates that the real madness began. First, the prime minister told a PNP crowd in Marverly that she demolished Golding. Really? The crowd roared. It is indeed the silly season. Then Danny Buchanan, that most unfortunate voice in the PNP, has been telling anyone who will listen that Portia soundly trounced Bruce in the debates!
In the end, the debates have to be more than who triumphed over whom. It has to be about the future of the country and the happiness of its people. In the debate, I saw a prime minister who was not even half up to the task of the job she was presented with via her February 25, 2006 win in the PNP's internal election. In the debate, I was very definitely not convinced that this country can present her with any other responsibilities which she may crave by way of that event to come on August 27, 2007.
In Golding I saw Jamaica's next prime minister, fully in charge of a tightly-knit party, and easily able to wend his way through explaining the difficulties of creating and managing policies in a JLP government.
The prime minister's many references to "Portia" and "I" indicates to me that the PNP "team" is a fallacy. There is still disunity in the PNP camp and even though all seemed to have come on board for the sake of the coming elections, many in the hierarchy of the party do not have their hearts in it because the empress has no clothes.
What we had all suspected was made plain to us last Saturday night.
Jamaica deserves more than just being made a laughing stock in the region. If Jamaicans in the diaspora had a vote and the people could be slotted in their last places of abode in Jamaica, the PNP would not win more than 10 seats come August 27. That debate last Saturday was the kiss of death for the PNP.
observemark@gmail.com
Comment