 |
| |
CRITIQUING THE DEBATE - Major upset as underdog Audley decisively wins
Published in the Jamaica Gleaner: Wednesday | August 15, 2007
Keith Collister, Business Writer
In analysing the debate, I believe it is important to look at it primarily as a media debate, and only secondly as a snapshot into the economic policies of the respective political parties that are much more fully and better covered in their respective manifestos.
The vast majority of Jamaicans, even JLP supporters, would have regarded Opposition Spokesman on Finance, Audley Shaw, as the underdog going into the debate with Finance Minister, Dr. Omar Davies.
This is why it is surprising that not only has Shaw apparently beaten Dr. Davies relative to the expectations of the two men going into the debate, but he appeared to command the debate from the very start relative to an uncharacteristically nervous and apparently less prepared rival.
Growth in PNP manifesto
Leaving aside the pyrotechnics, of which there were plenty from Shaw, the essential difference between the debaters was their success in communicating a positive vision to the Jamaican people.
Despite the reference to six to seven per cent growth in the PNP manifesto, Dr. Davies seemed to communicate a vision of more of the same, with Jamaica merely living within its means as he manfully continued the seemingly impossible task of balancing the books.
Shaw communicated an attractive vision of the JLP in government driving faster growth, generating jobs and thus greater tax revenue, as the way out of Jamaica's problems of high debt and under- funded social services, closely following the line of the JLP's manifesto.
As expected, one of Dr. Davies few attempted counterattacks was to ask the highly pertinent question of how the JLP would finance their election promises.
However, even this attack, reminiscent of the Budget Debate, was severely undermined by the fact that Dr. Davies apparently didn't know that Opposition Leader Bruce Golding had already explained at the JLP's manifesto launch that most of the $9 billion constituency fund was not new money, but merely a reallocation, a point which Dr. Davies was eventually forced to concede.
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
