Don Robotham, Contributor

Robotham

The first in the series of political debates took place successfully.

In terms of substantive content, regrettably, this was a dud. The debaters not only started in 'park' but more or less remained there for the entire 90 minutes.

The format was too wooden, and the issues lacked focus. It is doubtful whether the debate would hav any minds. Dr. Peter Phillips and Dr. Kenneth Baugh were on their best middle class behaviour, prim and proper to a fault.

Corruption issue

Dr. Baugh was most effective when he stressed the corruption issue and pointed to the failures of the Government to make a breakthrough in crime control. He also pointed out, quite truthfully, how the comparative position of the country had slipped on the Human Development Index, relative to the improvements experienced by our Caribbean neighbours. But I was surprised that Dr. Baugh did not make more of HEART - perhaps the most successful social policy initiative in the last 25 years.

Dr. Phillips scored in what is turning out to be the Achilles heel of the JLP Manifesto - the difficulty which they have of explaining how they would finance the many social programmes, which they propose to introduce, given our economic realities. He also stressedthe PNP's relatively extensive housing programme-perhaps one of the few areas of success for which that party can take some credit.

Curiously, the presenters were weakest in their area of special expertise. Dr. Baugh seemed to have an old-time doctor's narrow vision of health - that it was all about curative health and hospitals. Not a word about prevention and the environment. Dr. Phillips failed to demonstrate that he had any new initiatives to offer the beleaguered country in the vital crime reduction area - his own direct portfolio responsibility.

Both presenters showed a worrying vagueness on the question of raising the quality of education which is clearly a burning issue. Neither the JLP proposal to increase schooling by two years, nor the PNP proposal to introduce performance pay for teachers would improve the situation. Promises of job creation flew, but who believed them?

Declared a draw

In short, the debate revealed few differences and must be declared a draw, with perhaps a slight advantage to Dr. Phillips. No coherent vision of social policy emerged. Future debates should modify the format to allow for more interchange between the debaters and greater depth. This should help to bring the issues into sharper focus.