Hugh Dixon, Contributor

Dixon

THE DEBATES are now over and the two big guns have had their night at the podium. Let me, like many others, declare that Bruce Golding made a full sweep of the debate in all areas. Out of 10, I give him an eight and his opponent, Mrs. Portia Simpson Miller, a six out of 10.

From his opening remarks to his closing statement, Mr. Golding had the edge over Mrs. Simpson Miller. He displayed eloquence, pointed focus on the issues and the questions asked. Mrs. Simpson Miller must also be complimented for her own new style of debating and her demonstration of confidence in a situation where Mr. Golding was billed as the man to watch, especially when she became composed towards the end of the debate.

Garrison politics

The panel was a good one comprising journalists with experience and a good grasp of leadership and political issues. To have launched into Mr. Golding on the matter of garrison politics and pursue him with a follow-up question was an indication of their determination to pursue the issues. Mr. Golding's response stood up, especially as his opponent herself, a leader in garrison politics, could not pursue it for point scoring. The panel launched into Mrs. Simpson Miller on the matter of corruption and, as one of the features of her unique debating style, she gave a precise response, leaving enough room and latitude for Mr. Golding to launch in on matters of contracts and the rest.

Mr. Golding must also be credited for precision in responding to the other questions, including the funding of the promises and the timeline for implementation. In my view, the question on taxation and foreign policy squared him up at the crease, giving Mrs. Simpson Miller some urgently needed points.