Wed | Jun 7, 2023

Debate scorecard: Analysts have their say

Published:Friday | December 16, 2011 | 12:00 AM
Allan Lewis
Robert Wynter
1
2
3
Vitus Evans

Dr Phillips came out on top. He was able to present more facts and present it in a better, more coordinated manner.

Both of them spoke of what was relevant in terms of what their party intended to do but Dr Phillips got the edge.

The minister of finance wasn't as coordinated as I would have expected. I felt Dr Phillips actually had the slight edge.

Better debater would go to Dr Phillips. He was more organised, more composed; not necessarily in terms of the details provided but in terms of his presentation and delivery.

Mr Shaw did a better job in specifying the details of his tax reform proposals. I was hoping to hear more about the details of the specific plans and programmes that would enable Jamaica to grow and develop.

Dr Phillips agreed that tax and pension reform were important to future macroeconomic stability but said little about the details of his proposals or plans.

Neither gentleman mentioned the importance of education in relation to the long-term growth of the country. I gave both of them a very low grade in that regard. The prime minister has said it but neither gentleman tonight said it. Both of them failed. I think that was a very glaring omission.

Dr Phillips was clearer in his delivery without giving many specifics. One of the criticisms of Shaw is the recounting of what the JLP did in the '60s. I would love to understand how the record of the JLP in the 1960s helps voters today to determine the likely effectiveness of the JLP today.

I find it difficult to answer the question because I don't think either of them did a very good job of achieving what the moderator said was the objective of the debate which was to help voters understand the plans and programmes of either party to help Jamaica to grow and to develop.

Both of them did a poor job of enunciating the specifics of the way forward.

Allan Lewis

First of all I am very disappointed in both debaters because I can't understand how we can be speaking to being committed to economic growth without mentioning the word tourism, by either debater. ICT, manufacturing, culture in one way or the other but that was never identified ... . They were pretty even in their presentations.

As an industry, to have the two potential ministers of finance and to know that neither one mentioned the word tourism is severely disappointing.

Both were reasonably clear on what they said.

I think Dr Phillips came very prepared. But it was really very even.

Robert Wynter

In terms of the content, I think that Peter Phillips was slightly ahead in terms of content and I think it was all because he was better prepared with notes. And maybe because he wasn't comfortable with the subject he couldn't talk around it, he had very specific points.

In terms of the relevance, I thought it was a dead heat. In the first half on growth, neither told me, or convinced me that they had any idea on how to grow the economy. I think in the second half both vacillated on the job cuts issue. I think Peter was shocked on FINSAC and couldn't address it at all, and I think Shaw waffled a bit on energy.

In terms of clarity, I would also give Peter a slight edge because again ... he had specific notes. Notes were very pointed, but when you think about everything, I give them even overall because of the slight advantage he had in content and clarity, and the dead heat in relevance, where very few of the questions were answered properly, but Shaw did a better job on debating.

I thought that Shaw was the better debater because he had more confidence and he seemed to be more comfortable with the subject. I think that Peter spoke from too many notes as if it was prepared for him rather than his own. I thought in the first half both were a bit nervous, but by the second half they cleared.

Evelyn Smith