Dear Editor,

I watched the “team” debates and at the end, was extremely disappointed for a number of reasons. First, I must declare that I had grown highly suspicious of these debates before they even started. The objective seemed designed to provide an advantage for one side and in the end I think it worked. I may be in the minority here, but I had absolutely no interest in who was most skilled at debating or who was best looking. I wanted to know what was likely to happen to the country over the next five years.

The format of this debate was very strange. Team members were not required to substantiate claims they made, so it soon became obvious that they could get away with almost anything. This is the kind of format that benefits spin doctors.

At the end, the people we always turn to for their opinions declared a “win” for the PNP. The responses of the analysts in one publication make for very interesting reading. Of course, Ms Lisa Hanna was tops for them. Here’s why: “The evenness of her tone.”; “She was clear in her presentation, content and relevance.”; “She was not afraid of the camera!!” Then to the not so important part of Ms Hanna’s presentation: “…whether or not they would work is another matter.” But that’s just it. That analyst seems to have forgotten that it is the possibility of practical application of these “plans” that is of importance to us. She went on to talk about “reallocation of resources” from other projects and “putting young people on farms”. The format did not permit anyone to ask her how she planned to reallocate resources from a project when the signed agreement with our international partners state specifically what the funds are for, or where these farms are and how many of the thousands of young people would get “farms”. Mr Raymond Pryce was adjudged by our wise analysts as second only to Ms Hanna.

On Tuesday, the hosts of the morning talk show on NNN sought the help of some professionals to comment on the promises and pronouncements of the debaters. It turns out that between the “best debaters” there was a raft of inaccuracies and misinformation which went unanswered. How do these responses square with those who earlier chose “best” and “worst” of the debaters? Well, in choosing the best ones – Hanna/Pryce, they gave these reasons: “They (PNP) came out on top because they tended to stick to facts and figures”; “The PNP were more prepared… much sounder… responses were well thought out.”; “They used the relevant data to confirm their positions.” Incidentally, the hosts claim that they searched the tapes and could not find any evidence of inaccurate or untruthful comments coming from those adjudged to be the “worst” debaters. What is the lesson here for those young people contemplating a political career?

I have a real problem with all this. Precisely because there has been a lot of inaccurate stories and “statistics” being fed to the less informed among us. If taken out of context or left unanswered in a formal setting like a TV debate, the problems facing this country will never transcend that type of politics. This is a disservice to those of us concerned about the significant issues facing us in the near future.

If this is what we can expect from the next two debates, I have an old Jerry Lewis movie. I think I’ll just watch that.

Glenn Tucker

Kingston 9

glenntucker2011@gmail.com