Mama is here for you, mama loves you, give mama a chance. My people I am going to balance the budget and balance people lives. I am a women and I am here for you. When ask abt pauwell and coruption, "He is a bright young man who took on a tough job and revolutionise the industry".
All now she dont state how she going to bring the country forward. All she deh pon is mama P, I love the poor and iiiiiiiiiii. With so much iiiii, good thing she neva hot wok
Edited by zilla (08/14/0706:47 AM)
_________________________
FORMER President - F.A.A.B.A.C.B(Fans Association Against the Baseless Attack on Captain Burrel)
Portia, Bruce and trust published: Tuesday | August 14, 2007
Vernon Daley
During the leadership debate on Saturday night, my telephones rang without letting up. My friends and colleagues in the Caribbean and the U.S. were constantly calling to express dismay at what they felt was the poor showing of Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller against Opposition Leader Bruce Golding.
One of my Barbadian colleagues sent me a text message which simply read: "Vernon, Portia is pathetic".
I don't agree she was pathetic, but there is no doubt that Golding came out far ahead of her in his grasp of the issues, his presentation of arguments and even his portrayal of sincerity.
The Prime Minister didn't suffer a political collapse on television, as many were expecting, but she still failed to present herself as someone with a clear vision about what she wanted to do for the country and how she would accomplish it. The Prime Minister is asking for her own mandate, but it doesn't seem she plans to change much from the Patterson years.
Saying she wants to balance people's lives is not going to be sufficient to hold those voters who are looking for something more than fancy sound bites.
Possibly, the Prime Minister's lowest moment during the debate was her failed attempt to rescue the floundering Phillip Paulwell from public opprobrium. In that rescue mission she harmed her credibility.
Looking a bit foolish
With such a long list of mishaps attached to his stewardship, Paulwell should have long been out of the Cabinet and the Prime Minister looked a bit foolish by suggesting otherwise. She said he had not been availed because of his loyalty to her, but not many people would have bought that.
Also, this constant reference to the Minister as a young man is disturbing. The Minister is now in his mid-forties and long past the age when his acts and omissions can be excused on the basis of youthful exuberance. Try again, Madam PM!
The Prime Minister's best stroke of the evening, was her response to Lloyd B. Smith's question that dealt with Jamaica's relationship with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and the U.S. government. It was a clear answer which was reflective of the generally coherent and principled foreign policy positions for which Jamaica and most of our neighbours in the Caribbean Community have come to be known.
Golding dealt with the issue of trust quite well when the matter arose. The governing People's National Party (PNP) has sought to use his departure from and return to, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) to suggest that he is a flip-flopper but his explanation was direct and pointed: he left over principle, he came back on principle.
Business of garrisons
People were looking for sincerity from the debates and I think the Opposition Leader managed to convey to some of those still on the fence that he was willing to be upfront about the nasty aspects of our politics, especially the business of political garrisons.
When the dust settled, Golding came out looking a far more genuine politician than the Prime Minister which can't be a good thing for the PNP camp.
Overall, the three leadership debates were very useful. They were entertaining and informative and maybe a few people might just have used them to decide whether to change course or not.
Despite criticisms of the panels, the questions were generally good and touched the issues which people most wanted to hear the leaders address. The debates can only get better over time and those who made them happen are to be congratulated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vernon Daley is a journalist. Send comments to: vernon.daley@gmail.com
_________________________
FORMER President - F.A.A.B.A.C.B(Fans Association Against the Baseless Attack on Captain Burrel)
Jamaica Observer Analysts give JLP debates; Portia found lacking in details Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Reactions to the last two political debates between the senior leadership of the two major political parties yesterday weighed in favour of the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), with commentators saying that Bruce Golding did a better job of outlining his party's policies than People's National Party (PNP) president and prime minister, Portia Simpson Miller, while the JLP's Audley Shaw proved stronger, in some instances, than Finance Minister Dr Omar Davies.
Golding and Simpson Miller debated leadership issues Saturday night in what most television analysts that night concluded was a poor showing by the prime minister who, they said, showed very little grasp of the topics raised.
Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller and Opposition Leader Bruce Golding during Saturday night's debate. (Photo: Karl McLarty)
The night before, Shaw faced Davies in what turned out to be a bruising encounter on the economy. "I thought both men did reasonably well," said political analyst and panelist in the leadership debate, Lloyd B Smith. Smith said that while Shaw's debating skills ensured that he came across stronger and more forceful, he failed to answer some of the more "biting questions". However, Smith said Davies appeared laid back at some points in the debate. "However, he did manage to score some telling points in rebuttal," Smith said.
Executive director of the Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CaPRI), Kim Marie Spence, said the leadership debate went straight away to Bruce Golding, who did a better job of articulating the JLP's plans, even going beyond the party's manifesto.
"Bruce Golding did an excellent job of telling us what the thinking of the JLP was," Spence said, adding that Simpson Miller's presentation was essentially, "I'm staying the course and I love you".
She said she used a guiding philosophy of CaPRI: "Comment is free, but fact is sacred" to gauge the debate. Spence also said the economic debate was lacking.
"I think neither did a particularly good job in enlightening the people as to what the plans were," Spence said. However, publisher of Investor's Choice magazine and financial analyst, John Jackson, said the economic debate was the best in the series of three. At the same time, Jackson said while the debate covered a range of issues, there were other important issues that got left out probably due to the "absence of someone with economic and financial training on the panel".
Additionally, Jackson cited dishonesty in Davies' responses regarding how the JLP would fund its proposals and the circumstances that led to the creation of FINSAC. "My disappointment in the economic debate came out of a certain level of lack of honesty in the answering of a few questions by Minister Davies," Jackson said. In response to how the JLP would fund its programmes, including the removal of tuition fees and the $150-million allocation to each constituency, for example, Davies intimated that he did not know where the party would get the money. But, said Jackson, the JLP "has been at pains last year to say, 'It's not new money'. It was all over the papers. He (Davies) must have heard it," Jackson said.
Regarding the funding of the removal of tuition fees and the health services proposals by the JLP, Jackson said "anyone who is honest about the country" knows that based on the cost figures provided by the JLP, savings in interest costs and additional savings will be more than adequate to fund the proposals.
The JLP has said the total cost of the health and tuition proposals would amount to less than three quarters of one per cent of the budget.
Regarding the leadership debate, Smith said Simpson Miller seemed to have "lost her bearings in the middle", while Golding came across as assured and sincere. He also said the prime minister used "the 'I' word too much".
"Government is about collaborating, collective responsibility, team work. She alone cannot and will not be able to run this country," Smith said. He also expressed disappointment with Simpson Miller's response to why she had kept Phillip Paulwell in her Cabinet, after what appears to have been mismanagement of a few projects under his watch. Accounting professor at Northern Caribbean University Anthony Hutchinson, said in the economic debate Davies was more organised than Shaw, who did better than expected.
"I thought Davies was what I expected - organised, clear and defensive in respect to details," Hutchinson said. "Shaw was more offensive, attacking, in terms of going out to find new business, new ways of doing things, new business in different fields," he added. Hutchinson said that in the leadership debate Simpson Miller failed to provide details, which he felt spoke to preparation.
"Her handlers need to spend more time with her," Hutchinson said. "As a prime minister, she needs to be more in tune with details." Overall, Jackson said the debates appeared to have been more beneficial to the JLP.
"From my assessment, the outcome has been more advantageous for Bruce Golding himself and for the Labour Party," Jackson said. Smith said the debates as a whole demonstrated the possibility of political discussion without violence.
Interesting....... Mek mi just highlight some parts of it..
Quote:
Executive director of the Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CaPRI), Kim Marie Spence, said the leadership debate went straight away to Bruce Golding, who did a better job of articulating the JLP's plans, even going beyond the party's manifesto.
"Bruce Golding did an excellent job of telling us what the thinking of the JLP was," Spence said, adding that Simpson Miller's presentation was essentially, "I'm staying the course and I love you".
She said she used a guiding philosophy of CaPRI: "Comment is free, but fact is sacred" to gauge the debate. Spence also said the economic debate was lacking.
"I think neither did a particularly good job in enlightening the people as to what the plans were," Spence said.
Quote:
However, publisher of Investor's Choice magazine and financial analyst, John Jackson, said the economic debate was the best in the series of three. At the same time, Jackson said while the debate covered a range of issues, there were other important issues that got left out probably due to the "absence of someone with economic and financial training on the panel".
Additionally, Jackson cited dishonesty in Davies' responses regarding how the JLP would fund its proposals and the circumstances that led to the creation of FINSAC. "My disappointment in the economic debate came out of a certain level of lack of honesty in the answering of a few questions by Minister Davies," Jackson said. In response to how the JLP would fund its programmes, including the removal of tuition fees and the $150-million allocation to each constituency, for example, Davies intimated that he did not know where the party would get the money. But, said Jackson, the JLP "has been at pains last year to say, 'It's not new money'. It was all over the papers. He (Davies) must have heard it," Jackson said.
Regarding the funding of the removal of tuition fees and the health services proposals by the JLP, Jackson said "anyone who is honest about the country" knows that based on the cost figures provided by the JLP, savings in interest costs and additional savings will be more than adequate to fund the proposals.
The JLP has said the total cost of the health and tuition proposals would amount to less than three quarters of one per cent of the budget.
Yeah man.. And if the JLP say so, ah so it guh!!...
Quote:
Overall, Jackson said the debates appeared to have been more beneficial to the JLP.
Matter of opinion...
But I am sure I am not the only one who expected Portia to do bad... I cant believe we needed a debate to tell us Portia cant articulate..
But will the people trust the guy that can speaky spokey or will they trust the one that they can identify wid..
Mi a gwaan watch !!!!!!!!!!
_________________________
They make the world so hard
The presentation of the JLP manifesto by Mr Golding was reasonable in terms of the organisation of ideas, but it raises concern about the content. A political manifesto is a piece of communication showing what is to be done and how it will be done.
The manifesto should be a document not just asserting and describing the problems, or asserting performance, but rather a discourse on how to treat these problems. Most important is the issue of reform: what body of political ideas informs the JLP policies? In 2003 the change in leadership of the JLP promised reform, where is the reform in the 2007 election manifesto? Seeing things differently is an indication of change; change is essential for 21st century politics. Both political parties must be able to articulate the kind of politics that is futuristic, communicating their plans how they plan to face the challenges of the 21st century.
GOLDING... his idea of reform and the constitution is not new
Mr Golding, I did enjoy listening to your presentation, similarly your conference address. These presentations were well packaged. I must take issue with you on a few issues regarding your party's manifesto. This article is informed by your radio broadcast of the manifesto and the "Highlights of the JLP manifesto" (Daily Observer, August 1, 2007).
My labourite friends told me they were unable to get me a copy of the manifesto. I will take issue with your idea to "reform" the constitution, your response to foreign policy, and your ideas to treat development and crime. On a practical level, Mr Golding, what informs the political thinking of yourself and the JLP? For example, what informs your promise for "free health" and "free education"? I have no problems with those ideas, but what is the thinking that underpins those ideas? Are you a reformed Labour Party responding to socialism? Political policies are informed by something, what is that something?
Change means seeing things differently. Your idea of reform and the constitution is not new; this has always been the type of initiative taken by both political parties regarding that volume of papers. We must demand a change in the constitution, not a reform in those 1961-1962 papers. Mr Golding, the basis upon which the constitution was devised was unsound.
The constitution is a defective document that must be changed, not reformed. It was the dominance of the role of the powerful way the minority white legal elites triumphed in the making of the constitution, and not the victory of "we the people". In other words, there is nothing really "independent" about the constitution. "Nuh feel nuh way", Mr Golding, you are not alone in this approach to treat the constitutional crisis.
The JLP, as a political party and government, has had a weak history of approach to foreign policy making. In your radio broadcast, I was disappointed to hear the essence of your approach to foreign policy which includes "greater" links with the Jamaican diaspora and new approaches to securing alternative sources of energy. Foreign policy has to do with our relations with the global community. It is a vast and complex policy operation.
Our relationship with the diaspora is a domestic issue. While energy in most important, there is a global community that is changing rapidly, and there is also new and stronger opposition to globalisation. China, India, Brazil and Russia, among other emerging powers in South Asia, are dominant in global affairs and the age of "uni-polarity" is a thing of the past. We have to "be thinking in the future tense" not just for foreign policy making but in other important policy areas.
The days of following the West blindly, and more specifically the United States, are over. We did not leave Britain as a colonial master for the USA as a new one. Foreign policy making is a critical ingredient to sustaining our sovereignty and initiating policies towards development. Let me share a secret with you. The ideas of Michael Manley: 1972-1980 are so relevant to the future policy making of this country. Do not be afraid to use them.
The ideas associated with matters concerning development and the economy are not "new and different". The current policy of the government and that of your manifesto are too deeply embedded in the dictates of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and other international regimes.
The WTO is now warning that the backlash of globalisation includes the deepening of inequality in the national and the global spheres. In a "New Deal for Globalisation" (Foreign Affairs, 07/08, 2007), American policy makers are calling for this "new deal" because of the consequences of the "deepening" of inequality among other problems being unleashed by the "new world order". In fact, an earlier call was made to recognise the "new, new world order". The WTO has also stated that the "facts" show that there is no relationship between foreign direct investments and growth and development.
Crime is rampant. It has broken the trust in the community. The high rate of homicide has a complex explanation. It ranges from the new thrust of individualist values and also the deepening of inequality and the emergence of a new type of poverty. Why is there a high level of participation in the drug and the underground economy?
Simply, not enough opportunities are "around here", in spite of the major efforts of the government to create new jobs. To deal with drugs is to go to the root of the real problem. The high level of homicide in this country has to do with more than the drug trade, the strengthening of the capacity of the police force. Yes, the police force has to be transformed, for its own good, not just as part of the crime-fighting strategy.
The issue of justice is tied not to reform in the police force, but in our boldness to change the constitution. Therein lies a great part of our problem. Identifying the problems gave you high marks, and was also good for your presentation. There is, however, another level; treating those problems. Having an identifiable framework within your approach to treat those problems is most important. This critique is not aimed at condemning your manifesto, it is a call for further engagement of discourse.
Louis Moyston is a lecturer and researcher. the archives 01@yahoo.com
_________________________
They make the world so hard
