GAP CLOSES

Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness holds a slim lead over Opposition Leader Mark Golding in public favourability, according to the latest national survey commissioned by the RJRGLEANER Communications Group. However, Holness also carries a significantly higher unfavourability rating, a concern one analyst links to ongoing issues with the Integrity Commission.

The poll was carried out by the Don Anderson-led Market Research Services Limited between August 2 and 11 among 1,008 registered voters aged 18 and over. It shows 41 per cent of respondents view Holness favourably, compared to 39 per cent for Golding – a mere two-percentage point gap, which falls within the poll’s ±3 per cent margin of error at the 95 per cent confidence level.

In June 2025, Holness was viewed favourably by 38 per cent of respondents, while Golding stood at 30 per cent, suggesting the gap has narrowed sharply over the past two months.

While Holness leads marginally in favourability, 37 per cent of respondents now view him unfavourably, up from 30 per cent in June. For Golding, unfavourability rose from 22 per cent to 27 per cent.

Twenty-two per cent (down from 32 per cent in June) of those polled formed no opinion of the prime minister, while 34 per cent (down from 47 per cent) expressed none on Golding – both lower than in June, indicating growing voter interest or awareness.

Anderson described Holness’ edge as “negligible”, pointing out that when both favourable and unfavourable ratings are weighed, Holness has a net favourability of just +4 per cent, compared to Golding’s +12 per cent.

“Holness’ favourability rating was best reflected among females (44 per cent) and persons in the 45-54 age group. Golding, on the other hand, received the highest rating among males (41 per cent),” said Anderson.

Dr Christopher Charles, a professor of political and social psychology at The University of the West Indies, Mona, said the leaders’ favourability ratings must be understood within the context of the Westminster system that Jamaica embraces.

According to Charles, because Holness is the head of the Government and leads the policy process, which amounts to more roles and functions, he is expected to have higher favourability compared to Golding, who has much less to do.

“Holness and the JLP should be worried because with the flurry of policy announcements since January 2025 and the many touted achievements since 2020, Holness is only two percentage points ahead of Golding in terms of favourability,” he told The Sunday Gleaner.

The university lecturer said the figures amount to “an impressive showing” by Golding, which should redound to the advantage of the PNP, and are likely to be evident in the poll findings on the party standings.

While both leaders’ unfavourable ratings have increased, Charles said the prime minister’s stems from the JLP’s attack on the Integrity Commission, and the “damning” contents of the affidavit of Craig Beresford, the commission’s director of information and complaints.

“There is not much Holness can do at this very late stage in the election cycle to decrease his unfavourable ratings and increase his favourability because generally, the majority of voters, by this time, have made up their minds about which leader and party they are going to vote for,” said Charles.

PNP trails JLP in favourability, but has lower unfavourable rating

In terms of party favourability, the JLP leads the PNP 41 per cent to 35 per cent. However, it also faces an equal 41 per cent unfavourability, compared to 31 per cent for the PNP.

Nineteen per cent of those polled had no opinion of the JLP, while 34 per cent held no view of the PNP.

Of the participants who viewed the JLP favourably, 47 per cent attributed this to the ruling party having better plans and ideas. Forty-one per cent said it is because they trust the leadership of the JLP and 28 per cent said the party cares about the poor and working-class people, to round out the top three.

For those who viewed the party in an unfavourable light, the top three reasons given were a distrust of the JLP’s leadership (39 per cent), the party hasn’t proven itself (30 per cent) and it only cares about some people (29 per cent).

The participants who viewed the PNP favourably said this is because the party cares about the poor and working-class people (53 per cent), has better plans and ideas (34 per cent) and has done well in the past (30 per cent).

The top three reasons given by those who view the PNP unfavourably are that the party hasn’t proven itself (34 per cent), a distrust of the leadership of the party (31 per cent), a poor track record when in power (27 per cent).

Anderson said voters exhibited a high degree of ambivalence on the issue of the favourability of the JLP, with equal favourable and unfavourable ratings.

“The analysis of this information by demographics did not reveal any major outliers, with a roughly equal number of persons across the age spectrum and the genders falling in line with these overall favourability scores,” he said.

Meanwhile, the pollster said a significant number of voters could not rate the PNP on this score of favourability because they have fewer benchmarks against which to gauge the opposition party.

Anderson said there was some variability among those who gave the PNP a favourable rating. He said males (40 per cent), persons aged 55-64 and 65+ were principally the demographic categories that gave the PNP a positive rating.

By extension, he said participants in the 35-44 age category (36 per cent) were principally responsible for the unfavourable rating of the PNP.

For Charles, poll findings on favourability ratings generally give some indication of what the party standings are likely to be, but do not necessarily tell how people will vote on election day.

He said while the poll findings are a snapshot of voter preference when it was conducted and minds may change, any significant change is unlikely.

He said the latest findings will likely be predictive for two reasons.

“The first is that the political science research evidence tells us that voter preferences are relatively stable and so the voters are not likely to change their minds in approximately four weeks before election day, unless there is a very major and unexpected political development that shocks the body politic.

“The second reason is that the closer one gets to election day, the easier it is to predict the election outcome. This poll conducted approximately one month before the election is likely to be the most accurate of the polls conducted up to this point, and given its closeness to the election date, can be used to predict the likely outcome of the election,” said Charles.

kimone.francis@gleanerjm.com