None of the leaders delivered a knockout performance during Friday night’s debate on Xarabank, but Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi maintained an edge over Joseph Muscat, according to journalists and analysts who spoke to The Sunday Times.

I stopped watching it because there were just the same tired arguments

It was the first debate between the two leaders in months and the stakes were high for Dr Gonzi and Dr Muscat as they debated for more than two hours.

Alex Attard, editor of PN newspaper In-Nazzjon, said the Prime Minister went to the debate with a clear message and delivered it with punch.

“The Prime Minister spoke with all the facts in hand about the positive results of this legislature. The Opposition leader kept repeating the things we have long been hearing. Apart from his usual speeches about electricity bills and bureaucracy, he said nothing new.”

He said the Prime Minister’s highlight was when he quickly retorted that a Brazilian company had in fact invested in Malta, contrary to Dr Muscat’s presumptions.

“That was a big letdown for Dr Muscat. He was certain it would knock down the Prime Minister, but instead if backfired.”

Anthony David Gatt, a journalist from Labour’s One TV, said there was no clear winner as both leaders delivered good performances.

“While Dr Gonzi secured a pass grade though a series of convincing monologues about how he weathered the storm, Dr Muscat’s success came through a mixture of jibe rebuttals, witty comebacks, and an overall aura of serenity and conviction.”

Mr Gatt said he could not understand the “completely out of touch stunt” which saw Dr Gonzi producing a free electricity bill. The Prime Minister’s reference to a big Brazilian investor was not enough to make people forget the big gap between his promises and actions.

But Dr Muscat could have missed points for not giving details of how he planned to reduce electricity bills.

“Revealing something new might have helped, even if it was just a token detail,” he said.

Dr Muscat’s strength, he said, was acknowledging what Dr Gonzi did right while attacking other “appalling” issues.

“This quality wins him the support of a lot of undecided voters who want to hear the truth, who are fed up of the spin and the excuses and who want their problems acknowledged and resolved.”

Columnist Claire Bonello said she only watched parts of the debate and was not impressed either way.

“I stopped watching it because there was nothing new... just the same old tired arguments.”

She said Dr Muscat kept harping on about electricity bills, but emerged with no exciting proposals and failed to respond to AD chairman Michael Briguglio’s incisive criticism about the real cost of gas and the importance of discouraging over-consumption.

She said Dr Gonzi gave a strong performance, armed with all his facts and figures about the Government successes. However, he failed to respond to the key problem of his Government: the tendency to “over-hype and under-deliver”, which was witnessed over the past four years with issues like Smart City and the public transport “revolution”.

Bondiplus journalist Rachel Attard said the Prime Minister emerged victorious.

“We are close enough to the election for people’s antennae to be tuned to three frequencies: the proposals the two leaders made, the facts they had at their disposal and their ability to lead this country,” she said.

“I think that overall the Prime Minister won comfortably. Not only due to his merits but also because the Opposition leader is shooting himself in the foot by not being forthcoming with concrete proposals and answers.”

Former Labour minister Lino Spiteri was not particularly enthused about the debate.

“At least the encounter was civil, but nothing new came out of it,” he said.

With a tone of scepticism, he said it would be interesting to find out more about the Brazilian company mentioned by Dr Gonzi, including how many employees it has on its books. (See story on page 10)

Herman Grech, Head of Media of The Times, said it was Dr Briguglio who ironically emerged as very effective since he used his mere eight minutes speaking time to give a “sharp, well-studied and pointed intervention”.

Mr Grech said the leaders of the two bigger parties seemed to have both failed to make any inroads into opposition territory, with nothing new emerging. However, he added, Dr Gonzi maintained a small edge over Dr Muscat.

“As Prime Minister you can clearly trumpet selective successes of your Government as opposed to untested promises by an Opposition. And Dr Gonzi capitalised on that.”

A very seasoned politician, Dr Gonzi is an expert at dodging the difficult subjects and his decision to produce different positive economic reports was “effective”, according to Mr Grech.

However, Dr Muscat was clearly learning the tricks of the trade when he retorted that he should send the reports to families who were not making ends meet.

Dr Muscat came across as a “moderate and safe alternative”, successfully exorcising the ghosts of past Labour leaders, according to Mr Grech. But the Labour leader again failed to divulge any of his economic plans, using only his “tired” pledge to reduce energy tariffs.

The Sunday Times executive Anthony Manduca agreed there was “no obvious winner”.

“Dr Gonzi is always a good debater and performed well, despite looking a bit tired. His emphasis on the Government’s economic record and handling of the Libya crisis earned him some important points.”

However, he said Dr Muscat also performed well, despite being “short on specifics”.

“Dr Muscat’s main plus point was presenting himself as a moderate who would act differently to past Labour leaders,” he said, pointing out the PL leader’s attempt to convince the electorate that Labour had changed and could be trusted on important issues such as the economy.