United Progressive Party (UPP) Chair D Gisele Isaac has pushed back against claims that the party performed poorly in last week’s general election, arguing instead that the outcome reflects voter preferences rather than campaign failure.

Responding to commentary by a political and social affairs analyst who attributed the UPP’s defeat to internal disarray and defections, Isaac questioned the characterization of the party’s performance as “poor.”

“Further, why do you describe the UPP’s performance as ‘poor?’” she wrote, defending the party’s efforts in the lead-up to the April 30 polls.

Isaac said the UPP conducted what she described as a responsible and structured campaign, pointing to public meetings and door-to-door engagement in the weeks before the election.

“In the four weeks to election, the UPP did everything a responsible party should do, including put out its plans and programs through public meetings and door-to-door engagement,” she said.

However, she suggested that voter behavior may have been influenced by factors outside of policy proposals and campaign messaging.

“The people showed a preference for what we didn’t do: distribute plywood and galvanize, electronic items, ‘scholarships’ and cash,” Isaac said.

She framed the result as a reflection of choices made by the electorate rather than shortcomings in the party’s preparation or platform.

“People made choices,” she added.

Using an analogy, Isaac compared the campaign to a prepared meal that went unaccepted by invited guests.

“A chef can prepare a meal, set the table and serve it. Because an invited guest does not show up, it doesn’t mean the chef or the meal was bad,” she said.

The exchange follows the UPP’s heavy defeat in the general election, which saw the ruling Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party (ABLP) secure 15 of the 17 parliamentary seats, while the opposition was reduced to a single seat in Parliament.

The analyst had argued that internal divisions and the departure of several high-profile members contributed to the result and suggested the party may need significant restructuring to remain politically viable.

Isaac’s response signals that at least some within the party leadership reject that assessment, setting the stage for what could be an internal debate over the causes of the loss and the party’s path forward.