Recently in BDA Category

Political leadership and candidate selection processes are designed to be competitive. Wrangling is expected, encouraged. That's how you test candidates, test leaders, develop positions and policy.

Why it's so scandalous when the Opposition has it, just as every political party in the world does, is beyond me. This isn't news. It's normal.

I suppose that because the Opposition is multi-racial that these things are prescribed a racial component, but that speaks more to the prejudices and myopia of the critics than anything else.

In a broader sense I'm convinced that part of the problem of the past few years for both parties, but particularly the Opposition, has been too centralised a system of candidate selection.

The PLP's opening of seats to primaries is a good move. It creates some short term headaches and can be messy, but it ultimately produces stronger candidates who have been tested.

One of the issues which contributed to the problems the UBP had was a highly centralised candidate selection process that saw weak candidates, and in some cases political opportunists, parachuted into seats without putting in the work beforehand. Primaries were avoided as they can be contentious, but in the long run I'm convinced they are an important method to select and develop future candidates and leaders.

A robust leadership contest in the OBA is fun for reporters to write about as a soap opera, and fills column inches, but it's exactly what should happen. This is how parties evolve, peope evolve, positons evolve, and the country moves ahead.

As the operator of an (alleged) pyramid scheme, politely called a multi-level marketing scheme, I understand how Wayne finds it plausible that (the completely fragmented Opposition) pulled off a highly orchestrated multi-year sham to defraud people, over 4 years, ending with a (not-at-all tidy) merger.

The move today by 7 UBP MPs effectively short circuited any legal attempt to block the merger of the UBP and BDA and has ended, in every meaningful way the UBP.

It's a shame that the dissolution of the party descended into a farce courtesy of the actions of Kim Swan and a couple of others. Kim is a friend, and someone who loves Bermuda in the purest sense, but he did himself and the party a disservice with his actions of the past week.

There is so much to say about what happened, but this is a time to look forward not back. Bermuda been doing that for far too long.

I am energised by the emergence of the One Bermuda Alliance, and am convinced that despite the predictable attempts to try and re-UBP it that will come, this signals the closing of a chapter of Bermuda politics.

Bermuda's politics remains today largely structured, defined and constrained by the events of the 1960s and 70s. That time was one of huge significance and progress for Bermuda, but the Bermuda of today is not the Bermuda of yesterday. We need new leadership, around today's issues, with the next generation of Bermudians stepping up and claiming their place in shaping Bermuda's future.

I welcome the emergence of the One Bermuda Alliance and the change that it will bring, despite those who will feel threatened by it and try to brute force it back into the only box they know.

I also congratulate John Barritt on his imminent appointment as interim leader. John is someone who over the past decade or so I have grown to know well and respect immensely. Bermuda will be well served by John, even temporarily.

I fully intend to join the OBA after spending the better part of the past 5 years with no political affiliation and look forward to working again with so many of my friends. Of course there will be ups and downs, but I hope, I sincerely hope, that this can be the end of the debilitating and endless internal drama of the Opposition of the last decade.

This move tomorrow can be the beginning of a substantive change that is long overdue in Bermuda politics.

I'm speechless with the news that a small group of UBP members/MPs have filed an injunction to prevent the winding up of the UBP.

This is lunacy. It's over. Let it go. Time to move on.

One of this year's National Heroes, Jack Tucker, knew when it was time to break with the past and chart a new course. This is another of those times.

Give it up guys. What are you trying to save? The UBP is over.

If these guys don't join up with the One BA, then all this merger effort, which has taken months, a year even, will be for nothing and you'll simply have another rump 3rd party that is no longer viable. This time it will be the UBP.

Let. It. Go. It's time. Past time actually.

(Ok, so I wasn't speechless.)

The PLP website's extremely clumsy effort to work dismissive references about the One Bermuda Alliance into the title, beginning and end of a mundane article about the Premier's annual visit to the RIMS conference, on the back of yesterday's predictable and unimaginative put down of the merger, suggests that they're worried (and need better PR people).

Not to mention that the "same people, same backers, same policies" line is likely to backfire. That's much more applicable to the latest iteration of the PLP class of 1998 with the exact same people, same backers and same policies which broke Bermuda in twelve short years than it is anyone else.

Hence Paula Cox's rapid plunge in the polls.

With the latest installment of free was never free, and the PLP unwinding yet another of the PLP's election promises which never made sense in the first place, the One Bermuda Alliance Opposition should start broadening the response, and not keep them narrowly focused on each f-up.

The real kind of connections they should be helping the voter make is:

If the PLP can't deliver their 2007 election promises why should you believe the next set?

If the PLP can't fix a minor bus and ferry problem, surely no-one can believe that they can fix the economy they broke, the violent crime outbreak they denied, the tourism freefall they branded a turnaround and education that is not really an education?

If the PLP said tourism was turning around why is it at an all time low?

If the PLP said crime was declining why are we averaging one shooting murder a month in 2011?

These aren't isolated issues, they're all interconnected to a fundamentally flawed public policy, an inability to effectively run the most basic apparatus of Government, a glib willingness to campaign on knowingly empty and undeliverable promises, and a public sector infrastructure that is crumbling due to projects being built to achieve the goal of redistributing public sector wealth to a handful of insiders, not the greater public interest.

All that is happening now, transport cuts as tourism season kicks in (our 4% second economic 'pillar'), police cuts as violent crime spirals out of control and debt escalation are all because of those supposed victimless scandals of the BHC, the Berkeley overspend, the cruise ship terminal overspend and the TCD overspend to name a couple.

As the former BPSU head said, the PLP's screw ups were paid for by the UBP's sensible economic policies that carried them for ten years.

The corruption and waste of the past decade weren't victimless and without consequence. They just seemed that way because the UBP's economy was so robust.

The Bermuda Government should be sitting on several hundred million dollars of surpluses which they can use to hire more police officers, put on more buses, spend on the current account and stimulate with capital spending as revenues decline. Instead we're incurring expensive debt which could take more than 10 years to retire - and only if the hard sacrifices are made now to return Bermuda to sensible fiscal policy, which is not happening.

The UBP have tried to connect the dots in their budget replies over the years. But it was intangible because the effects of that mismanagement took years to metastasize. Now things are different. The critique has real examples and should be hammered home.

It's not enough to be right. The Opposition have to be persuasive. You can't drive change unless you win elections.

As the One BA emerges over the coming days (hopefully not weeks), one of the positives is that the Opposition can reboot the critique and start planting the seed in voters' heads of what I think their campaign should be.

Which would be something like:

Bermuda: They broke it. We'll fix it.

And VSB News wins the party name lottery by reporting that the UBP-BDA merged entity will be called The One Bermuda Alliance or OBA (or perhaps One BDA?) (not the greatest ring to the short version) - but the name isn't really what's important in this merger exercise. For those wondering, it's an amalgamation of the UBP's "One Bermuda" slogan and the BDA's "Alliance".

If you needed confirmation do a WHOIS lookup at BermudaNIC for onebermudaalliance.bm and there it is in all it's glory, registered to my good BDA friend Mr. Branco.

On the plus side, current UBP leader Kim Swan will have a great nickname: OBA Wan Kim Swannee.

Well that didn't take long.

After 5 months as Premier Ms. Cox's approval rating has plunged to Ewart Brown territory at 29% (although he went lower), and the PLP's approval as Government down to an anemic 16%.

I'm a little surprised with the speed which the ratings have plunged, not that so many people disapprove, particularly because I thought the "anyone but Brown" bounce would last a bit longer than this. So much of Paula Cox's personal popularity over the past few years has been her being a blank slate and the light at the end of the Brown tunnel, but as she's come into office holding both the Premier's position and Finance, the reality of where Bermuda is and how she contributed to getting us there seems to have taken over.

I don't think there's too much interpretation to be done here, the ratings are bad because things are happening and being discussed in Bermuda that never were previously: Unemployment, foreclosures and a murder epidemic.

Never before has Bermuda experienced these things in a widespread way. Never.

I often ask people what the PLP would be doing and saying if the UBP had been in power for 12 years and was responsible for record unemployment, open discussion of foreclosures and a gun murder a month?

The answer is self-evident. They would be absolutely hammering them, and rightly so. We'd see marches, resignation demands, huge drumming up of public outrage - all that stuff that the PLP excel at. What they don't excel at it is governing and making the hard choices of public policy. The bad news for the Premier is that her ratings have fallen on the back of what I would describe as a dishonest budget that was supposed to prop up her popularity briefly - an election budget - that doesn't begin to make the inevitable choices that the Premier would make after an election (civil service job cuts, tax increases, slashing of services).

The UBP is pretty much the complete inverse of the PLP; good at public policy and managing but awful at the politics - although they have played the long game on finance and I think are seeing some dividends as their warnings are playing out.

The answer for a successful party and country is finding that sweet spot in the middle of reality based politics with reality based public policy.

What's also interesting is that this disapproval of the PLP and Premier is not translating in any real sense into support for the Opposition. Or Oppositions.

And that is the issue.

From a purely political perspective the environment is as hostile to an incumbent party and favourable for change as it can ever be. This is about as good as it gets from the Opposition perspective, but there has to be a viable alternative.

It is telling that the UBP and BDA's combined support in the poll exceeds the PLP (even after the BDA's support has been cut in half). I wouldn't read too much into that, but it is relevant.

It suggests that people are looking at their options, but don't see the UBPBDA as an option.

And who can blame them. The length of time that this merger has taken to get done - and it will get done, and is on the verge of getting done as I understand it - is lost time.

Once the new entity is announced and launched, they have to work double time.

The UBP tend to expend a lot of energy on things that the voters don't care about. Like fine tuning the party constitution and getting lost in internal procedural minutiae. Voters don't care about that, and the marginal return is very, very marginal - arguably negative. Those things are important over the mid to long term, but now the focus has to be on putting together the basic framework, putting candidates in place and getting out in front of the public.

I was hoping that this would have been done in December. The first 3 months of the year could have been spent introducing the entity and defining its priorities and identity on their own terms (as much as is possible with someone counter branding you). April, May and June would be all out communication/campaign mode, driving and reinforcing a tight message on the economy, crime and education in anticipation of a summer election.

Voters have to be receptive to an alternative after the PLP's policies and politics have been exposed as incompatible with Bermuda's prosperity and social stability, but a lot of that goodwill might have been squandered in an overly long merger exercise.

Of course the Budget debate dropped in the middle was part of that, where the UBP (and a subset of that) do the heavy lifting of the Official Opposition. But that time can't be recovered and it's time to keep moving forward.

The poll results today would perhaps give the Premier second thoughts about going to an election in June or July. August is just too damn hot (as is July for that matter) and I don't think too many people want another Christmas election. The vitriol just kills the holiday fun!

The Premier would probably not want to go into an election in this environment with her poll numbers low and not much good news on the horizon absent a disorganized and fragmented Opposition. Waiting gives a new Opposition time to get more organized and time to reconnect with a newly accessible voting public.

Her options aren't great, but nor are they as bad as they should be. What I suspect could happen is that the Premier will keep her options open with a view to a summer election. If the environment continues to worsen, and the Opposition look better positioned, she might wait for any minor uptick in support or good news to quickly pull the trigger and capitalise on it.

In many ways that was where the UBP were in 1998, aware that the environment was against them but waiting for a bit of good news and respite to go to the polls and hope to eek it out, or at least minimize the losses.

The big difference is that unlike the UBPBDA the Opposition PLP was very well organised - a known and newly moderate entity in a state of constant campaign readiness - and the public felt it was their time.

The message for the Opposition(s) couldn't be clear to me.

The BDA signed their death warrant by acknowledging that they were talking to the UBP about a merger early this year. The UBP, even their most loyalist supporters, know that the party has run its course. Both Oppositions are aware that Bermuda is best served by the UBP and BDA coming back together as a new entity, taking the best of both worlds and asking the voters: "Do you want more of the same or positive change and a reversal of Bermuda's PLP driven decline?"

I'm not sure what kind of numbers the PLP - outside of Cabinet - have in Parliament for this SDO for Tucker's Point. And regardless of how you feel about what essentially amounts to a Government bailout of a private corporation and HSBC's loan department, there is a lot going on here.

Firstly, and usually around election time, the PLP make a lot of noise about land being appropriated from black families by the Bermuda Government to create what is now Tucker's Town. So, with the SDO action they are demonstrating that when it comes to tourism they would have and will do the same, by handing over the same land for foreign ownership. They have now ceded that as an issue (not that they won't keep bringing it up when politically expedient and playing golf there with a clear conscience).

Secondly, if I were the Opposition, which I'm not, I'd be looking to apply some pressure here to force Government's hand (to the extent that they don't have the numbers themselves), and withhold any support for a re-zoning and additional sales of residential units to non-Bermudians until the Government:

• abandons their discriminatory land license policy which prevents Bermudian families with one not yet Bermudian spouse from owning more than one property and disadvantages them in the real estate market.
• reinstates the previous policy which allowed Bermudians with qualifying homes to sell those to non-Bermudians, which is what the Tucker's Point Special Development Order is designed to accomplish for a corporation.

Why should Bermudian individuals be treated as second class citizens while corporations, and foreign banks are given preferential treatment to prop up their bad business decisions?

I understand the value of a resort like Tucker's Point succeeding as being critical to Bermuda's tourism industry, but it's at least 50% a real estate sales model, and Government is demonstrating incredible hypocrisy and hostility to its own citizens - and undermining the local real estate sector of the economy - by treating Bermudian families as less important than corporations.

So, the UBP - BDA merger, into clearly a new entity, is imminent.

This is a very positive development that bodes well for both entities and puts months, or years of uncertainty and anxiety to bed. The leadership of the new group will surely be a mix of leadership from both and a mix in the Senate lineup as well which is a win for the BDA.

The social issues can be overcome, I just really hope that this marks the end of infighting, public spats and back-biting, and a renewed energy among the Opposition. The UBP has been fighting since the mid 90s, and the public, and themselves I suspect have had enough.

The BDA have managed to create a group of relatively inexperienced but energised Bermudians genuinely interested in moving the island forward, while the UBP still possess significant experience and credibility on the economic front which is paramount in people's minds, and Parliamentary skills.

If the new group can succeed in melding the best of each entity, and remaining focused on the ultimate goal of success at the polls, Bermuda will be well served.

I've been trying to post a bit on the polls, which I still intend to do, but wanted to quickly focus on my hobby horse of the past few months that I've been quiet on lately, namely the increasing chatter (and denials and pseudo denials) of a UBP-BDA merger, re-unification or whatever you want to call it.

One of the most compelling aspects of the recent poll results is that they demonstrate that the split in the UBP and emergence of the BDA has been a net loss for both. The parts are worth less than their whole, and you can see that in the numbers. What the by-election in December also proved I think is that when the push comes to the shove the Opposition is almost split right down the middle, although with a better UBP candidate I think they would have performed better and will in a general election where voters won't roll the dice on an untested new party.

The by-election didn't show any gains by the PLP, or huge losses by the total of the Opposition vote. It pretty much showed the status quo, and I think the status quo is a result of uncertainty about an alternative to the PLP.

The poll party performance is also a bit fuzzy, in the sense that it is hard to quantify the explicit 'new leader bump', to separate some of the impact of a leadership change in the PLP from a toxic leader to one who holds extremely high positives (a component of that due in no small part to the rather low standard of not being her predecessor - virtually anyone was a material upgrade in most people's eyes, but Paula Cox does have her own individual cross-over appeal which seems to transcend - for now - her poor performance in Finance.)

So for me, the conclusion of the poll is that practically, dispassionately, pragmatically, an amalgamation has to occur for a) the UBP not to be reduced to only the safest of safe seats and b) the BDA to be obliterated.

I still am convinced that this will ultimately happen, hopefully sooner rather than later, but like corporate mergers it's not the business logic that gets messy, it's the social issues, and those social issues can sometimes inhibit execution after mergers and acquisitions as well.

Truthfully, I think the social issues between the UBP and BDA are minor and completely manageable because most of the individuals have all worked together previously, and philosophically the parties are aligned. I don't underestimate personality, ambition and ego, the influence of which has been the real eye-opener for me in participating and watching politics closely for some time now.

These kinds of negotiations and arrangements can be tough to navigate and delicate. I do think that time is running out, that Paula Cox would be nuts not to go to an election around the summer, with or without a unified Opposition. So if they're going to do this now is the time.

I'm going to return to the polls in a subsequent post, but I think that it is extremely likely that turnout will be depressed at the next election, and that hurts the PLP and helps the Opposition.

The PLP's strategy in 2007 was based on simply trying to keep turnout high and making the UBP toxic, so that if you can drag people - however reluctantly to the polls - they're not going to spoil their ballots in any large numbers and the stigma campaign against the UBP would cause undecideds to break heavily PLP (which I think is what occurred).

I'm not so sure at the next election the PLP can count on a similarly high turnout, other than appeals on the back of a popular Premier in a honeymoon period. The economic and social issues have exploded in the last few years and this has to suppress turnout somewhat.

So if turnout drops, and a unified Opposition party can hold and perhaps slightly build on that 47% from 2007, with new boundaries and more competitive constituencies, you could see some interesting results. Not necessarily the PLP losing, but a reduced majority I think is possible with a well executed campaign and credible candidates.

I find it hard to believe that the 47% who were not impressed with the PLP in 2007 are now suddenly impressed with them today, after such terrible mismanagement of the economy and escalating social dysfunction.

So on that basis there is an opportunity for some gains for the Opposition, but not if they go into an election separately. That's just a blood bath.

A few quick thoughts on the shifting party dynamics going on with all 3 parties:

• The relative quiet from the UBP and BDA suggests to me that they're working quietly towards some sort of an amalgamation/new combined party and have dropped the back and forth.
• The shifting party lines is accelerating due to the economic problems as people feel compelled to stop the rot and know the PLP lack the answers.
• Maxwell going to the PLP isn't a big surprise, but I think the longer the UBP-BDA rationalisation takes the more likely sideliners are to look elsewhere for a way to get involved
• The trickle of former UBPers into the PLP is good for them but not totally without downside - how long before the PLP are open to being called the PUP, ULP or something like that?

I have acquired a good old fashioned cold, and can't promise much activity until I can think straight, unless inspiration strikes.

Meanwhile the UBP BDA dance continues, but as someone said to me a couple of days ago...it takes two to tango. The UBP continue to be absorbing some shots, but have so far have not responded in kind.

Interesting little dance, or skirmish in the paper today between the UBP and BDA.

The UBP's Kim Swan:

"As far as the BDA is concerned, they set themselves up this past year as a separate party and I do not think they are of a mind to join with the UBP.

"Indeed their leader a few weeks ago said the UBP should 'turn out the lights'. That's hardly an overture to some form of coalition. So the ball is in their court.

"As far as we in the UBP are concerned, we recognise Bermuda's best interest does not lie in a divided Opposition. People who cannot support the performance of this Government and there are many are frustrated because they do not see a viable way to replace them in the current situation. It's not healthy.

"The fact is that Bermuda needs the strongest possible Opposition today because the Government is failing in the three most important areas of island life: the economy, education and public safety.

"It is unfortunate that the BDA chooses to focus its political guns on the UBP."

The BDA's Kathy Michelmore repsonded:

Dr Michelmore responded: "It is our belief that the UBP has been floundering as an Opposition party, and it is clear that this impression galvanised the BDA founders to step forward to offer an alternative.

"Sadly for the UBP, despite many capable and effective MPs, the UBP has become enmeshed in its negative historical legacy and as it currently exists cannot offer Bermuda a viable alternative.

"Kim Swan has criticised us for being of this opinion, but that is because it is a message the UBP leadership does not want to hear but many have said.

"Ultimately the BDA wishes to change the Government, and is prepared to work with those who recognise that real change is essential and are willing to recognise the obvious.

"We have not gunned for the UBP as Mr Swan is saying, but there must be severe disappointment in the UBP that 40-odd years gets you eight extra votes over a one-year-old entity.

"Nevertheless it is important that the Government is held to account and that the Country is given a strong Opposition. We will work towards that goal. Given the large numbers that did not vote, political parties have lots to do to enfranchise every voter."

I think they're talking across each other, and for the BDA simply splitting the UBP's vote wasn't an accomplishment...it was a given.

If the hangup is over the letters "UBP" that's easy to resolve, and I don't see that as a hurdle to an amalgamation. An amalgamation can be more than that though, taking the best of the BDA and the best of the UBP and walking the walk (and the constituencies) until the next election.

Otherwise, the BDA gets wiped out and hands the PLP an inflated majority at the next election.

I don't agree with much Jamahl Simmons says nowadays, but he's bang on with his assessment (other than the untrustworthy jab):

Former UBP MP Jamahl Simmons, now a PLP member, said yesterday: "After a year of existence and several weeks of targeting this constituency, the BDA has failed to distinguish itself as anything more than an alternative to the UBP for UBP supporters.

"The issues they choose to prioritise, the values they espouse, the language they use, their very approach, echoes the UBP. So to a swing voter or a traditional PLP supporter they are likely to be seen to be as untrustworthy, out of touch and unappealing as the UBP."

Mr Simmons said an alliance between the two could stave off a PLP landslide at the next General Election, adding: "As it stands the BDA have virtually no chance of retaining any of their seats and the UBP almost no chance at forming the Government.

"I suspect that as an election draws nearer, the traditional base of the UBP will begin to solidify behind the party that looks most likely to have the best shot of preventing a PLP landslide. The money, manpower and resources will begin to flow to one entity and it will probably be the UBP."

So the by-election result is in, with no surprise as to the winner for the PLP.

PLP - 310
UBP - 78
BDA - 70

The UBP, with a very flawed candidate, held on to second with the BDA pulling in third. (Devrae getting appendicitis and not being at the poll station could have been a blessing in disguise for the UBP as his choice was difficult for many people - it was simply too soon from a drug conviction, and a mohawk, to be put up as a serious candidate.)

Together both the UBP and BDA didn't mount much of a challenge to the PLP, in a climate which should be conducive to some protest votes at least. Turnout was extremely low, less than 50%. So really, there's no winners here, PLP included.

But...the BDA went all in on the pre-election "Lights out UBP" talk, and couldn't beat them even in the face of a gift of a candidate from the UBP. Which is going to boomerang back at them. Lights out BDA will surely be the UBP's refrain.

The realists in the BDA were undoubtably looking to try and get the UBP behind them, and failed. The idealists genuinely thought they had a shot, which was never going to happen. So it's back to the drawing board, and I would argue, over to the negotiating table with the UBP.

I remain firmly convinced that the only way forward - and even this way is tough - is for the BDA and UBP to come together under a new banner, pull in some better quality candidates and fight a strategic, targeted joint effort. The alternative is a PLP which has wrecked the local economy and overseen a huge escalation in social deterioration taking 30 seats.

My thoughts on how the BDA/UBP amalgamation should play out are here, here and here.

This was the first empirical test of the BDA experiment and the result is not what they needed. This affirms what I said a few days ago about the likely outcome in a general election:

Two parties fighting for second will ensure that the BDA end up with most likely no seats (which is lights out for them), the UBP probably 5 or 6 and the PLP 30, which would be a result completely out of sync with the electorate's intentions.

On a personal level I won't get involved with either the BDA or UBP because it is mutual assured destruction. I will however, work for something new, an amalgamation of the two under a new banner with a new approach.

That is not just a better way, it's the only way right now.

The BDA continue to struggle with the widespread image held of them as an offshoot of the UBP, and posted a video of their Warwick by-election candidate addressing the topic.

Here's the problem. Mr. Richards tries to demonstrate that the BDA is different by using the language of the UBP:

"The first thing that struck me was the diversity of the people in the room..."

This is UBP candidate rollout language 101. "The UBP is diverse, the members are sincere etc.."

Don't believe me? Listen to new UBP Deputy Leader Nick Swan explaining why he joined the party executive, the same day the BDA posted their video:

"The United Bermuda Party is the only party on the island that represents Bermuda's rich diversity".

The BDA's problem is unsolvable in my view; they are indisputably an offshoot of the UBP, it was founded by 3 UBP MPs, a sitting UBP Senator and several senior party executive members but has failed to draw notable PLP defections. The last point was critical to creating that vital first impression.

The BDA is not creating a better way, they're trying to refine the UBP model and it is not different enough.

This inability to draw high profile PLP supporters, or one of their disillusioned MPs, has negated the effort to define themselves as a true cross over party. I know that the BDA has been playing up Mr. Richards as former PLP, but he is not high profile and not a game changer for them.

PLP loyalty remains powerful despite the visible manifestations of 12 years of comprehensive failure in social and economic governance.

All indicators point in the wrong direction: Violent crime up. GDP down. Unemployment up. Debt up. Revenues down. Tourism down. Education down.

That the UBP have not gained traction during an unprecedented economic upheaval, their core competency is economic issues, speaks also to the depth of their malaise.

An amalgamation under a new banner with a new structure and new leadership is truly the better way. I'm convinced that the UBP understand this, likewise the BDA, although the latter is conflicted but the realists among them must recognise that they are not viable in the current setup.

The extent of Bermuda's current problems can't be solved by the PLP, they are devoid of any ideas and their policies have in fact inflicted and inflamed much of the pain we're currently experiencing. Just weeks before GDP was disclosed as down 8.1% the Premier said that Bermuda was post-recessionary in her maiden Throne Speech.

The PLP continue to cling to bad policies out of pride rather than show leadership and change course. All the ideas are coming from outside of the Government and unless Government shows a willingness to mature and change with changing times Bermuda's future is bleak.

The psychology on island is horrendous. People are incredibly down and negative on our prospects and this too perpetuates the decline through a lack of confidence.

A renewed, energised, amalgamated Opposition stands a credible chance at the next election. Two parties fighting for second will ensure that the BDA end up with most likely no seats (which is lights out for them), the UBP probably 5 or 6 and the PLP 30, which would be a result completely out of sync with the electorate's intentions.

I admire the BDA for the efforts they've made, and are making, to shake up the dynamic and break the PLP v UBP cold war. But they've plateaued in a short time and are not demonstrating growth potential. The UBP have managed to stabilise and hope to hold their own in the upcoming by-election.

Whatever happens on by-election day, barring some shock BDA or UBP win - which is not going to happen - the way forward is clear and there will have to be a reckoning of sorts.

There's an interesting Letter to the Editor today (4th letter) on the present and future of the UBP:

A few comments:

Frankly, I have been sincerely amazed that the politicians (I did not say members) of the UBP seem to have this idea that they are going to, some day, form the Government. Amazement aside, I consider myself fairly well informed; reasonably well educated; well read; and even able to look at both sides of the coin ... and I cannot understand how these people actually think they will win again.

Actually, very few think that.

The UBP has the same people, saying the same things and doing things the same way as they always did or, at least, that's what they look like to the public. There are no younger people to speak of; no new ideas; and as far as I can see nothing new on the horizon.

Correct. The next generation left for the BDA, but there is no fundamental philosophical disagreement between the UBP and BDA., and the BDA haven't raised any substantive new ideas or differentiated themselves. They have not demonstrated momentum in the polls, appearing to have capped out, but do have an opportunity to try and score a small win in the Warwick by-election from what I suspect they see as a gift by the UBP. (They'd better knock it out of the park to seize the initiative.)

For the moment, the UBP is the Official Opposition and, because of that, their MPs and Senators have a pulpit from which to speak. There's no doubt in my mind that politicians almost always have two common traits: they all think they have an answer and they all love to talk !!

This is unfair for the following reasons.

Firstly, the UBP is the Official Opposition because they remain the second largest party in Parliament and won 14 seats in the last election and 47% of the vote...and continue to take the grunt work of being the Official Opposition seriously. The BDA have not demonstrated viability at a general election yet. This idea that the UBP should just hand all their seats and the role of Official Opposition over to the BDA is naive and predicated on the path of least resistance.

Craig Cannonier recently created a stir when he called for the UBP to 'turn out the lights' and that 'the BDA should step up as the Official Opposition'.

If the BDA is ready to step up they need to act like it, and failing to produce a formal Reply to Paula Cox's Throne Speech is not acting like it. That was a huge - huge - missed opportunity to walk the walk rather than just talk the talk.

It gets worse. Mark Pettingill actually used the UBP's Reply as the source of his speech on behalf of the BDA, picking through it point by point and complimenting the UBP on their Reply. That was pretty poor for a party claiming to want to step up to that role.

Say what you will about the UBP, and slap them about for not getting it, but the people the BDA like to say need to pack it up and hand them the keys are the people who do the unglamorous behind the scenes work that is required of an Official Opposition.

If anything, you could argue that the UBP take their role too seriously, to the detriment of the politics.

I haven't been involved in the UBP since the 2007 election, and am not involved in the BDA. But both parties are full of good people with good intentions who are my friends and who I stay in touch with.

This standoff is not productive and is at a stalemate. Everyone can see that. But hardline stances like calling for the UBP to just give up and hand the keys to the BDA makes accommodation and compromise very difficult, and the BDA are in no position to try and dictate terms.

A little skirmish is developing over the latest chapter of PLP Heroes Day, with the UBP lamenting the purely political composition of the selection committee and the PLP firing back that the UBP was invited to participate but declined.

There's a couple things to address here, the first I suspect is reporting related.

The headline on the RG article today implied that the UBP were miffed at not having a seat on the committee, "Group to select national heroes has no place for UBP ", and the PLP is pointing out that they were offered them but declined so they shouldn't be complaining, "We were shocked to read the headline in today's paper..."

The PLP are right: but the headline didn't reflect the story if you read closely. The headline declares that they wanted to be included, but nothing they said yesterday supports that. The UBP never said that they were denied participation. What they said was:

"We have said from the very beginning of this exercise that decisions on National Heroes ought to be made by people chosen from the community, not for their politics but for their good judgment and, perhaps, their knowledge of history.

"We believe the Government would have best served the will of the people by turning the job over to the people. Instead, we have a committee of politicians representing one political party.

"Once again, the Government is putting politics before policy, partisanship before Country. It wants to control something that could be such a pure expression of community spirit."

The UBP is saying that the non-political appointees should be there, not that they want seats. Sen. Atherdon's later quote supports this:

"The Government, with these appointments, is saying it knows better than the people. That is a sad reflection on where we find ourselves today. In order to get this Island pulling together, we need to have a Government that has more faith, more trust in the people."

It's the headline which frames the whole article, and the framing is inconsistent with what the UBP actually said.

What they said is in fact consistent with what they said back in June of this year:

"From the outset, we said the promotion of national pride and the achievements of outstanding Bermudians ought not to be part of partisan politics," she said. "We were very clear from the start of this initiative back in 2007 that it be a community-based exercise, not a politically controlled operation.

"The Minister's plan to appoint a committee of politicians to select national heroes going forward runs counter to our position. Indeed, it seems to run counter to former Culture Minister's plan, which was in line with our proposal."

.....

The Senator claimed Government's appointment of only politicians to the committee suggested a "deep-seated desire to control everything and a general lack of trust in people outside of its immediate circle of control".

In an effort to depoliticise the selection committee, the UBP has recommended the addition of two more individuals to its ranks. The party believes the Governor should appoint the additional two people and they should reflect Bermuda's diversity and historical legacy.

So the UBP have turned down two seats because they wanted additional representation from non-political appointees, which is different than complaining that they weren't included when they were offered seats. The Gazette article I think misses this point which created an opportunity for the PLP to cry hypocrisy, which seems credible in the absence of the context that the Gazette article missed.

Now, on to the thrust of the UBP's complaint, namely that the PLP have a "deep-seated desire to control everything and a general lack of trust in people outside of its immediate circle of control."

I'd concur. And what this all comes back to is what I sort of talked around a bit in yesterday's post. This is all about not losing control of The Narrative.

When the UBP says the PLP are control freaks they're correct. The PLP have spent decades carefully constructing a narrative that the credit for Bermuda's success lies with the PLP, even as Opposition, and that all that is bad lies with the UBP, even as Opposition.

This is the centre-piece of their political strategy and they can't risk losing control of it.

Hence they are in this naming mode where buildings are named after PLP supporters and politicians. We even have an airport named after an Opposition leader who never actually sat at the reins of Government. Now I never knew Freddie Wade, but he is pretty much universally regarded as a gentleman and principled politician. Even those who disagreed with his politics spoke highly of him. Harry Viera used to love to tell me stories about Freddie Wade.

But I did find it a bit odd to be naming Bermuda's sole airport after someone who never ran any Government Ministry or held the Office of Premier.

Unless you consider The Narrative. The Narrative requires Bermuda to be branded PLP, and UBP accomplishments be co-opted, erased or at least ignored. The economy that that the PLP crow about being so successful is the very same one that they complained about as Opposition for example - "Bermuda Inc.".

The Narrative says that Bermuda was built by the PLP, that the only legitimate governing party is the PLP, that identity politics is paramount, that the UBP will always be responsible for the PLP's failures no matter how long they're in power, and that the PLP will always be fighting the establishment even when they are the establishment.

They've cleverly co-opted the UBP's many successes as Government, ably assisted by a UBP who have refused to defend and own their own legacy and have allowed it to be written and rewritten by the PLP.

This is the power of The Narrative.

PLP Heroes Day supports the narrative by elevating PLP politicians and luminaries to "National Heroes", which is why they can't lose control of it either by having non-political appointments on the selection committee and/or by putting the decision outside of Cabinet control.

That's why the Minister made this pretty bizarre and condescending statement about the UBP's suggestion for non-political appointees:

Ms Butterfield argued the make-up of the committee would make it simpler to select future heroes.

She added that including lay people on the committee was also not suitable, saying: "We have looked at where they tried that in other jurisdictions, such as in the Caribbean, and it did not work."

So politicians are the only people capable of identifying National Heroes? Well, if this is a political exercise they certainly are. And that's what this is. It is much 'simpler' to select the appropriate future heroes if you have a group of ideologically driven like minded politicians.

By refusing to allow meaningful non-political involvement they're ensuring that the 'wrong kind' of National Heroes don't get nominated and pushed through, putting Cabinet in a tough position. The worst outcome for PLP Heroes Day would be honouring a UBP hero.

I'm not surprised, because the PLP are, as I've said many times, hyper-political. I don't think that the public is fooled on this one, I think most people know what the agenda is, but as with most things they're sort of resigned to the outcome.

It's just unfortunate that I think the headline of today's article has created a temporary diversion. Yes the UBP refused participation. But no they weren't complaining about not being invited if you read their actual comments.

The UBP are not participating because they don't support the make-up of the selection committee which is a principled position to take.

It does beg the question of whether anyone in the BDA was offered a spot? I'm pretty sure they'd have accepted, and then they could have had (notionally) independent Darius Tucker and a BDA and still had two 'Opposition' members.

I suspect however that the PLP don't want to elevate the BDA, so they opted to add another PLP member and someone they're pretty confident won't rock the boat.

That's speculation on my part, and I could of course be wrong. But I doubt it.

Political party websites are a genre all to themselves which pretty much by definition are never going to get you too excited. While necessary, I question their utility in a small retail politics place like Bermuda, other than to communicate to journalists and members and act as a soft recruitment tool, but Bermuda's party websites suck for entirely different reasons.

The UBP's sucks mostly because it is infrequently and inconsistently updated, but also because the look and feel doesn't convey any personality nor uniqueness.

The BDA's doesn't suck, but it is a bit uninspired. It's your standard self-promotional brochure site, not particularly innovative or integrated with social networking tools which I'd have expected.

The PLP's on the other hand sucks for reasons to do with content and tone, and I must admit I read it as an act of masochism.

It's written in an overtly and extreme propagandistic manner, and seems geared at a target audience of 5 year olds. Mostly it seems overly impressed by its own perceived cleverness and ability to manipulate the readers.

Then I read this article recently about why the AFL-CIO's website is so bad, and it all made sense:

But the bad union newspapers--and there have been many--are all bad in the same way. They become house organs for their leaders, spewing out endless proclamations, reproducing Ceausescu-like pictures of forced handshakes, and rendering invisible the actual rank-and-file. They are closed systems, speaking a private language exclusively to an internal audience that is probably not paying attention anyway.

Nothing I can add.

If you could indulge me a moment of pedantry, for one of my language pet peeves, this one courtesy of the B.D.A.:

"Our information is that the payroll tax increase has seen a number of well known high profile international companies seriously consider looking elsewhere to relocate their operations," he said. "We are literally on a knife edge in terms of flight.

We're not literally on a knife edge, we're figuratively on a knife edge. If we were literally on a knife edge, well, the island would be sitting on top of a knife.

My pedantic quirks aside, I agree with the assessment that the economy is in a bad way with no real impetus on the horizon to start growing again. The only people still blissfully unaware of this is the Government.

There is simply no way around the fact that government revenues are shrinking, the economy is losing jobs (and the PLP is further force-ably contracting the economy by chasing out non-Bermudian workers after 6 years), and government spending is increasing at a rapid rate.

This is a recipe for disaster.

A few days ago the BDA's Michael Fahy had an op-ed entitled 'How the BDA would save the economy'.

There's some interesting ideas in there, including privatisation of some government services and the proposed Ministry of Commerce (Tourism and Finance), but a fundamental problem exists in the piece.

The BDA proposes 4 'obvious examples of expenditures' they would cut:

1.Reducing the purchase and use of GP cars and restricting the number per Department and making more use of car pooling.

2. Ensuring strict adherence to the limits of spending and use of Government Credit Cards especially overseas. Set limits on hotel and travel costs regardless of who is incurring them.

3. Cease sending teams of senior Government officials on overseas trips unless there is a predefined cost/benefit.

4. Cutting costs by demanding discounts and promotional events from outside parties such as advertising agents.

All worthy of cutting I concur. But this is going to have an immaterial impact on the total Government budget. There's plenty of waste in there, but those savings would be in the hundreds of thousands or one or two million range.

The cuts that are needed in order to match revenues with expenditures over the foreseeable future need to be in the tens of millions of dollars, not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I suspect the BDA knows it, but don't want to stick their necks out and admit that the public need to scale back their expectations of what Government should provide. Government has made promises they can't keep. The BDA should have called them on that but chose the path of least resistance. A mistake in my view.

Further complicating the issue is that the bulk of Government expenditure is on salaries, so departmental budget cuts that get tossed around (but rarely followed) are usually on a small share of the overall Government budget which excludes the people part. It ain't easy to lay off civil servants, and it brings with it all sorts of knock on effects of unemployment.

The spending versus revenue gap is that extreme; hence the $500M bond sale.

One point that got lost a bit in the hullabaloo about the PLP engaging in their usual histrionics around the gun crime legislation, is the BDA getting a bit carried away blowing their vuvuzelas about Mark Pettingill riding in on his horse to save the day with some unprecedented legal wrangling in Parliament.

Here's what the BDA has on their website:

The Firearms Legislation Act 2010 was passed unanimously in the house on June 4th, 2010. Thanks to the Bermuda Democratic Alliance. Although the BDA was in agreement with Government's approach to take a harder line on gun crime, we felt that, as presented, the law was flawed and lacking balance.

Thanks to the legal wrangling of Mark Pettingill, the law was passed and Bermuda for once WON and Parliament actually worked with the vision that the Bermuda Democratic Alliance has advocated for. A BETTER WAY!!

Now I understand that political parties, particularly a new one which has yet to make a real mark since its launch, wants to blow its horn and get some credit.

But this is a bit much.

I caught an interview with Mark on VSB news where he was patting himself on the back for guiding Parliament to something he had never witnessed in his time in the House, namely amendments being worked in real time during debate and the Government accepting and passing a bill with amendments.

Really? As I watched that interview I chuckled, because it was so clearly an overreach.

Firstly, this is not unprecedented, it was a better way, but it certainly wasn't a new way. It happens more than casual observers would think. If you listen to Parliament you'll often hear the UBP, usually through John Barritt, moving and proposing amendments.

Secondly, on this specific firearms legislation, the UBP was involved both before and during the debate to craft amendments. Both John Barritt and Trevor Moniz.

But the BDA acts as if they were the lone voice and contributors. Now certainly Mark contributed and made himself the spotlight, but the BDA is not practicing "a better way" by claiming something is unprecedented when it isn't, nor giving credit to others when due.

I get it, I really do, that they're looking for an issue to try and grab the spotlight and position themselves as bridging some intractable divide and pioneering a new kind of politics. But this one wasn't it. It was a success, a joint effort by the UBP and BDA, but it wasn't earth-shattering.

A better way would be to acknowledge the efforts of all involved.

I think the obvious initial takeaway from the UK election result/non-result last night is that even in a climate very hostile for the incumbents, it is very difficult for 3rd parties to gain traction in a first past the post Parliamentary system.

There's some lessons here for the BDA and UBP. it's hard to see how they don't just cannibalise each others vote in a election in Bermuda, even one where the mood is one of change (The 3rd Party LibDems still lost seats in a change election).

Barring some sort of an alliance (no pun intended) - a carving up of seats around the island between the two with an intent of forming a coalition - the short term net beneficiary of an organised 3rd party in Bermuda is the incumbent PLP, despite their increasing unpopularity and ill-advised policies.

The other option of course is for the UBP and BDA to merge pre-election into a new entity.

Regardless, I think in the long term the political ground is shifting in Bermuda and the creation of the BDA has changed the dynamic, which is a positive development.

The question is, does Bermuda have enough time. Can we afford, both literally and figuratively, another one or two terms of the PLP's policies and politics? Vexed addresses that question.

A quick plug if I may, for Don Grearson's book, USS Bermuda, which he self-published and released a couple of months ago. (Full disclosure, Don is a friend who I got to know quite well during my time in the UBP with his role as a Communications Consultant.)

I'm not quite through all 450 pages of the book yet, but I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in either history (Bermuda or WWII and Cold War) or Bermuda politics. (See Crombie's review, and excerpts here and here).

It's a very interesting look behind the scenes of the transition of the military bases/airport to Bermuda in the 1990s. You'll know plenty of the people and situations discussed in the book and probably learn a fair amount of new information as well.

What has struck me reading it is the parallels to the Bermuda of today in many regards. The departure of the US, Canada and UK presented a huge economic and social challenge to Bermuda's political leaders. This is also somewhat the emerging case today, with the global economy in transition, Bermuda's tax independence under attack and the continued decline of tourism intermingled with a politically unpopular independence agenda.

I apologise for the commercial (unsolicited and unpaid), but it's an entertaining and educational read for history buffs or political junkie - which is generally you nerds who read this site.

In fact, the book should be part of the Bermuda school curriculum because it covers a very important time in Bermuda's recent history.

On the topic of why Bermuda Democratic Alliance don't have the bda.bm domain, Sean Soares, a party member emailed me the following:

To be fair to BermudaNIC, the domain has been registered by a public person. Talks are ongoing to see if they will make it available. In the spirit of the name, We truly hope that if it is not released that it is used for good purposes.

I understand this to be true as well based on detailed information from multiple persons. However the lack of a WHOIS record suggests that it is not formally registered which is odd. My understanding is that the Registrar changed their position recently on giving out bda.bm, which they were, for lack of a better word, protecting, due to it's strong affiliation with the Bermuda national identity.

They had been approached recently by a private individual for it and felt they should offer it to them prior to the BDA political party's more recent attempt to register.

Actually, I think they probably should then go all the way back to Denis Pitcher who appears to be the earliest known individual who attempted to register the domain.

If I were the BDA I would register "thebda.bm" as a backup, because it's that little bit better than "thealliance.bm".

I should also add that I agree that no-one should be forced to give up a domain which they have properly registered.

This also illuminates the shortcomings around the BermudaNIC domain registration service. It's a horribly antiquated and bureaucratic process that doesn't even charge a nominal fee to own a .bm address.

It is somewhat surprising, although not unexpected, that the initial skirmish around the new party (other than trying to brand it the UBP), is about the name.

This hasn't been explicitly raised but is clear to anyone observing the language around the launch:

• the PLP's first statement referred to them as "Bermuda's DA", which is conspicuously intentional
• Jonathon at Catch a Fire (who's always up for a conspiracy) refuses to call them the BDA, opting also for Bermuda's DA with a sort of weird and clumsy argument about global parties using Democratic Alliance. But he's prone to overthinking issues.
• the name was previously used by Alex Outerbridge and
• and the party does not (yet or perhaps ever) have the domain bda.bm registered, although they do have bermudademocraticalliance.bm and thealliance.bm registered.

I'll take the last one last, but it's pretty clear that the PLP do not like the name and want to try not to let the BDA acronym stick.

I understand that, but it won't work because it's a good name, so good it had to be used; catchy and relevant. The election campaigns are right there, two words "Vote BDA". Short and sweet.

You've got to try and shut that down early. It is futile though.

It reminds me of the US, where some Republicans refuse to call the Democratic Party by that name. They call it the Democrat Party, which is a rather subtle dig that the party is not democratic. It really annoys some Democrats, but is just silly insider baseball.

There's also the issue that there was a previous attempt at a party called the Bermuda Democratic Alliance and therefore the new party shouldn't be able to use it. But that doesn't make much sense to me because the party never got off the ground and the name is a good one, was available and is fair game to be used.

The PLP would howl if people said "well, they're not progressive nor labour in any real sense, so we'll just call them "Party". Surely we're mature enough to respect the name an organisation chooses. If that's the name they want to go by then that's what they should be called.

Finally there's something that I looked up immediately when I heard last week what they were going to call themselves, which is the website.

The party conspicuously lacks the registration of the domain "bda.bm". They do have bermudademocraticalliance.bm and thealliance.bm, but there's no way they don't want, or didn't try to get that domain. Zero chance.

So why do they have the other two but not the logical bda.bm?

BermudaNIC, which is part of the Registry General, is a real relic in the way sites get registered: only businesses can register, you have to send a fax - yes a fax - on company letterhead, and the process takes days if you're lucky. (Plus, they don't charge. Government could make a few bucks off domain registrations.)

The process requires human approval versus the US process which is automated. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some games going on around the bda.bm domain.* [See update below.]

Look at Denis's experience when he tried to register it not too long ago:

One of the first ventures into attempting to form the party came in the form of trying to register www.bda.bm. It proved an interesting saga as I was made to jump through endless hoops in what was a clear attempt to find every means to not give me the domain. I was told I couldn't have the domain name unless I was a registered company or charity. So I went to the registrars office and looked up the requirements as well as the listings of the existing UBP and PLP. Turns out, they weren't registered. So I took this evidence back to plead my case only to be told I had to have a request printed on the letterhead and logo of the party. So I went off, composed this and returned only to then be told that I needed to have a party constitution. So I threw his together and returned only to be told that I needed to identify who the officers of my party was, who the treasurers were and that I needed to prove an established presence before I could get the domain name. I tried to plead my case that the foundation of the party I was trying to form was to be solidly based upon the website and that I couldn't possibly have directors and an established presence without attracting more individuals via a website. The manager/director there wouldn't budge and it became obvious that no matter what I did, the bar would be raised ever higher to prevent me.

If the BDA were given the other two domains there can be no logically consistent reason not to give them the other more obvious one. Hence their use of thealliance.bm, which is fine but not really what they wanted I'm sure, although it's not bad either.

If I were in the BDA, which I'm not, I'd repeat the name every chance I had. It's going to stick anyway, but this would help it along.

[*Update: I'm informed that bda.bm is already registered. Which would be odd because it doesn't show up in a domain registration WHOIS search as it should.]

Talk about looking for problems, but how can you make the following all-encompassing statement in the Throne Speech on a core issue of discrimination:

"The intention of the Human Rights Act to prevent discrimination against all classes of people must be fulfilled. Therefore the Act will be amended to ensure that no person is discriminated against in Bermuda."

And then less than 72 hours later say that "all" didn't mean "all", particularly the issue that everyone presumed you were talking about because it's been the hot topic for a few years now, culminating in a Parliamentary flame-out of epic proportions:

Today, Ms Butterfield told the media Mr. Butler had taken the issue to Cabinet earlier this year, but that it had been turned down. She said she did not know whether individual Cabinet members had been against the move, but only that the collective decision had been to reject it.

This is a cop-out, but also political strategy malpractice.

Firstly, why make such a grandiose statement in the Throne Speech when you didn't have to, and secondly why queue this up in your first post speech press conference?

Self-inflicted really. But it is a shining example of not letting the facts get in the way of your bold spin.

The PLP professes to be the party of civil rights, but on this core issue of discrimination they are chronically incapable of doing the right thing.

This is a basic human right. Make it happen.