Recently in BDA Category

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.