Recently in Parliament Category

Well the protest achieved exactly what it was always most likely to achieve: the complete opposite outcome the organisers and protesters hoped for. The downside risk to these is always greater than the upside potential.

May I suggest a moratorium on Parliamentary marches against the PLP; they are counter-productive.

If the intent is to publicly vent or feel like you're doing something, then keep marching. If you actually want to be strategic and increase the likelihood of a positive outcome, then accept that the PLP thrive on rancor and extreme partisanship and don't help them out.

The ill-advised antics of one or perhaps two protesters was as predictable as the PLP's disingenuous exaggeration and misrepresentation of what occurred - identical to the Uighur protest.

Zane DeSilva's claim of racism after he was jeered is amusingly bizarre - a smallish group of predominantly elderly white demonstrators demonstrating against a white MP is a new brand of white on white racism one can only conclude. (The PLP's race strategists may want to look up Jump the Shark - or in this case the Jumping the Great White Shark).

Apart from that, the moment the Corporation scheduled a protest is the moment they lost control of the message. All it takes is one person to act stupidly, as the guy who blocked Zane DeSilva's car did (although no-one surrounded it and 'banged on it' - check the video, there was a light tap as one does to signal a driver to pull away - ask garbage collectors), all it takes is one dumb placard and the PLP spin-doctors will get to work mis-characterising things as widespread uncontrolled "anger, rage and racism".

People do dumb things when in crowds. It's a widely researched phenomenon known as collective effervescence.

This stuff is so predictable you can script it. In fact, I pretty much did script it:

...successfully able to pivot and portray the protest as some angry white mob (which it was not). He even dragged his wife out as a prop in front of the crowd, hoping to create a scene.

Note that Zane DeSilva also dragged his wife and son out and immediately condemned the protest as racist. The goal is to create a self-perpetuating theme that all anti-PLP protests are racist.

Marches like this are a key component that the PLP need to get their backbenchers etc. back in line. People should stop helping them.

There is no greater sin for the PLP than one of their MPs publicly siding with a group of predominantly white Bermudians. As soon as they can boil an issue down to "privilege", or today's catchphrase of "unearned privilege", then the PLP MPs fall back in line.

One MP describes this dynamic, particularly during elections, as the 'racial afterburners' - the last two weeks of an election campaign where buttons are pushed, tensions are raised, loyalties are tested and undecideds break disproportionately against the UBP.

Yes, a double standard exists when it comes to protesting in Bermuda. Yes, the PLP can march, rally and attack their opponents with racially loaded offensive language ("House Negroes", "Confused Negroes", "Uncle Toms", intimidate employees and employers etc.) without much condemnation. A different set of rules apply to others, and I for one would rather conduct myself by those rules.

People need to just accept it. For now. This dynamic is an outcome of history. I understand it. I don't see it as a problem. It's just the way it is. So, no more marches and Cabinet lawn protests please.

The irony of course is that the PLP continue to describe Bermuda's social, economic and political environment as one where whites continue to hold the power.

If that were the case these protests wouldn't be happening. These protests only occur because the only power these same - mostly elderly and mostly white - Bermudians hold is that of speaking out. And it has the completely opposite effect than intended, so it isn't even powerful.

The thought process seems to be that we have to do something, so let's protest. Because that's just what you do (and what the PLP did so well historically).

But it's not transferable. This has to be a battle of ideas, not emotions and not partisan loyalties. The path to a more issue driven, rational political environment is to lower the volume, lower the rancor, eliminate the environment where all sides get taken over by their reptilian brains and fall back into historical tribal camps.

People can complain that this is unjust (race - or more accurately history - has a factor in how your protest is perceived or portrayed), or you can accept the reality and take a different approach.

As I wrote prior to the protest, groups of mostly white protesters will box in fence-sitting PLP MPs, however right they are or think they are on the point.

Black Bermudians are still not comfortable coming out in large numbers to march against the PLP, however much they may agree with an issue, and certainly not when led by organisations historically linked/identified as white (Corp. of Ham, UBP). The same dynamic can be seen with black Bermudian driven protests and light white turnout. This cuts both ways. Much of it is about history, and class defining different priorities, but it's there for us all to see.

We've seen a few examples with the Bermuda Union of Teachers, and Friday with the BPSU who notably came out publicly for more dialogue - I suspect because they've had first hand experience with the PLP Government's sincerity around issues such as this.

The Corporation touts the 80% disapproval of the takeover in their poll. However getting a racial cross section of 80% of the population in a poll to agree with you in relative anonymity, and who comes out to visibly demonstrate are not at all connected.

White Bermudians don't lose anything by protesting against the PLP because they are continually vilified and demagogued. The PLP reminds white Bermudians regularly that they don't need their support, although they keep trying to guilt trip people into offering it rather than genuinely asking for it.

What the PLP fail to acknowledge in their complaints about their lack of white support is that by demonizing whites continually they are pushing away white voters.

You can't ask for someone's vote by saying in effect 'You white devils owe us your vote'.

It's insincere. And offensive. The ensuing complaints about lack of white support ring hollow. The tactic is designed to drive whites and blacks into separate camps, not broaden the PLP's white support. Courting demographics in politics are a long established fact of life. Race, age, gender, class, income. I doubt they'll go away.

So please, no more protests. Lower the emotion. Be strategic. Be tactical. Stay focused on the ideas. Debate the merits. Don't take the bait. Play the long game.

Change takes time. Today's status quo is as entrenched now as it was in the 70s and 80s.

I remain convinced that Bermuda's future is worth fighting for. The right way.

Yesterday's non-sitting of the Senate per the PLP's David Burch due to a lack of important business demonstrates the fundamental stupidity of the PLP's attack anything blog.

You see, last Friday the PLP took some characteristic cheap shots and attacked the UBP and BDA for requesting the customary two weeks to consider the ultimately flawed gun crime legislation:

Instead of moving forward now with tough new laws to crack down on gun crime, Bermuda's two opposition parties want to delay and dither. We disagree. The people are demanding immediate and swift action to build a safer Bermuda, and, we're responding.

Soooo, with the PLP saying that the Senate didn't need to sit yesterday they must therefore, by their own criteria be "out of touch', 'delaying and dithering' and practicing 'business as usual' while the 'people are demanding immediate and swift action to build a safer Bermuda', and, they're not responding.

When you only live for cheap headlines in the here and now, and trying to win every moment of a news cycle that doesn't really exist in Bermuda, you end up looking like jackasses.

If you're a masochist you've been listening to or following the budget debate.

I'm one of those. The outgoing Premier kicked it off in style:

Premier Ewart Brown yesterday launched a vociferous defence of his Government's financial record -- saying it had no choice other than to spend money for the good of the people.

Dr. Brown said the United Bermuda Party Government had left the Island in such a state 12 years ago, cash had to be directed toward fixing social problems such as absentee parents, crumbling infrastructure, ailing Government buildings, antiquated transport system and an out-of-date tourism model.

You see, fixing the low debt budget surplus expanding economy that the PLP inherited involved aggressively funding social programs, for example building a $70M school for $120M and a $35M cruise ship pier for $60M.

That's $75 million that could have been spent on actual social programs, or counter-cyclical spending, not stimulating the pockets of a couple of cronies and calling it social policy.

It takes some real effort and creativity to be this disingenuous with a straight face.

This is George Bushism, create your own reality Republicanism at it's best.

Judging by the PLP's back to form delusional statement on it's website as Vexed points out, the noise machine is back to form.

There's a few criticisms that you can level at Bob Richards as a politician, but being 'long on rhetoric short on substance' when it comes to budget replies isn't one of them. The core criticism of course is that he's too academic, too substantive and not communicating at a layman's level.

Again, classic Republicanism, the kind the Democrats always struggle to respond to in the same way the UBP always struggles to respond to complete and utter fiction.

You take the case being made against you, in this case that the Finance Minister's Budget is long on rhetoric and short on substance, and pin it on your opponent with the volume set at max.

The same way that the Republicans complained about media bias while getting very favourable almost cheerleading coverage heading into a war based on false pretenses, the PLP whines about media bias while their Cabinet Minister's radio station appointed Senator DJ plies their propaganda during the daily morning drive.

So the outgoing Premier can toss his Combined Opposition sloganeering around ad nauseum as has been the case the past few weeks, while his combined government media outlet can wax poetic about 'tilting at windmills' and the politics of fear (gasp - this from the architects of the PLP's election campaign of fear in 2007), but any rational observer who peruses the PLP's website wonders if the PLP actually believes their hype or thinks that the public is absolutely, completely incapable of separating pure unadulterated BS from fact.

Those are your two choices.

Bermuda is facing a serious economic contraction exacerbated by a decade of overspending which outpaced even a rapidly expanding economy and the Government's response is to deny any semblance of reality.

This is really, really worrying. We haven't even seen the slightest acknowledgment that things could have been done differently.

Things are most likely going to get worse before they get better. The party that has missed every revenue and spending projection wants you to believe that the guy who called the overheated economy and imminent recession doesn't know what he's talking about.

If you want to see which way the winds are blowing, have a read of Dale Butler, a PLP MP who sits in the marginal of all marginals and knows that he can't mindlessly spout party line BS, a guy who gets elected based on an image of bucking the party line and acknowledging reality.

With a very important budget looming I've been thinking about what the individual parties can get out of it.

For the PLP, I don't expect much because they continue to deny reality and pretend that the economic woes and tourism are in a mess because of the global recession, rather than their squandering of opportunity and huge tax windfalls of the past decade. Politically they can't concede that just about everything the UBP forewarned has come to pass.

I hear that Paula Cox has been preparing people for a 'tough but fair' budget, but this is really a tale of what could have been.

On a personal level Paula Cox has been getting hammered, and rightly so, over the past few months in particular. if she aspires to the leadership of the country she'll be looking to regain some of the credibility that she has lost (although she remains somewhat of a Teflon politician).

In the UBP's case I think the challenge is summed up quite simply, but is harder to execute. The UBP need to not just be right, but be persuasive. All 3 of the UBP's Shadow Finance Ministers from Grant to Pat to Bob have been on the money year after year. But they're not persuading. Bob Richards has been devastatingly accurate in his predictions, but he's a tad academic.

Bob needs to tell a story, not teach. I've loved his replies, but they're overly academic. And he doesn't have to convince me or those like me. We get it.

The story to tell is what could have been, but also what can be.

The BDA need to accomplish a couple of things.

Firstly they need to articulate their economic vision and continue to build momentum on the heels of their well attended conference. In Parliament they don't have the kind of economic expertise the UBP do in Grant, Bob and Pat.

Which leads to my second point. I was surprised that the BDA did not prepare a more formal and distributable Throne Speech reply as the the official Opposition does. That was a missed opportunity to deliver a prepared speech and show some professionalism with a printed document, although Shawn Crockwell did deliver a good presentation.

If I were in the BDA I'd make sure they prepared their own Budget Reply document and deliver a formal reply. There's a lot of low hanging fruit in the way the PLP have mismanaged the economy and denied their role in putting Bermuda on the back foot, rather than responding from a position of economic strength.

It's critical that they step up now in Parliament and maximize every opportunity, particularly these big Parliamentary events. I thought they missed a great opportunity with the Throne Speech.

ZBM announced, and the website confirms that the former UBPers are launching tomorrow as the Bermuda Democratic Alliance.

Website ready to go at bermudademocraticalliance.bm or thealliance.bm.

How do I know? Am I involved? Nope. I just guessed the first domain and it refers to the latter.

Good luck to them.

It's indisputable that as Parliamentary Question Time in Bermuda goes, it's a walk in the park, compared to other Parliaments such as the UK, Canada and Australia for example.

In Bermuda the questions have to be submitted 10 days in advance; there is a 3 question limit per Minister; follow-ups are limited; there is no set question time itself and can be pre-empted with mindless time-wasting Ministerial Statements and political pandering in the form of Congrats and Obits; and answers can be given in writing if time runs out.

It's also fair to say that if a Prime Minister in any of those countries had attempted to short-circuit Parliamentary Questions he would have been slayed by the press and public as a coward.

Personally I'm a little surprised that Ewart Brown is so frightened by a few questions from an Opposition that he just handed an electoral defeat.

Aren't we constantly told that he is a strong leader? He looks like a scared, power-crazed one right now.

Here's what a real Parliamentary Question Time looks like where the political leadership go toe to toe, rather than trying to hide behind anti-democratic press releases and public relations agencies:

Well, the Speaker did the only thing he could and today reversed what was clearly an completely unsupportable ruling on Parliamentary questions.

I'm not quite as willing to quickly pat him on the back as others; it took him 2 weeks to correct this and a bizarre "this is private" comment last week when he deferred the ruling.

When this all first went down with the bizarre press release sent out by Brown's taxpayer funded (and clearly clueless) Department of Communication spin doctors, someone in the UBP suggested to me that Brown rapid-fired out a press release in an attempt to to lock the Speaker into his incorrect position.

“Even more unfortunate was a most extraordinary press release from the Cabinet Office which left the mistaken impression that the Speaker had approved such a release and also unwittingly brought into question the independence and integrity of the Speaker’s Office.”

Unfortunately for Brown and his aspirations of unchecked and unlimited Presidential power, his action has actually shone a spotlight on the glaring inadequacies of our neglected Parliamentary system and could be one of those tipping points of Bermuda politics (one can hope).

The attempt to avoid Parliamentary Questions has only served to raise even more questions.

Bermuda's Parliament has fallen so far behind others, that something has to be done. Quickly.

Sadly I'm not optimistic. I don't know what it's going to take for Bermudians to wake up from their complacent slumber and stop falling so easily for political sleight of hand ("Look. Racists over there.)"

These events should have demonstrated to everyone that Brown knows his actions cannot stand up to scrutiny. We should all be asking what is he going to such lengths to hide? (Faith Based Tourism anyone?)

The issuing of what looked to be a joint press release authorised by the Speaker and the Premier was a new low. It is also proof positive that independence under this crowd would be anything but progress as they do not respect basic separations of powers and long established checks and balances.

Come to think of it, perhaps it's the cheques and balances that they don't want people to look at.

I've got sporadic internet access for the next few days, but the news that the taxpayers are going to hire a PR firm to try and combat Brown's image as corrupt (it's really about him not Bermuda) is interesting and absurd of course.

For now, I'll just deal with this quote from the Premier:

"The cunning tactic of shielding an attack under the cloak of parliamentary privilege is sad and disingenuous. Such actions play to the worst fears of the population and do nothing to lift the standard and quality of debate in this House."

Ok. Now, recall that Ewart Brown threatened, in Parliament, under Parliamentary privilege to physically attack the UBP's Grant Gibbons; he accused him, under Parliamentary privilege, of corruption while he was finance Minister (TBI); he told a stupid story about monkeys, so he could get "Grant Gibbons", "monkey" and "black people" into the same sentence under Parliamentary privilege; and he and his colleagues can barely complete a sentence in Parliament without slandering the UBP as racist.

Why is it ok to use Parliament to portray previous Governments as racist but not ok to portray the current one as corrupt; when that's the only place that questions must be answered (or at least that's what used to happen and should happen in any Westminster Parliament?

The reason Dr. Brown delivered that shameful and disgusting speech in Parliament is simple, he'd have exposed himself to one hell of a slander trial if he'd dared make his attacks outside of Parliament.

So spare us the sanctimonious BS about a 'cunning tactic of shielding an attack under the cloak of parliamentary privilege is sad and disingenuous.'

What's sad and disingenuous is the current occupant of the Office of the Premier.

We can add disingenuous and hypocrite to the list of things the PR firm will have to address.

And just quickly, the UBP is continually called completely inept and irrelevant, yet they can somehow execute a worldwide media campaign to unfairly brand Brown as corrupt?

Who the cap fits.

Here's a suggestion. Bermuda's image problem isn't a public relations problem, it's a public policy one.

People think our Government is corrupt (yes I said it, so sue me - again) because:

1) Wedco's demands for the renewal of a lease for the Bermuda Cement Company were dropped once the company was finally wrestled into the hands of a crony of the Premier.

2) Because Government money appear to be allocated according to a friends and family plan.

3) Because the Premier went all the way to the Privy Council to try and suppress information in a troubling police investigation of several Government MPs, including the now Premier of Bermuda.

4) Because Zane Desilva, now a now Government MP, had what appeared to be money earmarked to two Cabinet Ministers who would vote on the allocation of an asbestos disposal proposal.

5) Because the current Premier of Bermuda, who is highly involved in health care public policy, has not recused himself from either the public of private roles, and is in fact expanding his private interests with the opening of a stem cell clinic which will experiment on humans in an jurisdiction which has no regulation for this kind of medicine and in which the Premier himself would be able to craft any legislation that might come to pass.

6) Because the current Premier of Bermuda, at the time the Tourism Minister, went to great lengths to sell a property to the Bermuda Housing Corporation for what was deemed dramatically above fair market value.

7) Because the PLP made wholesale and extremely favourable amendments to a lease which was granted to Coco Reef, and have not made the original lease public.

Shall I continue?

A PR firm won't help.

A reader puts it in perspective:

To clarify, then:

(a) the Opposition asking questions that directly relate to Government businesss = unacceptable time-wasting that must be stamped out at all costs; and

(b) an hour and a half period in the House of self-indulgent back-slapping and dissemination of all manner of trivial information which is actually designed to waste time and restrict the Opposition from doing its job of holding the Government to account = just fine and dandy!

Alrighty, then. Glad we cleared that one up.

Ok Bermuda. We have a serious problem with Parliament. The Speaker appears to be completely in the Premier's pocket, to the extent that he's sending out press releases on Cabinet Office letterhead doing his partisan bidding:

The Cabinet Office

________________________________________
Department of Communication and Information

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 27, 2008 - Time: 7.25 p.m.

CONTACT

Nea Talbot

Ph: 294.2779

Email: ntalbot@gov.bm

SPEAKER SUSPENDS PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS

Today the Speaker of the House of Assembly, the Hon. Stanley Lowe, JP, MP, weighed in as it relates to Opposition questions from previous
Paliamentary sessions being raised in this current sitting.

In fact, Speaker Lowe said any previous questions posed in the form of Parliamentary Questions will not receive a forum on the Floor of the House.

Issues, raised in recent sittings include queries relating to Government travel among others.

Speaker Lowe said, "From a Parliamentary perspective, we have conceded to the fact that this is a new Parliament and as such, all matters,
proceedings etc. which were pending prior to the prorogation of Parliament on May 9th, are quashed. In that vein, Ministers will not be required or obligated to respond to the questions put on Ministerial travel prior to December 20th, 2007."

And in response to the Speaker's decision, the Premier, Dr. the Hon. Ewart Brown, JP, MP said, "The floor of the House is where substantive debate is supposed to occur. It is an outright rejection by the Speaker of the Opposition's time-wasting questions about travel and the like."

- ENDS -
_________________________________

Nea N. Talbot
Public Affairs Officer (MLHA&H, MOF and MoT&T)
Department of Communication & Information
Bermuda Government
Global House
43 Church Street
Hamilton HM 12
BERMUDA

ntalbot@gov.bm
www.gov.bm
www.citv.gov.bm

1 (441) 294-2779

Better late than never.

The Reply to the 2008 Budget.

Settle in, it's a long read, but it's well worth reading. I'm going to revisit some specific sections, because it methodically addresses many of the initiatives which are great headline generators but become far less appealing once a little scrutiny is applied (ie. interest free loans) while putting the PLP economic policy into the global context needed:

The 500 interest-free down payments to first-time Bermudian homeowners is an intriguing idea. Under this plan, the new home will be 100% financed: X per cent with the mortgage and Y per cent the interest-free down payment. Our questions is: How does this borrower pay all this debt back? The interest-free down payment does have to be paid back does it not? If a person can qualify for, say, an 80% mortgage, but cannot find the 20% down payment, how likely will he be able to afford the servicing of the mortgage and the down payment simultaneously? This dream could become a nightmare. We look forward to the Government's explanation of how they will make this plan work.

Take comfort Bermudians, in the knowledge that our Government is not alone in being unable to see the humour in what they do.

New Zealand's Parliament has voted itself far-reaching powers to control satire and ridicule of MPs in Parliament, attracting a storm of media and academic criticism.

The new standing orders, voted in last month, concern the use of images of Parliamentary debates, and make it a contempt of Parliament for broadcasters or anyone else to use footage of the chamber for "satire, ridicule or denigration".

The rules apply any to broadcasts or rebroadcasts in any medium.

They also ban the use of such footage for "political advertising or election campaigning", except with the permission of all members shown.

The new broadcasting regime coincides with the introduction of Parliament's own continuous in-house TV feed, which will be made available to broadcasters.

At least they have a TV feed. Let's hope our guys don't get any ideas or Peter Woolcock loses his livelihood.

Here's The Daily Show's take on it:

On Sunday I invited people to weigh in on the timing of the calling of the election in the post leaked BHC Police Report world; I asked essentially whether Dr. Brown would rather call an election before the Privy Council rule on the gag order, or if he would wait and try and ride out the immediate fallout of the scandal.

The majority of people seemed to agree with my assessment: that he'll try and go in the next few weeks rather than face the electorate under phase two of the scandal if the Privy Council rule in favour of the public's right to know as many people expect:

My feeling was that Dr brown was going to announce the election on the Friday after LBE's funeral. Her passing had rallied the "troops" and the election would be held during the summer meaning a younger voter base. This announcement, in my opinion, was only postponed by the arrest of Mr Bascome the evening before. At the moment Dr Brown is in a quandary. Does he wait and hedge his bets that the Privy Counsel overturns the Court of Appeal, and thus hiding any "questionable dealings" Or, does he ride on the "UBP are conspiring against me" platform and make the election an emotional issue. Since Dr Brown know's (more or less) exactly what is in the "missing" ** police report on the BHC; and two courts have already blocked his attempt to hide this investigation from the public. Dr Brown will call for the election to take place before the Privy Council meets, thus the end of July. ** Missing, because other that the fact the police can't find it, I see no evidence that anything was "stolen".

This is a tough question, mainly because I believe that the emergence of the BHC scandal, and the fact that Brown is tainted by sleaze at the moment, has really thrown a spanner in the works insofar as the PLP's election plans are concerned. Certainly, every indication was that an early summer election was on the cards. I don't think that an election by the end of 2007 is likely now. I think that we're going to see Brown and the PLP try to ride out the storm for as long as possible, in the hope that the whole thing will blow over. Whilst it is tempting to think that they may call an election before the Privy Council ruling is made (which will almost certainly come down squarely against them), it is arguably just as dangerous to go to the polls before the public find out what's in the rest of the leaked documents. There's far greater potential for scare-mongering and rampant rumour when we don't know what's in those documents, than when we do.

And then of course there's the question of calling an election and the full report being posted on the internet somewhere, really putting the cat among the pigeons.

I guess we'll know the answer in the next 2-3 weeks. Clearly though, the BHC report has defined everything.

But judging by the Housing propaganda piece on TV tonight, as well as the veracity of the few remaining PLP attack dogs in the Letters to the Editor and on the talk shows, I'm still inclined to think they're ready to go.

But, one reader sent something in that raised a very interesting angle that I for one hadn't considered. I'd be very interested in the thoughts of anyone on this, but particularly any lawyers or constitutional law experts:

A General Election campaign, in a democracy, should be conducted in free and open environment to allow the electorate to receive and weigh up all the different points of view of all political parties or individuals (PLP, UBP, Independent etc). A general election campaign conducted in a time, where the incumbent political party has gagged the press through a series of legal proceedings, cannot be democratic and be considered a free and fair election.

If a General Election were called whilst press freedom is still hung up in the courts, then it should be the duty of those of different political persuasion to the incumbent (not only the UBP, but Independents and others) to legally challenge the calling of a General Election opposition in the Bermuda courts and if necessary, appealing to the Privy Council.

That's an extremely interesting scenario that I certainly can't say I've seen tested.

Your thoughts?

Parliament's in today, and should prove to be interesting.

Will Dr. Brown, as was indicated yesterday, take advantage of Parliamentary Privilege to try and address the corruption allegations after trying to silence the media and refusing to answer their questions on the substance of the report all week (so I'm told by a reporter)?

Asked this morning to address specific allegations relating to BHC, Dr. Brown replied: "No. This matter is being handled for the Government by the Attorney General."

Tune in on AM 1230 at 10AM. Ministerial Statements and personal explanations come early,

I caught bits and pieces of the Motion to Adjourn last night, and while lively, the Premier - who always speaks last - never seemed to build any momentum in his comments, which were mostly on the topic of the Medical Clinic and race.

On the Medical Clinic, I'm not quite sure what point the Premier was trying to make, other than to attempt and discredit Louise Jackson and Grant Gibbons. His response however was mostly recycled misdirection and amounted to little more than Flop and Fizzle.

Likewise on race, with lots of self-congratulatory talk about initiating the "Big Conversation".

Earlier on the Motion to Adjourn, Louise Jackson and Pat Gordon Pamplin of the UBP had provided lively contributions on the Medical Clinic and race which were typically heckled loudly. By the time the Premier spoke it was late and hard to maintain the intensity after a number of other speakers had taken their feet.

The Gazette will have the summary on Monday I presume.

Rumour has it that Dr. Brown is going to have another of his contrived tirades in Parliament on the Motion to Adjourn, presumably over the Kurron Shares scandal, the Bermuda Emissions scandal, and the scandal of the tourism donation to a US private school's golf tournament, as reported in today's Mid Ocean News.

I presume this was what he was telegraphing with the following line of his creepy birthday press release yesterday:

I will celebrate my birthday quietly and then on Friday move into another gear.

I'll listen in if I can.

As I've said before, I hate to bring facts into Bermudian political arguments, but after the garbage from Cal Smith in today's paper I thought it worth pointing out exactly what Dr. Gibbons said in Parliament, which contained barely a passing reference to Mrs. Brown - for what its worth.

Here's Cal Smith's characterisation of Dr. Gibbons comments, which I highly doubt he's even heard:

"It seems fairly clear that the Brown-Gibbons dispute in the House of Assembly during the motion to adjourn was triggered by aspersions made by Dr. Gibbons with respect to Wanda Brown – the very charming, very intelligent and highly skilled wife of Dr. Brown. If Dr. Gibbons understood anything about black Bermudian men, he should have known that negative comments about women important to us is a direct invitation to a physical encounter. Yet this is what he threatened by making unkind remarks about the wife of Dr. Brown."

And here's what was actually said, in a broader point piggybacking on John Barritt's comments on the use of the term corruption.

Dr. Gibbons was speaking about the 2003 Pay to Play scandal and moved on to the issue of Kurron Shares of America's donations to the T.H.E. Foundation and awarding of the subsequent hospital contract:

When we start to hear from a former Premier that we should be concerned about money being given on donations, I start to worry. And I also worry, Mr. Speaker, because in the headline in the paper today, we have a statement from Dr. Brown that we will go on accepting large donations from foreigners. We’re going to continue to do it. And I also noticed in the paper today—interestingly enough, it cropped up in the Throne Speech as well—listen for it, Mr. Speaker, that there is now announced—this came from the Health Minister, the Honourable Member—there is a partnership with Kurron Shares of America.

Mr. Speaker, you’ll remember Kurron. These are the ones who were friendly with the current Premier and were brought in to do a $500,000 study a couple of years ago. Now, Mr. Speaker, what’s really interesting, and again, it’s this issue of being careful of accepting money, in the THE Foundation, this is the Tourism Helps Everyone, when you look at who’s giving money to the THE Foundation—this was an initiative from the current Premier, the Honourable Member, and his wife, Wanda Brown—under the “Emerald” category, and let me tell you Emerald is a $10,000 gift, who do we find? We find…

Then the speaker comes in and directs Dr. Gibbons to move on because the Premier wasn't present.

Then there is an interpolation from Walter Lister:

Point of Order Mr. Speaker. I don't think it is parliamentary for any member to try and implicate the Premier's wife in something that she has no position to defend herself. It's wrong and it's immoral. Thank you.

That's it. That's the sole reference to Mrs. Brown, and a factual one: "...and his wife Wanda Brown".

A passing reference that is now being frantically spun as aspertions and unkind remarks.

Now, what was Mr. Smith saying about "if a lie is told often enough without rebuttal, it will eventually be accepted as truth"?

I have the audio recording, but it's 19MBs, so too big to load up here and chew up all my bandwidth.

[UPDATE: The transcription of Dr. Gibbons's quote was updated with an expanded one going a paragraph earlier.]

The quote of the day comes from Peter Woolcock, one of the finest - not to mention talented and funniest - people one could be honoured to know:

“It makes me wonder what planet some of these people have arrived from that they haven’t seen the way that leaders of much greater countries than Bermuda (in size, if not importance) are dealt with. I have yet to hear any member of Congress or the House of Commons stand up and say, ‘Mr. Speaker today’s cartoon in the newspaper was absolutely disgraceful’. But it happens here.”

It's nice to hear Peter speak publicly. Usually he lets his pencil do the talking.

A Googling reader writes in:

Ewart Brown has given a statement on his trip to the BOT meeting in London:

Summary: he hated it and struck a blow for the oppressed people against the tyranny of the colonial hegemony, but felt better cuz he stayed in a really nice hotel.

(Note that this was released on the PLP website, not the official Government portal. Because the Government exists to support the PLP you know).

Contrast and compare with the content of the Montserrat delegation's report:

Montserrat reports there was agreement amongst the group that the UN Convention Against Corruption would be extended to the Overseas Territories at the earliest opportunity, as well as discussion of an FCO document on good governance and ethics.

I suppose it's not a strange omission on the Doc's part given that the UN Convention deals with, among other things, transparency in the funding of political candidates and parties as well as the need to strengthen systems that promote transparency and prevent conflicts of interest. It also calls for standards/codes of conduct for the correct, honourable, and proper performance of public offices.

No I don't suppose the Doc would like that much at all. Understandable that he'd neglect to mention it.

The text of the UN Convention may be found here. It has been ratified by the majority of UN members. But they are presumably all racist dogs so screw em.

The Royal Gazette has posted the full audio file of Premier Brown's racial tirade in Parliament on Friday night.

The file is large, almost 10MBs, and the audio quality is poor. But it's clear enough.

Lost amid the Premier's race based tirade in Parliament Friday night was another important event, namely the Premier and his Party's refusal to answer properly tabled Parliamentary Questions inquiring about the cost to the taxpayer for the 3 new unbudgeted positions of the Chief of Staff, Press Secretary and Consultant on Race (Rolfe Commissiong).

The Premier doesn't just have contempt for the Opposition, he displayed an absolute contempt for every Bermudian by refusing to answer the questions as required under Parliamentary rules and procedure.

These were new un-budgeted positions for 2006, and therefore require supplemental expenditures be tabled in Parliament, a step which has not occurred and seems increasingly unlikely based on Friday's non-response.

A old post I wrote on the inspiration of the 'political eunuch' crack:

Dr. Gibbons' comment referring to a eunuch describes a man who has had his testicles removed. That sounds like a rough analogy unless you listen to Pariament, where the PLP, and Dr. Brown in particular, constantly using the phrase 'testicular fortitude'.

A political eunuch would therefore be someone who lacked testicular fortitude.

Seems fair ... and accurate.

Dr. Ewart Brown, Premier of Bermuda, delivered tonight - on the motion to adjourn - the most disgraceful and hateful speech I have ever heard in my time following parliament. Ever.

The Premier evidently has taken offense that what he calls the UBP's 'de facto leader' would have the gall to point out over the past several weeks the problems with Pay to Play, foreign fund-raising, and the unregistered Tourism Helps Everyone charity set up around this years Music Festival by the then Deputy Premier's wife among other things.

The Premier of course characterised all this criticism as racist, but in the most personal and vicious of ways, using phrases like "I would never call the member a racist dog, because he's not a dog", that Dr. Gibbons is the representative of Bermuda's racist forefathers and several times said that he was close to crossing the aisle.

Disgraceful doesn't say it strong enough. The Premier came across as unhinged, and judging by the amount of the Premier's supporters I'm told were in the gallery this was a big event for the PLP.

If it wasn't clear before to people, once they read the Premier's comments or hear them on the radio it will be; Dr. Brown is intent on tearing this community to shreds and taking race relations and accountability back decades.

To say that he wants an honest and sustained discussion on race and engage in that type of frothing at the mouth hate, has revealed him - within a month of seizing power - to be simply unsuited for the office he now holds.

Bermuda will never move forward with the brand of racial hatred he is about to unleash on this community.

Some testy exchanges on the Motion to Adjourn today after a relatively benign session.

I think I caught most speakers, although I did miss the earliest ones, but UBP Member Grant Gibbons seemed to really get under the PLP, and Education Minister Randy Horton in particular's skin, with his comments on the never-ending soap opera at the Bermuda college.

Randy Horton responded with his usual decibels and engaged in some rather unbecoming personal attacks and misrepresenatations of the facts (blaming Dr. Gibbons for closing down technical education in Bermuda when he wasn't in Bermuda).

Patricia Gordon-Pamplin, as she tends to do, really set the Government= off when she discussed the College and term limits in particular. Ms. Gordon-Pamplin was interrupted more than she spoke, which is always a sign that you're on a good wicket.

The write-up in the papers tomorrow and Monday should be a good read.

Read the UBP's Reply to the 2006 Throne Speech.

From the 2006 Throne Speech (Friday 06 Nov. 2006):

"Although an unpopular subject, the Government will limit the increase of cars on our beautiful island and investigate alternative means of transport: increased buses and mini-buses, expanded public transport routes, car pooling schemes, car usage schemes, water taxis and infrastructure improvements that are more walker-friendly."

From UBP MP John Barritt's View From the Hill (Friday 06 Nov. 2006):

"If you look closely you will see that the Speaker now has his own GP car with his gas bill apparently paid for by the Government."

You've got to love the personal addendum that the Governor attached as a parting shot in this year's Throne Speech:

Mr. President and Members of the Senate,

Mr. Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly,

Bermuda’s greatest resource is its people, and a cohesive and fair society is essential to Bermuda’s quality of life. As your Governor I want to emphasise that this means that each of us on this island must value the contribution made by each other, regardless of race, or gender, or age, or country of origin. There is no place in the modern Bermuda for prejudice or discrimination on any grounds. All parts of this community must now move forward together. I look forward to working with the Government to that purpose.

Read the 2006 Throne Speech

In an unprecedented example of Government efficiency, the Premier's statement has been posted on the Government website:

CABINET APPOINTMENTS

Press Statement (060901)

by:

The Hon. W. Alexander Scott JP, MP
Premier of Bermuda

Good morning:

The very essence and nature of Government is that it is an ever changing, ever evolving institution. This is true for all areas of the administration - from the Civil Service to the Cabinet.

Consequently today, I wish to announce that the Hon. Terry E. Lister JP, MP, Minister of Education and Development, has stepped down from his position, effective today. Minister Lister has asked to step down from the Cabinet, for personal reasons – and, most reluctantly I have agreed.

However, in wishing Minister Lister well and pledging our support to him … I pointed out that at some time in the future when he may choose to make himself available to serve once again in the Cabinet, Bermuda would be well served to have him return as a Cabinet Minister.

Meanwhile, I wish to emphasize that Minister Lister has conscientiously served the Government and people of Bermuda since his appointment to the Senate in 1993. In 1998, at the beginning of this Government’s first term, he was appointed Minister of Development, Opportunity and Government Services. He continued his service to the community as Minister of Labour, Home Affairs and Public Safety and Minister of Works and Engineering, and culminated his service with the portfolio of Minister of Education and Development.

Minister Lister delivered many legislative reforms during his tenure, from oversight of the passage of the CURE Amendment Act, with a particular emphasis on the annual review of the workforce; the implementation of the Consumer Protection Act and the tightening of immigration work permit requirements. For these significant initiatives; and much more, we are extremely appreciative, and extend our thanks for his dedicated service.

For personal reasons, Minister Lister has decided that he wishes to stand aside, and it is with sincere regret that I have honoured his wish. He has assured me that, should I see fit to consider him for a return to Cabinet at some time in the future, he would be pleased to do so. We certainly wish him well.
I wish to both acknowledge his contribution and thank him for his stewardship in this most important ministry.

The portfolio of education and development is one of the most essential in any Government. It is the Ministry responsible for setting both the framework and the tone that shapes and encourages young minds to aspire to greatness.

It is also responsible for developing self esteem, providing examples of success through hard work, and teaching that one of the greatest achievements is in giving back to the community.

This morning it gives me great pleasure to announce the appointment of the Hon. Neletha D.I. Butterfield JP, MP as the new Minister of Education and Development; a true example of the tenets we have ascribed as requirement for leadership in education.

Minister Butterfield has long been a proponent for the education of both the privileged and the underprivileged. Since 1983, she has championed education with her founding of C.A.R.E. (Children and Adults Reaching for Education) – an Alternative Learning Centre in the basement of her home.

She brings an almost unmatchable personal passion and dedication for the education of our young students and Bermudians in general. She herself possesses a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration and Computer science; has been an English, Mathematics and computer technology lecturer at the Bermuda College and can proudly stand as the driver behind the success of over 400 adults obtaining their high school diplomas; with a number going on to undertake university courses.

But there is another notable for Minister Butterfield. In this time when we seek solutions to the plight of young Black males, Minister Butterfield can boast that she is ahead of the curve in that she has already provided educational instruction to over 250 of those incarcerated in our prison system. And to her credit, 150 have received their high school diplomas.

In 1994, Minister Butterfield was distinguished with the Best of Bermuda Gold Award for her work as an educator.

Today, the baton has been passed to one who is committed to providing a vision and a framework for achieving the goal of educational excellence – for all our students and educators.

Today we present the new Minister of Education and Development, the Hon. Neletha D.I. Butterfield, JP, MP.

Minister Randolph Horton

It is said that one has arrived when you can recognize them by only one name.

Horton.

Even from other outstanding families and family members, there can be little argument , and no question that Minister Kenneth, Howard, Randolph Horton ‘has arrived.’ He is an outstanding individual from an equally outstanding family; further, he has the managerial skills required to take the Planning and Environment Ministry to the next level.

He was elected to Parliament in 1998 and immediately began to make his mark in Government as he had throughout his life.

In sports, education, tourism promotion and political circles, his name is synonymous with achievement. He began his Cabinet career as Minister Without Portfolio in February of 2001 and by November of that same year became the Minister of Community Affairs and Sport. On being returned to Parliament after the 2003 election, Minister Horton took up his current portfolio as Minister of Labour, Home Affairs and Public Safety.

In looking for a replacement for Minister Butterfield, I felt that it was important to choose someone with depth, experience and maturity so that a smooth transition could be assured as the Government addresses challenges such as staff shortages, succession planning, and the preparation and presentation of a Planning Statement.

I am pleased that Minister Randolph Horton has accepted this new challenge.

Keeping within the doctrine of the Government’s Sustainable Development initiative, he will bring a renewed perspective to the Ministry of the Environment; a Ministry that has a significant impact on every aspect of our society.

One of the most significant tasks that we believe Minister Horton will accomplish is the realization of a more ‘user-friendly’ culture at the Department of Planning in regard to the public that they are mandated to serve. I have every confidence that Minister Horton will do extremely well in this new post.

The Ministers of which I have spoken already have a proven reputation within Government. However, as I introduce you to our newest Cabinet member, you will know that he too, has a reputation that precedes him.

To say that Mr. Derrick Burgess is well known to the community may be an understatement. As the former President of the Bermuda Industrial Union, he has been the front runner in labour affairs and has represented labour issues in both the Caribbean and international markets.

His work on behalf of labour speaks volumes about the character of the man and his labour reputation will move some to criticize his selection. But in fact, it is the very reason why he was appointed.

Over the years we have had outstanding businessmen serve as labour Ministers and we did not see it as a problem for labour or the country. Therefore, now that we have appointed an outstanding native son with labour roots, we too, should not regard it as a potential problem for business or the country.

This appointment combining a background of both labour and business, places this appointee in the unique position of having valued experience on both sides and I believe it will bode well for the stakeholders and our country as a whole.

Prior to his presidency of the Bermuda Industrial Union, Mr. Burgess was the Personnel Director at the Grotto Bay Hotel and the General House Manager at the former Coral Island Hotel/Palmetto Bay Hotel.
His skill in handling human affairs is noteworthy and as he has lent these experiences to his constituency, he will now do the same for the country.
Mr. Burgess is an experienced Parliamentarian who has represented the interests of Bermudians at every turn. He has significant relationships with the business community, including the Bermuda Hotel Association, and has been a member of the Labour Advisory Council providing him with a familiarization of ILO Conventions.

Mr. Burgess holds a diploma in Hotel Management from Lewis Hotel School in Washington D.C., and has also studied at the University of New Hampshire, the University of Maryland and the City College of Chicago. He is most proud of his study at our own Bermuda College.

Mr. Burgess is a strong believer in the strength of the family unit and is committed to improving the lot for Bermuda’s youth. His concern for education is paramount and he has worked tirelessly to ensure that those Bermudians who have invested in a college education reap the rewards due them.

It is my pleasure to present the Hon. Derrick V. Burgess JP, MP, Minister of Labour, Home Affairs and Public Safety.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I end where I began. Our world, our community and our Government is every changing. We are living in times that require dynamic leadership, focused vision and a dedication to getting the job done. The individuals you see before you today will be steadfast in doing just that. They are loyal, unwavering servants of the people of Bermuda.

And so once again it gives me great pleasure to introduce the new and not so new Cabinet team members:

The Hon. Neletha Butterfield, JP, MP; Minister of Education and Development

The Hon. Randolph Horton, JP, MP; Minister of the Environment

And the Hon. Derrick Burgess, JP, MP; Minister of Labour, Home Affairs and Public Safety.

Thank you.

If I were UBP MP Jamahl Simmons, and I felt that I was unable to get work because I was an active politician and/or a member of the Opposition, I wouldn't be too pleased if the hapless former PLP Cabinet Minister Ashfield De Vent - who could barely read his own court reports on VSB Evening News, and performed horribly in his portfolio of Works, Engineering and Housing - joined me in my complaint...even if he predictably chalks it up to race not party affiliation.

Thanks for nothing buddy.

The lunatics really are running the asylum.

What a debacle unfolded in Parliament this evening. After a long day in Parliament, and after the final item on the order paper was discussed, Deputy Premier Dr. Brown rose and blindsided everyone.

Deputy Dawg advised the House that the resolution on Parliamentary salaries, passed on a partisan vote in the House and debated but not voted on after much controversy in the Senate, had to be thrown out.

Why? Because all along the PLP had intended to implement the raises in two tranches, and the resolution didn't reflect the intent of the House as it only allowed for immediate implementation. He also went on to rather disingenously muse that if the house rejected this new resolution the old one would stand and MPs would be paid in one installment, against the PLP's wishes.

The ineptitude and rewriting of weeks old history is simply astounding.

Tragically we were told, the resolution which was passed weeks ago, and which they went to great lengths to ensure didn't get voted on in the Senate, had to be discarded and replaced with a new resolution outlining the 50% this year, 50% next year phase in.

First problem: the PLP had sat mum all day never advising the UBP that they were going to do this, only giving them the new resolution seconds before Dr. Brown rose. (Bear in mind that the least amount of respect the House and the Opposition are traditionally afforded is two weeks before taking up a motion. In this case they didn't even get two minutes.)

Second problem: Dr. Brown didn't ask for any rules to be suspended in order to revisit a motion previously discussed in the session, although the Speaker pretended he had.

Third problem: the resolution had been thrown together in such a ham-fisted manner that the Senators, who already were only getting a 3% raise versus Cabinet's massive ones, are now getting their 3% cut in half over two years...1.5% this year! Talk about insulting.

Tellingly, this was another issue which the PLP didn't want to say a thing on, Cabinet Minister Michael Scott stood up to speak, was recognized by the Speaker and abruptly sat down, presumably after being told to zip it.

So Dr. Brown said his piece, the Speaker helped him out, and the PLP sat silently, while the UBP's speakers (Gordon-Pamplin, Barritt, Furbert, Dodwell, Dunkley) lambasted the latest example of what UBP Senator described Wednesday as a 'pre-dawn caper' minus the getaway car.

The resolution ended up passing, after the Speaker creatively ruled that it was a substantative motion and could be revisited, and ignored Trevor Moniz's very valid point that the Government has taken the position that the legislation they were using to pass the resolution was unconstitutional. It would seem that the UBP walked out after calling for names in the vote and then calling for a quorum.

The vote passed 13-0 after the Speaker rejected Michael Dunkley's call for a quorum.

What a debacle. It's a good thing this bunch of money-grabbing misfits aren't running the country.

Oh yeah. They are!

I'll defer to one of my readers who wrote in response to Government invoking the Constitution to ensure it got paid:

"So it's confirmed....this government will work its ass off to get paid but does SFA when it comes to actually doing what they're getting paid for."

Yep.

Another example of 'black' and 'Bermudian' being used interchangably. This time by Mid Ocean News columnist Alvin Williams in this Bermuda Sun story. In describing the attack he switches from using the phrase 'young, black working class' to 'Bermudians':

Newspaper columnist Alvin Williams is a black Bermudian whose mother's second husband was Portuguese. She went on to have three children, two surviving, half black, half Portuguese. He sees the issue from both sides.

Last week's incident, he says was an aberration. "It had to do with the soccer thing and the display of Portuguese nationalism and in the background of that was the feeling among the young, black working class that they're being displaced."

Mr. Williams, who supports independence, said: "Bermudians do not have a sense of this country belonging to them and they feel insecure about it."

We seem to be forgetting in all of this that the victim was Bermudian.

Interesting.

All the animosity and bad PR that the PLP generated by attempting to circumvent the Senate in their desperate bid to ensure they got their raises was unnecessary.

Independent Senator Bassett just indicated that she would have happily voted in favour of the raises.

I'm sure there's a few people kicking themselves right about now.

Ok. So the PLP wins, with a minor concession.

After missing the ruling this morning by the Senate President, but catching it on VSB radio news (terrible Senate audio) it appears that the ruling is that the Senate can debate the raises but not rule on them.

In one minor concession by the Government they have apparently indicated that the increases will be phased in in two stages.

The Senate President is to deliver his opinion on the Senate's jurisdiction over the parliamentary pay raise resolution this morning.

Tune in on AM 1230 if you're interested.

I had an unexpected short trip off the island early this week and am playing a bit of catch up.

I just posted John Barritt's View from the Hill and would suggest that while the whole thing makes for good (or depressing) reading, the final section contains an excellent summation of the problems Larry Mussenden faces in his attempt to circumvent the Senate for the Parliamentary pay raises.

John expands on the hasty opinion that I'd been given and fleshes out the procedural and legal reasons why the Government faces an uphill battle.

I'd encourage you to read the whole thing, but here's a tidbit:

The records show that the PLP have followed the practice each year since they have been in power and sought and obtained the approval of the Senate – after the increases were first approved by the House. The Senate did not initiate this process. It was brought to the Senate by the Government pursuant to validly enacted legislation – and it came as a resolution and not as a motion and not as a bill.

Incidentally, the Bermuda Constitution Order sets out quite clearly what constitutes a “money bill” as well as the restrictions that apply when the Senate considers a money bill which is “sent from the House of Assembly”.

Just quickly, I had a chat with a lawyer friend who having an admittedly very brief glance at Section 36 of the constitution suggested that the Government's problem in circumventing the Senate may lie with the introduction to Section 36:

36 (1) The Senate shall not—

(a) proceed upon any money bill, other than a money bill sent from the House of Assembly, or upon any amendment to a money bill;

The problem? The phrase 'other than a money bill sent from the House of Assembly'.

The Parliamentary Salary Resolution was 'sent from the House of Assembly'.

The BIU, at a press conference, has come out in support of the Parliamentary pay increases claiming that Premier Alex Scott deserves it as our "leader and commander-in-chief".

Very nice. But of course, they have a vested interest in creating an upward death spiral of increasing compensation.

The Parliamentary Salary increase saga gets even more bizarre, with the news that the BIU is holding a press conference on the matter.

I wonder where they'll fall with all their MP/BIU conflict of interests: Derrick Burgess and George Scott (union organiser) to be precise.

Let's just point out Larry Mussenden's all-encompassing role(s) in this Parliamentary Salary saga:

- as Attorney General he personally stands to receive a $35,000 raise if the increases go through
- he was prepared to vote on his own increase in the Senate, until defeat loomed
- he's now acting as his own (and the Government's lawyer) in attempting to circumvent the Senate with the nuclear option so that he can raise his own salary without the approval of the Senate, ignoring past precedent and practice according to the UBP's John Barritt in today's Royal Gazette.

Can someone say conflict of interest? Oh I forgot, that term has no place in the New Bermuda.

Following up on my last post with respects to the challenge being made to the Senate's authority to vote on the Parliamentary Salary increases, here's the Bermuda Consitution Act (may not be the absolute latest) and here's the MINISTERS AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE
(SALARIES AND PENSIONS) ACT 1975.

The area of the constitution that is about to be tested must be Section 36, which addresses the Senate's ability to proceed upon certain financial measures:

Restrictions with regard to certain financial measures

36 (1) The Senate shall not—

(a) proceed upon any money bill, other than a money bill
sent from the House of Assembly, or upon any amendment
to a money bill;

(b) proceed upon any other bill, other than a bill sent as
aforesaid, that, in the opinion of the person presiding,
makes provision for any of the following purposes —

(i) the imposition, repeal or alteration of taxation;
(ii) the imposition, repeal or alteration of any charge upon the Consolidated Fund or any other public fund of Bermuda;
(iii) the payment, issue or withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund or any other public fund of Bermuda of any moneys not charged thereon or
any alteration in the amount of such payment, issue or withdrawal; or
(iv) the composition or remission of any debt due to the Government;

(c) proceed upon any amendment to a bill other than a money bill that, in the opinion of the person presiding, is an amendment that makes provision for any of the purposes specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection or an amendment to any provision for any of those purposes
contained in the bill; or

(d) proceed upon any motion (including any amendment to
a motion) the effect of which, in the opinion of the person
presiding, would be to make provision for any of
those purposes.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall be construed as preventing the Senate from returning any bill to the House of Assembly with a message recommending any amendment to the bill that the Senate may consider desirable.

Any lawyers out there? I'm aware that the constitution overules legislation, but I'd be interested in interpretations of this.

And what about precedent?

I called it a "shallow money grab", Shadow Finance Minister Patricia Gordon Pamplin called it a "smash and grab" and John Barritt describes yesterday's developments as a Senate 'end run'. We're all right.

Any doubts that the PLP intend to get paid come hell or high water should be put to rest after the move by the Attorney General on Tuesday, further pre-empting -- and potentially killing -- the Senate's authority to vote on Parliamentary Salaries per the 1975 Act.

What did the Attorney General (and PLP Senate Leader do)? He advised the Senate President that under the Constitution the Senate could not prevent the implementation of Parliamentary salary increases as they are prohibited from voting on items that impact the Consolidated Fund.

This argument has pretty broad implications one would think, although I'm no lawyer or Constitutional expert. Just about any time Government does anything they impact the Consolidated Fund, which means if this move succeeds, the Senate could be rendered irrelevant.

Today's Royal Gazette has an article, and Bryan Darby on VSB actually did a useful interview with Senate President Alf Oughton last night; Senator Oughton seemed unamused but wisely deferred pending legal advice.

Hopefully someone can get hold of the letter which the Attorney General wrote, so that we can understand exactly the argument that they're making.

It's very interesting that Government has invoked the nuclear option of challenging the Senate so directly, unprepared to run the risk of losing the vote (which appears virtually certain based on the PLP's actions).

Could it be that waiting a year would postpone some plans for a sooner rather than later election, one which the Premier isn't willing to hold if it runs the risk of having to sustain himself on a pension based on a $120,000 salary versus the proposed $200,000 one?

This is shaping up to be an important battle.

Well, the Senate adjourned today without debating the Parliamentary salary increases for the second consecutive week.

Maybe the Bermuda Sun is correct; the pay increases may not happen at all now...

Dammit. I had to stop listening to the Senate for a couple of minutes and it appears the vote went down.

I can't be sure, but judging by the comments from the 3 independents they were all going to vote no. So my guess is that the limousine amendment was defeated.

Can anyone confirm?

Does anyone buy PLP Senate Leader and Attorney General Larry Mussenden's claim that the deferral of Parliamentary pay increases had nothing to do with the Police and Civil Service indicating that they'd like their pound of flesh as well please?

Any rationale observor would be aware that the PLP Senators saw defeat of their distasteful little money grab and couldn't afford to risk it yesterday. It's hard to believe that the comments from the Police and the BPSU didn't give the independents something unpleasant to chew on.

Mr. Mussenden, a main beneficiary of the raises, reached admirally on VSB news last night when he stated that he wanted more time to digest comments from non-Government Senators, or as someone emailed me, time to 'educate' them on the matter.

Classic politician BS. What he really wants is time to change some minds and strategise.

Delayed a week but through regardless on a 16 (PLP) to 13 (UBP) roll call vote, the PLP today granted themselves chunky pay raises.

Talk about accountability.

My primary complaints on this are twofold:

Firstly, pay-raises should not take force until after the next general election.

Secondly, there should not be pay-raises without associated parliamentray reform including proper transcripts, openness, committees that actually function, televised sessions etc..

There's a lot more wrong with the raises that were enacted, but it's a done deal after a lengthy debate.

Renee Webb still doesn't get it:

Ms Webb also hit back yesterday at MPs who have criticised her for not lobbying harder to get her bill approved. She said: "I don't think it's a matter of lobbying. "I think you either support human rights or you don't. How can you lobby a conscience vote? It's nonsense."

She said it was up to members to research the subject. "Tell them to go on the internet. Talk to their constituents. Do whatever they like but don't use the cop out that they haven't been educated."

She's been around politics long enough to know that when you bring a bill to Parliament, particularly a Private Members Bill, even more so a controversial one, it's your job to do the heavy lifting behind the scenes.

Robin Stubbs, widow of Dr. John Stubbs who moved the bill to decriminalise homosexual sex in 1994 gets it though:

“I’m appalled by the action of the MPs. I believe if my husband had been here it would not have happened like this,” she said. “He did a lot of work and lobbying.”

If Ms. Webb is serious that she wants to waive the House rules to retable the bill in a few weeks, she'd better wise up and do the leg work involved in moving an unprecedented rule suspension:

Stanley Lowe, the Speaker of the House, agreed yesterday that it was possible for the House to suspend Rule 47 but that it would be highly unusual. He said: “I have never ever seen that happen. When a bill or measure has failed it hasn’t come back. They usually sit it out and wait until the next session of the House. In theory it could be done. In theory only.” He said Ms Webb would have to be sure she had the support of the House. “We can’t just arbitrarily suspend the rule,” he added.

Dale Butler, Minister for Community Affairs and the Cabinet member responsible for human rights, said his advice to Ms Webb would be to take the issue back to the Progressive Labour Party’s caucus meeting tomorrow to see if there was any support. “My guess is that they are going to say ‘leave it until October’.”

I'm not optimistic based on Ms. Webb's track record of confrontation over collaboration.

But if this is a genuine good faith effort to enact a change to the HRC she'll do what's necessary -- and expected.

Interesting development in Parliament today.

After advising both the Opposition and the media that Government would take up the Premier's resolution on Parliamentary salaries, Mr. Scott simply carried it over on the agenda -- without explanation.

One would have to believe that the show of force on the Hill today had some effect. Presumably the Premier felt that raising Parliamentary salaries moments after being pilloried as feckless underperforming cowards wouldn't sit well.

Methinks so. Particularly after I heard a number of people telling their MPs that they did not deserve a raise after last week's debacle.

Just quickly, my favourite two signs from the protest:

"Mandate my ass"

and

"I'm not gay, my girlfrend is"

Inspired.

I popped by Parliament Hill today for the Lunch for Democracy protest and was pleasantly surprised at the turnout, which was much stronger than I think anyone had expected. I couldn't hear any of the speeches, but I think most people were being respectful but vocal.

I'll comment more tonight, because there could be some good knock on effect from this, but I'm optimistic that a largely politically dormant segment of Bermuda has been awakened and that people realize that you have to mobilize support for an issue before the debate (as Hector points out today).

The crowd was a good mix, although predominantly white, which puts the lie to the idea that Bermudian whites are conservative. The truth of course is quite the opposite, that black Bermudians are far more socially/morally conservative than white Bermudians (admittedly a generalisation).

My favourite part of the protest was the people who came out to spectate from across the street.

I say we have a weekly protest! Lord knows there's no shortage of material.

On a slightly more serious note, I would say that it would be nice to see this type of outrage on issues such as education, accountability, crime and parliamentary reform for example.

Renee Webb's bill proposing the inclusion of sexual orientation under the Human Rights Code was resoundly and swiftly defeated moments ago. It appeared that no-one other than Ms Webb was willing to speak on it, although I did miss a little bit of the debate, if we can call it that.

The Bill was defeated in committee, therefore there was no formal vote in the House and therefore - no names.

Profiles in courage indeed.

Update: Nelson Bascome spoke briefly on the bill

Parliament is in session today from 10AM.

I don't have the agenda yet but when I get them I'll post them. I've also got hold of the minutes from some past sessions and will post those as well shortly.

Parliament is in tomorrow, and one of the items on the agenda is pay raises for MPs.

I hear that the UBP will probably come out against what has been proposed by the Premier's committee, and I'd agree with that.

If we cut through all the BS that's bound to be spewed tomorrow, this isn't at all about pay-raises for our legislators. It's about pension raises. That's the bottom line. Alex Scott is interested in the 66% of $200,000 that he'll bank once his time at the helm is mercifully over.

There's a few issues that I have with the current proposal, the main ones being that:

:: Whatever is proposed should not be enacted until after the next general election. MPs should not be changing their compensation during a term. They know what they signed up for and that's what they should get.

:: There should be no raises for our MPs/Senators without associated Parliamentary reform. Paying our legislators more to do things the same old way is unacceptable.

Anyway, it's sure to be a touchy take note motion, and you can tune in on the Doug DeCouto's Parliamentary audio feed.

As I was flying back to the island Friday I missed Paula Cox's racial tirade about criticism of the budget (which has received little media coverage).

One reader however saw it coming, as evidenced by an email I received on Monday the 20th Feb (pre-tirade), and a follow up on the 25th (post-tirade).

.... did you hear the Burch talk show (PLP infomercial) with Paula Cox? Near the end she kinda went right off.... from talking calmly in her all too familiar verbose way..... to almost out of nowhere going into a tirade about what people will be saying about the budget, anticipating that those from 'the other side' will complain about how long each Minister will waste talking about their own portion of the money.... (leaving no time for the opposition to ask questions of course). Very weird. Everything before that was well scripted, with people calling and thanking the Lord above for such a gift.

and the post-rant follow-up:

"If the UBP did not see that coming I certainly did..... Paula planned to go off like that...."

Download the 2006/2007 Budget Statement here.

Much like the budget itself, the pdf file is rather bloated, and takes a while to download.

Today's Budget Day.

The web stream of Parliament is available via Doug DeCouto's site at http://bermuda.lcs.mit.edu:8000/hp.m3u.

Parliament sits at 10AM.

Last week's House Minutes are now available.

This week's House Orders are here.

It looks like a long session with the Government set to take up all their bills, excluding the Human Rights Amendments, Tobacco Bill and Motor Car Bill but none of their motions

The Opposition will take up at least one of their motions, time permitting.

The web audio stream can be found here.

Parliament is in session today from 10AM until...

The live web feed is here.

Here are today's House Orders. The items to be taken up are 1,2,3 and 8 by the Government and 12 by the Opposition.

And here are the (unapproved) minutes from last week's session.

The House goes into session at 10AM this morning. You can pick up the web stream at:

http://bermuda.lcs.mit.edu:8000/hp.m3u

Today's Order Paper can be viewed here.

Here are the:

- (unapproved) House Minutes for Nov. 18, 2005.

- Orders of the Day for tomorrow's session - Nov. 25, 2005.

Here are the Minutes for the House session of Nov. 14, 2005 - The Opposition Reply to the Throne Speech and the ensuing debate.

While Government fiddles with their propaganda TV others just get things done.

So for the past couple of months I've been working with Doug DeCouto on putting the AM broadcast of Parliament online, and he's pulled it together.

The idea is to archive each session and tie it to the House Minutes and Agenda which I've been posting for the past year or so (when I can get hold of it).

The feed is can be found at http://bermuda.lcs.mit.edu/hp and begins at around 10AM.

Last week was a test run that a few people had access to, and it worked well. So let me know if you have any problems, but it worked like a charm last week.

From the just in time file, here's the Order Paper for tomorrow's House session, Nov. 18 2005.

I'm not sure what will be taken up but if I find out I'll let you know.

From the better late than never file, the United Bermuda Party's full 2005 Throne Speech Reply is available here in my document archive, or at the party's website.

Parliament sits today for the Opposition's Reply to the Throne Speech and the beginning of the debate.

The House will convene at 10AM and the broadcast will be on AM1230.

I'll post the reply once I've got it.

I'm still trying to carve out some time to put together some thoughts on the 2005 Throne Speech, but it isn't going to happen tonight (due to my single parent status for the duration of the weekend).

I would say though, that if you played the Throne Speech Drinking Game you would have probably been in pretty bad shape.

The 2005 Speech from the Throne is available here.

I'll have more comprehensive comments tonight but my first impression listening on the radio was that this was a big miss. Scott needed to come out big, and this isn't it.

There are a few interesting bits which will be overshadowed by the desperate attempt at the opening of the speech to portray the BIC report as relevant and useful and things like a Government TV station.

Somehow I doubt that this will be along the lines of CSPAN; rather it will be nothing more than a direct feed from the spin doctors at the Department of Communication.

Equating a Government TV station with Public Access to Information is astounding.

Anyway, more to come later this evening...

In case you're interested, the Government are having another go at GPS today, in a special session at 2PM.

AM 1230 will have the muffled broadcast.

Parliament is currently debating UBP leader Grant Gibbons' take note motion on anti-corruption legislation from other jurisdictions with a view to putting it into place in Bermuda.

Dr. Gibbons is introducing his motion and kicking off the debate.

Tune in on AM 1230.

Parliament is currently (resuming at 2PM after lunch) debating the UBP's Economic Empowerment Act 2004.

So far David Dodwell, who introduced the motion, has spoken with UBP Leader Grant Gibbons to continue his presentation after lunch.

From the sounds of it there's been quite a lot of heckling from the Government benches. But they're yet to have someone speak on it.

The tone of the debate, whether constructive or divisive, will depend on how the Government decide to respond. Dodwell approached it from a collaborative perspective, but it'll only take one person to drag it down from a productive discussion on economic fairness and race relations into the predictable political opportunism.

Let's hope that doesn't happen.

I went up to the House this morning to catch what the Speaker ruled with regards to the motion blocking and subsequent walkout of last week.

As a couple of school groups filled the gallery I missed the first bit of the ruling, but it appeared that the Speaker conceded that the motion was in order and that he erred in his ruling.

However he did engage in a little theatrics, trying to re-establish his authority with raised voice and podium thumping, while demanding an apology from UBP MP John Barritt.

Mr. Barritt, whose apparent sin was mentioning the Minister by name in the motion, said that he regretted naming the Minister but that it was only to be clear on who the motion referenced. He was then prevented from continuing his statement by the Speaker, who leaped up to hastily proclaim that the "apology was accepted...humbly".

I'm not sure he got the apology he wanted, but clearly Mr. Lowe wanted to put this behind him, accepting the closest thing he was going to get to silence Mr. Barritt.

In the last several days, I've been accosted, by people both known and unknown to me, with opinions on the PLP's blocking of the UBP's censure motion and the UBP's subsequent walking out of Parliament.

What have I learned?

1) If you thought that Bermudians don't pay attention to what goes on in Parliament, then you're wrong.
2) That the public have long memories.

This little skirmish on Friday seems to have captivated the public, probably for a number of reasons.

At some level, discussion of Parliamentary procedure is dull, and not a particularly sexy story. But because the UBP's action was seen as out of character - for them (more on that later) - people have taken notice.

The PLP and the Speaker's attempt to rewrite Parliamentary procedure, make up rules on the fly, and eliminate dissent will have far reaching reverberations, and could very well be the pivotal moment where the PLP over-reached, triggering a public backlash.

Watching this shake-out over the past few days has been interesting. As I mentioned earlier, the public have long memories which is why the UBP's unprecedented action ... for them, has brought attention to this issue.

I was surprised by how many people contacted me to recount one evidently notorious incident in the 90s. Memories of PLP Derrick Burgess walking out on Speaker of the House Earnest DeCouto, slamming the door on his way, are fresh. Apparently the Speaker sent the Sergeant at Arms after Mr. Burgess but he'd already departed.

So when you hear the Premier making these sort of statements, take out the salt:

"“The way they acted was absolutely disgraceful and totally inappropriate for Her Majesty’s Opposition,” he said.

"“They demonstrated a terrible lack of respect for the Speaker and in so doing, broke one of the most crucial facets of traditional parliamentary conduct. I cannot imagine what the uproar would be if I or any member of the Government had behaved in a similar fashion and the Opposition has got to be held to exactly the same standards of behaviour. You just cannot have politicians conducting affairs like that otherwise all you would get is complete anarchy. It was a very dark day for the House and our parliamentary system.”"

For those of us who have fond memories of the PLP as Opposition, we're familiar with their scorched earth tactics - oppose everything was the MO - and to a certain extend they are dealing with the impact of that strategy as a Government.

Which brings me to my next point.

The fact that Mr. Barritt stood his ground, and the UBP walked out, has captured the public's imagination for one simple reason: The UBP, both as Government and Opposition, have been and continue to be very deferential to authority and respect for procedure and process. Dr. Gibbons has already acknowledged the reluctance with which they took the step they did (although it was not an apology), something the PLP would never have done:

"In response, Opposition leader Grant Gibbons admitted his party’s actions had cast the parliamentary system in a very poor light.

"But he insisted nonetheless that the UBP had been forced into drastic action by the agenda of Government, who were attempting to prevent the Opposition from doing its job by cynically blocking an attempt to censure a Minister who 188 Pembroke residents say has broken a promise."

One of the things that this deference has resulted in is a perception that the UBP aren't fighters, and will allow themselves to be walked over by the PLP - who ironically engaged in scorched earth tactics during their 30 years of Opposition.

So by Barritt and the UBP taking the fight to the Government and their puppet Speaker, they have signaled that they aren't going to lay down.

The results of that fighting spirit were evident over the weekend, with the Prospect residents coming to the wicket on the radio talk shows and in print.

I'm sure this was very heart-warming for the UBP, and distressing for the PLP. This is an important moment for the UBP, it confirms that when the public knows that the UBP have got their backs, and will stick their necks out as Barritt and his 13 colleagues did on Friday, they'll have yours.

There are also of course those who are critical of the UBP's actions and apologists for a Government who feel they can silence the elected representatives of 49% of the population.

Some have questioned whether the walk-out was grandstanding, others have claimed it was 'un-Parliamentary' and some just seem to think the UBP should have sat back and allowed the rules to be rewritten with a smile on their faces.

I think this misses a critical issue though. The UBP had no choice but to walk out and not participate in the 'vote' that Speaker Stanley Lowe was orchestrating, let's call if Stanley's Choice.

If the UBP had gone along with this they'd have been negligent, and stupid.

Had that vote proceeded, it would have set a precedent whereby the Government would have veto power over any future UBP motion. That would have been monumentally stupid.

By walking out they stopped that in its tracks and have put the onus on the Speaker and the Government to produce the rule which allows them to block legitimate Opposition motions.

There was no choice here. The UBP acted in the only way they could have.

I received an email this weekend from former Independent MP and Bermuda Sun columnist Stuart Hayward, with regards to Friday's events in Parliament where the PLP Government moved to prevent the UBP tabling their motion.

VSB radio news this morning had the content of a call from Mr. Hayward on Shirley Dill's radio show this weekend, in which he stated almost verbatim the exact same defense of the PLP and Speaker, and criticism of the UBP, so I feel it appropriate to post the relevant excerpt (unedited) from his email for discussion:

"When a motion is moved, any member can object - no reason is required and no debate on the objection is permitted- and if that objection is upheld by a majority, the motion is not allowed. It's that simple. MP Barritt put forward a motion to which an other member objected."

I don't think Mr. Hayward could be more wrong.

As my friend Khalid Wasi pointed out on Shirley's show, Mr. Hayward's interpretation of procedure would suggest that there is no point in having debate at all. When the Opposition wanted to table a motion the Government can just end it there and then.

That's not how Westminster systems work. Opposition parties have significant scope to operate within Parliament.

Westminster Parliaments work off of a system of rules and precedents, ones the Speaker is admittedly free to disregard if he wants - as occurred on Friday - but that rarely if ever happens.

Mr. Lowe was unable to support his call for a vote with any specific rule, and was completely out of order. He and the PLP have, not the UBP, brought Parliament into disrepute.

The UBP were more than justified in walking out. There was no reason to validate the sham that was about to be perpetrated. They chose the right course of action, as extreme as it was.

Substantial precedent exists, both here and abroad, for oppositions to table 'censure' motions, or others. In Bermuda alone we've had two in the past decade: One by the PLP against then Premier David Saul, and another by UBP MP David Dodwell against Tourism Minister David Allen, who revealed confidential business information of Mr. Dodwell's hotel (if I recall).

In this case it's even more unusual because the Speaker previously approved Mr. Barritt's motion, but during the session changed his story to say that just because he had approved the form of the motion in advance didn't mean that he had to accept it.

I won't even attempt to decifer that one.

Mr. Hayward also suggests that no reason is needed for an objection, and no discussion required, which if it were true, would be very worrying. But I can find nothing to support this interpretation.

In fact, what I have been able to find, in the Parliametary Bible Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice and Procedure says quite the opposite.

Erskine May confirmed my understanding, which is that a member can indeed object to a motion, but on narrow grounds including that the motion has financial implications (for an Opposition); that it anticipates a motion yet to be debated; or that it is mocking in nature for example. But those are objections that have to be substantiated.

The idea that any member can just object to any motion without cause, and a majority can uphold this without debate, flies in the face of the whole Westminster system.

Mr. Hayward concludes by saying that when you're the Government you call the shots, which is true to an extent. But the Speaker isn't part of the Government, he commits to act independently, ceasing to be partisan.

And the issue here is as much about the Speaker as it is about the Premier and the PLP Whip's objections.

If anyone has any further insight, or can provide an example of the rule or procedure that allows the Government to block a Oppositions motion, I'd be very interested.

Be sure to catch the news this evening for the recap of the rumble, or outright war that erupted in Parliament today.

The UBP attempted to table a censure motion against Ashfield DeVent - for not following through on his promise to consult with the Alexandra Rd. residents - much to the displeasure of the PLP.

No big surprise there.

But what was surprising was that the Speaker, never a shining example of objectivity and even-handedness, proceeded to invoke a rule - of which he couldn't name, and frankly doesn't exist - to disallow this.

At which point Barritt, Moniz et al went, well...justifiably ballistic, and subsequently walked out.

You'll recall that Trevor Moniz and the Speaker had a little skirmish last week, and John Barritt has had some long running issues with the manner the House is being conducted.

Anyway, that's the short version. I didn't catch the UBP's subsequent press conference, but I'm sure this will dominate the news this evening.

Oh, and the PLP tabled a motion to give themselves pay raises, in light of their stellar performance of course.

Here's the House Orders for tomorrow's session. I don't have any insight into what will and won't be get taken up, and in what order.

AM 1230 is the location if you want to listen in.

Tomorrow's House Orders can be found here.

I understand that Government plan to rearrange the agenda somewhat and take up the following items, in this order:

3. Consideration of draft Notice entitled “Mental Health (Designation of Hospital) Notice, 2005” [Minister of Health & Family Services] 6/5/05

1. Second Reading:
“The Criminal Code Amendment Act 2005”
[Minister of Labour, Home Affairs & Public Safety] 9/3/05

10. Motion to be moved by Mr. T.G. Moniz, notice of which was given on 18th February, 2005:- “That this Honourable House take note of the Report entitled “The Justice System Review: Guidelines for Improving Bermuda’s Justice System.”

The debate on the Auditor's BHC report is in progress in Parliament, and the strategy seems to be to say nothing, other than Points of Order and Information, and let the Opposition have their say and get this whole ugly mess behind them.

Which is understandable.

This makes me think that after the speech last night, the roll-out of the crime initiatives, the imminent Social Agenda mailing, and the moving up of the BHC motion to the first item of this Parliamentary sitting, that the Premier and his Government want to try and make a fresh start, putting their high profile scandals and failures behind them.

It's not a bad strategy.

The problem? It's probably too late. The public seem pretty convinced that the PLP are arrogant self-dealers who've presided over unprecedented corruption while failing to execute on critical portfolios. That image may be too entrenched.

We'll have to see if they get any bounce over the coming months.

Parliament resumed this morning after a several month break. I haven't seen the agenda yet but VSB radio was speculating that the Premier will move his long-awaited take note motion on the Auditor's Report on the BHC.

As the House has been down for awhile, there were a number of Ministerial Statements and we're currently in Congratulations and Obits, which could run through until lunch.

Parliament's back in today to conclude the Budget debate. I'll be waiting for the Motion to Adjourn which will be more informative - can you say Trimingham's/HSBC.

Unless of course you enjoy listening to Ministers read long 'briefs' written by their civil servants.

Today's Budget Schedule is as follows:

10AM to 12PM - Head 32: Planning

12PM to 12.30PM - Head 17: Education

2PM to 6.30PM - Head 17: Education

By the way, UBP MP Pat Gordon-Pamplin, took up her motion deploring the Coco Reef lease - much to the PLP's displeasure and objections - after the budget debate concluded today (and is in progress now).

I would imagine the UBP felt they had little choice, as it's pretty clear that the PLP will shut the House down very quickly after the 2 week budget debate concludes.

Parliament facilitates Parliamentary Questions, and Motions, and Motions to Adjourn, which the UBP have been using pretty effectively and the PLP have been attempting to avoid through short sessions and long breaks.

Highlights from the budget debate so far:

- Randy Horton's Crackberry was buzzing away on his desk during his presentation, prompting a wrist slap from Deputy Speaker Jennifer Smith.

- If I have to hear the phrase 'testicular fortitude' used one more time I'm going to cut someone's off. I'll take suggestions for candidates.

Time to retire that tired phrase.

The UBP has posted the 2005 Budget Reply on their website, or you can download it from here.

Dr. Gibbons is delivering it now.

One thing I forgot to do before my Christmas break, was to post John Barritt's View From the Hill. This one touches on the final frenetic sessions of Parliament before those exhausted Parliamentarians broke to regain their strength for 2 months. Whew!

Also, when Parliament resumes in February, I'll be posting John's columns in full under a dedicated section.

John Barritt covers a few important Parliamentary events, including the Ombudsman and the BHC report, in his latest View From the Hill.

Two other items of note from this morning's statements and introduction of motions in Parliament:

- The Premier announced the formation of the Bermuda Independence Commission, although he didn't name its members but committed to doing so before years end.

- John Barritt (UBP) tabled a bill entitled the Court of Appeal Amendment Act 2004

I'll try and track that bill down as well.

Shadow Minister of Race Relations and Economic Empowerment David Dodwell (UBP) just tabled the following motion (not verbatim):

"That this House take note of the need to establish a legislative framework for economic empowerment"

He has also attached to his motion what sounded like a piece of draft legislation which will be the focus of the debate.

They would have had to opt for this approach because as an opposition party they are unable to table motions with financial implications. They seem to have resorted to a take note motion for Parliament with a sample piece of legislation of what they would do.

I'm sure they'll have a press conference or something later but I'll see if I can track down the draft legislation that they want to debate.

More later.

House Orders for Friday Dec. 10, 2004.

Today's sitting of Parliament will probably be the last one until February, when it will reopen with the Budget debate.

I hope they enjoy their hard-earned 1 1/2 month holiday after 7 grueling sessions.

During yesterday's extra Parliamentary session, the Premier finally tabled the Auditor's Special Report into the BHC.

Just a little history here, remember that Jennifer Smith requested the Auditor's investigation after Michael Dunkley (UBP) blew the lid off the BHC gravy train, the Government were successful in keeping the report out of sight before the 2003 election, it was finally made public in August after the Police investigation wrapped up, causing plenty of controversy and receiving substantial public attention.

I said all that to note that the report was public, it's contents were known, but it hadn't been tabled by the Government in Parliament, as normal procedures would require.

The UBP, through John Barritt, tried several times in this sitting - at least 3 I believe - to table the report itself, or a motion referencing the report as an Opposition, in the face of Government's refusal to do so themselves. They were prevented from doing this by the Speaker, who argued that the report had not yet been delivered to the House and as such he could not allow it to be tabled - although the Premier had released it to the press.

Over the course of a few sessions, Barritt engaged in a few (polite) arguments with the speaker in Parliament (and I imagine also behind closed doors), but received little media coverage of the Government's failure to bring forth the report.

So yesterday, after substantial assistance from the Speaker, the Premier finally tabled the report himself - which was very important for the Government.

The Premier, characteristically insincere, said that "I don't think the public wants to hear us bicker over who brings it first". Contrary to his flip dismissal, who brings it first is extremely significant, and is not a trivial issue as the Premier would have us believe.

By tabling the take note motion it means that the Premier controls the item on the agenda. As Dr. Gibbons noted in his objection to the take note motion, the Opposition had been trying - unsuccessfully, to table the same motion. For the Speaker to allow the Premier to usurp that after releasing the report publicly before presenting it to the House is shameful.

It is highly, highly unlikely that the Premier will take up that motion for debate, ever. I'd be extremely surprised if it isn't just left on the orders to die a thousand deaths.

Most significantly perhaps, it also means that MPs are precluded from speaking on the report (in Parliament) while it is on the order papers. So the UBP can't discuss it during the motion to adjourn, and can't reference it in any other debates without the Speaker shutting them down.

These events mean that it is almost certain that the Speaker and the Premier have jointly ensured that all Parliamentary discussion of the BHC affair has been buried, indefinitely.

Today's Orders for the House, which is sitting from 10AM.

More detailed than anything that comes out of Parliament, John Barritt has become the unofficial Parliamentary reporting system.

Here's his View From the Hill published this past Friday.

Unfortunately I'm going to be unable to listen to the debate between 2 PM - 3PM when the House resumes, but I did want to post a few more quick thoughts on the Ombudsman Bill beforehand:

This is a critically important piece of legislation in entrenching accountability and good governance in Bermuda. It's long overdue, from either party, but the bill as proposed today is seriously flawed.

That one line exclusion of Cabinet, Ministers and Junior Ministers from investigation by the Ombudsman, as mentioned in my last post, cannot be allowed to stand.

As Mr. Barritt pointed out, Government is hyping this legislation heavily, placed a print ad in the Royal Gazette yesterday touting the bill, posted the legislation online (and crowed about the public being allowed to follow along), and Premier Scott introduced it with his usual over-the-top insincerity as proof of the PLP's commitment to openness, accountability etc..

But that accountability stops at the door of the Cabinet Office, and that is appalling, and every Bermudian should be outraged (but we don't seem to get outraged, we just get steam-rolled and played for fools).

In the New Bermuda everyone is accountable but those who preach it the most, the Government. To them it is just a slogan and a positioning statement. They play around the fringes but go to great, but discreet lengths, to ensure that a different set of rules apply.

The exclusion of Cabinet in this legislation stands alongside the Premier's empty promise back in July/August to bring forth new legislation - in this year's Throne Speech - to update the laws regarding corruption, in the wake of the failed BHC investigation.

When push comes to shove, this Government won't act on principle and limit themselves, the true test of good governance.

John Barritt appealed to the PLP's backbench to work with him on the amendments which he will introduce. As we cannot expect Cabinet to act in this instance, it's up to the backbench to step up to the plate and join the Opposition in this.

Will they accept that responsibility?

John Barritt (UBP) is doing a masterful job of analyzing the Ombudsman Bill. If you're not listening to the debate I would encourage you to do so on AM 1230. (The house will adjourn for lunch at 12:30 and return at 2PM.)

Mr. Barritt has made it clear that he intends to offer a number of amendments to the bill. But perhaps the most important aspect which he has highlighted is one line which excludes Cabinet, Ministers and Junior Ministers, from the reach of the Ombudsman.

In the Schedule (p. 16) under 'Actions Not Subjected to Investigation' the legislation as proposed states:

"2 Any administrative action taken by the Cabinet or by a Minister or a Junior Minister."

Nice.

The debate on the Ombudsman Bill has begun and the draft bill is available from the Government portal or from Politics.bm.

Posting draft legislation online is a positive step and I applaud it but:

- why wasn't the public notified earlier so that it could be read in advance, not while the debate is in progress?
- and why isn't all draft legislation posted online, not just this piece?

Consistency is the key, but this is a baby step in the right direction.

A quick comment on tomorrow's House proceedings.

Rumour has it - ok, it's better than a rumour - I've been reliably informed that the Government are looking for Parliament to meet twice next week, Monday and Friday, so that MPs can go down very early for the Christmas holidays.

What that also means however, is that it is very likely that a bunch of new legislation will be tabled tomorrow to be crammed through as hastily as possible next week. It's not clear what the new legislation will be, but you can be sure that if it is in the least bit complex, or controversial, that the Opposition are going to be more than a bit annoyed at this.

It also isn't particularly conducive to producing quality legislation and debate on issues with bills being dropped in at the last minute, when there has been plenty of time to get this done earlier.

Normal protocol is for an item to sit on the Orders for 2 weeks before being taken up so that the Opposition has time to review and prepare for the debate.

This is typical poor planning and a lack of organization that we see from this Government when the House nears the end of a session.

We'll have to wait and see what, if anything, gets tabled tomorrow.

Here are the House Orders for Friday Dec. 03, 2004.

Maxwell Burgess, and his quick wit, receive top billing in John Barritt's View From the Hill this week.

Several new legislative items were tabled this morning by the Government.

Additionally, Shadow Works & Engineering Minister Patricia Gordon-Pamplin tabled a motion for debate, (my wording) that this House deplores the lease given to the operators of the Coco Reef Hotel (former Stonington Beach Hotel).

That won't be taken up for debate for at least two weeks.

This afternoon, shortly after the House resumes from lunch at 2PM, should see debate begin on the UBP's motion deploring the PLP's management of the Berkeley construction project.

You can listen on AM 1230 after 2:00PM.

Attached are the House Orders for Friday Nov. 26, 2004.

Finance Minister Paula Cox looks to have a busy day before her.

The first 5 (Government) items are due to be taken up as well as item 10, the UBP's motion deploring "the management practices by the Government of the Senior Secondary School construction project at Berkeley", in that order.

The last item promises to be lively.

The intensity of debate on the motion to adjourn will depend heavily on how much gas is left in the tanks after the Berkeley debate and what time it wraps up.

For the inside report on the scene in Parliament while Renee Webb lashed her former Cabinet colleagues, check out John Barritt's View From the Hill.

"There were the odd shouts of encouragement – from the Opposition benches – but generally speaking it was all very civil as Drum Major Renée twirled her backbench baton and delivered a reasoned, reasonable analysis of what she thinks Bermuda needs from its Government. It was a far cry from the far cry Ms Webb typically gave when she spoke from the frontbench.

But Ms Webb and her comments found no echo in the Government benches. The PLP and their Social Agenda had been dissed, but there was no reply. There was no criticism in return. No defence either. The silence wasn't just golden, it was deafening."

Attached are the House Orders of the Day for Friday Nov. 19, 2004.

The only real new piece of business is item 12 from the United Bermuda Party:

12. Motion to be moved by Mrs. P.J. Gordon-Pamplin, notice of which was given on 12th November, 2004:-

“That this Honourable House deplores the management practices by the Government of the Senior Secondary School construction project at Berekeley [sic].”

Normally practice is for two weeks notice before a motion is taken up after being placed on the order papers, but that debate promises to be lively and surely something the Government can't be pleased to see on the orders.

There are also the second reading of 3 pieces of legislation, two by the Finance Minister and one by the Minister of Labour Home Affairs & Public Safety):

7. Second Reading: "The Insurance Amendment Act 2004" (Minister of Finance) 12/11/04

8. Second Reading:
"The Restaurant (Temporary Customs Duty Relief) Amendment Act 2004"
(Minister of Finance) 12/11/04

9. Second Reading:
"The Anti-Terrorism (Financial and Other Measures) Act 2004"
(Minister of Labour, Home Affairs & Public Safety) 12/11/04

Coverage begins, as always, on Friday at 10:30AM on AM1230.

John Barritt's normally light-hearted but insightful "View from the Hill" last Friday was not so light-hearted.

The UBP's House Leader has dispensed with the normal pleasantries, and seems uncharacteristically more than a little annoyed with the obstructionist tactics of the Government. As John points out, tactics are one thing but running roughshod, at will and unchecked by the Speaker, over the question and answer period every week is a real problem.

The Government is using underhanded and in some cases prohibited techniques to prevent probing questioning by the Opposition. It's a shame when you see the Government hiding from the public in the House, only appearing at highly controlled press conferences, and generally acting more like monarchs than elected officials.

Tony Blair in the UK, stands every week, and answers questions verbally with plenty of flair, skill and adeptness. Our guys, helped by 10 days notice of written questions, prefer not to answer them at all verbally.

It's worth a read as Parliament has returned in full force and John has a lot to report.

Attached are the House Orders for Nov. 12, 2004, tomorrow's session of Parliament.

It's unlikely that anything other than Item 1 will be taken up - the second half of the Throne Speech debate.

The first half of the debate was interesting because the Government seems to be saving up their heavyweights for this week. That move was unusual because you figure that last week was when people would have been paying attention and that they'd want to try and undercut the reply early.

Instead, the Government seems to have taken the tactic that last week they would bury the Opposition's reply in other headlines with Ministerial Statements and announcements - which seemed to work - and then bring out the big guns this week. The UBP obviously held back some of their own, which means tomorrow promises some lively debate.

Last week saw the following speak (I think in this order):

Ashfield De Vent (PLP)
Maxwell Burgess (UBP)
Wayne Perinchief (PLP)
Louise Jackson (UBP)
Patrice Minors (PLP)
Jon Brunson (UBP)
Suzann Roberts-Holshouser (UBP)
Nelson Bascome (PLP)
Randy Horton (PLP)
Wayne Furbert (UBP)

Tomorrow expect to hear from, on the PLP side: Ewart Brown, the Premier himself, Paula Cox, Dale Butler among others. And on the UBP look for Dr. Gibbons, John Barritt, Michael Dunkley, Neville Darrell, David Dodwell and a couple more.

The House convenes at 10:30 and the debate will probably get going again around 11:30 - 12:00 after the normal housekeeping is wrapped up.

You can listen on AM 1230.

A quick note on strategy:

The PLP filled the first hour and a half of Parliament this morning with Ministerial Statements, congrats and obits, and the Premier trying to redeliver the abridged version of the Throne Speech as a pre-emptive attempt to undercut the UBP's reply.

The idea was no doubt for the PLP to try and capture the noontime radio headlines, bury the UBP's reply in other Government news and give themselves the whole lunch break to strategize on the ensuing debate. Not a bad tactic, but the Reply was excellent and there's lots of tidbits in there that the press will latch on to.

On to the content:

The UBP's Throne Speech Reply hit exactly the right tone. Dr. Gibbons came out of the gates strongly, aggressively and straight at the fraud that is the 'Social Agenda'.

Dr. Gibbons immediately went for the jugular:

"Talk about the Scott government’s new social agenda began earlier this year just as fallout from the Berkeley fiasco and the BHC police investigation thoroughly undermined what was left of Bermuda’s reputation for integrity, good government and competent management. In the wake of one government disaster after another, it was clear that the PLP had to invent something positive to talk about, even if it lacked credibility."

Ouch!

The rest of the introduction focused on how familiar promises of addressing social issues are in PLP Throne Speeches, how little has actually been achieved and how insincere this one is.

One of the best elements of the reply was the UBP using specific examples to put a human face on their complaints and Government incation:

"You don’t hear much from the people who really lost out. They tend to suffer in silence. We think of the long-serving hotel workers at Stonington Beach who lost their jobs when Coco Reef came in. The mothers and children living in unacceptable conditions while they wait for emergency housing. The seniors who don’t have enough money to see a doctor. And the Berkeley students and parents who have waited far too long for their new school."

The other tantalizing little tidbit Dr. Gibbons threw out for public consumption was this statement:

"Under these circumstances, how does the PLP government try to restore its credibility? How does the PLP government try to cover up six years of failure? How do an accidental Premier and his colleagues fight for their political survival? They try to divert attention with a “watershed” social agenda and deliver a Throne Speech that sounds suspiciously like a pre-election political platform."

The last sentence is key. This is both a cover up for failure and what looks like the beginnings of an early election campaign - more on that aspect in future posts.

The UBP then went on to do something I wish they'd do more, promote their own 30 year record of accomplishments. No doubt people will argue that the UBP doesn't deserve credit for anything positive, or didn't go far enough, but it is indisputable that they presided over some major changes in Bermuda's social landscape, and Dr. Gibbons was right to acknowledge the role of previous PLP Oppositions in advancing these issues:

• lowered the voting age and abolished the property vote following the institution of universal adult suffrage;
• desegregated public schools and created the modern, free public-school system;
• established the Bermuda College;
• introduced human-rights legislation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender, and established the Human Rights Commission and CURE;
• created the Hospital Insurance Plan (HIP) with special subsidies for seniors, children and the indigent; workmen’s compensation; social insurance; and the National Occupational Pension Scheme;
• established the Bermuda Housing Corporation and built hundreds of affordable housing units from Top Square in St. George’s to Rockaway in Southampton; and
• nurtured a strong, two-sector economy through development of tourism and international business that allowed us to pay for modern social programs.

The Reply goes on to point out how much of the PLP's Social Agenda is lifted directly from the UBP's own 2003 Election Platform:

- customs duty relief for housing
- death tax on a primary residence
- seniors health clinics
- absentee ballots
- Freedom of Information Act

It also was effective in highlighting that calls for meetings, forums, conferences or seminars etc. - policy development and information gathering - is not action it's talk and that Throne Speeches are supposed to highlight new policy initiatives not restate existing ones like:

- Tech Quest
- renovation of derelict houses
- child-abuse register
- halfway houses

There were also some notable exclusions in the Throne Speech Reply that the Opposition Leader pointed out:

- Education
- Crime and Justice
- Independence

The latter got a special line:

"We also note that the Scott government has not included independence as a policy matter in the Throne Speech. We can assume, therefore, that any efforts by the PLP government to use parliamentary time to pursue this issue would detract from the implementation of their own "social agenda." "

The UBP are looking like they'll position independence between the Government and their Social Agenda. It's unpopular and if the Government could have thought of a reason to include it as a vital part of the Social Agenda they would have. But they didn't, so if they go down that road I imagine you'll see the UBP use it against their 'social agenda' positioning.

The second half of the reply moved from criticsm of the PLP to a presentation of the UBP's plan. This was no longer a reply but more of their own agenda.

The order of issues is useful to highlight:

1) Seniors
2) Housing
3) Tourism/Economy
4) Race/Economic Empowerment
5) Good Governance/Accountability

There you have the issues that the UBP think people care about and will be pounding at towards the next election.

They also provided substantially more substance in their 'reply' than the Government did in their 'agenda', some of it new and some of it an extension of their 2003 platform.

Seniors

>> free healthcare clinics (maybe mobile)
>> free eyeglasses and drugs for those who can't pay
>> cost of living pension increases
>> healthcare and insurance reform
>> affordable assisted-living facilities
>> higher health care standards
>> age discrimination protection in the Human Rights Code
>> raising of mandatory retirement age

Conclusion: some specifics, some that would need fleshing out but more substance than the Social Agenda.

Housing

Before talking about their plan the reply characterised the PLP 'agenda' as a band-aid but no plan. It then went on to point out undelivered promises from the previous few years in housing.

>> What does 'manufactued housing' mean? Trailer parks?
>> UBP proposed building 100 units in two years as a start
>> encourage private construction with special development zones - tax and other incentives
>> relax height restrictions
>> Build at Tudor Hill
>> examine Government property for further development potential
>> create financial packages for low interest mortgages and rent-to-buy
>> modular construction for lowering building costs
>> Develop a National Housing Strategy for both short and long term solutions

Conclusions: More of a plan and awareness of what areas need tackling than the Government has offered. This is a good start for a party that does not have access to the resources of the civil service to provide more substantial information.

Tourism/Economy

>> PLP has presided over a huge decline in tourism to our economy
>> PLP are naive to pretend we don't have seasons and we should market ourselves to suit the seasons
>> funding cuts to tourism agencies flies in the face of a commitment to improve it
>> Create a Tourism Authority

Conclusions: mostly a critique but the UBP's plan can be summed up in their last line of: "The Scott government should establish a Tourism Authority, cut the red tape and get out of the way".

Race/Economic Empowerment

>> PLP talks about working together but uses racially inflammatory advertising and tactics in their political strategy
>> The PLP stopped working with the UBP for bi-partisan principles of conduct for parliamentary debate and election campaigns
>> Highlighted the UBP's less extreme 'positive way' to make progress and see race and 'front and centre' in any party's social agenda.
>> White community must play a role
>> Shadow Ministry of Race Relations and Economic Opportunity will focus on breaking down racial barriers
>> On Nov. 29, 2004, the UBP will bring Cory Booker, a Democratic social and political activist to speak on the strengths and challenges of diversity.
>> UBP will sponsor a series of meeting, workshops, forums, dinner groups to faciliate discussion around race.

Concrete solutions proposed were:

Small Business
>> simplify tax structure for small business
>> small business training
>> require a percentage of government contracts be awarded to small businesses
>> ensure government pays their bills in 30 days
>> outsource (privatise) government services to small companies
>> broke venture capital funds
Bermuda Stock Exchange could be used to improve liquidity and capital raising for small businesses

Economic Development
>> create economic development zones (North Hamilton)
>> improve home ownership with starter homes under $250,000
>> government can facilitate mortgages and rent-to-buy schemes
>> technical and skills training
>> recognised the work of the National Training Board

Conclusions: lots of ideas and substance here. The UBP understands that talk about race is only one part and that people will only believe talk is sincere when coupled with policies which affect them in a tangible way.

Good Government/Accountability

>> The Premier and his colleagues have presided over all sorts of debacles without any accountability
>> The promised post-BHC anti-corruption legislation hasn't materialized
>> Talk of 'accountability and fairness' by the PLP is just talk

UBP would propose:
>> Parliamentary Code of Conduct
>> Open committee meetings to the public
>> amend parliamentary procedures to allow oral parliamentary question asking and answering
>> open tendering in all government departments
>> restore a non-political Attorney General
>> stop taxpayer funded political broadcasts
>> implement a Whistleblower's Act

Conclusions: All good stuff here but without the Government's cooperation it will go nowhere.

Reply Conclusion

>> reiterated reply theme of 'talk is cheap' and the track record of a failure to deliver
> pointed out the talk about caring is contradicted by actions like rent hikes at the Bermuda Housing Trust, evictions at Anchorage Road
>> working together is incompatible with divisive racial campaigning

My Overall Conclusion:

This was an excellent reply, well constructed and delivered effectively by the Oppposition Leader - he was even paced, firm but not lecturey.

The UBP have a great foundation here to move forward on but must remember that one speech does not a winning campaign make. They have to take this out directly on the doorstep, in the media but mostly in the way the party conducts itself.

Every action and statement from their members and candidates must speak to the values they have espoused while continuing their relentless criticism of the Government's continued failure.

This speech suggests that the UBP will run two strongs campaigns, a positive and negative one. Now they must get some attractive candidates on board, hammer away at the government, and stay true to their message.

The UBP's Throne Speech Reply is available below. Comments to come shortly.

2004 Throne Speech Reply

Grant Gibbons will deliver the Oppositions Reply to the Throne Speech.

I expect a pretty hard hitting reply focused on the inadequacies of the Throne Speech/Social Agenda but coupled with the UBP balancing that criticism with their own vision.

Parliament will be broadcast on AM 1230 from 10:30AM. Dr. Gibbons will have to wait until after Ministerial Statements - of which there will surely be many (in a hope to minimize tonight and tomorrow's headlines for the UBP) - as well as congrats and obits.

I'd think Dr. Gibbons wouldn't get started until sometime after 11AM, maybe closer to 11:30 depending on how the Government use the time.

My overall sense after listening to the Throne Speech was that it didn't feel all that inspiring. Not much new in there and no innovative ideas to make a grand Social Agenda.

The Social Agenda is more of the same from the sounds of it, just dressed up with a sexy title.

Some quick thoughts and highlights:

Introduction

We've heard all this before in the speech the Premier delivered in the UK and the one this Monday.

Housing

>> Mobile Homes for emergency housing (short term) - no number, no idea where.
>> Renovate derelict/vacant properties and rehab existing stock.
>> Housing Information Management System to match accomodation - fancy name for a list of houses.
>> Duty relief on materials.
>> Eliminate death tax on primary residence

Conclusion: Yawn. Same old undelivered ideas dressed up as new. Nothing new here, other than the death tax elimination. How many people does this affect? Is this going to alleviate a housing crunch? I don't buy it as making a huge difference, although I support it.

Seniors

>> establish a national monitoring system for level of care and standard of care.
>> Conduct home assessments to check on level of home care.
>> Workshops and forums
>> Wellness clinics
>> Health Summit

Conclusions: Lots more talk and research. Little in the way of tangible relief. Wellness clinics sound good, was a UBP 2003 election idea (plus free eye-glasses).

Youth

>> develop a National Youth Development Strategy
>> Academic Monitoring and Child Development Mentor Project - values and mentoring
>> promote respect for law and order early with School Resource Officers expansion
>> Junior Police Cadet Programme
>> National Conference on Youth, Crime and Drug Issues
>> develop a national strategy to counter young offenders

Conclusions: we need character training for our youth yes, from this Government - No. Lots more talk, conferences and developing of strategies going on.

Community Development

>> formulation of a national policy to recognize cultural contributions.
>> Community Areas Programme - infrastrucure improvements, traffic calming, upgrading derelict buildings, plaques in historically important spots, day care. Sounds like normal Government stuff to me.
>> Community Forums - residents can discuss issues
>> Fund new community organizations - nothing new here.
>> Demerit traffic points system - oh damn, I'm in trouble here.
>> Commuter bus pilot continuation

Conclusions: more talk, development and formulation. Normal Works & Engineering stuff dressed up as new. Demerit points system is good. Mini buses - old idea.

Crime

>> Police Consultative Committees revitalized
>> Uncommon Results Programme - rehabilitation programme
>> National Drug Commision rolled into Health and Family Services

Conclusions: Not a lot of anything here.

Education & Training

>> Mature Student Further Education Award
>> National Training Board to introduce initiatives, Tech Quest, GED training, Technical Career Prep Seminar, youth development projects, probation and parole project.

Conclusions: Mature student scholarship is good, that's about it. Nothing ambitious here. GED training could be done at Adult Education, A seminar on technical careers? (UBP was to reestablish Bermuda Tech) and more existing projects for youth and inmates.

Economy

>> amendments to legislation that affects international business (huh? That goes on all the time).
>> Work with bank for small business
>> increase bed capacity - how's about they move forward on the ones from years ago yet to materialize
>> New gateways - go for it, Cubans are chomping at the bit to come here.
>> stimulate greater interaction between locals and tourists
>> Entertainment Development Fund

Conclusions: Other than the Entertainment Development Fund this is the same old ideas that haven't been accomplished yet.

Computers:

I can't believe this got a special section. Runnning out of ideas here...

>> internet access in public places
>> recycle computers programme.

Conclusions: 74% of Bermudians have computers in their homes and we're having a special line item to recycle computers?

List of old uncompleted stuff ends it.

My initital reaction:

I didn't have high hopes on this but the Premier has clearly over-promised and un-delivered -- a cardinal sin of politics! There's only a couple of decent ideas here buried in a bunch of old uncompleted ones and promises to 'develop', 'formulate', 'research'. That's not a social agenda, that's buying time.

I don't see anyone getting too inspired about this Throne Speech, particularly in light of how revolutionary we were told it would be. The Government have lots of work to do to spin this into a grand Social Agenda.

Grant Gibbons and his UBP will have a field day. Hopefully they resist the temptation to dwell on how much of a dud this was and strike the right balance between criticism and their own vision.

Download the 2005 Throne Speech.

More to come after I read it -- after just finishing listening to it.

Parliament resumes today with the Throne Speech which will be delivered shortly before 11AM I imagine.

I'll post the speech as soon as I get it.

This Social Agenda has been talked about so much that it had better knock our socks off on Friday. In fact I'm so tired of hearing it used as a response to every question for the past few months that Friday's Throne Speech can't come fast enough.

Do I expect it to dazzle us? Well, originally I'd figured it must be good because they're hyping it so much until tonight, when the Premier in an interview on the ZBM evening news said:

"Everything about this throne speech is new. Even the cover is different."

Time to start lowering expectations folks. If the best thing the Premier can say about it is that the cover is new we're in for a bumpy ride.

The Premier is on a real tear of dumb one-liners. The Throne Speech comment was about as productive as this response to a question about working with the UBP on seniors issues:

"If Ms. Jackson has anything to say, I'll take 2 aspirins and listen to her."

but not as revealing as this response to a question on Independence:

"If I’m the Premier and I become Prime Minister, you won’t be able to wipe the smile off my face."

Hmmmm? There you have it.

It must be hard to keep talking when you've got both your feet in your mouth.

When I saw this article in July 26th's Royal Gazette I immediately recalled this article from 8 days earlier.

So which one is it, or is Premier Scott just winging this, making stuff up as he goes along? And while the two stories are written by different reporters why didn't they pick up on this inconsistency and question the Premier on it?

Here are the key quotes from the first article promising an imminent deluge of legislation:

�No one complained more than I did,� the Premier said about the slow pace of legislation. �We�ll over the next 18 months get ahead of that. (Senate) will say �enough already � too much legislation�.

�We have literally now got a plan that we are committing both parliament, Government and country to. And that will stop the bottleneck which has really seen those in the Senate sitting there, twiddling their fingers waiting for stuff. They�re going to say �enough already too much legislation!�.

But 8 days later he is quoted as saying:

"This year will see a policy driven rather than a legislation driven Speech from the Throne," he said.

"This paradigm shift will allow Government to refocus the legislative process to ensure that we deliver on initiatives as set out in the Speech from the Throne within the time frame that we promised to deliver."

The only thing that might be going on here is a timing issue with the Premier saying that this next session is make-up time and then 2005 will be deluge time. But that doesn't really make sense when he says the Senate will be complaining about all the legislation over the next 18 months.

I don't get it, although I do understand why the PLP suddenly prefer policy over legislation.

The Government want to spend as little time in Parliament as possible. They've been getting hammered in Parliament by the Opposition's use of Parliamentary Questions to shed light on all sorts of things that you've been reading about over the past few months in particular. Under UBP House Leader John Barritt, the party have been relentless in submitting parliamentary questions, much to the displeasure of the Government. The PLP have done their best to avoid answering these questions verbally, preferring to give evasive written replies which don't have follow-ups. So less legislation means less Parliamentary sessions and less time subjected to this questioning.

Policy over legislation allows much more flexibility for the PLP to do what they want, without having to spell it all out in legislation. Introducing legislation means debates around that legislation, where a policy gets much less airtime and takes place on the Government's turf, not Parliament where you have to stand and justify what you are doing.

Policies can be implemented faster than legislation. Drafting takes time, and with the quality of legislation we've been seeing from the Attorney General's Chambers lately (seat belts anyone?) it has to go back several times.

The PLP have learned twice now with the GPS debacle that legislation doesn't always - although almost always - succeed. Policy isn't subjected to Senate scrutiny, where the Opposition get another opportunity to take their shots and the Independents might not fall in line.

in progress....

Paget Post Office - P. Gordon-Pamplin (UBP)
P. Gordon-Pamplin accuses PLP of removing funds promised for Paget Post Office after using the funds as a campaign promise during a Paget bye-election in 1999

BFA & PLP - M. Burgess (UBP)
M. Burgess asks whether Sen. Larry Mussenden has a conflict as the Attorney General and Member of Cabinet and President of the Bermuda Football Association in which he is taking a position counter to his Government.

Sports Hall of Fame & Cuba - W. Perenchief (PLP)
W. Perenchief laments exclusion of Clarence Hill from Sports Hall of Fame. Member then attacks L. Jackson (UBP) regarding the Cuba question about the Bermudian student, proceeding to question her loyalty to Bermuda as she holds US citizenship in addition to Bermuda.

L. Jackson (UBP) responds to Cuba story in RG
Suggests that the RG story was inaccurate and that more information will be coming shortly on this which will 'cause some tears on that side'.

D. Butler (PLP) responds to Cuba, Sports Hall of Fame, & BFA issue
Reiterates that the Cuba program has been a successa and that the Ministry of Community & Cultural Affairs did not send the Bermudian student to Cuba.
Says BFA issue over National Sports Stadium use will be resolved in due course.

E. Brown (PLP) discusses politicising or a young musician's life over Cuba.

Got to go...tune in on AM 1230.