Recently in PLP Category

Why is it that when I read about the White House party crasher fabricating a supposed assault by Whoopi Goldberg on the View, which the video incontrovertibly proves was a lie, I thought of Zane DeSilva?

Could it be because he fabricated a mob surrounding and banging on his car during the Corporation of Hamilton march?

Ah, the power of false media narratives and publicity hounds (the Salahis are the epitome of media whores - but I'm not allowed to say that. The term is racist you see. Except I just used it for a white couple. Go figure.)

I digress.

Even when something is patently untrue the press tend to immediately report the accusations as though credible - lending them credibility - rather than investigating the claim and then simply reporting that one side fabricated an incident out of thin air and proceeding to debunk it.

The story shouldn't be "Whoopi accused of attacking guest", it should be "Guest lies about assault on The View". As the Corporation of Hamilton story headline should have been "Minister fabricates story about mob attack on his car" rather than "DeSilva says angry protestors were driven by racism".

Just cuz it's in a press release doesn't mean it deserves reporting on or regurgitating.

The greatest example of the Republican/PLP strategy to level claims of rampant media bias, cowing the media into drawing false equivalencies and reporting from the back foot rather than the front, was watching the Republicans attack the New York Times for a liberal bias, all the while using them to carry their water on the bogus Iraq has weapons of mass destruction story.

On the day that the Finance Minister launches her bid for the party leadership and Premiership, there's two big time takedowns of her tenure and a very clear letter to the editor several days ago about the poor terms of the recently placed 500M bond.

Michael Fahy of the BDA is on point laying out the situation international business finds itself in, and also has been put in because of the policies of the PLP (tourism too by the way).

Peter Everson of the Chamber of Commerce delivers a devastating rebuttal to the big lie that Bermuda's debt explosion was an outcome of external economics not Government policy.

Obviously I don't have a horse in the PLP leadership race, but I do have a dog in the fight for the future growth, prosperity and stability of Bermuda. It seems self-evident to me that what Bermuda needs is a change in Government and governance, not just a shuffling of seats among the PLP.

Paula Cox's roll out seemed to be punctuated with 'more of the same' and 'status quo'. The imagery of her being literally backed by the current establishment was undeniable. The strategy appears to be to win based on natural progression and inevitability (didn't work for Hilary Clinton but I don't see either Mr. Lister or Mr. Butler being able to muster much of a challenge).

With respects to Mr. Lister, I must say that I can't really reconcile his launch with his time in Cabinet. It's been in my head all week since it was such a polite repudiation of everything his party has stood for.

This Gazette editorial does a good job of laying out the challenges and issues he faces, but despite his distancing himself from Dr. Brown over the past 12 months or so, he was a big advocate of term limits - calling then UBP leader Grant Gibbons's election denouncement of it "a wolf in sheep's clothing" - and spent substantial time in Cabinet implementing the policies which have led us here. So he does have a fair amount of culpability for the PLP's legacy of division and financial mismanagement, notwithstanding his come to Jesus moment which is what his speech can only be characterised as.

It was a good speech, a great speech actually. It just felt like he was running for leader of the UBP which doesn't compute (or seem smart for a pitch to PLP delegates). That was a textbook UBP election campaign speech. Dale Butler as well has sounded the same UBP-ish notes.

So I struggle with what he says based on what we know, and the devil is in the details around tax reviews etc., although I live in hope that what he says should happen and will happen. Perhaps his intent is to at least drag the PLP back to moderation and away from the extremism that they've inhabited in the Brown years.

Mr. Butler, a colourful if hyper-active character who does well as a good parochially driven party maverick, really doesn't strike me as Premiership material. He hasn't waded in particularly strongly yet, but we'll see what he does over the coming months.

It still seems to me that this is Paula Cox's to lose, with the party hierarchy and establishment lining up behind her - which is an endorsement of her fiscal mismanagement. But she does have an ability to get cross over support, despite her speeches which are vacuous and littered with platitudes and cliches.

What I was left with from Paula Cox's launch today is that the PLP's Parliamentary group and party membership are collectively just wrong on the issues and tone and intend on continuing on with business as usual which Bermuda just can't afford.

Leadership matters of course and can chart a new course and set a tone. I suspect all 3 campaigns will implicitly if not explicitly acknowledge that Dr. Brown has got the party too far out on the extremes of conflict and racialism.

The past 4 years have demonstrated that Premiers matter even in our non-Presidential system - as hard as Dr. Brown tried to turn it into one. But at their core I don't see the PLP as a group really yet grasping and acknowledging the fundamental character, complexity and needs of our economy. There was no recognition by Ms. Cox of reining in the spending and acknowledge that in life there is nuance and complexity.

The PLP is still very much driven by dogma and caricatures of segments of the community and outdated stereotypes and politics. At least that's how it appears from the outside looking in.

The Bermuda of 2010 should not be about sound bites and cheap button pushing about oligarchs, race and democracy, as they managed to boil the Corporation issue down to.

Reality is not so simple. The Corporations issue is not so simple. The reality for Bermuda right now is that we can't afford - financially or socially - a continuation of the policies which have have so quickly undermined one of the world's most vibrant economies from a position of sustained surpluses into exploding debt and an exodus of talent and brains - both Bermudian and non-Bermudian.

Mr. Burch has a problem with private sector employees using their corporate email addresses to sign political petitions:

"Forty six of them came from people who used their private e-mail addresses and were fine," he said. "Three of them came from persons who used their firm's e-mail. Where I come from, I think that's not normal.

"I wouldn't use the Government's e-mail system to send something personal. I think it was wrong."

...

"I'm not questioning anyone's right to their opinion," he said. "I just felt and I feel that if you use your employer's e-mail for anything personal, you have got to be wrong."

I have a question then.

How does he explain away using an explicitly apolitical civil servant from the Department of Immigration to pursue someone's employer over their political views - an act of political intimidation?

Private sector employees or employers have no obligation to remain apolitical, civil servants absolutely do.

If I were the recipients of these letters from a civil servant I'd be making a complaint to the Head of the Civil Service and the Ombudsman.

And one last point: this is the same Minister who sent out emails to people's corporate email addresses soliciting their political views on term limits.

Terry Lister today seized the initiative by declaring his candidacy for PLP leader (and Premier), with a statement that is so sensible I can't possibly imagine it being successful with the PLP delegates. By declaring early and clearly he has surely not unintentionally highlighted front-runner Paula Cox's continued lack of decisiveness.

Much like Dale Butler's early indications, his message appears tailored more for a national audience than the narrow PLP delegates who tend to occupy the extremes of Bermuda politics and political thought. We'll see how that works out but this does signal perhaps a moderating of PLP thought and a more reality based, pragmatic approach not driven by dogma.

I wish him luck. We haven't always agreed, but if he does what he says then Bermuda will be well served.

May I propose that he recruit a large group of white Bermudians to rally against his candidacy and declare their support of Paula Cox. No doubt he'd be a shoe in with the delegates at that point.

PS Mr. Lister declared on Twitter, in what must be a first for Bermuda.

What? You didn't expect the outgoing Premier to hold his own celebration of himself? A 5 day farewell party.

I suspect this won't be the only 'farewell' Ewart Brown party in Bermuda over the next several months.

The PLP should really (and probably are already intending to) capitalise on some sponsorship opportunities here. The most obvious of course is securing a title sponsor.

How's about the "Ewart Brown Farewell Gala brought to you by The Good Riddance Girl"?

PS It's not every day that there's a pronouncement that we're in the "Platinum Period" but also the early stages of turning around tourism in the same sentence, and without a hint of irony.

He ushered in a Platinum Period for Tourism, and, after the global economic crisis ravaged our tourism sector, he was the primary architect of a tourism turnaround that is just beginning.

Of course the Platinum Period was so successful that Government just waved the white flag and has resorted to selling tourism units to corporations as housing for their employees and is funding a 3 star hotel with sales of low cost housing in the same piece of land.

Pure Platinum.

Roll on October. Bermuda needs to emerge from this lost 4 years sooner rather than later.

The slow motion train wreck that is PLP Senator Marc Bean's credibility continues with him taking political apologies to the next level with the immediate political un-apology.

It's pretty painful to watch at this point.

It seems that he's struggling to decide whose support is more important, his party benefactors or the public? Clearly he sensed quickly that his forced apology had resulted in lost credibility with the public after his unequivocally damning comments about his party's 12 year failed tenure.

In the process of trying to appease everyone after saying what most people think on education, he's now done the complete opposite.

And, to add insult to injury among his PLP colleagues, he's delivering these apologies and un-apologies through The Great Satan Royal Gazette.

I suspect what Marc Bean is playing out publicly is what is going on privately in a lot of formerly PLP supporters' heads.

He tried to withdraw his comments and return to the official PLP narrative but that won't play anymore. Times have changed and the narrative no longer resonates. He knows it too, hence the hasty un-retraction.

The PLP and their supporters - and the public - are realising that after decades of the PLP saying that under them life would be better because the UBP was intentionally engaging in public policy to hold back black Bermudians, governing ain't that easy.

Improving education, narrowing economic disparities, running a sophisticated global financial services economy isn't so easy. Policies take time to implement and have an impact, and sometimes the impact isn't what you anticipated, or is less than you anticipated.

What this is all starting to do is create some cognitive dissonance. Even those in the PLP's inner circle are struggling to publicly stay on message in light of the overwhelming weight of reality setting in.

And perhaps, just perhaps, if during 12 years of the most prosperous time in Bermuda history, the PLP - a party with strong public goodwill - have lost ground on education, black empowerment, the economy and tourism, to name a few, perhaps, just perhaps, the UBP and their tenure wasn't so bad.

And perhaps, just perhaps, they weren't intentionally engaged in policies attacking the black Bermudians that the PLP promised they'd do so much better for but haven't.

And as the narrative falls apart, all sorts of opportunities for the beginning of another political alignment in Bermuda begin to take shape.

There's nothing I find more entertaining than the classic political apology, when a politician apologises for saying what they actually believe for a change. Today we were treated to a truly comical version from PLP Senator Marc Bean who last week lambasted his party for a 12 year epic fail.

"My Government, from 1998 to today, has failed," he said. "I give my Government a triple F."

...

"It's like we bought a house built on sand and instead of fixing it we've changed the curtains and we've changed the tiles," he said last week.

It gets even better though. This wasn't just the the normal insincere apology of convenience. This wasn't just the forced apology, it was public groveling, humiliation, begging for forgiveness. And how do you do that in PLP land? Well, you have to do a complete and utter reversal and parrot the well worn old faithful PLP narrative of.....

It's all the UBP's fault!

How unoriginal. 12 years later, after over a decade in power with an Opposition in disarray, the PLP's failures are the fault of the UBP?

"Upon reflection I recognise that my words may have created discomfort among the hardworking men and women in this Government who since 1998 have striven to overcome the failed education system, the economic inequity and the institutional racism that we inherited from the former Government."

If only we had a local Daily Show. They wouldn't even need to ridicule, it's just so patently absurd in the first place.

And to think one of the PLP's nasty attack ads during the election was that one of the UBP's candidates was a puppet and was having words put into his mouth.

Who's the puppet now?

After Chapter 5,364 in the Chronicles of Anger Management by David Burch, I'm thinking that the Works and Engineering Minister should order him a blowout preventer as has been recommended for Rush Limbaugh, and not one made by BP.

A friend who attended Mr. Burch's Bermudians in International Business meeting said to me afterwards that:

The thing with David Burch is that 90% of what he says he is mostly reasonable although you may disagree, but then the other 10% is so outrageously offensive and inflammatory that he shouldn't be given much responsibility.

So, from the Labour and Home Affairs Minister's radio interview on Everest DeCosta several days ago, addressing visas and marriages of convenience/prostitution, I present Exhibit A-Z of my friend's theory

'.....of course, sometimes we have to save Bermudians from themselves. You know what happens, Bermudians go to one of these countries, fall in love and bring them back to Bermuda. Then it goes wrong and I tell 'em (I think I can say this on the air) - You can't make a whore into a housewife'

Okay then.

The green paper is being debated. And the outcome is obvious. Gambling legislation through Parliament is dead. Stick a fork in it.

The outgoing Premier can continue to waste time and dollars campaigning for it, but it ain't gonna happen. Not this way.

The only path that the outgoing Premier appears to have is to take up the UBP's suggestion of a referendum and try and go around Parliament; it's clear from today's debate that there is close to zero support for gambling in the House.

Paula Cox pretty much killed it by coming out early in opposition and cited the PLP's leadership change in October as why the timing is inappropriate. There is close to no support in Cabinet or the governing party, which makes the official position of the PLP, as articulated on the PLP's website, of aggressively in favour all the more interesting:

The facts are clear and conclusive. Safe, well regulated and controlled gaming will create up to 3,000 new jobs and add up to $146 million to our economy. Gaming is demanded by tourists. In our gateway markets on the American east cost, fully 65% believe that casinos are a very or somewhat important to their tourism choices. That number jumps to 84% among travel and tourism professionals. Last night, at the Sandy's Rotary, Premier Ewart Brown made the case for safe, well regulated gaming:

That is from the official site of the PLP, yet you can count on one hand how many of their MPs have come out in favour. The party website says they are for it. Their MP's say they are overwhelmingly against it.

So which is it? Or has the PLP as a party handed over all party communications and policies to a Presidential style apparatus?

The country - and his own party - are looking past him. Ewart Brown is in the rear view mirror.

If it walks like a lame duck...it's a lame duck.

Six more months treading water is time Bermuda can't afford. The PLP should move him out now. These are unusual times. Ewart Brown has no mandate. He's simply on a taxpayer sponsored international farewell tour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In what can only be described as an informercial, the PLP website today posted a video of Finance Minister Paula Cox being 'interviewed' by Roger Scotton for a program called "The Expert View".

I started watching and immediately was struck by how odd and contrived the whole thing felt, particularly with the attempt to BBC-ify the segment.

So I did a bit of looking around about "The Expert View" and Mr. Scotton and can find little info on either, certainly nothing on any news show called The Expert View, which only appears to exist on the PLP website.

Mr. Scotton is a former XL Capital PR guy, whose bio on a website he appears to consult for describes his services as:

Roger is an experienced communications professional with extensive knowledge of strategic corporate communications (CEO & "C" level messaging, employee engagement, media relations and training) and its practical role in supporting business objectives and the development of an effective corporate infrastructure and culture.

And then it all made sense. Watch the interview.

This is a not so subtle piece of propaganda, PR disguised as journalism where Mr. Scotton asks all the obvious questions but never probes or challenges, rather giving Ms. Cox a platform to begin her post-budget image rehabilitation.

It's all a bit bizarre really. I suspect this will be looped on CITV, masquerading as news and an independent journalist interviewing the FInance Minister, when it's quite patently some pretty bad propaganda that you'd expect to see out of the Soviet era or China.

I wonder how much the taxpayers of Bermuda paid to produce this political advert?

Enjoy:

[UPDATE: Embedded video removed due to inability to stop video playing automatically. Click here to view.]

Emerging PLP hatchet man Marc Bean is getting some attention for using the Senate floor to call environmental group BEST a 'muppet show', and then after being called out has upped the ante with a 'pimps and prostitutes' reference.

I feel compelled to weigh in here because I seem to recall a couple of rent-a-protestors being sent over to harass my employer after I used the term 'media whore' in reference to the outgoing Premier in 2007 and his love of mugging for the camera.

I'm glad that the PLP has come around and implicitly acknowledged that I was trailblazing, and I must say I chose much more interesting language than 'pimp' or 'prostitute', which is Mr. Bean's primary offense.

His attack lacks creativity and originality. It's just crude, and lazy. Simply throwing out 'pimps and prostitutes' is really missing an opportunity to add a little creative license. He needs to get a bit more original and creative.

You see, the beauty of the term 'media whore' versus 'pimps and prostitutes' is that it says so much with two simple words. You know precisely what a media whore is as soon as you hear it (I didn't create the term but it's an all time favourite). Its beauty is its all encompassing brevity. Pimps and prostitutes doesn't have that same effect, it's low hanging fruit

These attacks are also weak on the substance on a guy like Stuart Hayward and BEST. Stuart, who I don't really know other than his public profile, is clearly committed to the cause of environmentalism - throughout his life. To try and suggest that he is some tool of the ever expanding Combined Opposition makes the pimps and prostitutes allegation more inflammatory than illuminating. Stuart has been an independent MP and an equal opportunity critic who admittedly has been applying a lot of heat to the PLP in the past few years. But he's got a lot of company in that regard.

Back to Mr. Bean. In 2007 the now Senator then candidate was previewing his flair for the overdramatic by calling the UBP 'neo-fascists' who wanted to lock everyone up when they (rightly) called for urgent action to arrest violent gang crime.

At the time I gave Mr. Bean a new award, the DIngbat of the Day, for his stupid and incendiary comments. Later that day I received an email from Mr. Bean saying that I was being disrespectful by calling him a Dingbat.

After a short exchange I decided to amend the post to "Hyberbole of the Day" as it was meant more in jest than an insult. The 'dingbat' can still be seen in the filename of the post.

So I would suggest that Mr. Bean take a look in the mirror and do a little self-assessment, ask himself what his reaction would be if someone called him a muppet or a pimp and a prostitute for expressing his political views. I suspect he'd argue that like my dingbat reference it was disrespectful and unhelpful for generating civil discourse in our country.

He'd be right.

But, judging by his release today that UBP Senate Leader Michael Dunkley is 'ignorant and arrogant' - an accusation that I might add would immediately send the PLP thought police into a frenzy if leveled by (white) Michael Dunkley against anyone in the (black) PLP - he's got a long way to go.

I'm not surprised in the least that Wayne Furbert is trying to make a move over to the PLP. I am slightly surprised that he's doing it now, particularly as about a year ago we had a conversation outside my office while he was doing coffee deliveries that went something like this:

CD: So Wayne, when are you going to join the PLP?

WF: Christian, the one thing that I'll say is that I will not cross the floor.

CD: Sure, so you'll do it when the next election is called rather than between elections. But you're still going to go switch to the PLP.

WF: As I said, I won't cross the floor.

CD: Same difference.

And across he goes.

I tend to agree with Corey Butterfield on ZBM News this evening; this diminishes whatever stature Wayne had left after his public tearjerkers, and it is more than a bit bizarre to have a former leader of a party switch over.

I'm not sure it's a big win for Dr. Brown as Corey suggested, unless of course he can get Wayne to vote for gambling, but he might struggle with that because of his churchiness. But to be honest, he's already running a pyramid scheme, so a casino is a step up.

One more PLP seat doesn't really change the math, and like Jamahl Simmons who switched and to a lesser extent Grace Bell, he'll never be brought completely in the PLP fold and will always be seen as an outsider and a disgruntled opportunist. It's difficult to see him ever having any influence or position of importance within the PLP.

He knows he can't win as an independent. So this is simply Survivor: Bermuda.

An aspiring young PLP politician wants senior PLP MPs in safe seats to step down so new blood can step in.

That is one of the dynamics that shredded the UBP.

Good luck with that.

Larry Burchall writes today something that I've been saying to people for the past few weeks:

A difficult year lies ahead. I do not believe that Bermuda, or any other country, is so well-protected that it can fritter away nine months of 2010 with a 'lame duck' Premier and a ruling party that is idling its brain and twiddling its political thumbs while waiting on the slow roll of its own constitutional calendar.

...

No one political group or one politician transcends this country. Bermuda needs a fresh start today, not a long wait until far-off October. Grow up. Change. Admit and undo the now obvious mistake and move on.

Can someone explain to me what a 'gay rights agenda' is please?

The more appropriate terms would be an equal rights agenda.

It is very interesting that the PLP is staking out the territory as the party of discrimination.

The end of Dr. Brown's authority began in earnest today with Dale Butler''s rather unconventional launch of a bid for his party's leadership today (11 uses of the word 'they', 2 uses of the word 'we' when referring to his own party), combined with Paula Cox's raised profile on crime smelling like the soft launch of her own bid. (Not to mention that the Finance Minister was the clear political beneficiary of the leaked Cabinet document revealing her objection to purchasing real estate in Hamilton).

The new year has not surprisingly signaled the beginning of the outgoing Premier's lame ducking. The practical realities of him having to offer to step down in 2010 to quell the Uighur uprising is that he has no political capital to spend, which is vital if he intends to advance an issue like casinos or negotiate any large new tourism developments without deception and more Parliamentary tricks (which failed the last time).

The only question left to answer now is if and when the 'beg me to stay' campaign begins?

One suspects that the crux of that campaign, if it happens, will be that Bermuda is facing some very difficult times ahead and Dr. Brown is the only guy up to the task.

That argument won't resonate because his legacy is all that has created these difficult times: an economy that has tanked, exacerbated by out of control spending; crime that has sky-rocketed both in frequency and severity; and tourism at all time lows.

2010 looks to be a critical year for Bermuda. Many question remains such as:

• Who will lead the PLP (and therefore Bermuda) and what is their vision
• Will the BDA be able to differentiate themselves from the UBP? So far there isn't any daylight between the two parties on philosophy or vision, just vehicle and personalities.
• Has the UBP hit rock bottom and will it be able to start rebuilding?
• Will the economy continue to contract or will it level out?
• Will any tourism developments actually break ground, or will we be tortured with more vague assurances that financing is in place and yes, it's going to happen this year, even though we said that last year, and the year before, and the year before that?

The only way the outgoing Premier can make himself relevant in 2010 is to say that he doesn't intend to step down and will look to be re-elected in October.

Otherwise, during this most critical year, everyone will look past him as the Gazette's articles this morning demonstrate. He'll be increasingly talked about in the past tense.

The contenders are stepping up early. What's missing is a vision in how to to right this ship. The first task of those looking to succeed Dr. Brown's will be to start putting some distance between themselves and the outgoing Premier -as the Cabinet leak did for Paula Cox.

Add two new members to the media conspiracy against the PLP. This time it's gone global, with New York's (liberal) Village Voice, Post, Gothamist and Cityfile gaining new member status for reporting on Mayor Bloomberg's offer of the NYPD to help Bermuda.

Over to the PLP for your daily laugh as Vexed points out:

While the media may prefer to focus on manufactured "controversies," the PLP Government will continue to focus like a laser beam on combating the crime crisis.

Like a laser beam? And the controversy is in the US not Bermuda.

The PLP like to lecture the local press about being careful what they print because news travels overseas thanks to Al Gore inventing George Bush's Internets; but of course it was they who ran out to crow about the outgoing Premier's 'friend' Mr. Bloomberg offering support for Bermuda out of his concern 'as a Bermuda resident'.

I'm sure Mr. Bloomberg and other friends of Bermuda will think twice after Minister Burch and the outgoing Premier thanked him for his offer by racing to the press to rehab some credibility on the back of the Premier's billionaire 'friend' by teeing him up for a beating in the NY press, who already love to slap him around for his Bermuda affiliation.

Next time I'm sure the phone call will end with a 'I know you want to boast that I'm your friend, but please be discreet. Our press actually are tough on us. Unlike yours."

For The Daily Show fans out there, this rather silly but entertaining segment on how Jon Stewart feels while he watches Fox News is how I feel when I pay a usually ill-advised visit to the PLP's website.

Andrew Sullivan's description of Fox News's Sean Hannity articulates precisely the disconnected from reality, extreme brand of partisanship peddled by the PLP, particularly on their website:

Above is Jon Stewart's version of watching Sean Hannity. Yes, I've tried to as well. It's like listening to Hugh Hewitt. Or reading Pravda in the old Soviet Union. But somehow watching a human being so brainwashed and engaging in conscious brain-washing makes it worse. Hannity is a pathological level of propagandist, because his entire reality, his entire mindset is programmed for ideology and partisanship. There is no world for him but politics; and no perspective within politics except conflict and warfare. He greets views that do not comport with the opportunistic ideology of the moment as threats to be extinguished, not ideas to be engaged.

It's for those reasons that when I see the PLP website say "Let's put the political games aside, focus on what unites us and work together to build a better Bermuda" I cringe.

Less than a week ago they were wrongly accusing people of being members of the new political party and defaming them:

Those who have thusfar joined Bermuda's DA are the same old vitriolic voices who have long opposed the PLP. Many of them have a long historic of being partisan, anti-PLP attack dogs desperate to regain political power.

It's a pathological level of propaganda. It isn't serving Bermuda, nor their party in the long term, well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a basic human right. Make it happen.

Earlier today the PLP website quietly deleted the whole section of their post from Thursday where they engaged in a ridiculous and factually devoid attack on a number of people and organisations, including myself.

Presumably someone with some political sense, common sense, but most importantly a legal background, advised them of the potential perils of leaving that post up there.

What remains is what they should have had the political sense to write in the first place. There was no upside to the desperate and manufactured cheap shots at people unaffiliated with the BDA.

Magnanimity would have played so much better than a post that displayed a complete lack of class and suggested they felt threatened.

Most importantly this incident encompassed so much of what is wrong with the whole political environment in Bermuda. It highlights why the debate about free speech, freedom of the press and responsible journalism, as discussed at the HRC forum the other night demands further examination.

I should also say that I was extremely disappointed that Bermuda Broadcasting appears to have been the only news entity which lacked the professional to report that statement on air in its entirety, verbatim.

The Gazette ignored it, as did VSB as far as I'm aware. The Sun ignored the offending sections and reported the appropriate part, all displaying their journalistic credentials, professionalism and common sense.

Bermuda Broadcasting ran it with no fact-checking, no consideration of the unfounded character attacks and no consideration to the individuals subjected to the character attacks.

At best it was lazy, at worst it was unprofessional. It certainly wasn't journalism.

What it was is a shining example of what I referred to a few posts ago as what happens when the press fall victim to one party's relentless attacks on the press as biased, "working the refs" in a political system. They "madly try to split the difference" in a misplaced attempt to show balance.

Balance, fairness and objectivity is not simply repeating whatever both sides say, no matter how ridiculous, no matter how disconnected from reality it is. It doesn't matter if you attribute it as a direct quote. That doesn't give you a free pass to report utter libelous nonsense or play off complete fiction as a credible argument.

As someone emailed me today they said:

Like you say, play the refs. It's not necessary to be "balanced" when one side is crazy.

It's even worse that the PLP website posts these attacks anonymously and the press reports on them. The press should quite simply ignore anything that comes from a political party without a name attached to it.

Someone has to be accountable for what they said. And no, the parallel to an anonymous letter to the editor is not applicable. This is a political party that is issuing official statements anonymously, specifically so they can attack people without recourse.

We heard so much at the forum about responsible journalism, the power they wield and the dangers of ruining reputations. In fact that was Wendell Hollis's whole angle attacking the Gazette and defending the PLP and Dr. Brown at the forum other night.

Wendell is completely silent on the absolutely libelous nonsense and character attacks that appear routinely on the PLP website, the party he currently is affiliated with and campaigned for.

I have been the target of these attacks on multiple occasions. Members of my family have been targeted by these anonymous character assassinations along the lines of last night's attack. Even worse in one instance.

Bermuda can do so much better than this.

Last night I posted the following quote:

...it is patently obvious that at this point in our history, the leading luminaries on one side of the American political spectrum are considerably less tethered to reality than those on the other side.

Swap the "American" for "Bermudian" and I present Exhibit A

Money quote:

Those who have thusfar joined Bermuda's DA are the same old vitriolic voices who have long opposed the PLP. Many of them have a long historic of being partisan, anti-PLP attack dogs desperate to regain political power. Consider the DA's facebook group members: they include longtime PLP opponents like biased former Mid-Ocean News reporter Clare O'Connor, former UBP public relations operative Alex Jones and former UBP candidate and anti-PLP bomb thrower Christian Dunleavy. Even The Royal Gazette's official facebook page has signed up to be a facebook supporter of Bermuda's DA, a party led exclusively by former UBP members.

Sadly, when I said it was a time for seriousness I did expect the nuttiness to continue but this Facebook angle is pretty desperate.

Oh, an FYI. I joined the PLP today. Really.

It was simple. How did I do that? I simply clicked "Join" on the "I am Celebrating Victory for the PLP!" Facebook page and clicked Become a Fan of the PLP on the PLP Facebook page. Which of course means then that I'm a member, which of course then means the PLP is led by an "anti-PLP bomb thrower" right? Because that's what it meant when I joined BDA's Facebook page.

The thing about Facebook, you see, is that you join a group so you can get a feed. The thing with Twitter is that you "follow" someone so you can get the updates. But they of course know that. This is just school yard stupidity.

I joined the "Department of Communication and Information" group because I wanted to get the feed on what Government is doing, obviously not because I'm a Government press officer. I follow all sorts of cycling feeds on twitter because I follow the sport, not because I'm a pro-cyclist, as much as I'd love to be but I'm about 60 pounds and a transplanted VO2 max away for that.

Is everyone on Ewart Brown's Facebook page a supporter or there for the info? Read some comments and decide for yourselves.

This. Is. So. Stupid. I can't believe I'm even wasting time on this.

I'll say this again as I did last night. I am not a member, supporter, covert operative or anything to do with the super-double-secrety-secret-great-white-conspiracy-steering-committe-aka-the-UBP-aka-the-new-Party.

I'm a member of no party, which I know is threatening to the PLP's define your opponent strategy. I'm attempting to engage in rational conversation in the midst of a shrill political environment orchestrated by the PLP.

Really. It doesn't have to be this contrived and shallow.

I posted this before, but this just reeks of the Bush Administration which famously said that they create their own reality.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

I know that's what the PLP are trying to do here, but do they really want to continue down this path.

Really?

Interesting forum tonight at the BUEI by the Human Rights Commission on the Free Press and Responsible Journalism.

Pretty high turnout, around 100 people at its peak and it went until about 8:45 with a long interaction between the panel and the audience.

Rick Richardson moderated well and prevented it deteriorating, which it looked poised to do early on. He was having none of that.

There was a lot of venting, some explanations but not much pandering which was refreshing. The hard news to come out of it was that the Human Rights Commission sought and received a legal opinion from the UN and a constitutional lawyer (as I recall) that the Premier's directive to reduce contact with the Gazette was unconstitutional and against the UN's declaration on freedom of the press.

Otherwise there was a pretty good interaction.

I must admit that the continual comparison of the Premier's war on the Royal Gazette with that of Fox News and the Obama administration in the US makes me chuckle, although Gazette editor Bill Zuill teed it up.

The more appropriate comparison would be the Bush administrations strategic fight with the New York Times, which involved screaming liberal bias while getting very compliant pro-Iraq war coverage.

The whole idea was quite simply to work the refs, which the New York Times as the paper of record is.

That's what is going on with Dr. Brown's ramping up of his adversarial approach to the Royal Gazette, our only daily and the paper of record. He's working the refs.

As I said at the end of the meeting, picking the fight with the Gazette is not a principled argument but a political tactic to play the underdog, even though he is the Premier of the Government, the most powerful institution on the island with a large PR apparatus.

Now, on the idea that the RG is the equivalent of Fox News which I wanted to address but it was late and the meeting was wrapping up.

The appropriate analogy is of course Fox News and Hott 107.5.

Fox News is strongly aligned with the Republican party, to the point of being caught circulating Republican talking points to their on-air talent. Their prime time lineup is heavy on conservative opinion and has blurred the line between news and opinion. Staged conflict between Fox News and the Democrats and other 'liberal media' energises the Republican base and increases ratings.

Hott 107.5 is owned by a PLP Cabinet Minister, run by an appointed PLP Senator, and receives substantial Government support through advertising. Their drive-time lineup is news embedded in opinion, delivered by that same Government Senator. If you want a politically biased media outlet that's it.

If that isn't enough to convince you, then consider this: Dick Cheney will only be interviewed on Fox News by their conservative hosts, while Dr. Brown's long-time exclusive interviewer was radio host Thaao Dill, his Senate appointee on, yes, you got it, Hott 107.5, the radio station owned by a PLP Cabinet Minister.

Two important and highly anticipated reports released on successive days. Yesterday was the report on young black males and today was the Bermuda First Report.

I've skimmed both but need to digest more.

My first reaction is that both support the arguments that serious commentators have been saying for some time but has been lost in all the shrill background noise (not unintentional):

• on race we won't see parity until we fix education in general and a horrendous dropout rate.
• on the economy the near term outlook is poor but doesn't have to be that way. The most important factors to ensure continued economic success and expansion is to eliminate the internal attacks on our sole economic pillar, put tourism in the hands of non-political professionals and be pro-active in the face of external threats to the financial services sector

None of these conclusions are particularly earth shattering or novel, but it is very helpful to have them presented by non-partisan groups/individuals and can hopefully allow the serious side of politics - policy making - to take precedence over the deeply un-serious campaigns of the past decade.

How quickly things can change.

I've said to a number of people that the PLP were very fortunate to have gone to the polls in December 2007, when the good times appeared to be rolling. That resulted in a shallow and un-serious campaign dominated by shrill tactics and demagoguery.

That wouldn't have played so well in December of 2008 during the economic crisis, or December 2009 with Bermuda's economy showing signs of pain.

While the UBP would almost certainly still not have won, I suspect voters would have given them a harder look; on the issues they were much, much more serious and substantive. The popular vote very well could have been closer and the UBP may have pulled another seat or two.

It's a shame that the UBP are so bad on the politics while the PLP are the complete inverse, giving complete primacy to the politics, leaving the policy as an afterthought or trying to catch up.

The optimal answer is somewhere in the middle - reality based politics grounded in achievable public policy.

Hopefully these reports can usher in an era of somber seriousness. Bermuda is indeed at a crossroads, one that we were approaching in the late 90s early 2000's but was delayed by the reinsurance boom post September 11th and Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.

It's time to face the music.

Not unexpected news that Elbow Beach's main building is closing for the next few years. Bad and unexpected news that the redevelopment will be on a much smaller scale.

Meanwhile, in a severe case of extremely bad timing, the PLP website headline reads "We're #1! Bermuda Receives Top Conde Nast Ranking" with the lead off line of:

"The Platinum Period revitalization of our tourism product is continuing to pay dividends."

This message discipline around the "Platinum Period" tag line in the face of all time low arrival numbers, hotel closures, layoffs and announcements of future announcements regarding hotel development is sheer message delusion.

If Dr. Brown, and the PLP in general, want to be taken seriously they have to drop the Platinum Period shtick and acknowledge reality. Saying that we're 'holding our own' is not reality. We are not 'holding our own'.

Continuing this delusion about tourism being in its ascendancy while it is in an accelerated decline will do serious long term damage to the PLP's credibility as well as Bermuda's long term economic prospects. Dr. Brown won't have to deal with that if he leaves office as he says he will next October, but someone will.

Who in the PLP will have the guts to tell them to drop the politics and focus on the policy. They say the first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem.

Government needs to stop trying to put a positive spin on things and peddle trumped up stats and empty promises. Build a viable economic model around tourism, and stop throwing money at vanity projects such as the Bermuda Music Festival, The Love Festival and other non-performing events.

Running tourism by press release has exhausted itself. Hard reality should have set in by now.

I'm still digesting the draft PATI bill, but find it particularly cynical that as widely commented, the legislation is proposed to be:

• going forward only
• take 2 to 3 years to implement
• under the control of the Cabinet Office

All of this dramatically undermines the integrity of the bill.

The cynic in me notes that this ensures that:

• Past behaviour can remain covered up
• 2 to 3 years ensures no messy secrets can be dug up before the next election (max 3 years before next one has to be called)
• Cabinet won't have any unwelcome surprises

Very, very cynical.

I'd also note that MPs approved pay raises for themselves effective immediately, but freedom of information has to wait until they're out of office and cannot look back.

If that doesn't show priorities nothing will. I always thought it should be the reverse; pay raises should apply to the next Parliament so you have to face the voters.

The first job of a politician they say is to get re-elected.

Why is it that when Dr. Brown loses on an issue he says the island needs to 'take an adult decision' on something, in this case gambling?

How condescending is that.

It wasn't particularly adult to try unsuccessfully to ram through a bill he knew he lacked a majority on in Parliament? That felt far from adult.

I believe that bill might have succeeded if handled properly and with respect, rather than by diktat. That move, on the heels of the secretive Uighar move, is what cost Dr. Brown what little political capital he had and now has him held captive to his backbench.

In the hands of a more credible leader who doesn't rule through brinkmanship, the cruise gambling bill may have succeeded.

He is solely to blame.

The text of the speech can be found here.

Not a lot of news in it, the most significant being the rollout of PATI, but I think mostly in line with my speculation that this is about positioning with a shaky economic and social environment.

I've been traveling, so I'm observing things somewhat from afar, but I was just told that the broadcast by the Premier this evening is a paid party broadcast.

That changes my speculation somewhat, but at this point I'll just wait and see like everyone else.

For what it's worth, and I'm usually wrong on predictions, I don't see a lot of value calling an election during the Premier's address tonight. Sure there are some tactical benefits, but the upside seems limited - a two year extension and a slightly larger majority. Both seem relatively immaterial.

If it was called it would be purely tactical, but people often confuse tactics with strategy.

Dr. Brown is more of a strategist than a tactician. I suspect Dr. Brown is going to try and prepare people and position himself for an awful lot of grim economic news over the short term, with the Bermuda First report due out any day now.

No longer can the PLP ride the crest of the economy which the UBP left them. The wave has hit the beach.

The old ideologies no longer apply, and need to be re-assessed. Real leadership changes course when needed. 1960s dogma in a changing 2009 word isn't going to cut it anymore.

I suspect Dr. Brown knows that the Bermuda he governs is in a lot worse shape than the Bermuda he inherited. That doesn't make for a good legacy for a lame duck stepping down in October 2010 (in theory).

I love polls, but enough already. It's impossible to make sense of any of this when you have the parties, the papers and others releasing polls at random intervals which are then put against other polls.

All we've got at this point is noise. (Hint to the press, a chart with trends (same pollster please) would help rather than a 2,500 word treatise).

It doesn't takes a pollster to tell you that support for the UBP is evaporating, and it doesn't carry much weight when you have a party selectively releasing details from a pollster with no history of polling in Bermuda.

A great case study in situational ethics today, wrapped up in this tortured logic from the Premier:

Premier Ewart Brown called the comments a "strange development".

"Normally, one would expect such a story to come from a certified journalist at the conference. The fact that Mr. Simons authored the story renders it at least suspect. I suggest that you get a quote from the Chinese Ambassador.

"You may recall that we hosted Chinese businessmen some weeks ago. Not one of them raised the issue or said that the Chinese government had a problem. Please note that if the Chinese Government wishes to communicate to the Bermuda Government, it should be done through the UK Government."

A couple obvious issues here:

1) One would expect a story to come from a certified journalist rather than being 'authored' by a politician?

What exactly is the role of a press secretary and Department of Communication if it isn't to 'author' stories to pass on to 'certified journalists. What Cole Simons did is what the Premier does every day when he issues a statement about his meeting with some US politician.

2) The Chinese Government should communicate through the UK Government?

Low hanging fruit here. Dr. Brown is now taking the position that the UK is responsible for external affairs, when he pretended that the Uighur issue was an immigration issue.

Dr. Brown didn't apply the same standards when he communicated with the US government, explicitly withholding material information from the UK Government.

That's situation ethics for you if you've ever seen it.

Now, let's hope though that Cole isn't naive enough to accept this statement from the Chinese Ambassador:

Madame Ying said the Chinese Government would be happy to have the Uighurs in Bermuda returned to China if they have committed no crimes...

It seems I'm not alone in my disgust with the childish propaganda and outright easily verifiable lies that continue to be peddled on the PLP's official website by their Chairman David Burt and perhaps one or two others.

PLP Member Jonathon over at Catch a Fire comments on the PLP's site, and also raises a telling example of the disinformation and manipulation that is their online presence.

Firstly his take on the PLP's site:

The official site of the Party should be treated with the dignity that a Party with as illustrious past as the PLP has, not as some crass and pathetic propaganda machine.

Secondly, he pulls back the curtain on the party's inner circle hijacking the Progressive Minds site during the election, posting under the guise of the youth wing

I cannot speak for other former members of the Youth Wing but I myself grew disgusted with the abuse of that site in the run up to the election where for all intensive purposes the site was hijacked by elements other than the Youth Wing and far from being the site for active critical discussion it became just one more tool in a cynical and classless election campaign. As far as I am concerned it ceased being the blog of the Progressive Minds around November 2007 and while I initially hoped that the post-election blog would revert back to PM control for various reasons this has not occurred.

A few days ago PLP Chairman David Burt, the guy who refuses to take accountability for his own words on the PLP site by hiding behind a pseudonym, dug up an over the top rant from an internet forum and tried his best to tie it to the UBP.

He really has a low estimate of the intelligence of his audience.

We saw this during the election as well. The PLP, the party who ran an outrageously race baiting campaign with Puppet TV ads, claims that the UBP leader wanted to hang and flog blacks and 'was out to get you' attempted to conflate anything said anywhere against the PLP as from the UBP.

Remember the internet cartoons that they tried to pin on the UBP while the BIU gas station was distributing some of their own? The connection of the BIU to the PLP is real, the connection of some random guy on the net with Photoshop to the UBP is non-existent. And he knows it. But that won't stop him.

It's all just show business.

What a sad, shallow and desperate strategy from a morally bankrupt individual and party. Their reliance on these tactics suggests that they don't think they have much positive or substantive to offer. Surely they can make a better case than this fabricated one they continue to peddle?

We now have him demanding that UBP leader Kim Swan denounce the words of someone anonymous he doesn't know and couldn't know, as if they have anything to do with his party.

This from the guy who won't correct his own undeniable lie on his website - which he's been repeatedly called out for - nor will he link to those he quotes so he can re-frame their positions nor will he own his own words, preferring to post as 'PLP'.

He and his party won't even take ownership of their officially sanctioned public statements yet try and have the UBP own everyone else's, even anonymous ones on the internet?

What a farce.

Jonathon's right. The guy is crass and pathetic.

Sheesh Ms. Cox. All this talk about the ethical way to go about these things, and ambition, but so little decisiveness.

Someone told me some time ago that "Paula Cox is propping up Dr. Brown by being his number two. She's enabling him."

I think that's true. Paula Cox sitting as Deputy Premier is providing people with a sort of safety valve which is making them quite tolerant of Dr. Brown's antics and exploits.

If Paula Cox were to withdraw from his Cabinet then he would be immediately destabilised. But I get the sense that party loyalty is tugging on the heart strings.

I don't dispute Paula Cox's popularity although she doesn't do much for me; Captain Cliche as someone described her to me the other day. But she'd certainly be an upgrade as Premier.

Suffice it to say that I have a reliably terrible record of predicting results of these kinds of event - I thought Alex Scott would hold on (the choice was between benign incompetence and malicious competence) - I don't see any leadership change occurring at the PLP's annual conference.

Not with this kind of indecisiveness and passive aggression.

Frankly, Ms. Cox appears to want a coronation. That's not the way these things go down - in any political party - and most certainly not against a shrewd and ruthless political operator like Dr. Brown.

Couple that with his band of highly financially dependent and hence highly motivated taxpayer funded hangers on in the rapidly expanding executive branch and you have a group who will do whatever they can to keep him there.

There's quite a few people whose livelihoods are tied to Ewart Brown remaining as Premier. He's used the taxpayer purse to ensure he's got a highly loyal band of followers around him. They know who they are.

But now that I've made my prediction, it's bound to go the other way.

Two days ago the Premier released a pretty much by the book response (not yet posted on the Government's website but immediately posted on his party's) intended to downplay Obama's "Destination" ad which attacks John McCain and Bermuda's international businesses.

If he was being candid this is what he would have wrote:

Dear Senator Obama,

I, of all people, totally get where you're coming from. In fact I'm way ahead of you.

I know first hand how politically expedient it is to use Bermuda's financial sector and insurance exectuves as election whipping posts every few years.

And boy is it effective. You should have seen how we pushed some buttons. You don't know the half of it.

If you're anything like me (although I wish I was like you running for the real Presidency) I presume this is just shallow politicking; as soon as the campaign ends you'll quietly reverse or just drop altogether your campaign positions on this.

So I'm not that worried about your ad. Actually I dug it.

You should see how effective our anti-international business campaign gimmicks were: term limits, The Workplace Equity Act, Goodwill Plus (Sven and Johnny was a real hoot) and all those other election tricks. We never intended to follow through on any of them, or keep some in place, but they were more successful than in our wildest dreams.

These were our ultra high priority policies that contrasted us with our opponents who actually campaigned on not attacking our bread and butter business sector. Dopes.

Then, on Dec 19th, we put them in the closet until the next campaign.

Just dropped 'em. Vanished. Into thin air. Never to be spoken of again. Gone.

Oh, I guess I have to say this: "Please stop picking on Bermuda".

Anyway, back to more important matters. Can I get a ticket to the the Inaugural ball?

PS We feel about Switzerland the way you feel about Bermuda. You should look into it. They're eating our lunch. Could be another ad for you.

If anyone thinks that Barack Obama would go anywhere near the Premier of Bermuda with 6 weeks to go to an election and an anti-Bermuda ad running, you're kidding yourself.

That's political suicide.

On a more serious note (although the point that the PLP demonized our industry in the same manner Obama/Democrats do is undeniable), there is a perfect storm brewing.

You have the real likelihood of both houses of Congress and the White House going Democratic. Gridlock is better.

You also have a massive economic crisis and a US Government that is going to need to find new tax revenue.

This is the most real the 'Bermuda' election attacks has ever been.

Bob Richards is exactly right when he says that the attacks from the PLP Government against our international (and local) businesses are the primary threat facing our econmy.

It's not just the campaigning against our economic pillar but policies as well.

There is an ongoing 'silent move afoot' to Switzerland because of term limits and Government's contribution to driving up the cost of living through high taxes and uncontrolled spending.

I guess the answer is no to my suggestion that the PLP employ a 'less tone deaf, less partisan, more respectful and honest approach' on their party propaganda.

The coward(s) hiding behind the 'submitted by PLP' name at the PLP's website never cease to amuse and elevate their propaganda to new heights.

Firstly, the fact that David Burt and whoever else is propagandizing over there won't sign their name to their words is telling enough.

Secondly, their website propaganda has a lot in common with cults, the ones which refuse to provide a link to the full text of critiques (while linking to favourable commentary and at times reprinting whole 'biased Gazette' articles). The tactic is desperate, to facilitate wholesale distortion, where they pluck segments out in isolation to quote out of context and re-frame with their trademark dishonesty.

So, until Mr. Burt has the strength of character to sign his name to his propaganda (and anyone else who is doing official party PR work over there) he remains a childish coward.

But seeing as he's dispensing advice to Barack Obama in Friday's Sun, let me suggest he heed the words of his Presidential candidate of choice who recently commented on the similar lies and distortions coming from the McCain Campaign:

"These guys love to throw rocks and hide their hand," Obama said, referring to the Republicans.

The cap fits. Wear it.

Furthermore, until Mr. Burt has the integrity and courage to link in full to pieces he quotes from, so that readers can be fully informed rather than hope they swallow his propaganda out of context, he remains in the company of wacky Scientologists and extremist fringe groups.

Thirdly, my final sentences of the post that sent Mr. Burt back over the edge was as follows:

Bi-partisanship isn't just the UBP supporting the PLP's agenda. It's the PLP acknowledging that others have a point and raise legitimate issues.

To prove my point, last week they were touting me as a 'UBP blogger and former candidate' who was 'lauding a PLP program' (not quite 'lauding' but again sans link to the article in full - it helps with the dissembling) is today calling me a UBP partisan? Wasn't I partisan then too? Or does it depends on the content?

As I said, everyone who doesn't spew their party line is a partisan, but of course the ultimate partisans, the PLP (the ones who couldn't bring themselves to accept a sensible amendment to legislation in the Senate) are not.

It's all so Bush Republican. Remember them? The ones who rejected bi-partisanship until they lost the majority in 2006 and immediately called for bi-partisanship.

What a joke he is. An unapologetic hack. If David Burt wants a grown up debate about any issue I'm all for it. But for a political party to put out anonymous public statements is absurd and is evidence that even they don't want to be associated with their spin.

I refuse to directly debate immature cowards who hide behind pseudonyms, although I'll continue to highlight the dishonesty.

Intelligent debate or throwing rocks and hiding your hand? The ball's in your court Mr. Burt.

With that formality out of the way, I find it hilarious that the PLP can consider accuse anyone of 'lying', something they are indisputably doing with their rewriting of history about means tested daycare, which remains in their online history despite it being on its face, categorically, 100% untrue.

Furthermore, my post simply quoted from the PLP website (with links) to demonstrate the repeated dismissal and demagoguery of those who have warned for months - years in some cases - about the PLP's dangerous excessive spending which was contributing to Bermuda's overheating economy.

If they're lies, they're the PLP's lies. How can they not be? They're direct quotes. "True Lies" I suppose (for the Schwarzenegger fans out there.)

David Burt and the PLP are welcome to their own opinions. But they're not welcome to their own facts.

Seeing as Larry Burchall and Tom Vesey in Friday's Bermuda Sun are striking a chord I've been playing here for a long time - the PLP's adoption of the political tactics of modern US Republicanism (as distinct from conservatism) - I thought it worth reminding readers of a couple of concepts the PLP has perfected.

1) Truthiness, as coined by Stephen Colbert:

...truthiness refers to the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true. As Stephen Colbert put it, “I don’t trust books. They’re all fact, no heart.”

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

PS I'll wait patiently for Mr. Burt and his colleagues to a) start signing their names to their ad-hominen attacks at the party website and b) have the intellectual honesty and integrity to link through to those he criticises.

Intelligent critiques are not afraid to air the other sides position in full; we respect the intelligence of our readerships. Can the PLP say the same?

PLP Chairman David Burt is truly a hard act to follow with his lunatic posts over at the PLP website, today inserting himself into the UBP's Central Council meeting tonight with the following comedy routine:

Tonight, the UBP is holding a closed door meeting of party insiders to make critical decisions that could very well impact all Bermudians. These decisions will be made behind closed doors by a select group of elitist party powerbrokers. The average Bermudian who happened to support the UBP in the last election will be left out, unable to even know how the party they support comes to their decisions.

How outrageous.

"...critical decisions that could very well impact all Bermudians. These decisions will be made behind closed doors by a select group of elitist party powerbrokers."

Sort of like the annual PLP Delegates conferences? You know, the ones where Ewart Brown took out Alex Scott as party leader, after failing to take out Jennifer Smith as leader originally in 2003.

I remember the general public being invited to that meeting, the infamous internal coup that occurred days after an election. Don't you? I didn't think so.

I remain perplexed as who he thinks he's convincing with his loopy website posts. Surely he's smarter than this. Surely he wants to be seen as a serious individual, not another mindless partisan nut.

The adoption by the PLP of the UBP's means tested daycare election proposal continues to be the subject of flat out lies by the PLP.

I don't get the compulsion to rewrite history - just admit it and move on - but that is quite literally what is happening now with an update to the party's 'official' history just published online:

As usual, the language itself of the history is completely overspun, but check out the second to last bullet point of 'chief promises':

The party launched it platform on December 9, 2007. A comprehensive and expertly crafted document titled, 'Patterns of Progress', it outlined the party’s vision, plans and promises to the people for its next term of government. Some of the party's chief promises in the platform were:

...

* Free day care for means-tested Bermudian families though neighborhood based childcare providers such as churches;

...

I know they say that history is written by the victors, but that's simply factually incorrect, and they know it.

As Phil Wells pointed out in a Letter to the Editor recently, and the PLP website was forced to concede (before attacking UBP MP John Barritt for (correctly) 'misrepresenting' their misrepresented but later corrected website statement), they didn't promise 'means tested free daycare' at all.

They promised universally free daycare for Bermudians and went to the lengths of pointing out that this was a key difference between themselves and the UBP.

Not so different after all

July 10, 2008

Dear Sir,

I was intrigued to read in today's newspaper (July 10) that the PLP's free child care will only be available to Bermudian parents with a gross income not exceeding a 'maximum prescribed amount'. While restricting free child care to needy families may be an entirely sensible thing to do, it is nevertheless not what the PLP promised before last year's General Election.

On 13 December 2007, the PLP published a statement on its website which said, "The PLP will provide free DayCare for all Bermudians. That's a big difference between us and the UBP. The UBP will only provide day care for so-called 'needy' families." It seems that the PLP is not so different from the UBP, after all.

PHILLIP WELLS

St. George's

As a reader asked recently, what is it with the lying. Is it just a compulsion. Have they forgotten what the truth is?

It's no wonder the Bermuda rumour mill is running on hyper drive. No-one believes a thing the Government says anymore. And they'd be justified.

I have never been able to understand the kind of statement reported today in an interview with PLP Senator Marc Bean:

"I will be there to support Dr. Brown until his time is finished as the leader of this country and then I will support the next leader and the next leader and so forth, my loyalty to the party is undividable and not partial," he said. "I look at my deputy the same way."

What Mr. Bean just said is that no matter what an organisation does he will never, ever, speak against it and will follow in lockstep and defend it no matter what.

After that quote, anything else he has to say ceases to be interesting, because his comments are predetermined to be parotting a party line and are by admission based on nothing more than a loyalty to three letters.

I imagine Dr. Brown was aware of this when looking for a yes man and resulted in Mr. Bean receiving a) a taxpayer funded job with Mirrors and now as Caricom Advisor b) a Senate appointment and c) selected him as a prime candidate to go out and loyally defend the party leader.

The problem with this mentality is that party loyalty presumes the party is loyal to those who've elected them as well. Mr. Bean's assertion that he will always support a political party, even if it veers wildly from what it professed to stand for is a betrayal of the public trust.

He says party first, public second.

That's a recipe for disaster. Political parties and politicians need to know that they will be kept in check by their membership and the public at large.

As I said, I've never understood anyone who would give their permanent unwavering support to something or someone. You never know what they're going to do.

I could never say that my loyalty to any organisation, whether political or not, was 'undividable and not partial'. That makes you subservient to someone else's agenda.

I prefer a little critical thought, and being asked to support principles over party.

It's also a formula for exploitation and abuse, which is why it was the message of the PLP's election slogan of "All the way PLP. PLP all the way" and Dr. Brown's election defense of his actions with the phrase that "Attacks on me are attacks on the PLP".

The idea was to trigger a vote based on brand loyalty.

The recent research.bm poll which shows that support for his party has only trickled down while his own numbers are in a free fall thankfully suggests that this is not necessarily the case.

Mr. Bean's unwavering loyalty to anything associated with the letters "PLP" might not be so widely shared. It looks like the party retains some goodwill and majority support of the electorate but that Dr. Brown is becoming a liability to his party.

The idea of uncritical party loyalty certainly worked as a central component of their re-election campaign though. The question is how far can it be pushed.

Today's RG interview with the signature quote of "I'm no coward" has that whole Nixonian "I'm not a crook" feel to it.

It's pretty clear that Dr. Brown knows he has lost control of the message, because he gave his first interview in a long time to The Royal Gazette, which he's been trying to starve of both funds and content.

I received the following anonymously yesterday, and it has been posted elsewhere, but it is a very powerful piece which speaks to the disappointment, betrayal and building rage in Bermuda, all of which boiled over on Friday outside Parliament.

It's a long comment, but it is well worth reading:

Dear Sir:

“We see the essential mission of the [............] Party to be the empowerment of the broad majority of the Bermudian people. We see a New Bermuda, in which the talents of every Bermudian will be mobilized in building a humane society, in which social and economic justice is a reality, not just an ideal.
The [......] Party’s policies and programmes are meant to rekindle hope, to heal Bermuda ’s present divisions and to replace apathy and alienation with a spirit of optimism and a feeling of oneness and unity. We continue to put Bermuda first, and to put Bermudians first.”

Rumour has it that these are the noble and inspired words that form the mission statement of a certain political party. You would be forgiven for failing to recognize exactly which political party this noble “mission” should be attributed to, but apparently it is the so-called Progressive Labour Party that claims such a mission statement- a party that prides itself on forming Bermuda’s first so-called “labour government”.

Before you form any judgments about who is writing this, let me just say a few words about who I am. I am not in politics nor do I have any desire to be at this time. I have no axe to grind with any politician or political party, and although I am a son of the soil, I am not THE
infamous “Son of the Soil”. I am a young black man who has spent most of his adult life voting for the PLP. I am one of those voters who on the 9th November 1998 celebrated what I thought was the birth of a true democratic process where finally voters could express confidence in a new political party taking the reigns of power and relegate the arrogant and complacent incumbent to the Opposition. I celebrated what I thought would be the dawn of a new age, not where manna would fall from the sky, but where finally, as the mission statement above states, there would be an empowerment of the “broad majority of the Bermudian people”. As a labour government one takes this to mean, not just black people, but anyone, black, Anglo or Portuguese, who has previously been disenfranchised or marginalized in this economy. I am talking about those of us who were not able to get a good job in top local companies by virtue of being fortunate enough to have a daddy or uncle in a senior and influential position to do our bidding for us. I refer to those who were never able to make an impact in the international business world because of cultural bias, despite the fact that we were qualified and worked hard. I refer to those local ambitious entrepreneurs who always seemed to fall short of the criteria required to win a major government contract. I refer to the unions, (oh yes remember them?) who for so long pined for the day when they would actually have a labour government in power who would understand and address their needs with at least some degree of empathy.

I recognize and appreciate that the PLP has done some good things over the last ten years, but it would be an understatement to say that I have been disappointed with the extent to which this government has squandered the goodwill and momentum that it was bestowed with after the 1998 election. In fact, my disappointment has rapidly evolved into disgust over the last eighteen months as I have witnessed the exponential deterioration of the moral fiber and integrity of the government under the current leadership of Premier, Dr Ewart Brown.

Premier Brown came into power on a wave of euphoria. There were many who doubted his integrity and were wary of what they saw as an overbearing ego and naked ambition. However, there were many more who felt that as premier, in spite of, or perhaps because of his head strong disposition, and because of his talents he would rise to the occasion to achieve a level of excellence for the country. If the country did well, he would look good. There were many who saw him as Bermuda ’s version of “New Labour” where the old core principles of the party would be given a modern finish, where he could straddle from negotiating and conversing with CEOs of exempt companies to union bosses. Unfortunately, it would appear that the lure of power and prestige has had such an intoxicating effect on his leadership that you really cannot even call it “leadership”.

I'm getting a real kick out of the distress over Bermuda's political well being at the PLP's blog, where they're absolutely beside themselves that the UBP is yet to name a leader post-election.

"Why didn't they have a plan B if Dunkley lost?", "We need a functioning Opposition" is asked breathlessly.

The concern for Bermuda's constitution and the health of the Opposition is duly noted.

But really, what's the hurry, other than the lack of policy ideas for the PLP to poach and add 10% to.

What's an Opposition leader going to do before Parliament goes in at the beginning of February other than get demonised as a white racist or a white apologist? Perhaps if they got a GP car it would be worth the insults and speed up their weekly gabfests.

And we know that the current approach to any concerns raised by the Opposition, Auditor, Press etc. is to simply dismiss it all as a big racist lie anyway.

I'm sure the UBP will have someone in place when Parliament resumes, which is all that matters anyway, and that doesn't really matter all that much in the short term to be honest.

The Opposition leader is largely symbolic, other than a slightly larger paycheck they can't implement legislation, change Government policy etc..

Oppositions in Westminster systems can't do much other than speak up, and here they're just ignored or vilified anyway.

The UBP should have learned that focusing on smart policy ideas hasn't got them anywhere, so I'd suggest being so outright political over the next five years that voters won't know what hit them.

When the PLP say term limits, the UBP should say "Just deport everyone NOW".

When the PLP say Workplace Equity Act, the UBP should say "A guaranteed CEO position for everyone".

When the PLP say we'll build 550 homes, the UBP should say that they'll give everyone a free house in Tuckers Town.

When the PLP say free public transport for everyone, the UBP should say "A free car for everyone".

So relax. Things will be just fine. And so will Michael Dunkley. He's probably playing a fair amount of golf, although not nearly as much as the Premier is I imagine.

I've said before that Dr. Brown and the current Progressive Labour Party leadership is neither Progressive nor Labour.

Exhibit A that they're not labour: pushing out a civil servant and replacing him with a FOB (Friend of Brown).

The upside for the employee? He gets a Golden Handshake. The public? More like a Golden Shower.

Here's a question for the media:

Are payoffs coupled with a requirement to keep quiet legal in the public sector?

Vexed Bermoothes has a great pickup from the Ramsbotham debriefing after the riots in 1977.

The quote he pulls shows how little some attitudes have changed over the past 3 decades:

...the attitudes which it is most important to change are those of the PLP’s present leaders. They consider that, as their party draws its support from the majority community here, they have a moral right to power; and that they must have been unfairly deprived of it by a trick. They are unwilling to believe that the electorate might have rejected them for their own deficiencies or excesses.

...So they denounce the present electoral arrangements in exaggerated and misleading terms. They also, much more dangerously, tend to regard any black who joins the governing United Bermuda Party (UBP) as a traitor to his race, and, conversely, the handful of PLP whites as honorary blacks.

The extent to which they do this was readily apparent during the disturbances. These were really based on politics rather than on race...

Helps to put in context the talk of 'stealing the election' during the gag order hearing and Dr. Brown's 'the UBP have no moral authority' line from his banquet rant.

The push polling appears to have begun.

If you get polled please write down the questions.

More to come shortly.

Today, the Gazette ran an article on the influence of the internet in this election.

The PLP's chairman, who it would appear is the invisible propagandist behind the PLPs official website, takes a few rather dishonest swipes at me.

Firstly he accuses me of 'a history of racial and cultural insensitivity', and then attempts to recycle the only thing in the hundreds of thousands of words I've written they think they've been able to twist into some racial insult: A caption competition.

In hindsight, caption competitions were probably a bad idea, because Bermuda lacks a collective sense of humour and the PLP think they're a bunch of sacred cows. The one they hang their hat on is the photo of Dr. Brown and US Secretary of State Condi Rice.

The claim in the paper today was typically dishonest by saying that I "...once labelled a photo of two distinguished black people 'Brown Rice'."

Nice try. Firstly this is lazy reporting. I didn't label a photo of two random black people that way, it was two people with the names "Brown and Rice". How dishonest is that? It was a pun - word play - in the same way that the Premier was being punny with his "Brown bag lunches". But we've been through this dance before.

The same pun would have been appropriate for the UK's Gordon Brown or a politician named White. But the double standards and hypocrisy know no bounds do they.

I've used name plays often, including "Cox's Hill" with a picture of Paula Cox and Hilary Clinton. But that's another misrepresenation to follow.

And then he says that I have "...refused to delete comments on his blog that made derogatory attacks against Deputy Premier Paula Cox".

Again, bad reporting. The reporter could have easily asked me for clarification on these personal attacks, but he didn't.

Firstly, that's absolutely not true. I deleted a number of comments on the Sunday evening when I went through them, as some were more offensive than funny and others, while funny, were too easily misrepresented. I also made a comment that some of the entries were over the top and that the competitions were intended as humourous not insulting.

Secondly, I have never 'refused' to delete any comments. I've never been approached to do so. Never. Not once, have I Mr. Burt?

Nor do you seem concerned about the jokes about Hilary Clinton, which were rough. I've also run caption competitions on the Governor, Michael Dunkley (the title was also a play on name) and Prince Charles, but Mr. Burt doesn't seem to care about that. I wonder why? Because it doesn't fit into his campaign to portray any and all criticism as racial.

I'm an equal opportunity comedian.

The selective faux outrage is astounding but expected.

Now I know that we're in election time, but really, the extent of the dishonesty and misrepresentations that are coming from the PLP to any detractor, including the disgusting campaign they are waging against Stuart Hayward - someone who cannot be portrayed as a political partisan - is shameful.

If it's affirmed on December 18th it's only going to amplify it. Whatever happened to honest disagreements?

A little levity and then something a little more interesting on the PLP "poll" planted in the Gazette last Friday to try and rebut the recurring complaints from the PLP's disenchanted base (a poll brought to you by the same people who brought you a phony 80% graduation rate and trumped up tourism numbers).

A reader pointed out to me that PLP candidate Walton Brown's own 'news' website is running a follow-up story on the poll, from a statement by the PLP. A little game of I showed you mine so you show me yours - nice try will be the response I imagine.

But, check what the Bermuda Network News story is saying:

George Scott, the PLP candidate for Warwick West, has called on UBP chairman Shawn Crockwell to publish its own poll results.

Responding to the results of a poll carried out by Research Innovations, which showed the PLP trailing the UBP...

Oops. They're off message. I imagine that that little problem will be remedied shortly?

On to the interesting bit:

However, Mr Scott said: "If Mr. Crockwell has information that shows otherwise, I challenge him to release that information to the public. But, I warn him not to release a push poll - release your poll results, your methodology and the identity of your polling firm."

What is interesting to me isn't the bravado, it's the mention of a "push poll".

Firstly, push polls aren't something that you actually even bother to collect data from, because they aren't a poll; they're a negative attack conducted under the guise of a poll:

A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing masquerading as a poll. Push polls are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning [1]. The term is also sometimes used inaccurately to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants.

It's very interesting that the PLP have push polls on the brain. I sincerely hope that they aren't intending to conduct some during the campaign. They're disgusting, probably the most infamous being:

Bush's campaign strategists, including Karl Rove, devised a push poll against John McCain. South Carolina voters were asked "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". They had no interest in the actual percentages in the poll, the goal was to suggest that he had. This was particularly vicious since McCain was campaigning with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter. The sight of the little dark skinned girl made the seed planted earlier grow and John McCain lost South Carolina, effectively ending his run for the presidency.

To think that the UBP, who are held to a much higher standard than the PLP in the tone, language and manner that they behave and campaign, would dare engage in push polling is laughable. It's far too toxic, but in line with the kind of smearing that the Premier launched his campaign with.

What's so absurd about that statement is that it suggests that the PLP strategists are either trying to undermine the UBP's poll results if they were to publish them, or they don't know what a push poll is - no party is going to 'release the results of a push poll'. Firstly, you aren't interested in the responses to a push poll - you're trying to deliver a smear not measure anything, and secondly you wouldn't want to be even remotely associated with one. They'd be done by proxies.

So I'll go with the former, that they're trying to frame any UBP poll as invalid, because I'm sure that their advisors are well acquainted with push polling.

The kind of childishness by the PLP in the wake of their planted poll is precisely why the media should reject them. It's not news, it's propaganda and tactics.

A reader sent the following to me a few days ago in response to my "Double Talk? Double Standards" post.

I believe the PLP website has to be viewed against the audience it is directed at. They would always vote PLP regardless of who is the leader and equally never vote UBP, or any other party, regardless of that party’s leader. Treat the comments as an object lesson in mind control and propaganda.

The New Onion hits the nail on the head, in declaring today's word to be "Truthiness".

Watch Stephen Colbert's skit on what Truthiness is, and then apply it to Ewart Brown's speech to the PLP Banquet.

Here's what (out of character) Stephen Colbert said about "Truthiness" to The Onion (Satirical magazine) [emphasis Mine]:

Truthiness is tearing apart our country, and I don't mean the argument over who came up with the word…

It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the President because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?…

Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality.

And here's what he says on the Right Wing's claims of media bias:

What the right-wing in the United States tries to do is undermine the press. They call the press "liberal," they call the press "biased," not necessarily because it is or because they have problems with the facts of the left—or even because of the bias for the left, because it's hard not to be biased in some way, everyone is always going to enter their editorial opinion—but because a press that has validity is a press that has authority. And as soon as there's any authority to what the press says, you question the authority of the government—it's like the existence of another authority. So that's another part of truthiness.

There's another great Colbert quote - from his routine at the White House Correspondents Dinner which will have its own Bermudian version during this election campaign, which the PLP appear to want to make about 50 year old grudges and an vastly exaggerated claim of media bias:

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

In our case, it will be that "reality has a well known anti-PLP bias".

This is textbook Republican campaign stuff we're about to witness over the next 7 weeks.

Keep this concept in mind while you read Ewart Brown's speech and the news over the course of the election campaign:

Swift Boating

A reader goes down memory lane:

Interesting to read that Dr. Brown is calling Mr. Dunkley silly names ... Humpty Dunkley.

Shortly before the re-Invasion of Iraq ... was it in 2003? ... there was a protest march from Hamilton, up past the U.S. Consulate in Devonshire, and then into the Arboretum where there was an open-mike.

One of the people in the park, who did not march there so far as I know, was Dr. Brown. Dr. Brown went to the microphone and told a belittling personal joke about President George W. Bush that somehow suggested that the Bush Presidential Library would contain colouring books ... Embarrassed laughter greeted the "joke".

It was written about in the Mid-Ocean News, article: "Same old make love not war ..." [article not online].

I had to wonder if Dr. Condoleeza Rice knew about that ill-mannered humour from a Cabinet member of the Bermuda Government when Dr. Brown was courting her in Washington D.C. recently.

I remembered hearing about that, but had never been able to find the article itself. I'm no fan of George W. Bush, but for a member of our Government to make that kind of statement at a public forum was simply appalling.

Respect is a one way street it seems.

A reader writes on name calling:

Aside from the obvious hypocrisy that you've cited, there's a more fundamental problem here: in what way does calling Ewart Brown 'selfish' in his motives for, and timing of a General Election amount to 'name-calling', juvenile or otherwise? Is it any different than, say, calling him 'untrustworthy', 'power-obsessed' or 'ineffectual', all of which are legitimate criticisms?

And it begins....

Within hours of the election writ being dropped the PLP kicks things off with another of their nameless website hit pieces, this one called "Double Talk Dunkley".

You don't need to read more than the first paragraph to see the tone of campaign that the PLP intend to run:

Double Talk Dunkley resorted to juvenile name calling in the same speech where he promised to rise above the politics of personal destruction. Unbelievable. Double Talk Dunkley can't be trusted.

Ok, let's dismiss the low hanging fruit first.

Firstly, common decency demands that you don't attack someone personally under the byline of "Submitted by PLP". Let's at least have the maturity and guts to put a name on this, and not hide behind a website. To do otherwise is cowardly.

Secondly, criticising someone for name calling, while beginning your hit piece with name calling doesn't really seize the high ground does it?

Thirdly, we might recall that only a month or so ago, Dr. Brown was delivering a speech at the rally where he was talking about Humpty Dunkley. That would be both juvenile (by definition) and name calling.

The hypocrisy is simply astounding. Double talk? More like double standards.

It then goes on one of the usual rants about the UBP.

Dr. Brown has repeatedly warned about a dirty campaign, lies and hysteria, but the UBP have stayed very measured through the whole BHC saga of the past 4 or 5 months. The hysteria has been entirely from the PLP camp, culminating in the disgraceful Main Event rally which was a case study in vicious personal attacks and character assassination.

There have been some big lies coming out from the PLP lately, but particularly in the wake of the leaked Police files. Namely that Dr. Brown was exonerated; that it was a UBP orchestrated leak (yesterday's Mid Ocean story would - in a normal world - end that lie) and Dr. Brown even had to fabricate a non-existent milk monopoly story about the UBP and Dunkley's Dairy (legislation both parties supported and which actually protected farmers from monopolistic dairies).

This is only going to get worse though as the 7 week campaign progresses. In fact, the PLP have been pretty wound up since Dr. Brown took over, and the problem is that you can't keep escalating this kind of rhetoric without completely losing credibility.

Now on to what this is really about.

The last sentence of the first paragraph says "Double Talk Dunkley can't be trusted."

The PLP are aware that the public (and apparently many in the party) have trust issues about their leader, so they're trying to create some about Michael Dunkley and turn this into a one on one battle, which it is not.

Despite the flights of fancy of some, this isn't a Presidential election.

The hysteria, lies and politics of personal destruction were Dr. Brown and his inner circle's response to the leaked Police files.

These are only the earliest days of this campaign. That kind of start on the PLP's website doesn't bode well.

The UBP should stay above the fray and not take the bait. The PLP want a drag down knock down nasty fight, but they want to transfer their tactics onto the other side.

If they start this way, imagine how they'll have to finish?

Nice to see the private-but-obviously-for-public-consumption email from the Premier on the front page of the paper today, telling his party (and disenchanted traditional PLP voters) to lie their way through another election and attempt to replace him later...

Or said another way....

Hold you nose and vote PLP, then you can try (and I repeat try) and remove me afterwards.

Desperation time.

As I said in my Gazette piece a week or so ago, the best way to stop internal revolts is to keep his party in a constant campaign.

The ultimate way to stop an imminent revolt is to call an election.

I couldn't help but chuckle watching the photo-op of some Cabinet Ministers touring the Loughlands development today.

I imagine there will be a picture I can borrow from the Gazette tomorrow, but every PLP attendee was wearing a shiny new green hard-hat.

Nice touch.

I guess they're planning a bunch of these "look we did build some houses" photo-ops as we again ramp up into an election. I admire the attention to detail.

A reader speculates on the so-called 'defection'.

I think they released that without his appoval - he was quietly paying the token membership to curry favor and they went "holy cow a white guy!". Anyway, they've effectively prevented many others from joining by doing so.

A reader reaches back:

Speaking from memory, didn't the BMA turn around and print over his [Edgar Wilkinson's] signature on all the newly issued bills at the time? Effectively whiteout with a new signature printed on top of it.

That's the way I remember it. And if I recall, the Not the Um Um guys did a skit where they talked about the "Edgar Wilkinson scratch and sniff 5 dollar bill".

The PLP website is the gift that keeps on giving. So little substance, so much comedic material.

This week's gem under "Premier Rocks Washington. The first sentence reads (brace yourself):

Premier Ewart Brown is a foreign policy powerhouse.

Ok. Now stop laughing.

Note to PR guy: talking about Bermudian issues (including mayonnaise) in a foreign country doesn't make it foreign policy. It's the content not the geographic location that counts.

Unless of course they're taking the view that because Dr. Brown spends almost all of his time overseas that to him Bermuda is a foreign country, in which case it would then qualify as foreign policy?

Come to think of it, maybe they were right all along.

That website is so out there, even by partisan party website standards . It's so phony, so full of empty hyperbole, so desperate to overstate everything, that it reminds me of The Onion. It's a study in satire, but of the unintentional variety.

PS Bermuda doesn't do foreign policy, the UK does.

Killing off Bermuda Day has brought out the comedians in full force:

While we're renaming things should the PGA Grand Slam be renamed the Tiger Woods Memorial Cup?

and

Technically speaking shouldn't the first one be called National Heroine Day?

Well that didn't take long.

Two Facebook Groups (here and here) have popped up to in response to Higglytown Heroes Day...er, I mean National Heroes Day (people with young kids will get that reference).

Some readers write in on losing a day that celebrates us all, not political figures;

Does Bermuda have anymore democratic process left? Would something like this not be up to the majority to decide? I appreciate that change is constant and change can be good, however, change such as this is effectively erasing the history/heritage of Bermuda and over-writing it with politics and political motivations. If the politicians want to introduce a public holiday to celebrate heroes, then do exactly that. Introduce another day.

The PLP's quest to erase/re-write history is worrying at best.

and

I guess they ran into a roadblock creating a new holiday?

Hey UBP, reclaim Bermuda Day for Bermudians!

and

Unlike you to hold your fire on their announcing that May 24 will now be known as National Heroes Day. Another St Kitts innovation!

Cabinet announced that in addition to renaming Bermuda Day to National Heroes Day (sounds like a Disney movie) to honour individuals rather than the whole community, that they've renamed Bermuda to PLP.

Other name changes include:

The Queen's Birthday holiday to Oppressive Colonialist Day
Longbird Bride to ExpatBird Bridge
Tynes Bay Incinerator to Government Archives
Gosling's to Horton's Rum (cake) Factory
Paget to White Supremacyville
Dunkley's Dairy to Brown's Dairy.
John Barritt & Son Ltd. to Ewart Brown & Associates Unlimited
Bermuda Bookstore to Butler's Printing Press
The Bermuda College to PLP Induction Academy

A reader reports in:

Christian, Big Pow this morning at Camden house. Just about every GP car arrived there by about 10am. Maybe this could be the buildup to calling an election during the labour day speeches.

Could be.

After the Premier had to abort the obviously planned summer election due to his spiking unpopularity amid the leaked police investigation, many people speculate that the next window is late October (25th), around the time the Music Festival and PGA Grand Slam will be held; two events which the Premier presumes will translate into a little goodwill for him.

Just as importantly it's a a few days before the Privy Council is scheduled to hear the attempted gag order on October 29th; a decision which is almost certainly going to uphold the Chief Justice and the Court of Appeal's rulings in favour of the public interest and right to know.

Ahh, cannon fodder. I know the feeling.

Best line though, from the notoriously selectively dishonest and over the top self-congratulatory PLP website (even by political standards), is this one:

Mr. Commissiong is a well regarded expert in race relations who currently advises Premier Ewart Brown.

A 'well regarded expert in race relations'? Says who? And since when?

I guess he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

No matter how much they may want to downplay things, I tend to believe what people saw and heard with their own ears, not what someone who is paid to spin things wants people to believe.

They say 5,000 people were there. Let's just say the talk of the booing is everywhere today. Everywhere; rewrite what 5,000 people witnessed at your peril.

Here's a sample sent in by email, not to mention the myriad of tales being told in person to me today. They're all consistent, the booing was loud, sustained and across the board:

Basically, after Rodigan and Rory from Stone Love left the stage for the first time, the MC introduced a ‘special guest’, and everyone thought it would be some other performer not on the flyer. So Ewart comes out in this white suit, and at first it was just a shocked silence when he started talking, honestly dead quiet, no one could really believe he was actually on stage. Then the boos started, and I was at the back so I could only hear the people around me, but I would say something like 60-70% of the people around me were booing. It got worse as he went on, I couldn’t even hear what he was saying, but then he started naming off Collie Buddz tune names, it started to quiet down a little, and when he took off his jacket and everyone saw the ‘blind to you’ t-shirt, they started cheering again because they knew CB was coming on soon – then he just walked off stage and CB came on

and

Lets put it this way... If the crowd reaction decided the upcoming election.... The man would be without a job!!!!!! He was heckled, booed and straight up verbally abused.

and

Just spoke to a colleague who was there – she said it was overwhelming how negative the reception was. She said that she was standing at the front and so it was even more pronounced because it was coming from behind her. She said that the cross section represented was so broad and that the response was universal.

and

The lights went down, the MC told us he had a special guest, and suddenly Ewart Brown appeared. The response was booing, there is no denying that. Bermudians don't want politics mixed up in their Saturday night. Ewart Brown and his massive ego will probably think twice about which stage he gets on from this point forward. People can spin all they want, Ewart was booed by the crowd and that is a fact.

The musicians are at it again:

Now where were we on the youth vote?

Dr. Brown decided to make a cameo last night to introduce Collie Buddz up in Dockyard. He wasn't well received by the crowd. There was a decent amount of booing and a general uneasy feeling as he pranced up and down the stage. At the end of his babbling, he took off his jacket, where underneath he had a tee-shirt with, "Blind to you, haterz", printed on the back. Classy.

When Collie Buddz came out, he said "I hate politics", and the crowd exploded. Nothing like paying 50 bucks to have to Ewart Brown infiltrate my Saturday night. I think he is making some serious mistakes and has really underestimated how disenfranchised the youth of Bermuda have become. He might be better to wait until the students go back to University to call the election.

I'm not entirely surprised; somewhat surprised at the booing, but not surprised that they see through his act and pandering.

Dr. Brown is an anachronism to many of my era and after. His act is very dated and increasingly irrelevant to a youth interested in the future, not the scores he wants to settle from his past.

Lawyer Charles Richardson has a piece that he has sent out for distribution, on the topic of Jamahl Simmons's attack on Shawn Crockwell at the PLP's rally entitled "Why should I be outraged?".

Fundamentally I agree with him, which is that Shawn's conviction (as with anyone) is entirely relevant to voters and is almost certainly the first hurdle he must overcome in order to win the trust when he knocks on a door. And rightly so.

Shawn gets that. What he was convicted of was a serious crime, he came clean after making a hugely stupid decision that seemed totally out of character for those who knew him and served his time productively and now must live his life squeaky clean, knowing that he will forever drag this with him and that his political opponents will attempt to smear him.

I've come to know Shawn reasonably well over the past 3 or 4 months. We cross paths occasionally and chat once in a while about different issues. Before that I really didn't know him and when he was announced as UBP Chairperson someone had to tell me about the conviction.

I don't agree with Mr. Richardson though in the rest of the article.

Mr. Richardson goes to great lengths to suggest that Shawn's background somehow makes comparisons invalid, because Shawn came from a more stable environment and Charles did not.

I'm not sure how relevant that argument is. They both made decisions that they knew, despite their upbringing, were wrong, and paid their dues and appear contrite. Shooting two people isn't really in the gray area of bad parenting.

But setting that all to the side for now, what I think is missed by Charles's response is threefold:

Firstly, Dr. Brown has trumpeted Social Rehabilitation and removing the stigma of criminal convictions for those who have been rehabilitated. So for the Premier to trot out Jamahl at the rally to attack Shawn on his behalf after he's been rehabilitated undermines that whole argument.

Secondly, what Shawn found offensive about the attack, as did most people I've spoken with, was Jamahl's attempt to emulate Dr. Brown's "racist dog" schtick with the pedophile double-speak. That made the criticism completely over the top, personal in nature and inflammatory. (I get the impression that Jamahl is so angry at Shawn because he stepped up and immediately stopped the bleeding of Jamahl's attempt to mortally wound the party and the Pembroke branch. Indeed as Shawn points out, Jamahl actively recruited him for both the NLP and UBP.) Mr. Richardson ignores that segment of the article entirely which I think undermines his whole argument.

Thirdly, I think that Mr. Richardson is incorrect in saying that Shawn has never addressed the question of why people should trust him now. I think he has a number of times, particularly on the radio talk shows when the Police report was first leaked and the Premier's troops attempted to change the debate to Shawn Crockwell. Shawn called in a few times, as did his father.

Ultimately this is a question that he has to address with each voter on the doorstep when he looks them in the eye and shakes their hand. I believe he will present his case well, and is on a good path with his life, his career and his family.

Ultimately, the only option that he has is continue to live his life in the best way possible, knowing that this will always be with him, and not let this hold him back.

But I think Shawn knows that. He has never excused his behaviour. He has accepted full responsibility for his actions and is now trying to make a contribution to the society that he let down. I can say that I have no worries about Shawn from our conversations and his behaviour.

He hasn't hid from anything to do with this, avoided the topic or tried to spin it as an act of political resistance as another rather high profile individual - who I hear will be a PLP candidate - has with his conviction.

What went down at the rally though was a low attempt by someone who seems willing to say anything to ingratiate himself to his latest audience, in a way that was particularly crass. That's what I found most offensive, along with the obvious lack of commitment to the idea of Social Rehabilitation by the Premier and his party.

A reader poses two very cogent questions, the first I was going to ask myself, the second hadn't really occurred to me:

1. Why is the PLP with apparent impunity allowed to use government schools to host rallies and announce candidates (Warwick - Pembroke and now Clearwater). Whatever happened to separation of government and party?

2. Is Premier Brown prepared to (a) give up his foreign spouse, or (b) some of the property he has acquired, under the new amendment to the Immigration and Protection Act -- since it would seem his American wife is a beneficiary...

By the way, I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that today is the four year anniversary of the Great Deception - the immediate post-election coup of then Premier Jennifer Smith by now Premier Dr. Brown and his cadre.

"We misled you because we had to."

Dr. Brown has shaved off his facial hair (a couple of weeks ago I think) - a big no no for modern day Western politicians (especially the women).

It's rare to see politicians with facial hair nowadays, other than the odd exception like New Jersey Governor Corzine, but a goatee...never.

Maybe a soul patch though. Hmmm. Maybe Dunkley should grow a soul patch?

Can we break through the BS here.

Early this week PLP Senator Wayne Caines was talking about race riots, and back-to-the-PLP Jamahl Simmons and now PLP candidate Walton Brown were talking about dirty, ugly elections.

Let's be clear. These weren't, as they were presented, concerned words of caution. They were promises. The kind of double-speak like the "I wouldn't call the member a racist dog because I can see he's not a dog" kind of statements. These sort of disingenuous, "we wouldn't want to call Michael Dunkley a drug dealer" kind of attacks.

Jamahl said that personal attacks would unfortunately come, and then two days later he's comparing the UBP's chairman to a paedophile and endorsing Walton Brown with the worst kind of vitriolic Orwellian double-speak personal attack.

The PLP have been harping on about politics of personal destruction, hate, character assassination etc. as a defense mechanism for the alleged misdeeds of their leadership, yet made that the foundation of the launch of the campaign last night.

It's all phrased far too carefully and cynically to be accepted as sincere in the least.

And, most worryingly, can we stop pretending that Wayne Caines was concerned about a race riot. He was signaling an intent to trigger one if necessary. He's not the first to bring it up, but it's his party, his boss, his colleagues who have been calling people white supremacists, talking about the KKK, media tyranny, racist dogs, returns of the 40 Theives etc. and ratcheting up racial red herrings to shield themselves from accountability.

There's only one side here that is behaving in a way that could incite a race riot.

The UBP's response to the leaked police reports have been persistent yet quite restrained actually, which is why the PLP are becoming more and more shrill. It was Glenn Jones's misdirected email that made it clear that the PLP strategy was to try and draw the UBP into an overtly political fight over this:

All of this could, as well, be scripted, produced, documentary style, by acknowledged talent which is immediately available to the Premier, and presented as a government report. The Opposition would make an issue out of that, would mount their own TV production attacking the government, and would thus make it a nakedly political issue.

The Premier and his followers are saying that if you keep demanding that we behave in a manner expected of public officials, there will be violence.

This is a dangerous game to be playing, but shows the lengths they'll go to avoid scrutiny that is routine in every other modern democracy.

It's time to get out of the 60s. Time for a change. Only then will this racial politics be buried forever. This exploitation of race for short term political gain is what is holding back racial progress, both economic and social.

What a joke Jamahl has become. Evidently leopards can change their spots, almost every election cycle. 5 times and counting (PLP, NLP, UBP, Independent, PLP again).

My prediction back in October was correct, he's boomeranged:

Obviously I wish this whole situation had reached a better outcome, but I get the impression that Jamahl wanted out, and it seems highly likely that he'll boomerang back to the PLP.

I saw Jamahl last week at Harbour Nights. We chatted a little, but he couldn't look me in the eye. Now I know why.

What a farce. It's a shame. We really got along well and we'd exchanged some correspondence after he left the UBP, but his disgusting attack on Shawn Crockwell is completely unacceptable and says more about him (and the PLP sponsors of his attack) than Shawn.

So much for Dr. Brown's commitment to Social Rehabilitation. I guess that, like most things is just a hollow slogan.

I guess he felt that he needs to get back his street cred and prove himself to Dr. Brown. It's sad that he is allowing himself to be used like this. As a reader says:

[Jamahl] has clearly been coached in the Ewart Brown "racist dog" double-speak when he says “the lowest person, other than a paedophile, is a person who puts drugs into the community and I don’t think you would want someone who was sent to jail for being a paedophile to go into parliament". Effectively, he's saying "I'm not calling Crockwell a paedophile, but if he was one, you don't want him in Parliament, do you?"

He needs to take some time away and gain a little perspective rather than charging right back in while professing he wants to stay "behind the scenes".

The whiplash must be un-treatable as is the lack of credibility.

Pitiful.

A reader writes:

The interesting thing about Brown's foot soldiers, is that they just don't seem to understand. I'm a white expat, but a Spouse of Bermudian. My son is Bermudian. I, therefore, have a very keen interest in Bermuda politics although zero influence and zero participation.

I couldn't give two hoots about the colour of someone's skin, nor do I really care if the PLP or the UBP win an election. There may be ideological differences between the two that are worthy of debate but that's it.

What I don't want, like or tolerate is the continuous lying, the endless vile racism (and yet the playing of the race card at any opportunity), bad governance, and the alleged plundering of the public purse. Brown is in this purely for his own gain, he doesn't represent anyone other than himself.

And yet as you mention in your opinion piece, we the public don't have access to public records about public projects for which we are paying. It's plain wrong.

A reader writes in on my assertion that silence equals approval - well sort of:

"Their silence can only be read as approval of the behaviour of their colleagues."

Not sure if I can agree with you on this one. Is it a case of approval or fear - or just a question of biding their time?
Coincidentally, we were talking about this in the office this afternoon. Just who are Ewart's most vocal defenders? Ermm...Laverne Furbert, Alvin Williams, Rolffe Commissiong, Calvin Smith, fair weather loose-cannon Julian Hall - not exactly top table material.
You're right - Cabinet, and even Government backbenchers, are notoriously silent at the moment. The question is, why?

I actually agree. The silence means one of two things: they approve of the behaviour or they're biding their time for another post-election coup if they can win this thing. I'm leaning to the latter, or actually a combination of tacit approval and biding time.

A wisecracking reader writes in on the PLP store.

Gotta hand it to them. Lots of pop and sizzle.

Coming soon: the PLP Grab Bag to store your party loot, the PLP Bandanna to gag your local reporters, and the PLP Credit Card which has no spending limits and the bill is sent to someone else.

Cynic.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the UBP re-released their re-released web site. Much better.

Still no blog. But you know what, judging by the mindless self-congratulatory drivel that gets spun on the PLP's blog, and the slow motion train wreck that is now dying a slow death through the venom of one out of control racist, censorship and selective editing of criticism known as the youth wing's Progressive Minds blog, that's probably a good thing. (Apologies for the run-on sentence.)

The PLP announce BHC Police Report central player in almost all the major allegations (asbestos kickbacks, 'consulting' fee, mixing of funds between Dr. Brown's home and the BHC project, ), Zane "I am head n**ger in charge of Bermuda" DeSilva as a candidate in seat 30.

Talk about giving the electorate the middle finger.

It is either the height of dishonesty, or the height of delusion, for PLP members in the know, such as Alvin Williams, to continue to suggest that "UBP surrogates" are behind the leaking of the BHC POlice Report, as he did in last Friday's Mid Ocean News Column (not yet online).

Mr. Williams and like conspiracy theorists need look no further than the front page of the paper which he writes for over the past two weeks which has been running a series of articles on longtime PLP member and financial supporter Harold Darrell.

Mr. Darrell appears to have been the victim of a demonstrably real conspiracy, a genuine and well documented "nefarious scheme(s)". A conspiracy that just happens to involve members of his own party who are currently fingering everyone else as plotters.

Hmmm. Quite cheeky for the Mid Ocean News, the breaker of parts 1 and 2 of the BHC scandal, to be running a series on a bona-fide PLP supporter with a real axe to grind.

Connect the dots.

Clearly today was 'stop the bleeding day' in PLP land, with the announcement that George "Don't you know who I am" Scott is being sacrificed in Constituency 28 after being unceremoniously booted out of his incumbent seat 27, where the UBP's Wayne Scott has been busting his hump for the past couple of years and is well-positioned to deliver a key new seat for the UBP (hence George Scott's removal). Constituency 27 will be interesting and competitive this time I predict, constituency 28 will not.

If you think this wasn't a damage control announcement you're kidding yourself; note that the Premier and Mr. Scott didn't take any questions. It will be interesting to see if more announcements quickly follow or if it goes all quiet again. I expect more, because it would appear that the Premier is going to take his chances and go to the polls with the BHC scandal fresh in voters' minds.

In case you haven't noticed, Dr. Brown has become a liability to both his party and the country. The problem appears to be that his party is too weak to remove someone they know needs to go. You can feel his support dwindling both internally and externally daily.

Can't you just picture the morning strategy meeting after Renee Webb's brutal honesty yesterday and Ianthia Wade's cry for help today?

Q: How do we change the narrative here?

A: Promise George something in return for sacrificing himself in 28, pose for the cameras with a couple of die-hard supporters in the background to make it look like all is well, and then get the hell away from those scary reporters.

It's also obvious, based on the syrupy announcement that the Premier will host 'Brown bag lunches' on the Cabinet lawn and use the attendees as fodder for trite press releases full of platitudes and shallow photo-ops, that the his handlers have told him that he's too isolated and elitist and needs to appear approachable, accessible and more tolerant of opposing views, after being under siege and in a lockdown for the past 5 weeks desperately attacking anyone who doesn't mindlessly support him as part of the great-white-UBP-media-colonial-conspiracy.

A reader writes:

With regards to your most recent post about the clearly upset Ms. Wade, her comments actually dictate that anyone who cares about the PLP should definitely NOT vote for them in the upcoming election, because if the people ruining the party can't be removed by people within the party, then they'll have to be removed from without - by the voting public. In her own way, she's actually pleading for it, for someone to do something to help the party she once loved but no longer recognizes.

If the opposition within the party is as weak and desperate for change as Ms. Wade makes them sound, then only by voting out the whole party can the PLP purge itself of these undesirable persons and start over according to the nobler vision of like Ms. Wade and Ms. Cox.

There's spin, and then there's dishonesty. What follows is the absolute height of dishonesty and desperation; whomever is maintaining the PLP website site has really drunk the Kool Aid.

The party website published a quote from today's RG article where Ms. Wade laments the poor treatment of candidates and current state of the party which is turning off voters, to try and portray her comments as an endorsement:

In this morning's Royal Gazette, Ianthia Wade, widow of the late PLP leader Freddie Wade, encouraged Bermudians to enthusiastically support the PLP.

Ms Wade noted, "I still support the party and I am encouraging people to get out and vote... the party is greater than any one or two people, including me."

Absurd. Ms. Wade is clearly disillusioned and hurt, but trying her best to stay loyal to a memory of the party she once knew, despite, the BHC scandal, it's current leadership and candidate selection crisis.

Ms. Wade was asking people to hold their nose and vote PLP, not 'enthusiastically' support the party.

Glaringly absent was a link to the article itself, just an out of context quote, attempting to leave the impression that this was a ringing endorsement rather than an effort to stop the flight of support.

Even worse, the sentence they quote is actually two distinctly separate fragments of sentences reordered and put together to cut out the inconvenient truths.

Here's what the PLP created:

Ms Wade noted, "I still support the party and I am encouraging people to get out and vote... the party is greater than any one or two people, including me."

Here are the two sentences in their entirety:

“I thought it was important to call and say even though I am not selected I still support the party and I am encouraging people to get out and vote.”

and

“But the concern they have is not necessarily with the PLP — it’s with one or two individuals. But the party is greater than any one or two people, including me.

A fundamentally dishonest and desperate misconstruing of Ms. Wade's comments. Shameful. Sure, Ms. Wade was trying her best to look at the bigger picture, but it was obvious that all is not well.

Funny though. The site didn't quote Renee Webb yesterday. But I guess that even out of context her quotes were still devastating.

Here are a few more quotes from today's article that put it all in context:

Noting rising disillusionment she said PLP supporters needed to look at the bigger picture.

“A lot of people have been saying to me they don’t intend to vote because they are frustrated and concerned with the BHC information and leaks and even the process with the selection of candidates.

“People feel they just don’t have the level of trust in terms of the Government.

and

“The reason I have called (The Royal Gazette) today is I don’t want people to look and say ‘Gosh, if they have treated Freddie Wade’s widow like this and Tannock and George then I am not going to vote for a party I can’t trust and believe that they are going to be fair’.

Let's watch them try to pin this one on the UBP:

"The fact that the Premier is circumventing the process is astounding, but not surprising. His modus operandi is that rules are made for others not him.

"The fact that he is trying to boot out George, who was one of his supporters for leadership, is in keeping with who he is.

"He is known to use people to get what he wants and then step on them.

"The same way he betrayed both former Premiers by not being up front from the beginning that he was going to challenge them, points to the man he is, George is just another victim.

"In the lead up to the election of the Party Leader, I indicated publicly that I supported Paula Cox because we need a person of integrity at the helm of our country.

"Integrity and honour at the top is not what we currently have, and it will continue to unfold under Dr. Brown's leadership."

...Said PLP MP Renee Webb.

The house of cards is crumbling.

A devastatingly accurate Letter to the Editor from the always interesting "SAM from Warwick" today.

Money quote:

The point I’m making, and what South Africa finally learned, is that black empowerment is important, but it has to go far beyond just an economic initiative to redress the wrongs of the past. It has to go far beyond selective redress to benefit just a few or select individuals. As a black man, I am discouraged that my Government is creating narrow-based economic opportunities and not broad-based growth opportunities for everyone. A more serious issue is that they are leaving fundamental inequalities intact, or just sidetracking the old and present white elite with a new black one.

The benefit white and some black people received due to white privilege and black elitist privilege in the past, was done and is history. We cannot change anything about the past and the pain associated, other than remember, learn from and respect it. Reparations will not help, but we as black people have to stop justifying the improper behaviour of our present Government ... because they were born black and now represent a black political party publicly, but privately represent a few black and white individuals economically.

By now many (including me) anticipated being in the election period, mostly because it was clear that the PLP were trying to get their candidates in place and were making grand pronouncements about the massive victory they anticipated under Dr. Brown.

The first apparent hiccup to the calling of an election appeared to be the internal battle taking place in the PLP between Dr. Brown and the branches with respects to candidate selection.

And then, with the BHC police report leak, everything changed, and Bermuda has spent the past month trying to process a massive scandal with Dr. Brown as a central player as well as other existing and past Cabinet Members and PLP MPs.

In light of everything that has gone on in the past 4 weeks or so, I'm going to put a question out to my readers:

When do you think Dr. Brown will want to go to an election, and why? (Email me here)

My sense is that there is a very strong possibility that Dr. Brown will - despite the scandal and his huge trust problem - very likely go in the next few weeks, for a late July or early August election.

Why do I say this? Well, ultimately I think that it comes down to the decision of the Privy Council over the media gag order.

The odds seem very much in the favour of the gag order being rejected by the Privy Council, as it was by the Chief Justice and the Court of Appeals.

If that's the case, once the gag order is lifted the revelations will start coming again in probably September/October which would mean that the BHC scandal will restart at that time, making a December election (assuming that Dr. Brown wants the students back, a group he has invested very heavily in courting) extremely tough.

I imagine there's some polling to be done to see just how much damage the Premier and his party have incurred over the past 4 weeks and if that has translated into support for the UBP, but ultimately Dr. Brown will bite the bullet and roll the dice of a campaign with a media gagged than one without (which was what the whole legal challenge has been about - buttoning up the media during an election).

Which leads me to think that with Parliament adjourning on Friday until November - an adjournment that occurred a week earlier than originally indicated after the Premier has done his best to avoid Parliament for the duration of the BHC Police Report legal battle - the odds are in favour of an election being called in the next couple of weeks.

I also think that the recent locking down of the PLP blogs, to quieten the voices of dissent in the comments and create the current mutual admiration society, is indicative of the closing of ranks and very tight message management needed during a campaign.

I'm very interested in your theories and rationales. I'll anonymously publish the ones I think most interesting and then take a stab at what the PLP and UBP's campaigns could look like, which I'll also be inviting readers theories on.

Well, any good scandal isn't a scandal without email coming into the mix, first we had the Son of the Soil, and now, just in time, is the evolution of the Premier's Press Secretary's talking points, which he inadvertently sent out to some unintended recipients (yep, I'm sure there was one of those "Oh my God, what have I just done" moments) and hit my inbox as well as some others I presume. (I understand that the press also have this correspondence).

This exchange lays the cold and calculated media strategy bare (note this was sent from outside the Government email system...hmmm.). Compare it to the second part of the too-clever by half press release today and you see some striking similarities as well as some rapidly intensifying and racial language:

Firstly, the Premier appears to have retained a political campaign operation/media strategy outlet (Park Row Campaigns) to help figure out how to avoid answering the questions and shift the spotlight onto the leakers, the media and the Opposition.

Secondly, re-frame the facts of the case into more convenient 'facts' which dramatically overstate the outcomes of the investigation, the intensity of the investigation and the source of the scandal.

Thirdly, don't answer any individual allegation because then you'll have to answer them all and it will open up the Premier and PLP MPs to scrutiny they can't take.

Fourthly, invoke Dame Lois.

Fifth, dress up a piece of political propaganda attack piece as a "Government Report" (the taxpayers are no doubt paying the bill here) and try and goad the Opposition into an overtly political response versus the current measured and responsible one.

Whatever happened to telling the truth?

From: Glenn Jones [mailto:xxx@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 10:31 AM To: Joseph Romanelli Subject: Re:

Okay, thanks.

Joseph Romanelli wrote:

Hey Glenn,

Below you'll see my revisions to the communications strategy draft we've been discussing. Give me a call, or email me with your thoughts.

Joe
_____

THE BHC ISSUE

1. FACT:

In 2002, an operation initiated, presumably, by order of the Governor of Bermuda, the Bermuda Police Service, Britain's Scotland Yard and US
Homeland Security mounted a joint investigation into allegations of
illegalities related to the BHC.

1. FACT:

The formidable assets available to and deployed on behalf of the
investigating units and countries produced - through due process - the
prosecution, conviction and incarceration of a person guilty of criminal action in relation to the BHC.

1. FACT:

Despite the BHC Report's gratuitous allusion to ethics, and its equally gratuitous desire to criminalise targeted members of the PLP
Administration, the Report found no basis for legal action against any other subject of the investigation. To all but the terminally envious, the Report exonerated its targets in the PLP Administration from allegations which had been thoroughly investigated.

1. FACT:

Five years later, as predictions for a July election by UBP
spokespersons, newspaper editorial writers and columnists had hit high
decibel levels, and precisely when the passing of Dame Lois Browne Evans had ignited black consciousness and PLP solidarity to an unprecedented level, two adversaries of the PLP Administration conspired with ZBM and the Royal Gazette/Mid Ocean News to use stolen police files to sensationalise allegations of illegality in a calculated hatchet job against PLP targets.

1. FACT:

The Premier's simulcast statement on the publication of the stolen
material elicited immediate and requested action by the Governor, who
promptly invited Scotland Yard to investigate the theft of the Police
files.

1. FACT:

The prompt Police intervention immediately flushed out two perpetrators who have been arrested for suspected possession of the stolen documents.

1. FACT:

Had this not been the case, and had their motive been anything but
flagrantly malicious, those two persons would have, before the
investigation even began, declared themselves as the disseminators and
immediately stated their reasons for collaborating. Instead the
propagation of the stolen files and the ensuing slant for emphasis
leaves a trail of guesses: what is their motivation, what is their
promised reward, who's making the promise?

1. FACT:

There are calls from various PLP sources for response/rebuttal by the
Premier/Party to the Anthrax Email and to the specifics it contains.

1. FACT:

Those issues/allegations have already been exhaustively investigated;
findings have been evaluated, assessed, and dismissed by the BHC
investigation as being of no evidentiary value such as to warrant
prosecution.

1. ITEM:

Any response to any of the email specifics will trigger calls for
responses to all allegations; an invitation for cameras to Gombey House to look for wooden beams, although beneficial in the short term, would be writing a blank cheque for further UBP-directed media invasion of privacy; would give the matter new oxygen; and would be the start of a zero sum game for the Premier and the government.

1. ITEM:

PLP voices should be coordinated and massed like thunder in
dissecting/condemning the conspiracy and the conspirators guilty of
stealing the police files and releasing them to rain on the celebration of Dame Lois' life, and to sabotage an expected election call; all because of political self interest, with a level of political nastiness that approaches evil.

1. ITEM:

All of this could, as well, be scripted, produced, documentary style, by acknowledged talent which is immediately available to the Premier, and presented as a government report. The Opposition would make an issue out of that, would mount their own TV production attacking the government, and would thus make it a nakedly political issue.

Uh oh. They just got caught spinning.

A reader writes:

If the term brown rice is now offensive what do we make of businesses called Brown & Co, Whites Supermarket or the Premier's race consultant's Blackstar Communications.

Don't ask me. The headline was a pun. I'm not surprised some are trying to twist it into something it obviously isn't.

The same pun would have been valid for a photo of UK Prime Minister to be Gordon Brown and Condoleeza Rice. Same last name you see. Some things aren't about race, believe it or not.

I don't know if Dr. Brown is facing a loss of confidence and potential removal by his party, although one would certainly hope that any party would take a serious look at a leader mired in an alleged corruption scandal and subsequent cover-up; altogether ignoring it is far worse than working through the issue and deciding to ignore the ethical problems and go with tarnished goods - as bad as that itself is.

But I couldn't help but get a real chuckle that Dale Butler is the poster child in today's paper to rebut yesterday's multiple sourced article suggesting Dr. Brown is starting to lose support.

Why? Well, simple. take a look at Mr. Butler's quotes when informed by a reporter of the last leadership challenge (only 8 months ago), which culminated with Dr. Brown taking out then Premier Scott [Note: The Gazette's website search SUCKS and all their old links are broken. Aargh.]:

"I have no comment. I am totally confused. I thought he said he wasn't going to challenge. This is all news to me."

and

"Nobody has approached or lobbied me. Mind, I don't go to those cocktail sips. I am always the last to know."

Here we go again. If Dale is unaware, it's probably happening.

How much political capital are the PLP going to expend to protect Dr. Brown, Mr. Bascome and others? That's the question. If some people are not having buyers remorse I'd be genuinely surprised. Yesterday's article didn't mince words.

A reader writes on the tin-foil hat brigade:

Understandable mistake.

They never did get a handle on separation of personal money and
the tax-payer's money. A loan from Cap-G to a politician shouldn't really have to be paid back in their minds so it must be a political score being settled.

Oooh.

The Tin-foil hat brigade is at it again over at Dangerous Minds, with the latest flight of fancy being that Capital-G's suit against UBP MP Maxwell Burgess for unpaid debts is [cue ominous music]....the big, bad UBP 'calling in' their MP's mortgages because he is stepping down at the next election and has taken some contradictory positions over the past few months.

Let me put this one to rest so that they can refocus their energies on the search for Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster and their summer vacation to Roswell.

Now I know that in PLP-land the UBP is evil personified; but can we at least admit that people that evil don't get that way by being stupid.

Surely by now we've all learned if you're going to screw one of your MPs, you don't do it in the lead up to an election, you do it the morning after. Right Dr. Brown?

That would've been a rookie mistake.

Now, back to locating Elvis in Mexico please.

Nice to see that the Premier and Finance Minister are over in DC for a grip and grin with the movers and shakers and tout our 'pristine financial reputation' (uh, I think the BHC report is doing some damage to that).

I love the bit about how this would be done on the cheap, I guess the travel cost flap stung a little.

"This trip is included in our travel budget for the year. We are trying to keep the cost as tight as we can, as reasonable as we can. We are not even staying overnight on Friday."

One Congressman I didn't see on the list is Al Green of Texas, whose campaign committee received a $500 donation on March 26th 2004 from our Deputy Premier, declaring his address as Apt 6503, 150 W 56th St., New York, NY 10069.

A googling reader sent that in to me some time ago and then recently reminded me of it with another email link showing some donations from the early 90s, including a Republican (gasp), Bob Dole.

Now we all know that Dr. Brown has been quite active in US politics, and those connections have been touted as an asset for Bermuda.

What is interesting about the 2004 donation, is that only US citizens or green card holders can make political donations, not foreign nationals - not even the foreign spouses of US citzens/green card holders. US law is explicit on this.

So, that little $500 donation raises an interesting set of questions:

:: Did Dr. Brown in fact renounce his citizenship in the late 90s so that he could serve in the Bermuda Parliament or didn't he?

:: If he did renounce - as I thought had been the case - then it would seem that he has violated US election laws:

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.

Taking this a little further, if Dr. Brown didn't renounce his US Citizenship that would mean that as a naturalized US Citizen he should be disqualified from serving in Parliament as he'd have sworn allegiance to a foreign power.

It's amazing what you can find on the internet. One little donation. So many questions.

I was forwarded an email this morning, several times in fact, sent by someone claiming to be the leaker, as reported on ZBM news some nights ago. The email address is 'Son of the Soil' and it is clear that this document has been sent far and wide.

I have been advised not to re-publish it for legal reasons [the email has surfaced at Bermuda Sucks. You can read it here].

But I will say that as I said in the Gazette this morning, the BHC genie can't be put back in the bottle. Welcome to the internet age. Gag orders are useless.

[UPDATE: I originally posted the full email, but it was suggested to me by a lawyer that I not post it in it's entirety as it could invite a lawsuit, although other lawyers have told me that that is unlikely. So I removed the post while I ponder my options here. Judging by the frequency with which it has hit my various inboxes this morning, I can't see it staying quiet for long.]

[UPDATE 2: [the email has surfaced at Bermuda Sucks. You can read it here.]]

...and we get another Health Minister.

No word yet on if we were paying Mr. Bascome a Ministerial salary during his 'leave of absence'. The fact that Dr. Brown won't comment on that question suggests we were.

Candidate for most ridiculous political release ever is exhibit A from PLP.bm:

This week, Premier Ewart Brown and the PLP stood up for the best interests of Bermuda. When it became clear that someone leaked confidential documents to the media, the Premier and the PLP stood up for the rule of law. The Premier skillfully dealt with the situation. He didn't back down from his principles and he cordially came to an agreement with the Governor and Government House.

Give me a second while I compose myself. This one is just too ridiculous to not be intended as a complete joke. Surely.

Dr. Brown stood up for the rule of law? That's right after the police recommended further pursuing their fraud and official corruption investigation only to be questionably overruled by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Oh yeah, and the whole saga with the Governor and now a gag order was 'standing up for Bermuda' not trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

I believe the media injuction would be termed as an exercise in 'Covering Your Ass'. After the Premier was implicated in potential corrupt and arguably criminal behaviour they're spinning this as 'standing up for Bermuda'.

I'll agree that the Premier 'skillfully dealt with the situation' - if you consider head faking the press into covering the non-story of the confrontation with the Governor so he didn't have to answer the allegations themselves - which remain unaddressed and he now hopes to kill media coverage of.

And lastly, in one real classic of an example of Orwellian political doublespeak in one paragraph, the Premier 'cordially came to an agreement with the Governor and Government House'. Cordially? They really have no shame denying reality.

It gets worse though. Read the whole thing.

You see last week saw the UBP play political games (better than corrupt ones I suppose), and the UBP engaged in name-calling (gasp, versus allegedly lining themselves up for backhanders), and it was the UBP who escalated the issue (versus threatening to cut off relations with the Governor), and the UBP who will say anything to win an election (versus nothing to counter allegations of corruption).

And I'll hazard a guess that the quotes from John Barritt in the last paragraph are taken completely out of context.

My God. Tragedy or farce? I'm going with farce at this point. A tragedy is apparently what happens when a PLP MP is arrested and charged with official corruption and theft (versus an outrage I suppose).

You know, when I go back and read Dr. Brown's initial and only real statement on the allegations against him and some of his colleagues, the more I realise how boxed in he is to convince people that he didn't behave unethically if not illegally.

I'm not just talking about the specific allegations themselves, which are damning, paticularly as no-one has come forward to deny that what was alleged occurred. That silence speaks volumes.

I'm talking about some of the arguments he advanced in his general defence.

The most amusing to me was this statement:

On a personal note, I give my fellow Bermudians the assurance that my professional practice and my business interests have long provided me quite adequately with the means to live in relative comfort.

I am blessed with the good fortune of being married to a businesswoman of independent income. I have absolutely no need to seek to improve my net worth by any questionable actions. I deserve to be given credit for being sensible enough to keep my hands clean and my character beyond question.

Firstly, the PLP and Dr. Brown have argued that UBP politicians are corrupt. It doesn't take much for the public to believe that PLP ones are too, particularly with the bombshell reports in the Mid Ocean last week.

It reminds me of the old joke "Don't steal. Politicians hate competition."

Secondly, perhaps the most frequent attack line by Dr. Brown and the PLP is that politicians from some of the richest Bermudians families were and are incredibly corrupt? He made this argument only weeks ago responding to his Kurron Shares scandal and earlier in the year with the Racist Dog attack.

In fact, he never disputes the allegations, he just tries to turn the focus on the UBP. Which makes me wonder if the message isn't "Wouldn't you rather we ripped you off?"

Does he really expect the public to believe that his 'relative comfort' means that he therefore couldn't be corrupt, but others of a different political stripe who live in similar comfort are?

In fact, presumably the very individuals he attacks are richer than he is, which by his logic would make them less corrupt, not more.

The argument is absurd on it's face. Dare I mention the incredibly rich corporate criminals of the past decade:

Ken Lay - Enron
Dennis Koslowski - Tyco
Bernie Ebbers - Worldcom

Rich people are not immune from corruption. Dr. Brown makes that argument on a regular basis.

You reap what you sow.

I can't profess to having known Dame Lois personally, nor too many of that generation of Bermuda's politicians on either side of the aisle to be honest, but of course we all knew Dame Lois by reputation.

The only real personal contact I had came on two occassions, both on election days - the first in 1998 and the second in 2003.

Both were memorable for different reasons.

In 1999 I lived in Devonshire North, the constituency that Dame Lois had represented since the beginning of time. My father and I went to vote where at the time the PLP candidates were Dame Lois and Paula Cox while the UBP had Charles Hollis and Gerry Ming.

As we walked up to the school to vote Dame Lois came out to greet us while Paula Cox didn't. Dame Lois, who my father knew reasonably well, shook our hands, greeted us by name, and then turned to her running mate and said "Come and shake Mr. Dunleavy's (that would be my father's) hand". That's what I think people liked about her, she knew everyone and had time and respect for everyone whether she figured she'd get their vote or not, whether they agreed with her on not.

The second instance was 5 years later at the polling station for Devonshire North West where I ran against Paula Cox. Dame Lois came to relieve Paula when she went to vote in her home constituency, and then was back (or stayed, I can't remember) for the count.

The count was interesting because while I knew it wouldn't be competitive Dame Lois was doing her best to run the show her way, until the Returning Officer had to rein her in in that gentle way...but rein her in a little was all that he could manage. If the constituency was in play it might have got a little contentious, but it was actually a pretty amusing way to wrap up a day where I'd gone through multiple shirts and absorbed more sun that one could imagine, on a hot July day (what was Jennifer Smith thinking picking the middle of summer for an election anyway?).

So other than Dame Lois's trips down memory lane in Parliament (which were painfully meandering yet oddly entertaining - usually punctuated by a lively rebuttal from one of my favourite politicians CV Woolridge), I really didn't have much interaction.

It goes without saying that Dame Lois lived a full and interesting life, one which I'm sure her political and legal adversaries recall fondly, despite or maybe because of their differences.

So while I'm not really one into political hero worship of either party through big public displays, holidays, state funerals and the inevitable renaming of something after Dame Lois, she certainly left an indelible mark on Bermuda and the accolades and trips down memory lane over the coming days are well deserved.

The personality cult around Dr. Brown is so out of control that we get a press release announcing his birthday - which like most days of the week was spent off island.

This cult is creeping me out. The Dr. Brown as Lord and Saviour video on the PLP's website should set off all sorts of warning bells. It's really, really creepy to have his admiring followers paraded in front of a camera to sing his praises.

Normal people don't do these things. This Messiah complex invokes memories of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians.

But back to the press release, it didn't stop there. The Premier decided the best was to celebrate his birthday was to accuse the UBP of spreading lies:

Premier and Party Leader Ewart Brown's physician at the Lahey Clinic in Burlington, Massachusetts has given the 61 year-old a clean bill of health after completing his annual physical yesterday (Wednesday, May 16).

Later today the leader returns home to Bermuda where he will celebrate his 61st birthday. A quiet dinner with his wife Wanda is planned.

As always, while away from Bermuda, the Premier has not lost sight of the issues continuously unfolding at home - not least of which is the constant drumbeat of negativity coming from members of the Opposition United Bermuda Party (UBP).

The Party Leader said from Massachusetts this morning, "I will celebrate my birthday quietly and then on Friday move into another gear. In my absence the UBP has stepped up their campaign of lies but they will regret taking this low road - a road which will never lead them or the Country forward."

So let's visit that 'drumbeat of negativity' and the 'campaign of lies'.

I would presume that the release is referring to the following:

- The untendered and secretive awarding of the emissions testing contract to the Premier's cousin.

- The secretive awarding of a hospital management contract to Kurron Shares of America - a company which donated to the controversial T.H.E. foundation and the CEO of which is said to be a friend of the Premier - the tendering details of which the Premier has refused to disclose.

- The documents produced by Louise Jackson which proved that the PLP sent students back into Cedarbridge when their hired expert condemned the mould levels as toxic.

So, anyone want to try and point out what's a lie? I'll agree that these actions create a climate of negativity, but that's attributable to Dr. Brown and his flock.

The facts of every allegation have not been disputed.

Come to think of it, let's call them the Brownies in honour of the Moonies.

Dispatches from the front lines:

Rumour has is that the PLP have yanked sitting MP George Scott (of construction worker scandal fame) for the return of El James in Constituency 27 at the next election.

Why?

From what I hear polling showed the UBP's Wayne Scott beating George Scott, which wouldn't surprise me. Wayne has been canvassing very hard in that constituency for well over a year, while George Scott and the PLP have been AWOL.

It remains to be seen whether El James will be able to make up for the lost ground, but if things are competitive in a seat like 27, which is currently a PLP seat won reasonably handily in 2003, then as I've been saying for the past several months, this election will be very competitive, despite what the boastful Premier and his followers would have you believe; hard working UBP candidates have some real opportunities to take seats away from the PLP.

If constituencies like 27, and Michael Dunkley's new seat in Smiths (where I hear Dr. Brown wanted to replace Patrice Minors but might have to begrudginlgy go with again as others don't want to run against Michael) are in play, the next few months will be very interesting.

The PLP have the advantage, as they are the incumbent party and represent the new establishment; but the UBP have every reason to be upbeat and see some real opportunity through one to one campaigning.

Every vote counts.

The UBP's Grant Gibbons gets it right, and the New Onion piggybacks on it to draw the appropriate parallels:

Dr. Gibbons in his oped:

There is a pattern here, and its sudden appearance in PLP politics coincides with the elevation of Ewart Brown to sole decision maker. Before Brown became premier-but while he was an active member of Cabinet and presumably had his wits about him-the PLP government proposed expanding entitlement programmes by introducing unemployment insurance. In fact, before Brown became premier, the PLP government worked hard to convince an increasingly sceptical public that it still had a “social agenda” after embarrassing policy failures in housing, health, education and crime.

One thing is clear: Butler, Burch and Burt are following the leader, and Bermudians should be prepared to hear more of this entitlement rhetoric as Premier Brown’s foot soldiers march in unison toward the looming election.

Out of context, these statements should fall on sympathetic ears. After all, solid middle-class values have shaped Bermudian culture. We celebrate the hard worker, the entrepreneur, the person who makes it against all odds. We applaud parents who make huge sacrifices for their children’s education and future. Bermudians aren’t tolerant of freeloaders, never have been, nor should we be.

....

Entitlement rhetoric also provides a perfect smokescreen for a new kind of entitlement and its real beneficiaries: cronies of PLP politicians who stand to gain handsomely from government contracts awarded without open tendering or public scrutiny; the premier’s highly paid entourage who do little but increase the isolation between the premier and the people and even his own political party; and PLP politicians who voted themselves the largest pay raise in Bermuda’s history.

The New Onion summarises:

I think I finally get it… after making some early conjecture in this post. The New PLP under Dr. Brown are big government Republicans – American style. They are going (as this letter to the editor pointed out) on the attack on social welfare programs while arguing that we need to shrink the size of government and make people responsible for themselves. At the same time they are going to increase government spending (and consequently the tax burden) like modern American Republican presidents while simultaneously pursuing “privatization” in the name of efficiency, which really involves giving government money to their friends to run profit-making businesses with no competition.

When the Tourist Minister cancels an overseas trip you know something's up; spending extended periods of time in Bermuda isn't something he does willingly.

The last-minute cancellation is leading to speculation his presence is needed on the home front, either to sort out his party's rebellious rank and file, or to prepare for an election in July, or both.

July 17th is the date the Sun predicts, and seeing as they've been the paper of choice for well placed PLP leaks there could be something to it.

I must admit however to enjoying the humour behind the bravado of claiming that he'll take 30 out of 36 seats, while he can't get a branch to accept their incumbent Cabinet Minister, nor have the branch workers bless his anointed followers.

If this is what the hardcore party faithful think, imagine what your average voter will make of it all.

I was polled last night by the PLP at about 8:30PM.

While I was expecting questions about this supposed raft of PLP candidates so that I can fully appreciate the "deepening of the democratic process" that Dr. Brown characterises his consolidation of power against his party's branches as, there were none.

What there were however, was an extensive set of questions about none other than Dr. Brown (oh, and as an aside, The PLP party) and all the great things mostly he has done.

There was also extensive testing of messages for the upcoming election, both the PLP's and what they anticipate the UBP's to be.

What is clear however is that the next election will be a Presidential one about Dr. Brown. He won't be running a campaign on his party's record (which is poor by his own admission) but on what he thinks are his achievements. Almost every question started with "Dr. Brown has done...". Me, me, me, me, me.

The other 35 people candidates will simply be extensions of Dr. Brown, which pretty much confirms that what we've got here is a massive and expanding Cult of Personality known as Doc Hollywood.

If there was any question about where the loyalties of the PLP's next candidates lie when Dr. Brown makes his picks, the answer is: not with the constituencies.

I'm going to follow up with some more points on some of the ins and outs of the specific questions (like the adoption of the UBP's "One Bermuda" slogan), but read the ego trip known as a PLP National Poll and weep:

…conducted by Bermuda Opinion Survey

How likely are you to vote in the next election?

Are things going in the right direction?

What is your top priority issue (pick one):

Economy
Transportation
Education
Crime
Tax reduction
Housing
Environment

Do you have a very favourable, somewhat favourable, unfavourable or very unfavourable perception of the following?

- Ewart Brown
- Michael Dunkley
- Paula Cox
- Pat Gordon-Pamplin
- PLP
- UBP

If an election was called today would you vote for?

- Dunkley and the UBP
- Brown and the PLP

Do you disapprove of the job that Dr. Brown’s is doing?

Do you approve/disapprove of the job Michael Dunkley is doing?

Rate Dr. Brown’s performance as Premier?

Should Ewart Brown be re-elected or is it time for someone new?

The following are arguments to return the PLP as Government and give Dr. Brown a mandate:

- Dr. Brown and the PLP has a plan to expand economic opportunities for Bermudians by developing business partnerships between Bermudian and American companies.

- Dr. Brown and PLP have instituted policies to combat crime, including bladed weapons, drugs, violent crime etc..

- Dr. Brown’s work in tourism has been excellent – he’s increased tourist arrivals and lowered air fares.

- The PLP has managed the economy well resulting in more jobs and a better quality of life for Bermudians.

- As a trained physician Dr. Brown is streamlining healthcare and making it more affordable and accessible for the average Bermudian.

- Dr. Brown is a man of excellence and will make government more open to Bermudians.

- Dr. Brown and the PLP will make buying a home more affordable through tax incentives for developers to build affordable housing.

- Under Dr. Brown transport has improved with fast ferries and air conditioned buses.

- Ewart Bermuda says we need One Bermuda where those who work hard and play by the rules can get ahead.

- Ewart Brown created a Ministry for Social Rehabilitation. Bermuda’s families need more support, men must take more responsibility for their families and the community as a whole must work together to support families.

UBP arguments

- Ewart Brown is a dictator who makes decisions by himself and doesn’t care about what we think.

- Ewart Brown is soft on crime.

- Ewart Brown is divisive and racially inciteful and polarizes the community.

- Ewart Brown can’t be trusted to turn Bermuda around.

- The PLP are taking care of themselves with perks and pay raises.

- The UBP will provide the following – free education, interest free loans for students, reductions in taxes for school uniforms, free school breakfasts etc..

- The PLP hasn’t done enough to address the housing crisis. The UBP will make housing a top priority.

- Ewart Brown is closing medical clinics without consulting with those affected by the closures and will make healthcare less

If an election were called today will you vote for Dunkley and UBP or Brown and the PLP?

Should height restrictions be relaxed to build high-rise structures? How high? 10, 20, 30 or over 30

If yes, which of the following towns would you approve of increasing building heights? St Georges, Hamilton or Dockyard?

What is your age bracket?

What is your highest level of education?

What is your current marital status?

What is your income bracket?

What is your type of work?

Are you a strong, moderate or weak supporter of the PLP, a strong moderate or weak supporter of the UBP or an independent or other parties.

What is your racial group?

Sometimes one statement reveals so much.

Dr. Brown's press release today endorsing polling for candidate selection and condemning "power brokers operating as a controlling clique are permitted to call the shots" leads to all sorts of interesting places, not to mention hypocritical ones.

Firstly and most obviously the hypocrisy: Dr. Brown heaps scorn on the branch structure as a "controlling clique", a committee which had reportedly 9 representatives from the constituency, in favour of the 5 member controlling clique of the candidate selection committee, who stand poised to overrule the branch.

One person's controlling clique is another's democratic committee I guess. Or is it just that one can be more easily controlled.

Here's a suggestion: Hold a Primary. Neither party is fond of them but they're a good mechanism for settling these things.

Meanwhile, the commitment to polling as a democratic method of measuring public support over the whims of a minority surely means that Dr. Brown will respect the polling which has consistently revealed for more than a decade that an overwhelming majority of 2/3rds of Bermudians are completely opposed to Independence? Right?

Or is that not quite what he was getting at?

A reader writes:

My God, Doc has truly outdone himself in the field of bullshittery this morning. His press release, wherein he states that reform of the method of political candidates in long overdue, is simply laughable.

It's funny. He never had a problem with the selection process insofar as it related to his selection as a candidate. No, the first time that we here from him about the supposed need for reform is when one of his
cabal is soundly kicked to the curb by his own constituents. To make
matters worse, he maintains that candidates will not be selected by the constituency branches, they will be selected by a combination of the branches' expressed wishes and opinion polls. Supposedly, this will result in candidates being selected by a 'bottom up' method, rather than by party elite.

So, let's get this right: what he's really saying is that the branches will have no choice in the selection of candidates, and that candidates will be selected by the ominously communist-sounding Central Committee, and this isn't an example of the whole process being dictated by the party elite. Basically, Doc and his cronies will get the candidates they want, and who gives a damn about what the branches want.

Yep. The same approach is in play with the clinic, Southlands etc.. It's the way he operates. If he doesn't get his way he changes the ground rules.

This could make the UBP's problems look like a walk in the park.

The more I think about, the more astounding the news is that Randy Horton, an incumbent PLP Cabinet Minister and key ally of the new party leader was rejected by his branch committee to run again.

I can't think of another time that a Cabinet Minister has been kicked to the curb so definitively by a branch, and it would appear from the comments by the PLP spokesperson today that the party hierarchy were stunned and had no idea this was coming.

They just seem shell-shocked and in a scramble to try and salvage something workable.

That can only speak to a real disconnect between the on the ground party workers that keep a party moving forward, and the party leadership.

Fortunately for now, the parties seem to be keeping mum, which shows a little more discipline on the PLP's part than a few in the UBP managed with their recent struggles. How long that lasts remains to be seen. Eventually the press will get someone to talk.

I expect that this will be written off as a simple act of the branch wanting a better candidate for their area than a Dr. Brown ally - which probably is the case. But if this were the UBP we'd be seeing this act spun as the work of some sinister white elite, not just branch workers doing what they should do, which is make sure no candidate thinks they're indispensable.

But that's the double standard of Bermuda politics.

This Letter to the Editor in Friday's Mid Ocean News nagged at me all weekend, not just because it's quite a dispassionate assessment of the new Premier, but because it has the feel of being written not by a rabid UBP supporter but a disenchanted PLP insider:

HERE’S a little food for thought for those who take time to read: I often wonder whether former Premier Alex Scott honestly has any regrets for nominating Dr. Brown for the deputy leadership post. If indeed he does, maybe he should have thought like Dame Lois Browne Evans when she stated in July 2003 that if she was leader, she would be more careful who she picked as candidates. I also wonder what Alex Scott meant when he stated that “...Bermuda will get the Government it deserves”. Exempt company chieftains and leaders of legal and financial industries already have the ability to influence new policies and directions i.e. the Bermuda International Business Association mentioning the impact the propised new law to restrict car ownership for guest workers would have on international businesses.

Despite all of this, the Progressive Labour Party diehards may once again show their support based on party lines. They are entrusting their future in the hands of a leader who played a major role in misleading the electorate in 2003 in a desperate attempt to hang on to power, and ultimately forgetting the interests of the people who are left to ponder the question “What about us?”

We must remember that according to Charles Caleb Colton, ‘No man is wise enough, nor good enough, to be trusted with unlimited power.’

When PLP member Craig Clarke spoke of certain members of the PLP who have their own political agenda, did Premier Brown fit into that category? When Dr. Brown returned to Bermuda in 1992, after a 28 year absence, he had the mindset that “If you think I’ve come here just to practice medicine you couldn’t be more incorrect. I have scores to settle, accounts to pull even.”

In the 1998 Election, he was elected despite a strong campaign against him. In 2000 he launched a bid for the deputy leadership of the PLP but was soundly beaten out by the late Finance Minister Eugene Cox.

At that time, he vowed he would one day seek the top job. Dr. Brown’s persistence together — with his political strategy in not divulging everything, every time — and his influence over the other rebels of his party in his pursuit to lead the country, may have been acceptable to the PLP delegates, however, his fate now lies in the hands of the electorate.

Although he is known to be a leader who places great emphasis on achievement and getting things done, Dr. Brown is considered “too American” by some members of his own party.

How will he heal the party rifts and “make it happen” with his autocratic style of leadership should he attempt to take Bermuda to Independence? He did state that he would not stay in the hot seat for ten years because much of what he would like to achieve can be achieved within five years, whilst ruffling some feathers - so I guess that would include “Independence”.

So brace yourselves for the hidden agenda and what Premier Brown has in store for us during his tenure in office, and remember five years is one term in office - so the other five of the ten years he mentioned is for prestige.

In the 1950s he was exposed to Jamaica’s Independence movement when he was being educated in that country, so he is aware of what to expect, which explains the need for beefed up security around his home and the bodyguards.

Bermudians in their shortsightedness, however, are being distracted by the cost factor of implementing the security the Premier seeks (i.e. fencing etc.), when they should be concentrating more on the Premier’s ulterior motive.

Although his ambition is not blind or aimless and has been fortified by many years of preparation - education, hard work, team work, deference, deferral and service — his hasty nature of making decisions that are not vetted fully may one day contribute to his downfall.

On that note, he should be reminded that hasty climbers have sudden falls and that in Bermuda; the electorate prefers to be consulted rather than dictated to.

As Walton Brown stated in July 2003, “It’s not sufficient to say you’ve got your head in the trenches doing the people’s business, they have to know what you are doing and feel a bond with you.” He also said, “A victory for any party has much to do with the leader—”

Does this also apply to Premier Brown, who obviously delegates many of his responsibilities to avoid direct contact with individuals, masking his true personality as seen in his management style, which explains why he chooses to surround himself with spokespersons etc.?

According to October 2000 polls, he was the least popular choice for a leader with just 6.9 percent of the vote. However, he recently managed to convince the PLP delegates, when he crushed his predecessor Alex Scott by 31 votes, to allow him to fulfill his life long ambition of becoming Premier of Bermuda.

Will the Honorable Premier Brown’s reputation of being a bad boss who can’t keep staff affect his ability to be an effective “leader”, or will his vision lead to further division? With Premier Brown now the “Captain” of the ship he once described as “listing in the sea with no rudder”, has his party found the time to right the ship, sit down and have the “open discussion” on “Independence” to decide where it fits in on their agenda or will they once again have to deceive the public to maintain their power?

At least Premier Brown was honest in one of his speeches when he admitted that under the PLP Government, we are no better off today than we were three years ago - neither is our neighbour and neither is our son or daughter.

His objective to have every child of every PLP member and every child of Bermuda aspire to great heights has been partially achieved, as we’ve already seen some of the politicians’ relatives being rewarded with promotions etc.

If every single vote was needed to secure their 2003 election victory, what will happen at the polls this time around?

Will the electorate have the mindset, “once bitten, twice shy”? What about having a plan ‘B” like Premier Brown who hasn’t completely severed his US ties?

After all, he married an American, so he can jump ship and leave Bermuda once again should his dream of Bermuda becoming independent turn into a nightmare. Considering this, when the election does roll around, ‘be careful what you ask for because you just might get it’.

VIGILANT IN DEVONSHIRE

Now that's very interesting.

A sitting Cabinet Minister, and a strong supporter of the Dr. Brown wing in a relatively safe PLP seat is rejected by the branch he currently serves.

It would seem that he could still hold that seat if the PLP Central Committee backs him (I'm not particularly aware of how this works in PLP-land), but that's a recipe for one of those intra-party explosions that the UBP are intimately familiar with.

I said a week or two ago that the big impediment to the calling of an election before Parliament resumes would be Dr. Brown's ability to supplant existing candidates not loyal to him with his hand-picked friends, associates and yes men.

And that looks like it could be an issue based on Friday's events.

I'd heard that Dr. Brown's Chief of Staff Wayne Caines had been summarily dismissed by the branch he was pointed to, which unanimously reappointed incumbent Ashfield DeVent, and Dean Foggo looks to remain in the St. George's seat that he barely scaped though with in 2003.

So, other than Ottiwell Simmons, it doesn't look like people are going to go quietly into the night as had been hoped, to open up the doors for the Brown generation.

There's lots more to unfold here, and it could go much more smoothly than some thing, as Dr. Brown isn't one to let much stand in the way of his wishes, but that is a great way to alienate the grass-roots supporters of any party, and is not the way you want to head into the election.

This kind of event is a balancing act best handled by someone with a soft touch, not the brute force favoured by Dr. Brown when he sets his mind on something.

And, it would seem clear that the rush is on to get candidates placed so that an election can be called, which means that one big advantage that the incumbent party holds in the Westminster system could be squandered to some extent.

Time will tell. But it's clear, the UBP aren't alone, and the narrative that the PLP have been sowing that they're one big cohesive team ain't the case.

Just quickly, the idea that the PLP is "breaking new ground" by polling individual constituencies rather than national polls, and that the result of this is a "deepening of the democratic process" is utter nonsense.

The UBP has been doing it for years. I worked on the last election and it was done extensively then, and it's been done this time around as well. I've been polled myself.

What it probably does mean is that the PLP is more organised and has more resources than in the past, likely a result of the special interest money that they raked in during their Gala in January.

I'll give it to them though, they really are shameless in trying to suggest that things which have been done by others forever are somehow revolutionary when they do them.

I wasn't going to comment on this as it was so childish, not to mention preposterous, but take the PLP Chairman's comment over on the Progressive Minds blog when announcing their own site:

On a side note, I see that the UBP (not to be outdone...) has now decided to put video on their website. ... Oh wait, now they are putting up a blog on thier site (at this time its still empty)....

Imitate my flattery! Its so typical of the UBP always reactionary.... Guess that's why they are the conservative party of Bermuda.

Funny that. The inactive blog link and video were added before the PLP rolled out their site, and, here's a tip-off PLP Chairman...why did they film a special video clip of Donte Hunt's roll-out a week before the PLP website went live?

The PLP website is well done. It looks good. But it just speaks to an over-riding insecurity that they can't let it stand on their own, opting to try and inflate what has been done and run down the other side.

The two sites actually to me show the different personalities of the parties. The PLP's is visually appealing, geared around presenting an image of vitality, whereas the UBP's is much more geared towards presenting actual information.

Both are a work in progress, but I see no need to run down either one. They're just different, and frankly if this kind of mindless taunting is a precursor to an election campaign, it really is going to be a dull one.

There are politics, and arguments worth having, but this tendency is just purely juvenile.

Evidently all the press hasn't made a bit of difference to the Presidential motorcade. Should cycle squad be dealing with dangerous driving, not stroking dangerous egos?

A reader reports:

Wednesday 25 Apr 07 10:29am Ferry Reach Road heading east 3 Police motorcycle outriders (in dress uniform) Premier's Limo 2 other cars with flashing lights (leading and following limo) Front riding motorcycle cop waving oncomming traffic to side of the road as if a wide load was comming.

You should start a "Spot the motorcade" competition!

Get that. Six vehicles in total, 3 motorcycles, GP1 and two additional cars.

[UPDATE: A few readers have written in suggesting that this was for the Peppercorn ceremony which like most formal parades has always included a motorcade for a little pomp and circumstance. And in this case, the Deputy Premier Paula Cox was the occupant as Dr. Brown was at RIMS.]

The PLP has released their new website today.

It looks pretty good, professionally done, complete with a cheesy video tribute to President Brown from his Cabinet Ministers, because they don't have to say nice things do they? (sarcasm alert).

But a reader sent in an absolute gem, from their donations page. Read it and weep:

We're not the party that rakes it in from the wealthy and the special interest elite. Ours is the party of the people and we rely on people like you to give our party the resources we need. Please, make an investment in Bermuda's future by contributing today.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

That made my day. PLP Gala anyone? $25,000 for Platinum donors. Big foreign money welcome.

You really can't make this stuff up. Comments like that show just how much the PLP subscribe to the idea that if you tell a lie often enough, people start to think its true.

If the Premier is really so concerned about his security in general, including at those dangerous celebrity golf tournaments (where the most common question would be "Who are you?") and at home, why did he allow the Bermuda Sun to do an extensive interview at his home, with photos, address and details of his electric gate?

Surely, if security is such an issue, he'd have guarded this a little closely.

I think we all know what this is about: playing dress-up to impress people overseas and a few at home. We all know that once Dr. Brown steps off a Bermuda flight in any other country (something he does more than any politician I can recall), no-one knows who he is.

No-one. Not a clue.

Consider this: if on the eve of an election we're getting this kind of excess and blatant abuse (entourage, bodyguard, police escort, security fencing and more I'm sure we don't know about) imagine what it would be like if he gets his own 5 year mandate.

This isn't even the beginning. Private jets anyone?

A reader follows up on the politics of term limits and car restrictions; this shallow insincere politics (gesture politics) will have real consequences for Bermuda, and not just a few votes and another term for short-sighted narrow-minded politicians who can't put country before self:

Due to the reluctant of expats to talk openly about politics, for fear of losing their work permits; Bermudians may not be aware of the new attitude with in the expat community that the island has become unwelcoming to guest workers.

There is a growing consent in the expat community that we are suffering the blight of gesture politics. (i.e. a policy not really meant to achieve anything other than vote winning.) No one is sure how the term rule will give one Bermudian a job, or how the car ownership rule will have any real affect upon traffic congestion.

Normally accountants (I'm not one) are exempt from these policies i.e. the term rule, but recently the government have set their sights a little too high with the car ownership policy and the BIBA spoke out.

It seems that when you have a large section of the community (one third of the working population) who can't vote, its just too tempting to dump some bad new on them. However I think the government have fallen for the misconception that expat don't have a vote.

We do have a vote, and arguably the largest vote of all. Expats can vote with their feet.

I normally get an email every other month from a friend of a friend thinking of moving to Bermuda and while once my replies were always positive, now I've started to mention the chef and construction site manager who lost their jobs. Once Bermuda has the reputation for being unfriendly to guest workers it will be difficult to shake-off. If employers find it difficult to get staff, then those that can, will simply move away.

I've heard LaVerne Furbert repeatedly make the comment "if guest workers don't like it here, then leave." As my mum told me when I was a small boy………. be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

From Wednesday's Bermuda Sun, Dr. Brown's Chief of Staff Wayne Caines delivers a real zinger:

"Since Dr. Brown has been elevated to Premier of Bermuda he has used GP1 for hundreds of official engagements; most recently he has used a police escort twice - it is only used in very rare and exceptional circumstances."

Asked what those were, Mr. Caines said he couldn't tell us for "security reasons."

A reader knows the answer to at least one of those exceptional circumstances:

In Wednesday's Sun, Waine Caines declines to comment for 'security reasons' on the Premier's destinations during the two times he has used a police escort. Perhaps he's just worried about the PLP's 'security' in the next election and doesn't want the Bermudian public to know that one of these police escorts was used to race the Premier to the airport to greet the cricket team - according to those Progressive Minds on the PLP blog. If that was one of the two most important trips he has taken in GP1 since he got the keys then it seems he needs to get his priorities in order.

With the tug of war (see here and here) going on in the PLP between the existing candidates who don't want to move, and a Premier who's trying to put in place a loyal lineup of candidates of his choice (psst...there's only so many safe seats peeps - some of you have to actually work for it), the UBP have a great opportunity to make serious inroads on the ground, hitting the doorsteps while the PLP hopefuls jockey for the apple of Dr. Brown's eye.

Take constituency 27 for example, where the Gazette says the PLP is polling (who's conducting the polling?) 3 individuals with an existing candidate who probably doesn't want to move. All the while, the UBP's Wayne Scott has been aggressively walking the streets for a couple of years. In constituencies of 1,000 voters, that's what makes the difference.

This internal battle, which has the potential to get rather prolonged if people dig in, is in my mind the only real thing preventing the Premier from calling an election. He still holds the cards, in that the Government gets to pick the time that suits them most, and the PLP are the incumbent establishment party that won't be easy to knock-off, but these things can get messy if everyone doesn't play nice.

But if there's one thing that I know about Michael Dunkley (and Pat Gordon-Pamplin), it's that he understands the value of getting in front of the voters directly (Some UBP canvassers showed up on the doorstep of a house I was visiting on Saturday afternoon).

At the end of the day I expect the election campaign will be approached very differently by the two parties.

The PLP will run a Dr. Brown for President national campaign vilifying a segment of the community and indirectly asking people to vote in racial blocks (with a compliment of yes men hoping to ride his coattails), while the UBP will continue their on the ground/get in front of your constituents and show them you actually care who they are and will work for them strategy that is so important when these things will be won or lost by 10-50 votes.

This line screams for follow-up in today's Royal Gazette story on Dr. Brown's yes men trying to fast-track their way into Parliament:

One former MP questioned whether some of the new influx of candidates were really interested in serving the people or were more interested in the status and financial rewards of being in Parliament.

"Financial rewards of being in Parliament"?

What! Care to elaborate please?

There you have it. So much for public service. It's about prestige, power and money.

Today's announcement that Government is dumping $1,000,000 to revive indigent sports clubs like Somerset Bridge Recreation Club (main article not online) - while promising more welfare over time - surely confirms that entitlement and dependency is in the eye of the beholder.

Can't afford medical help? You're on your own. If you're struggling to find a place to live and request financial assistance you're contributing to a culture of entitlement, but if you need somewhere to kick a ball they'll 'invest in sport'.

Buying votes isn't cheap you know. The pre-election spending spree continues...

A reader writes:

I've never written to your blog before but thought you'd find what I just saw speeding down the road perhaps amusing (in the same way one finds children playing dress up amusing) or concerning (as I do).

I was driving west at 7:30 this evening (Wed. 28 March) on S. Shore Road, just as I was passing the Pokiok entrance guess who went past me at about 50 or 60 mph (no kidding) ...you guessed it, our premier in GP1 which comes complete with not only a flag on the hood, driver and flashing strobe headlights but now also a black CRV in front with matching blue strobe headlights...it's the tiny faux presidential motorcade...funny except for the speed (and the utter disregard for walkers, joggers, kids on bikes etc who are using the PUBLIC road at that hour) and the fact we pay for all this BS.

Indeed.

A reader sends in a surefire sign that the election is imminent:

"They just repaved middle road through de doc's constituency"

Well, the PLP's websites are back after going AWOL for about 24 hours. The progressive minds blog appears to have lost some comments, so maybe there was a drive crash or something and they had to roll it back to an backed up version.

Whatever, these things happen but a little embarrassing on the heels of the childish slamming of the UBP's site by the PLP.

I couldn't resist the dig. Normally I'd have ignore it.

From the Department of What Goes Around Comes Around:

The PLP's website, and that of their Youth Blog Progressive Minds, both have disappeared. [see screen shot in this link.]

And this after the PLP's chairman engaged in some gratuitous criticism of the UBP's revamped website with this memorable quote:

"As with most things, we'll do it better than the UBP."

Time to get down off your high horse David. Did you forget to pay your website bill?

A number of readers have wrote in with similar comments on the Gazette article entitled Cox hits back at her boss":

“Most regrettably, the comments attributed to Mr. Greenberg do not reflect that he is current with the legislative amendments and operational changes that consistently have been taking place within the BMA,” Ms Cox said.

After a stout defence of improvements already made and others in the pipeline, Ms Cox, in a clear criticism of her private-sector boss, concluded: “As the Minister of Finance, in protecting Bermuda’s national economic interest, when I comment on the world stage, given the far-reaching ramifications, I seek to ensure that I am informed, accurate and prudent in my comments. This is advisable across the board.”

That rather rude quote begs the following question from a number of readers:

Does that mean under the Burgess Doctrine, ACE would be in their rights to fire her for dissing the company just like the BHB was right to fire that doctor over the indigent clinic comment?

Over to you Mr. Burgess...

I would guess that the reason the PLP are so prickly about the topic of the dump fire, is because the area residents who have historically voted for the PLP in a big way are probably asking themselves the following question:

"Is this what my PLP vote gets? Government allows a massive fire to start at the dump, through sheer negligence, smoking me out of house and polluting my drinking water, and the Minister for Public Safety implies we're trying to profit from it!"

Meanwhile, the rest of the island are asking the logical extension of that question:

"If this is how they treat their friends...."

The way this fire was allowed to start, and the way the PLP Government has responded to it, speaks right to the issue of trust and compassion...

Can you blame people for thinking that politicians disagree over anything and conduct themselves like children when PLP Chairman David Burt engages in playground sniping over the UBPs revamped website?

Accepting donations online is something that the PLP will do when we update our website. Like most things, we’ll do it better than the UBP.

Like housing, crime, education...whenever they get around to it they'll do it better. So there.

But even funnier, is this bit:

"What I do find interesting is that their hastily assembled solution still asks people for the state and zip code and requires them to submit their ‘employer’ to comply with Federal Laws."

Now, how would Mr. Burt know that, unless he'd either tried to join the party, volunteer or donate online? Hmmm. Maybe the PLP Chairman is a double agent who secretly supports the UBP? Welcome to the fold. All are welcome Mr. Burt.

And another gem:

"...he was ‘disappointed’ there was no blog feature included...He indicated that the PLP’s youth wing called Progressive Minds had beat the UBP to the punch in that regard launching a youth spirited blog in the past few days."

They have a days old blog...congratulations. Welcome to 2001.

Better late than never I guess. I suppose the UBP could borrow one of Mr. Burt's lines: "Like most things, we’ll do it better than the PLP."

This "nanny nanny boo boo" response to the reporter's questions reveals a strange hyper-sensitivity, or perhaps an inferiority complex.

Sure the UBP's site is bare bones at this point, but the PLP's isn't all that impressive either, and never has been.

Does the 'P' in PLP stands for petty?

From today's Royal Gazette:

Burgess to expats: 'Don't get involved in local politics'.

Unless of course you'd like to attend one of the PLP's Gala fundraisers, where foreigners, or in particular foreign money, is more than welcome.

And employees who speak out against their employer should expect to be fired. But also, don't forget that locals who speak out against the PLP should expect some dingbat protestor to show up at your workplace and demand that you be fired.

The hypocrisy is simply astounding.

There are a few things that I don't understand in the very pro-PLP press coverage that we're being treated to of late.

Firstly, how can there be so little follow-up on the resignation of a Cabinet Minister who appears to be on the verge of facing criminal charges arising from an investigation by the Police's Fraud Squad?

Secondly, other than a brief reference in last week's Mid Ocean News article, why won't the press report on the glaring conflict that Dr. Brown has in shutting down the Medical Clinic, when the private clinic he owns stands to benefit? That direct financial link is worth it's own media investigation. The Royal Gazette even ran a comment from Dr. Brown over the weekend but didn't appear to get into his potential direct financial benefit from closing the public clinic.

Thirdly, why has no-one gone to get the Premier's comments on the Immigration dispute that is going to the Supreme Court?

Fourthly, can someone put the brakes on the PLP-lovefest over at the Bermuda Sun? They're not even hiding their bias anymore.

The Sun ignored Dr. Brown's racial attack on Grant Gibbons; they're running op-eds by the Premier's "consultant" on race (which, to quote UBP Senator Bob Richards is like putting Jeffrey Dahmer in charge of the Vienna Boys Choir), where he repeatedly trots out patent falsehoods on the taxpayers dime in the name of an 'honest' discussion of race; and they shamelessly pandered with a series of puff pieces on Dr. Brown's sartorial elegance.

A little balance would be helpful.

Immigration has always been a weapon in the PLP's arsenal, but we've seen it reloaded in a big way over the past several months. I guess that's the outcome of having the Ministry of Immigration as a wholly owned subsidiary of the BIU, under their former president Derrick Burgess.

The latest news of Immigration gone wild confirms that the Department of Immigration is on the verge of becoming a weapon of mass destruction as we hear of yet another incident where a self-absorbed ego-maniacal PLP politician - this time an irrelevant backbencher - abuses whatever little authority he has and has someone deported for being mean to him.

Boo hoo. Run home to mommy little Georgie.

First the chef was deported. Then the doctor was fired. Now a construction worker.

And what were their sins?

Daring to not worship at the PLP altar.

Expats beware. Locals, you're next.

The closing of the Indigent Clinic has been (rightly) getting plenty of attention lately; the Mid Ocean has covered it several times, as has the Gazette, a doctor was fired over a letter to the Editor she wrote, last night's speech by Wayne Furbert mentioned it, and today the Gazette's editorial touches on it:

Dr. Brown also repeated his explanation of why he wants to close the Indigent Clinic. In the overall scope of things, this is a relatively minor issue, but it is beginning to take on gargantuan proportions, in part because the Premier – as with the GPS issue and with the Southlands development – can be astonishingly stubborn when he does not get his way on decisions on which he has set his heart.

I'm not sure whether this is something the Premier has set his heart on, or his wallet.

While the closing of the clinic has received plenty of attention, one very relevant piece of information has not:

Dr. Brown owns a private health care clinic which stands to realise a direct financial benefit if patients are forced to find a private clinic, hence increasing his potential pool of patients.

Why no-one brings this up, either the press or the Opposition, is beyond me. I've mentioned this previously. Dr. Brown has an obligation to disclose this information when discussing this topic, it is very cogent to what the Editorial calls 'astonishingly stubborn'.

Is he stubborn or motivated?

Now we know that Dr. Brown doesn't value disclosure, as evidenced by his failure to declare in the Parliamentary Register of Interests the controversial sale of his Flatts home to the Bermuda Housing Corporation - a transaction which drew condemnation from the Auditor General, but at the minimum, declaring his interest on this topic is warranted, particularly when this appears to be his initiative.

The Royal Gazette reports that the BHC agreed in early 2001 to buy a property from Transport Minister Ewart Brown without first getting the cost independently appraised and without the MP declaring his interests. It says that Auditor General Larry Dennis raised serious concerns about a number of occasions where BHC purchased homes without first obtaining an outside appraisal on the value – and Dr. Brown’s was one of them. Dr Brown denies any wrongdoing and says all his transactions with the BHC were above board.

If Dr. Brown won't disclose this, the press and Opposition should.

Over at Bermuda Network News, Walton Brown (cousin of Dr. Brown and PLP supporter) has a run-down on the PLP's Dr. Brown and the UBP's Wayne Furbert.

I think he oversimplifies things in his assessment of Wayne and his ascension to leader, but his polling indicates Wayne's support at 20% and predicts he won't last much longer.

PLP Productions (courtesy of the taxpayer) brings you Dr. Brown's College Tour. The election approaches:

With Nelson Bascome's pending legal problems forcing him to step aside at the Ministry of Health, it is notable that the massive portfolio went to an appointed Senator, Attorney General (and Dr. Brown loyalist) Phil Perinchief.

The obvious questions are: could no backbencher step up? Couldn't Dale Butler at the Ministry of Social Services pick up the slack, even temporarily; Health is a better fit with Social Rehabilitation (essentially the Ministry of Family/Social Services which was previously married with Health) than Justice. Why put such a portfolio, along with Housing, into the Senate?

This move suggests to me that Dr. Brown still doesn't have much confidence/support outside of his core inner circle; the Alex Scott/Jennifer Smith wing of the party and the deep chasm that has existed since 2003 remains alive and well.

I'm sure the spin is that this is temporary, but you've got to admit Phil Perinchief is a strange choice - particularly when he doesn't sit in Parliament and won't be participating in the Ministry of Health's imminent budget debate.

And now the PLP are on defense, after weeks of it being the UBP:

Health Minister Nelson Bascome has resigned from Cabinet in the face of fraud allegations originally aired in the Mid Ocean News 6 months ago.

I seem to recall Mr. Bascome advanced the vast media conspiracy theory at the time and promised to sue.... hmmm, I guess not.

Dr. Brown's media whoring reaches a new high...or more accurately, a low.

Get a load of the release from Government's Department of Communication and Information this morning:

The media is advised that the Premier, Dr. the Hon. Ewart Brown, JP, MP, will be honouring the late Edna Mae Scott, MBE at her funeral tomorrow at the Cathedral. Your participation and cooperation is appreciated.

Nea Talbot
Public Affairs Officer

The Premier is soliciting press coverage at a funeral. Classy. Very classy.

You know what I love about our Premier?

He's never seen a ribbon he won't cut, a camera he doesn't want to preen for....well usually, but not always.

If ever there was an illustration of our style and no substance Premier, this week was it.

On Wednesday, Dr. Brown shoved aside his Works & Engineering Minister to take centre stage for a useless photo op - the cutting a ribbon at the new Collector's Hill traffic lights, while prattling on with flowery talk hailing Government's achievements - or in real terms, doing its most basic tasks (road works).

Yesterday there was another photo op, except this time the Premier didn't show up. Instead, Education Minister Randy Horton was out all alone to announce the long overdue and yet again disastrous graduation rates in the public school system.

The same way Mr. Horton was all alone to announce that Government had allowed Cedarbridge to literally rot from the inside out. Dr. Brown has never commented on that.

Nor has he commented on the Southlands/SDO controversy - one on the boundary of his own constituency.

Ribbon cutting, cocktail parties, golf - Dr. Brown will upstage his Ministers.

Serious problems? Don't call. He's busy cutting ribbons, wining and dining or golfing.

At some point, methinks his Ministers will get tired of this act.

Maybe it's me, but doesn't it seem like the only difference between the UBP's current discord, and the PLP's 3 year battle between Jennifer Smith's camp and Ewart Brown's camp is that there are whites in the UBP...hence it must be racially driven.

Another example:

When young candidates are fast tracked in the UBP (ie. Jamahl Simmons, or even Shawn Crockwell as the new chair) it's called window dressing, whereas when Premier Brown installed 3 young and completely politically inexperienced individuals in the Senate, it's called a stroke of brilliance and a commitment to the youth.

In fact, I'd hazard a guess that almost all of the people who decry the UBP fastracking any black inidividual through the party would support affirmative action policies in the workplace.

What's the difference?

Those examples are why I become so frustrated - and am convinced race as an issue is not suited to the political domain - is that it's not uncommon to hear whites described as inherently racist; by birth, by nature, by nurture, by definition, by their DNA, or all of the above.

Any action that involves whites is too often ascribed to race in Bermuda.

How can that be a starting point for a discussion of the many layers of privilege in this community, be it white privilege, or dare I raise it...black privilege? Privilege exists both between and within the races.

With that atmosphere, is it any wonder that we can't progress on this issue, and that more and more whites feel that they can't enter the discussion in good faith?

If you've just held a controversial political fundraiser, one which pushed the boundaries of ethical behaviour and raised all sorts of questions about what is and isn't above board, surely the last person you want as your standard-bearer is lawyer and political fair-weather friend Llewelyn Penniston.

You can't miss the irony in Mr. Penniston talking about the event being suspiciously transparent:

“This is an unusual and a bold approach by the PLP but one that’s sufficiently transparent that it should not attract any more criticism than attended the UBP in its heyday.”

...while the organisers threw out the press:

A representative from this newspaper interviewing ball guests was instructed to leave the hotel premises by security staff at the behest of the event organisers.

I guess after the T.H.E. scandal the Premier has learned not to put the donors on the invitation; better to keep them under wraps.

The Police Landcruisers to keep out the locals was a nice touch as well.

Former Senator and Attorney General, and now PLP dog's body Larry Mussenden, certainly seems to have managed to get his hand in just about every current political mess (of which there are many).

Let's review:

1) He's the head of the BFA which has allowed the Premier to hijack the Dudley Eve Trophy under the guise of Government sponsorship and rename it in his image.

2) He apparently gave the green light for the Premier and his wife's unregistered T.H.E. charity to solicit hundreds of thousands of dollars after having the foundation's application for charitable status referred to him because the Charities Commission was too scared to reject it themselves.

3) He's the latest chairman of the Bermuda College, which is embroiled in a scandal over improper taxpayer funded perks for the College President, Dr. Greene, and sees no urgency to read the Public Accounts Committee's damning report.

That's not easy to do.

This is exactly why campaign finance reform is needed in Bermuda.

Both parties are too short-sighted and worried about their immediate prospects to tackle an issue like this that affects them so directly.

Foreign political fund-raising is the worst end of the spectrum, but you've got to be willing to risk something and sacrifice something here for a bigger cause.

I agree with Wayne that donations would dry up if people's names were made public in such a small place as here, but that's probably a good thing and why public financing is probably the answer (although it has it's issues as well).

However you cut it there is an appearance that people would expect something in return.

Wayne Furbert could have totally embraced the concept, regardless of whether he agreed or not, and let the PLP stand alone to reject it. Instead he was honest. Something we don't expect from politicians. Maybe a bad political move, but honest - although short-sighted in my opinion.

We need to look at the bigger picture. We need to get money out of our politics.

So why hasn't Dr. Brown attacked BPSU secretary Ed Ball, who raised concerns about the Premier's wife in a letter after the 2006 Music Festival?

Mr. Ball said: “The focus of the disquiet is whether or not it is correct for the wife of a Cabinet Minister to publicly declare her interest in raising funds for a government funded programme.”

And Dr. Brown himself inserted his wife into the debate over a month ago by directing the press to speak with her directly (same link above):

Dr. Brown said last night that The Royal Gazette should speak to his wife directly about the letter, but she would not be available until her return from a trip to New York tomorrow evening.

Which negates the spin Julian Hall uses today about bringing the Premier's wife into the equation:

"When you bring into the equation his wife you get really personal. The Premier is a human being like everyone else. He's going to react as any human being would.

"There is underlying racism in making this attack without evidence or substance.

"When you go around impugning motives without any evidence whatsoever, it smacks of racism."

So is Mr. Ball, a black Bermudian, a racist? Nope. He raises the same legitimate concerns that Dr. Gibbons and the UBP have:

He said the union understood that the Music Festival appeared in the Department of Tourism accounts and was concerned that accountability for the financing of the event may have been compromised.

He asked for clarification on points including whether registration of a charitable foundation for receipt of the funds had been completed.

He asked if it was correct that the Music Festival was funded by the Government through the Department of Tourism.

He also questioned whether the Government was the sponsor of the festival or whether the festival was a charity that Government could donate to.

“We note that in other jurisdictions, in particular the UK, the charitable status of a body like the Music Festival would have to be established after due diligence procedures had been satisfied, and before any funds could be raised,” wrote Mr. Ball.

“On the basis of our understanding, it appears that the foundation established by Mrs. Henton Brown to raise funds for the Music Festival does not have a mandate from any source.

“This must put the funds raised in question. These funds are not insignificant as we understand that a check ranging from $100,000 to $150,000 US was collected at the close of the Kathleen Battle performance.”

Grant Gibbons raised the same issues other did, including the Political Eunuch comment.

The difference? Grant's white. Now you tell me who's got the race problem?

The Royal Gazette has a run down of the hate speech spewed forth by Dr. Brown last night in Parliament, but it missed some of the disgusting attempts the Premier (I'm ashamed to call him that) made to portray Grant Gibbons's criticisms as racist.

Take the ridiculous story Brown made up about his friend who trains monkeys. Speaking directly to Dr. Gibbons, he told a story about someone who trained monkeys, who could make them do all sorts of things including sit, run and eat bananas. The ending of the story was that Dr. Gibbons might be surprised that one day he came home and saw the monkeys on the internet.

A stupidly offensive story trying to suggest that Dr. Gibbons viewed black people as monkeys. Digusting. Offensive. Shameful. Venemous. But not a surpise.

Here's one that the Gazette article did cover:

“Mr. Speaker, that Honourable member made a comment about my predecessor, and I heard no one on the other side take him on about it,” Dr. Brown continued. “He referred to the Honourable Premier at the time as a ‘political eunuch.

“Now black people respond negatively to any reference to castration. During slavery there was a big call for eunuch stations and it was at those stations that black men were sent to be castrated. If I called that member a racist dog. You see it is the dog that matters.

Dr. Gibbons interjected: “Mr. Speaker is he calling me a racist dog?”
Dr. Brown replied: “Mr. Speaker, I would never call that member a racist dog, because I can tell that he is not a dog.”

Hmm. Here's another quote about political eunuchs delivered 5 weeks ago:

But she signalled she would not be happy to take a backseat if she landed the Deputy Premier’s post.

“On paper, the role of Deputy is more the role of a political eunuch.”

But she said a relationship based on respect and trust could see important functions delegated to the country’s number two.

Who delivered that quote you ask? One Paula Cox, now PLP Deputy Premier and Finance Minister, commenting on the role that Dr. Brown filled since July 2003.

So, where was Dr. Brown's outrage then, when his own colleague called him a political eunuch? Did he 'take her on'?

Does Dr. Brown consider Paula Cox a racist dog as he called Dr. Gibbons? It would seem that way.

The Premier's entourage grows again?

The grapevine tells me that the Premier has hired a new chauffeur, dropping the Regimental driver used by his predecessors Smith and Scott.

You might recall that Ms. Smith fired the longtime Premier's driver shortly after taking office in 1998.

On a related note, last night and this morning I saw the Premier's car (GP1) at Collector's Hill, and I'm pleased to report that Dr. Brown appears to have had the good sense to have the Regiment soldiers put on a shirt and tie and drop the camouflage.

It always had a sort of third world dictator feel to it.

I'm not disputing the results of today's Royal Gazette poll, but don't you think there is an obligation to disclose that the polling is conducted by Research Innovations, owned and operated by Premier Brown's cousin Walton Brown, who is rumoured to have been involved in Dr. Brown's successful leadership challenge (present at Dr. Brown's kick-off speech and swearing in weeks later at Government House) of Premier Alex Scott, launched hot on the heels of a Research Innovations poll with sky high tourism approval ratings?

And shouldn't they disclose that Dr. Brown's brother is the CEO of HSBC Bermuda when HSBC funds Government initiatives.

I'm not surprised by the poll results. A bounce was expected, but surely there needs to be some disclosure of these facts.

Extraordinary.

That's the word that came to mind while reading recently deposed former PLP Premier Alex Scott's comments on the ethical problems with Dr. Brown's PLP Gala Fundraiser and reflecting on his tenure and what Dr. Brown has promised. (More on the latter article later.)

Premier's Gala Weeekend Money quote (in every sense of the word):

"I heard some large figures. You have to watch out for sweetheart deals."

As an example he said gaming interests had lobbied when he was Premier but had been resisted.

If such a lobby group donated and gaming prohibitions were lifted people would make an assumption of corruption said Mr. Scott.

"People will say 'Oh, that is the same individual who gave a large sum to the party'. The party should be wary of this sort of largess from outside."

Wow.

The former Premier has admitted that a 'gaming interest' offered to make a large donation to the PLP in exchange for favourable treatment in setting up a gambling operation here.

This quote doesn't feel like a random example to me. Why did the former Premier pick this one to cite?

I'm not sure I buy the defense of his (or Finance Minister Paula Cox's) oversight in Dr. Brown's Pay to Play scandal, and I'm not quite sure what this means:

"What I was seen to do publicly and what I did behind the scenes were two different things.

"I didn't leave any pay to play in place and I think the Minister of Finance felt equally strongly about it."

But the next sentence suggests that the former Premier doesn't hold his successor's ethical standards highly:

Asked if he was worried it would resurface he said: "Let's wait and see.

"Everybody knew that I didn't support that approach to our business and anyone involved in it had a conversation with me and had promised they would address the circumstances behind it."

I predict, that before too long, the PLP membership will be having some serious buyers remorse.

A reader beats me to it:

"So the question is, why would anyone from the USA be interested in coming to this Gala Event?

"People seeking to influence events, e.g. Lobbyists, or the Bermuda
equivalent, which unfortunately is now part of our system."

Yep. We've been through this before, but back then the cheques payable to "Dr. Ewart Brown (PLP)" were for $2,500. Now that Dr. Brown is President, I mean Premier, he's added a zero to the end.

The first we got wind of this event was a couple of weeks ago in the final two sentences of an article announcing that Dr. Brown would be taking a victory lap around North America and the UK under the guise of visiting overseas students:

Dr. Brown is also planning a victory party following his recent elevation to the Premiership of Bermuda.

He is inviting overseas friends and family to a Premier’s Gala Weekend on January 12-14 to raise funds for the Bermuda Progressive Labour Party.

After stumbling across the gala announcement on the PLP's website last night, I spent most of the day chuckling about the details of the party which is so obviously modeled after a US Presidential inauguration, but mostly that Dr. Brown's wife has adopted the tile "First Lady".

But now it's time to focus on the implications of this event, something we went through with the Pay to Play scandal back in 2003, where Dr. Brown solicited political donations from Bermuda's American pension fund administrators, a shakedown if there ever was one.

Now we have this on a much larger scale. The leader of the country and one of our two political parties is seeking political donations from foreign sources.

In the US that is illegal. For obvious reasons.

Now, Dr. Brown's press secretary did say he was inviting friends and family from overseas, but are we really expected to believe that Dr. Brown requires his friends and family to pay up to $25,000 to play a round of golf, have dinner and have a photo taken with him? Please. This is about selling favours.

Having your politicians being financed by foreign interests is a dangerous and extremely distasteful thing. I can't say that strongly enough.

As my reader says, why would anyone from overseas want to donate to our local political parties, unless they expect a quid pro quo?

Any donor, but foreign donors in particularly, aren't going to pay up to $25,000 to attend this gala unless they anticipate having the favour returned. Political money is ruining the US political system and has legalised bribery in Washington (lobbyists), and unfortunately, our American President impersonator is importing the worst aspects of the American system to our shores.

If the PLP are financed by foreigners what does that say? Well it says a lot of things, but mostly it says that the Bermudian government, and Premier, is selling us out to the highest foreign bidder.

Shame.

Read it and weep.

Dr. Brown's exercise in ego building and self-congratulation aka "The Premier's Gala Weekend" (Presidential Inauguration) announcement is up at the PLP's website.

My favourite bit, other than the astronomical table amounts, is:

"Attendance for two (2) at First Lady Wanda’s Luncheon"

Yes, you read that right, "First Lady Wanda".

and

Photo portrait opportunities with the Premier at the scheduled events

He really does think he's the American President. Maybe he's taken some tips from Michael Douglas.

What level do you think that the Bank of Bermuda (aka Dr. Brown's brother Phil Butterfield) will participate at? My bet is Platinum after today's helping hand for the empowerment zone.

If, as President Brown says, "the centre-piece of his administration is work", why did I see Labour and Immigration Minister Derrick Burgess going for a leisurely bicycle ride on Monday three hours after Cabinet was sworn in and Social Rehabilitation Minister Dale Butler having a long lunch on the patio of Little Venice on Thursday?

I lightheartedly put this question to Derrick Burgess through a family member on Tuesday afternoon, to which I was told "he giggled and said he starts early"...which is apparently true, he does start early.

But I couldn't resist.

Today's Royal Gazette covers most bases today (here, here, here, here, and here) on the Cabinet appointments and the Limey has a high level take that I largely share.

There's no point in retreading that ground, so I don't have too much to add other than that on the surface there looks to be a lot of change but there are an awful lot of familiar faces in there; including a couple of established underperformers (Dennis Lister, Nelson (BHC) Bascome) and one seriously pissed looking Paula Cox.

I did want to touch on the surprise that many people have expressed with respects to David Burch retaining a Senate seat and Cabinet role, while the 4 other Senators got the boot.

I think a couple of things were at play here:

1) Dr. Brown felt a need to maintain some continuity in housing after 8 years of upheaval.

2) Firing all 5 senators would be a horrible move logistically. Someone with Senate experience had to remain to guide through legislation. 5 newbies unfamiliar with the Senate process, despite their smarts, would be open to abuse by the UBP Senators. I don't know who the Senate leader will be, presumably David Burch or Phil Perinchief, but I think that was an additional factor in retaining Sen. Burch.

[CORRECTION: This entry was corrected: It would appear that the "Junior Ministers" are not in fact in Cabinet, as I originally thought but seemed to be the case.]

I'll add each appointment as they're announced. Click refresh to get the latest:

Cabinet

Premier & Tourism & Transport - Ewart Brown
Dep. Premier & Finance - Paula Cox
Education, Sport & Recreation - Randy Horton
Health - Nelson Bascome
Public Safety & Housing - David Burch (Senator)
Environment, Telecommunications & E-Commerce - Neletha Butterfield
Community & Cultural Affairs - Wayne Perinchief
Labour & Immigration - Derrick Burgess
Social Rehabilitation (WTF?) - Dale Butlter
Works & Engineering - Dennis Lister
Attorney General - Phil Perinchief (Senator)

Non Cabinet Senators

Junior Minister - Kim Wilson (Senator)
Junior Minister - Davida Morris (Senator)
Junior Minister - Wayne Caines (Senator)

Rumour has it that a little post-election showdown took place over the weekend between Dr. Brown and technically-still-Premier Scott.

I've been reliably informed that Doc. Brown, fresh off his PLP leadership win but before his official swearing in as Premier, quickly called in GP1 - the Premier's official ride - and that Premier Scott refused to hand it over.

So Dr. Brown decided he'd take it anyway (or at least try). I hear that the Police were aware.

Priorities. The first order of business for the about to be Premier was to get his keys to the most oversized car on the island.

[UPDATE: originally I used the phrase saying 'the Police were involved', which is a little strong. The Police were 'aware' is probably better, based on what I heard]

The latest iteration of Cabinet is to be announced at 11AM this morning, or thereabouts.

I'll post the lineup as soon as I hear.

I'll also be providing some more thoughts on where things may go from here, but the one thing that I'll say now, is that we'll almsot certainly be facing a general election within 6 months.

Dr. Brown will want to get to the polls quickly.

Gone is Alex Scott's head shot on the PLP's website front page, already replaced with Dr. Ewart Brown's.

The leadership page has been quickly reshuffled as well.

Moreno reports that Paula Cox defeats Randy Horton for PLP Deputy Leader.

Randy Horton is contesting for Deputy Premier against Paula Cox.

Gary Moreno of ZBM is reporting that Dr. Ewart Brown has beaten Alex Scott as the Leader of the PLP.

Vote count: 107 to 76

ZBM's Gary Moreno is reporting that both Premier Scott and Dr. Brown have addressed the delegates.

The vote will be by secret ballot and the ballots are now being handed out.

So, I figured that I have to do some type of prediction for this evening, so here goes:

BLOODBATH.

How's that?

But seriously, from what I've read I just can't see how either outcome, Premier Scott or Premier Brown, can resolve the animosity that has plastered the newspapers all week. I also think there's the distinct possibility that there is no resolution this evening and this could run through the weekend.

What sealed it for me was Paula Cox coming out in the press and disparaging Dr. Brown. That confirms that things are very acrimonious; she's not the confrontational type.

So we'll have to wait and see.

If I was forced to predict between Dr. Brown winning the vote or Alex Scott, I'd put my money on Scott. Incumbency has its advantages and Alex Scott is much more in-tune with the branches and the party mechanics than Dr. Brown who is all about me, me, me as his opponents/colleagues have pointed out.

And let's face it, how does the thought of a Government run by Ewart Brown, Rolfe Commissiong, Julian Hall, Calvin Smith make you feel?

I'll take (relatively) benign incompetence over malicious competence any day.

Thrilled by the success of Tourism's recent showing of Movies on the Beach, the PLP will be re-enacting "House of Flying Daggers" this evening at Alaska Hall.

I'll post the outcome...if there is one tonight...as soon as I hear something.

Ticket please....

Thanks to the unknown comedian.

Tons of good stuff in today's The Royal Gazette articles (here, here and here) and editorial regarding the PLP leadership battle. Must read material, after 10AM when it comes online of course.

Short version, Paula Cox to run with Scott as Deputy, craps all over Dr. Brown, and reveals a massive split in the party.

The PLP have a big problem here (actually same 3 year old problem finally resurfacing), whether this goes Brown or Scott's way....or another direction.

UPDATE: The Bermuda Sun has some good behind the scenes looks and take on my earlier observations about the different approaches taken by the Brown and Scott camps.

A few random thoughts on the PLP leadership battle:

Firstly, my overall reaction to Dr. Brown's 'vision' was that it was underwhelming. The wanna-be Premier rolled out the same old platitudes and pandered to the same crowd as Scott; if this is the best he's got after lusting after the Premier's spot for so long I'm surprised.

For example, I struggle to believe that Brown cares one bit about the Human Rights Amendment which he opposed in his speech:

"I firmly believe in the right of all and any individuals to be free from discrimination in any form. However, I would not support the proposed Human Rights Amendment. I do not believe that there is a need for special protection of persons in Bermuda based on their sexual orientation. I personally know of many individuals who have reached the pinnacles of Bermudian society who have stated their preference for members of their same sex. There is no evidence that this divisive amendment is necessary for Bermuda at this time."

Come on. Setting aside the not so subtle reminder to the PLP delegates of the sexual orientation of some of those who are working against his leadership bid, if I were to make the following statement what would Dr. Brown say:

"I do not believe that there is a need for special protection of persons in Bermuda based on their race. I personally know of many individuals who have reached the pinnacles of Bermudian society who are black. There is no evidence that this divisive amendment is necessary for Bermuda at this time."

He's call me a plantation owner, slave master etc. etc..

Brown doesn't give two hoots about someone's sexual orientation, of that I'm sure. He's "toadying to the church lobby" to borrow a phrase from Brown backer Julian Hall in today's RG.

Remember that Brown's cousin, and PLP Central Committee wingnut Laverne Furbert told the Bermuda Sun that the PLP Central Committee had killed the HRC amendment before it went to Cabinet.

Brown knows he'd better not stir up that hornets nest, so he sells himself and a lot of others out trying to triangulate a position that placates homophobic delegates.

Regardless, there was very little new in there, although I agree that the whole hospital decision needs to be revisited and approached from the bottom-up. But the statement on the hospital raises to me one very serious question about Brown that challenges the whole idea that the PLP train will suddenly get moving under him.

Essentially what Dr. Brown said is that the two successive Cabinet's which he has served in have been useless and accomplished very little other than letting things run as they found them. (The few efforts at tinkering have given us things like Berkeley, the BHC, an exploding travel budget etc.).

So here's my question:

If Dr. Brown is such a powerful orator, such a persuasive politician, why has he been so unpersuasive in Cabinet? He's been a party to all these discussions and initiatives and has defended them to the hilt in Parliament and the media. He can't disown the record of the past 8 years, as much as he'd like us to believe otherwise.

He also can't expect us to believe that with him at the helm we're suddenly going to get much better productivity out of the same useless and ineffective 21 (excluding the Speaker - from the eligible MPs, not being useless and ineffective) PLP MPs than we have for the past 8 years.

Brown's been in Cabinet for 8 years. That group is so clearly disfunctional that a simple change at the top isn't going to change anything; they'll still be split and mired in in-fighting.

Brown's speech offered nothing new, and frankly, from watching the delivery he seemed to be lacking his usual panache.

I'm getting the impression that Dr. Brown knows that he can't win as himself (Doc Hollywood). So he's trying to be all humble, and humble doesn't work for him; he's arrogant and cocky, some people lap that up...evidently not the delegates though.

If he succeeds in this leadership bid we'll see arrogance magnified not just personified....let alone the access to power and perks such an ethics-less Premier would have.

Regardless, I see the daily media blitz from the Brown camp and the silence in return from the Scott camp, as a sign that Brown knows he's not got the votes he needs and Scott is quietly working the back channels. So he's sent out his emissaries to convince/publicly shame the delegates into voting for him.

If he thought he could sway the delegates by talking to them directly I doubt he'd be rolling out the who's who of washed up PLP MPs and hangers on like Arthur Hodgson, Julian Hall (washed up MPs) and Rolfe Commissiong (hanger on) to make the case.

Time will tell if this is a good strategy.