"Catch a fire"

Well, yesterday saw mass defections from the UBP to the BDA parliamentary caucus, with the BDA itself being officially dissolved today and replaced with the One Bermuda Alliance (OBA), which is officially being sworn in as the Official Opposition today at Government House, with John Barritt becoming the new Leader of the Opposition.

The UBP continues to exist for the timebeing, with two MPs, the former Leader of the Opposition (and presumably still the UBP Leader) Kim Swan, and Charles Swan, still in the House of Assembly, and Senator Atherden clinging to her Senate seat (the other two UBP Senators defected to the BDA/OBA yesterday and resigned their seats accordingly). I don’t see how Senator Atherden will be able to keep her Senate seat though, as our Constitution does not allow it; she will likely be removed by order of the Governor and replaced by OBA Senators over the course of today.

The BDA’s Failure

I’ve said before that I think the BDA-UBP merger is a mistake. While I have no love for the UBP (perhaps some nostalgia in as much as I’m so used to the PLP-UBP dualism), and I didn’t support the BDA, I thought the BDA should have kept developing itself. It was going to be a long road, and there was the possibility of dividing the vote and going down the slow death spiral that the NLP did over the 1990s. All possible. But the NLP only declined because the PLP increasingly took its platform and political niche and the NLP failed to defend its niche – or develop a new one – with the superior organisation and resources of the PLP winning out. There can only be room for one party in these niches.

As long as the BDA failed to differentiate itself from the UBP it was always going to compete for the same resources, membership and support base. It needed to become something new or, alternatively, outcompete the UBP. It may well have been able to outcompete the UBP in time, but they gave up too soon in my opinion. Nor did they seem to place any serious effort on differentiating themselves. Instead, they seem to have lost their nerve and conviction and instead we have this frankenstein of a party, composed of pieces from two political corpses, in essence.

Death Spasms or Flesh Wound?

It’s not clear what will happen with the UBP now. There is no question that they have been severely wounded by the defections of most of its parliamentary caucus. Presumably they will also have lost important numbers of their party cadre and financial backers. They still exist, and still have some resources, but their organisational structure is in crisis, and their potential for financial support is slim, with the OBA likely to take those resources and benefit from the human capital of defecting UBP cadres.

This does not mean that the UBP is doomed. It does mean that they may be doomed, and no one would be surprised at this point if they are unable to recover from this blow. They do however have the potential to recover, although it will be a slow one. They will likely have to regroup and redefine themselves, with their organisational reach being curtailed. If they continue it is unlikely they will be able to field a full set of candidates in the next election, and will probably focus on keeping what they have and maybe making one or two gains elsewhere. They will continue as a rump political party if they do this, at least for the next elected parliament. However, if they can survive in parliament, even with two or three seats in the next election, they may well recover, and the influx of new faces, a neccessary consequence of these defections, may well be to their benefit.

Such an approach will mean a long and difficult road for its remaining membership. Their leader will have a thankless task and will need a clear sense of purpose and conviction with which to guide the party back from the wilderness. I do think, though, that if they can take this situation as an opportunity for redfining and reconstruction, they may well benefit in the long-term. Having said that, I also wouldn’t be surprised if they collapse and go the way of the NLP following the next election.

OBA Potential

At the moment the OBA has had one of the worst possible of starts, even worse than the BDA’s poor planning of a genesis. They do however have the benefit of the experience of the BDA, and its organisational structure with which to graft on the defecting human and financial capital of the UBP. As such they have the potential to become a fully functioning Official Opposition very quickly. One expects there will be minor disputes resulting from the jockeying for positions and influence that the influx of UBP MPs and cadre will cause, but I don’t expect these to seriously threaten the new party’s existence, although they may provide fault lines for the future.

As things stand the OBA really do suffer from the same criticisms that were levelled at the BDA. No one knows how they differ from the UBP in anything but name. In terms of parliamentary representatives they are all MPs that were elected under the UBP banner in 2007. Membership wise and financially they appear to be a reunification of the fractured UBP, albeit with potentially a few new faces resulting from the ill-fated BDA saga. They may even recapture membership and support which left the UBP but never subsequently pinned their colours (or membership dues) to the PLP or BDA. But does this make them anything more than a rejuvenated UBP? And is this ‘new hope’ substantial or just a short-term bump of false hope? And can they really move beyond the UBP in other areas than name?

I don’t know. They have the potential, that is true, but can that potential overcome organisational and ideological inertia left over from the UBP? I’ll keep an open mind in my judgement of them (I severly doubt they will attract my support mind!), but the onus is on them to disprove critics who claim they are just a rebranded UBP.

In the RG yesterday there was an article concerning Premier Cox’s apparent reversal of her position on taking a paycut. The unions had been advocating that if they (their constituent membership) were going to be expected to take paycuts, in the sense of overtime bans and their wages not increasing to match inflation (both of which are de facto paycuts for workers) that the MPs, particularly the Cabinet and the Premier, should also make similar sacrifices, even if merely symbolic. In Premier Cox’s Easter address<; to the country she rather infamously ruled out even entertaining such an idea with some poorly chosen words of ‘politics of appeasement’ and ‘doing more with less’ which were not only contradictory but came across as extremely arrogant.

That she has now apparently changed her position on this issue has opened her up to attacks of flip-flopping and weak leadership – she is perceived to have backtracked in the face of the ridicule and criticism she recieved for her words in that speech. This is understandable. While there is nothing wrong with reflecting on ones position and being convinced of a better position, her published statements do make one wonder whats going on with these rapidly changing and contradictory actions.

I welcome her apparent willingness to reconsider this position, although I recognise it isn’t clear if there will be anything additional to her comments, as in whether or not it will translate into any actual action. It may very well be a minor concession, an attempt to mitigate some of the criticism she recieved for her original position. However, if that was her intention, she failed to counter the predictable criticism that she is flip-flopping and allowing public opinion to dictate her actions, rather than her actions helping guide public opinion. All she needed to do to prevent that criticism was to state something along the lines that ‘on reflection, her earlier pronouncements may have been made without sufficient consideration, and she is now willing to entertain the concept and give the unions an opportunity to discuss the issues in greater clarity’. Had she done that she could have given herself the appearence of hindsight, humility and a willingness to recognise that she, too, is all too human and makes mistakes. She may well have been criticised still, but I think the criticism would be less so and she instead would have garnered some political capital in the process.

It’s important to note that we don’t know fully what she said on the matter. The RG, like any media outlet, is limited in space and likely just provided excerpts that gave the essence of the communique. The PLP though (and how many times has this been pointed out?!) have a website where her communique could have been transcribed in full, unfiltered and fully controlled. It is dissappointing that they do not use their website more in this manner and instead use it for a confused combination of poor propaganda and government (and not Party!) releases.

As said though, I welcome the Premeir’s humility in recognising that her earler statements may have been too hasty and is willing to reconsider the matter. I just hope that in the future she considers her statements more carefully (although avoiding paralysis by analysis) so that she doesn’t have to repeat this situation in the future.

I gotta say, I was shocked to read the RG article today about Minister Butterfield complaining (and threatening a boycott of) about the AME Church not providing her and Deputy Premeir Burgess and Attorney General Scott ‘preferred seating’ at the front of the Church. A clear sub-text in the article is that the Govenment representatives felt particularly slighted because they were offered seats behind the Opposition Leader, Mr. Swan.

Minister Butterfield apparently went of on a tirade about Churches needing to learn Government protocol and invoking the Queen of England and US Government representatives to ask if they would have suffered the same apparent indignity. The Church itself apparently has hitherto had a policy that all people are VIPs in the face of God and there is no preferred seating arrangements, with seating apparently being based on time of arrival than anything else.

It’s incidents like this that show how decadent and elitist the party has now become. It is so far out of touch with the grassroots or a sense of humility that it is almost unbelievable that they are complaining over such percieved slights. The Party has no shame it would appear, and definitely seems to think that, in the eyes of God, they are VIPs in need of special treatment more than other members of the congregation. The attempt to invoke foreign dignitaries and ask how they would have been treated is irrelevant. If the policy of the Church had been that no one is more important in the eyes of God, then that is the policy.

Minister Butterfield should issue an immediate apology to the AME Church and the other Ministers involved (Messers Burgess and Scott) should publicly distance themselves from this affair. I cannot say that the sentiments expressed by Minister Butterfield are that of the Party (in the sense of its public face), but unless the Party publicly rebukes her and her apparent fellow petty Minister, that will remain the perception. I am not a Christian, this is true, but for party members, and high-ranking ones at that, to articulate such elitism as to imply they are somehow bigger than Jesus (to be poetic) is the height of decadence.

Apologise now or face the consequences of the public’s and grassroot’s wrath at your peril, is all I can say.

I was contacted by the RG the other day asking my thoughts on the news that the two UBP factions (the BDA spin-off and the UBP proper) have agreed on a reunification and the name ‘One Bermuda Alliance’. My comments are in todays RG, although understandably it was not possible to use my comments in there entirety. To ensure there isn’t any misunderstanding of my comments (which can happen if one just reads excerpts), my full comments are below:

[The parts in bold indicate the excerpts found in the RG article.]

As a parliamentary force I don’t think the name change or reunification of the two UBP factions really changes anything. As a political force, that is, one that extends beyond parliamentary arithmetic, into popular legitimacy and political capital, I think they have a lot of potential at the moment, but it really depends on how they play their hand from now and what the PLP does from now on. People ARE upset with the PLP, and the PLP’s base is far from happy with the current situation. I wouldn’t have thought this a year ago but, quite honestly, unless the PLP gets their act together pretty quick, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Opposition were able to form the next government. Obviously there are a lot of different factors to consider, but I think the PLP is quickly losing a lot of its credibility. They are in a similar situation as the UBP were in 1998, when a lot of people decided it was time for a change of government and that the UBP needed a spell in opposition to sort themselves out. Of course there are differences, it’s not a simple comparison, but I think even quite a few PLP-supporters are sufficiently disappointed that they may look favourably on some serious internal restructuring or redirection. That doesn’t have to be done in opposition, but losing an election could certainly prove a useful catalyst for that process.

The OBA, as it stands, it just seems as old wine in a new bottle right now. The UBP split into two factions, the UBP and the BDA, and now they are back together. I think the BDA should have defined themselves more and carved themselves a niche, and going back to the UBP just makes me feel as if the last few years have been rather pointless from the perspective of the Opposition benches. However, it doesn’t have to be. If the OBA is able to capitalise on the disappointment with the PLP and the opportunity that this reunification offers, then they can become a very new entity and not just old wine/new bottle. I feel that if they spend the next few months reintergrating their structures and personnel, develop an open candidate selection (branch hustings to select new candidates) and collectively resign and initiate a series of bye-elections in about four months time, say a late August or early September, then that could give them a real boost. It will help them acquire legitimacy and allow an influx of new faces (it may very well include most or all of the current crop) and put pressure on the PLP. I realise a general election needs to be held by December 2012, so some people may think its a wasted exercise, but I think it could serve to really establish them as a new force and put the PLP on the defensive, help thrash out a counterposition to the PLP government and ensure a new opposition grouping in time for the next parliament/Throne Speech.

I think that Premier Cox was quite right when she said in her pre-Easter address that the honeymoon period has ended. I question what appears to be some short-sighted policy decisions relating to the budget, of which the whole public transport fiasco is emblematic. I think people are starting to question what she was doing as finance minister up til now and why public monies seem compromised now. I think she will face increasing pressure internally, although she is far from the divisive figure that Dr. Brown was for the Party. But I don’t feel that she’s really outlined an overall policy direction. It seems very short-term focused, more immediate tactics and a lack of overall strategy. The longer she fails to give a strategic direction for the Party I think the more problematic she will find her position – and so will the social and economic situation in the country. Don’t get me wrong, I quite like her, and I think her (at least percieved) committment to consensus decision making is good. She should be facilitating, but as a facilitator she should also have an end-goal, and I’m just not seeing that yet. If the OBA can offer an overall strategy and fill that vacumn, I think they will successfully challenge the PLP’s hegemony. The OBA still needs to deal with the race issue, which is not something that the UBP ever resolved. However, that is not insurmontable, and increasingly the challenge is one of class rather than race (although the two are inseperable in the Bermudian context), and if the OBA can convince them [, the public, that they can create] of a more economically stable environment, that may just be enough, especially in light of current difficulties under the PLP.

As for their name, OBA, I’m pretty much indifferent. Names don’t mean anything in a political context anymore really. Labour’s not really labour these days as it is. What’s important is the ideological base and policies of the Party. I want to see how they are different from the UBP, what do they stand for, what’s their story, can they address the race issue, where do they stand on this, that and the next thing. How do they differ from the PLP? What would they do differently?

I doubt I’ll be supporting them though, to be honest, but I do look forward to seeing if they can contribute to a better level of politics than we’ve had so far. We’ve seen the PLP can govern as well as, and as bad as (and in some ways better and worse than) the UBP did. They were supposed to be better across the board, and that hasn’t really ever developed. I think they need to take a good hard look at themselves and work out if they are a party of political power only or if they are a party of political power wedded to principles of the labour/social democratic moverment. At the moment they seem awfully decadent and a long way from what a lot of their supporters had thought they would be. I hope they correct these errors sooner rather than later.

Yesterday Premier Cox gave her first national address, which was carried on various media. I was able to listen to it on a live stream, although Bernews provided a copy of the full speech even before it was completed (indicating it certainly wasn’t live…).

In the run up to the speech, broadcast at 2000hrs Bermuda time, there was (as always) a good deal of speculation about the nature of the speech. On the BIAW forum most posters speculated it was either a general election announcement or an announcement of cutting MPs salaries in light of various Union positions that are increasingly being put to the Government. In the end it was neither.

To be honest, it’s not entirely clear what the motivation or objective of the speech was. It came across as very much a ‘state of the union address’ or a quarterly version of the Throne Speech. Whether it was to simply relay the immediate policies of the Government, or distract people (by giving the impression that they are being listened to and their concerns addressed), or a prelude to an election announcement (in which case I expect such an announcement when Parliament suspends for the summer break), I don’t know.

It was wide-ranging, and it does appear to set out – or clarify – the policy focus of the Government for the immediate future. I do welcome this, especially as, in the immediately preceding post I had criticised Premier Cox for outlining a policy direction or general narrative. This address fills that void that had been increasingly hard to ignore.

The full speech is transcribed on Bernews (in addition to a video of its delivery). What I will try and do here is distill the policies that she has put on the Government’s agenda, policies which can generally be grouped under the headings of crime, the overall economy, tourism, international business, construction and public administration.

Crime

On crime she makes a number of statements stressing how seriously the Government is concerned with this issue, even making what (in my personal opinion) was a rather unnecessary comment relating to Lt. Col. Burch’s recent resignation from the Senate. However, she goes on to outline the following policies that she will either complete or oversee under her administration:

Anti-Gang Legislation - She states that the Cabinet will ‘shortly consider’ such legislation. I am not familiar with existing anti-gang legislation (in the US and Australia), but I am not sold on its effectiveness at the moment. I have two initial concerns: (1) how does one define a ‘gang’?; and (2) will it drive existing crime further underground, and thus more ‘unmanageable’ than it already is?

Broaden the scope of proceeds of crime laws – I look forward to hearing more about this, but, as is, I’m all for it. I would however like to make sure that the appropriated funds are ring-fenced and used only to help subsidise the cost of rehabilitation initiatives. There has been too much apparent wasteful expenditure by the Government over the last twelve years for me to be open to it being put into a general government pot.

Incentives to encourage information on the location/ownership of firearms – I’m much happier with this initiative than the earlier ‘money for guns’ proposal put forward by Minister Perenchief, which I thought could translate into a perverse incentive to smuggle guns into the country (and so further fleece the public finances).

Inter-Agency Taskforce to develop a cohesive approach to information sharing/interventions/assistance – I should hope so! What was it doing to date?

Rehabilitation – She doesn’t really make much of a comment here, other than to say that there needs to be a reduction in repeat offenders. No substantial policy direction really hinted at, other than a committment (which was already the policy…).

Crime Prevention – Here she outlines what has been done and what will be done, solely from a technological perspective. This involves additional CCTV cameras and the scanning machines for the docks. I’m not sold on the CCTV cameras as being effective, or, rather, I see them as a poor substitute for community police officers and community wardens. I’m all for the scanning technologies at the docks though, although I recognise that there are still plenty of other holes in the border needing plugged.

Police Pay/Benefits – This has been resolved (and rightly so!), and should help boost morale and effectiveness in the service. Good.

Communty Assistance - She makes a rather generic blurb on the need for the community to take a key role in reclaiming the island from crime. The active participation of the community in addressing the gangs is a vital part, although I’m disappointed that she didn’t outline any particular directions here. Something about increased support for neighbourhood watches, an expanded community police committment or developing a community wardens program would have been useful here. What she said instead amounted to fluffy rhetoric, at least as I see it.

Economy

Job Initiatives - She states that a number of initiatives are currently underway, and that there will be a series of press releases in the near future detailing them. Would have been better if she hinted more about what they will be, although she does discuss the summer employment initiative for students and older unemployed persons. Budget funds have been re-directed towards this, although it’s not clear what budgets have been reduced in order to realise this goal. As is though, I support the idea, as , even if its a short-term initiative (summer only) it helps with some money in the pocket and gives people some experience for their CVs.

“Work-fare” – I’m sceptical of initiatives where politicians stress ‘work-fare over welfare’. Usually it means portraying welfare recepients as parasites and focuses on undermining labour rights. This is even alluded to in her gentle reminder to employers that ‘apprenticeships carry a zero rate of payroll tax’, encouraging companies to hire apprentices rather than full-time workers who would be entitled to more benefits. In this speech though very little is really discussed about what it will be, so, well, I can’t comment…

Sign-up roadshows – Okay, no problem. May be better setting up a few ‘job-centre’ style offices (one in the East, one in the West and one in central) where people can go and see what jobs are there, register with the centres and also recieve assistance in the form of interview or ‘soft-skills’ training, as well as help with developing resumes and cover-letters.

Horticultural Training/Certification – I am supportive of this, but I know there is not a huge desire amongst many in the population to seek work in this field. Myself, I prefer working outside than in an office, and I think the certification and training will help introduce more people into this field. Personally, I would like to combine it with the Regiment, along with some other training and certification programmes (plumbing, masonry, electricians, carpentry), so people can develop skills which directly benefit them as well as the Regiment (in post-hurricane operations).

Tourism – She doesn’t really outline any real policy objectives here. Just notes that there has been some improvement in tourism figures since she took office, that new air routes are coming online (Baltimore and Atlanta), and that a number of hotel developments are continuing.

Construction – The sector remains weak, but the tourism developments will help, and the Government has also helped keep the sector afloat with a few projects. To be honest, I see the construction industry as an inherently unsustainable one for our island. We only have so much land to build on afterall. There will always be a need to replace some buildings, and occassional major infrastructure projects, but overall I think we really need to reduce the number of people dependent on this sector and get them into a more sustainable one. As is though, I am supportive of public infrastructure projects that will (a) help people through the recession; and (b) put Bermuda on a strong base to benefit when the economy improves. While the hospital is a key one here, I would also like to see the new Causeway started.

International Business – While noting the vital importance of this sector within Bermuda’s existing economic model, and devoting a number of paragraphs to it in the speech, she didn’t really outline any policies here. At most she stated that ‘we are formulating policies to provide real incentives to those job-makers… …who provide real opportunities for Bermudians’. What these policies and incentives are is not touched upon though.

Public Administration

Civil Service – She discusses the restructuring of the service and the advantages this will provide. I am supportive of the reconfiguration, although I have raised my eyebrows at some of the moves. I am, however, willing to give it time to see how it develops.

Office of Project Management & Procurement – One wonders how we didn’t have such an institution previously. Certainly a good number of wasted expenditure in the past (under both UBP and PLP) could have been prevented. While I welcome this development however, I cannot but help point out that Premier Cox, in her capacity as Finance Minister for pretty much the last decade, should have been able to do this from within her Ministry, and it has not been satisfactorily explained why this was not done. [This bit covers also her blurbs on a Director of Procurement, a Senior Compliance Officer and giving legislative 'teeth' to internal audit and procurement functions.]

Consultants – I welcome the review of these positions and, while I understand their occassional need, I am wary of the overuse and potential abuse of consultancies. Also, far too often consultants have ben hired when a participatory consultative approaches (like town-hall meetings) could have produced the same (and often better) product at less cost and with the added bonus of increasing social and political capital and trust.

Particpatory Budgeting - This was briefly discussed in the 2011 Budget, and is only touched upon here; she say’s that she will discuss it more in her ‘next update’ – which implies we may well be in store for this sort of quarterly Throne Speech. As I noted in my comments on the Budget at the time I welcome this initiative, although I am awaiting further details, as it is possible to give an illussion of participation rather than giving full participation, and I’m curious how it will be developed. I am however very supportive of this direction.

And Finally…

I think I’ve covered above all the policies that Premier Cox outlined in her speech. I realise it makes for a rather long post, and I apologise for that. The only other issue which she seemed to touch upon is the calls, being put forward by various sections of civil society, that Cabinet take a pay-cut in order to ‘lead by example’ in this time of austerity. The BIU and the BPSU have been particularly vocal on this (with the BIU more militant), essentially arguing that if their members (largely Government blue and white collar workers) are having to make sacrifices in the form of overtime bans and wage-freezes, then Cabinet Ministers (who are effectively the CEO equivalent of the public sector – Permanent Secretaries being the more adminstrative side of the equation) should also make sacrifices, with many Ministers making approximately $166k a year.

As Premeir Cox notes, this would be merely ‘symbolic’. Cutting their salaries to even $100k a year won’t solve our financial problems. That, however, is not the point. It sends a message that the Government will share the sacrifices with the people. And, while it won’t solve the budget problems, it will free up a significant amount of cash which could go a long way in some social services which have seen their budgets slashed. From my own perspective, if you can’t live comfortably in Bermuda at $100k a year then you’re doing something wrong, quite frankly. Personally, I would like to see a cap on salaries, or (and this is perhaps more workable) a heavily progressive payroll tax, where workers earning under $65 pay no tax, and it increases by 5% for each additional $10k (as a suggestion).

I would also like to see a freeze on food prices and utilities for at least the next twelve months. To qualify this statement, I mean a freeze only on basic staples (milk, eggs, bread, rice, dried beans, pasta, fruit and vegetables), and for utilties I’m thinking along the lines of a freeze for basic uses (I’m sure its possible to calculate the price of electricity required for basic use, lighting, cooking and fridges only). Anyone going above their rationed uses would face increasingly steep charges, which would help subsidise the basic utilities. Similarly with food, I would advocate increased taxes on luxury items (processed foods, confectioneries, junkfood, alcohol), the proceeds of which would go to covering the basic staples subsidies.

Premier Cox’s flat out refusal to offer even a symbolic concession on the issue of Cabinet salaries (or an alternative to their cut), and particularly her spectacularly poor choice of words in defending her position (which, quite frankly, comes across as both arrogant and contradictory) sets her on a very risky collision course with the unions, especially with the BPSU march on parliament being organised for next week. It will be interesting to see the reaction of the unions to her speech, and whether it will be just the BPSU marching on Tuesday…

Other local blogs posting on the Premier’s speech are Politics, 21 Square and VexedBermoothes.

I admit I was slightly caught out by Lt. Col. Burch’s resignation over the weekend. I did not see it coming at all. Almost immediately the Bermudian rumour mill began to churn, and the most commonly accepted view that I recieved up here in Scotland was that he had resigned as a result of a resurgence of his earlier illnesses. The line went that he wanted to concentrate on his health and felt he could not give his position the concentration it deserved. It seemed plausible and, even if not the complete truth, allowed for a dignified exit for the individual also known as ‘a train wreck in slow motion’. The subsequent – and apparently official – line that he resigned in a pique of anger over perceived ‘disrespect’, while also plausible with his temperament, were however unexpected. They were unexpected partly because he leaves know having allowed others to tarnish his reputation (even if he gave such people plenty of ammunition to do so), and also because of how this official line reflects on the leadership of Premier Cox.

Lt. Col. Burch

Now, it should be said that Lt. Col. Burch was our own ‘marmite’ politician. You either liked him a lot or you detested him a lot. There didn’t seem to be anyone who had no feelings, positive or negative towards him, while most other politicians at least had a more even spread of likeability. I have to admit I fell into the negative camp as regards the Senator. I need to qualify here that I personally think Lt. Col. Burch has a great sense of humour, one which is not often captured in the media representations of him, and I cannot deny he had elements of professionalism that seem somewhat lacking in other political figures. My own dislike for him stemmed from personal interactions with him and for his tendency to fly off into non-sensical and confusing rants.

Over email or phone Senator Burch was very much engaging, warm and funny as jooks. However, whenever he met me in person he came across as extremely arrogant and disrespectful, at least to me. Perhaps he was unable to connect that I was the same person he had spoken to by phone or email, or perhaps he has someone else that impersonates him over the phone or emails. I don’t know. But the behaviour he displayed in person left a poor impression of him in my eyes, and was definitely an area he needed to improve should he realistically seek an elected position.

His non-sensical rants are somewhat legendary, and have been covered by many others. Some people regarded them as him ‘speaking his mind’ and thus to be respected. Personally, I’m all for people speaking their minds and the party line be damned, but not when they come across as borderline lunatics with no concern for the consequences of their actions. And that was how, to me, Senator Burch’s rants often came across. Non-sensical, often contradictory, occassionally offensive, often damaging economically and politically and generally not contributing to raising critical consciousness but more an example of someone venting built-up frustration.

If it is true that the final straw in the breakdown of Senator Burch’s relationship with the Premier came about because of her meeting with the Police Commissioner without informing him, well, to be frank he just looks childish. Our politicians are supposed to be serving the people, working to look after the ship of state and not letting personal feelings of disrespect to guide their actions. And for someone with such a key Ministry and associated responsibilities as Senator Burch held, his actions come across as particularly poor. Of course, there is a need for all politicians to act in what they believe is in the best interest of the people, even when this is contrary to Party allegiances. This really doesn’t seem to be one of them, unless there is a lot more than has been made public.

Premier Cox’s Leadership

I am increasingly disappointed with Premier Cox’s leadership. I didn’t support any of the three leadership candidates, although I acknowledged Mr. Lister’s attempts to launch a proper campaign which had the potential to be an inclusionary discourse. Of the three though I believed Ms. Cox was the best of the available candidates, and I still think that is the case (which isn’t necessarily saying much). Personally, I did see the election as more of a coronation than an election, with Ms. Cox practically guarunteed the position. One gets the impression sometimes that the Party makes decisions, like this, based not on the quality of the candidates and their positions but more on ambiguous feelings that the person somehow ‘deserves’ the position, more for ‘doing their time’ and proving loyalty to the Party than anything else (like what they intend to do with the position and what they stand for).

Despite the above, Ms. Cox offered some attractive potentials. She had the image of being more of an Old Labour, that is, traditional pre-1998 PLP, candidate, a direct contrast to the very New Labour/Clinton Democrat person exemplified by Dr. Brown. She also seemed to be a supporter of what I call ‘soft power’, which is a leadership style that seeks to influence through inclusionary discourse, empowerment and consensus building rather than the ‘strong man’ ‘do what I say or jump’ hard power leadership that Dr. Brown seemed to embody.

Increasingly I am questioning how much Ms. Cox truly is – or ever was – an Old Labour person, and whether she is a proponent of soft power or abdication of power. It is clear that under her leadership much of Dr. Brown era policies are being reversed, which makes for a degree of comedic situations for the Party which had previously served as boosters for Dr. Brown era policies and now have to say with a straight-face that they are reversing or cancelling those policies. The political acrobatics being done is surely a great testament to the opportunism and non-critical thinking that passes for politics these days.

Many of the policy reversals I think are actually good. But increasingly the policy discourse is being dictated by the tyranny of the bottom-line, with no regard to the long-term consequences of some of the cuts (particularly to social services, education and police). It may well be that the costs of these cuts will far outweigh the short-term benefits of their cuts now. They are made increasingly difficult to support when the reason for the shortfall is partly the economic crisis but largely the failure of the now Premier to have exercised her power as Finance Minister under Dr. Brown. She abdicated her responsibilities then and we – as a society – are having to take the fall for that. Her infamous ‘cog-in-the-wheel’ comment seems to still echo in her now leadership position, where she says she doesn’t control her Ministers and leaves them to look after themselves. This is an abdication of power.

Premier Cox has failed to articulate a guiding overall policy direction or leadership position for the Party or the government. Instead, we have a zombie leadership and a zombie government where policy is being dictated by past failures and business as usual rather than a new unifying theme and direction. Her doctrine of ‘resetting the dial’ is all very fine, but the next step is to indicate the new direction. Instead we seem to be in a collective neutral gear. At best Ms. Cox gives the impression of trying to please everyone (or, at least, offend no one), but the end result of that is that she offends everyone. At worst she is giving the impression of a complete abdication of power and lack of direction.

It is possible that an election is coming this year. Originally I thought we would wait until next year, but I no longer think the Party – or the country – can afford to wait that long. The PLP will win either way, but the question is how damaged it will be, and an earlier election will minimise the damage. Crucially, it will force Ms. Cox to outline a policy direction and general narrative for the PLP. At the moment the PLP appears bankrupt of ideas, bankrupt of motivation and bankrupt economically. The Opposition parties too seem bankrupt of ideas and motivation. The entire political leadership of the country is in zombie mode.