'National anxiety' over crime travel advisory
By BRENT DEAN
Deputy News Editor
thenassauguardian
brentldean@nasguard.com
The United States Embassy in Nassau closely monitors the crime situation in The Bahamas, noting the potential for a “high-profile violent crime tragedy” and resultant media disaster as a result of the high rate of crime in the country. It is also very aware of the immense fear many Bahamians have of the issuance of a travel advisory by the U.S. government, according to several cables in the WikiLeaks cache obtained by The Nassau Guardian.
“Against the background of economic crisis, the crime numbers, trends, and daily headlines, as well as the expressions of concern about the state of society, all indicate that no end is in sight to high crime rates in The Bahamas,” said the February 2009 confidential cable titled, “Bahamas: Crime concerns simmer as economy softens”.
There have been three homicide records in The Bahamas the last four years, and in 2011 the country is on pace for a fourth such record in five years.
Over the last five years, armed robberies have trended up towards the highs of the mid-1990s. In the property crime category the 2010 police report reveals other disturbing trends. The 3,120 housebreakings recorded were the most in the country since 1998 (3,165).
The Free National Movement (FNM) administration has done much to try to fix the crime problem. Along with refurbishing the courts, there have been three commissioners of police, two chief justices, four attorneys general and two directors of public prosecutions during this term.
The government has also spent millions of dollars buying new equipment for police; it has introduced a plea bargaining system; it has amended the Juries Act reducing the number of jurors from 12 to nine in non-capital cases; and it has put in place an electronic monitoring system for accused offenders.
Despite all of these measures, the crime problem has not improved.
In the December 2007 unclassified/for official use only cable, ‘Bahamas grapples with sharp rise in violent crime’, the embassy noted that that Juries Act amendment alone, which was implemented before the other measures mentioned, would not fix the Bahamian crime problem.
“No recent initiative, including the Juries Act amendment, is likely to make an immediate impact on the crime rate as long as the criminal justice system effectively puts indicted criminals back on the street to commit more crimes,” said the cable.
“Without introducing specific measures to monitor suspected offenders out on bail, break the logjam in the courts, or increase or optimize space in the prison to keep violent offenders in and others out, the GCOB (Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas) is unlikely to make much progress in addressing the underlying causes of the latest ‘crime wave’ to shake The Bahamas.”
The government has increasingly made statements indicating that it is working to improve the prosecution system.
Recently, Attorney General John Delaney and Director of Public Prosecutions Vinette-Graham Allen held a news conference explaining that the establishment of a case management unit at their office is expected to result in significant improvements in the administration of justice.
Recent public focus on the crime problem in The Bahamas has shifted to the quality of cases being produced by police and the quality of prosecution by the AG’s Office.
In his new book, “Reducing Murders in The Bahamas: A strategic plan based on empirical research,” police researcher Sergeant Chaswell Hanna reveals that from 2005 to 2009 there were 349 murders recorded and only 10 murder convictions and eight manslaughter convictions.
The Americans realized, based on the cable, that as long as The Bahamas is unable to prosecute and convict those it suspects of committing crimes, the crime problem in the country will continue to worsen.
Effects of the crime problem
The cables reveal that the U.S. does not think The Bahamas is that safe a place.
In a February 2006 unclassified cable, “Country Clearance: For consular management assistance team (CMAT) visit,” the embassy advised its visiting team to be careful in this country.
“Threat analysis: The threat against Americans from political activity is considered low. The threat from criminal elements is high. Incidents of violent crime have risen significantly in The Bahamas during the past few years,” said the cable.
“Travelers should use caution and common sense when moving about the island of New Providence. Visitors should travel in pairs, avoid areas prone to higher crime such as the Over-the-Hill area, and avoid isolated, deserted and/or poorly illuminated areas.”
In a January 2006 unclassified/for official use only cable, the embassy again expressed concern for the safety of its citizens in The Bahamas.
“During Spring Break, sexual assaults against American tourists are extremely high,” said the cable, which added that its Regional Security Office has also stressed the growing pattern of violence to embassy personnel, reminding employees to always be vigilant about their surroundings.
The fear of the American response
There have been several high profile criminal acts in New Providence in recent years, in tourism areas, which have alarmed Bahamians.
The November 2009 robbery of a group of tourists on tour at Earth Village; Sunday’s armed robbery at John Bull in the middle of Downtown Nassau; and the January 2008 murder of teenager Deangelo Cargill at a bus stop, also in Downtown Nassau, are some of the events in such areas that attracted national attention.
Referring to the 2008 Cargill murder, the embassy said in a cable that January, “How the government meets the crime challenge will play an increasingly decisive role in how the public perceives its overall effectiveness.
“This event has brought home to the Cabinet that it has no higher priority than beating back the surge in crime before the violence begins to impact The Bahamas' tourism-dependent economy.”
In these cables on crime the Americans do not seem to be near to taking a decision to publicly intervene and apply full pressure on the Bahamian government to accelerate worthwhile reforms to the local criminal justice system.
The U.S. already assists The Bahamas in significant ways regarding law enforcement — most noticeably through funding and manpower via Operation Bahamas, Turks and Caicos Islands.
The U.S. does understand, however, that Bahamians have an extreme fear of the issuance of a travel advisory informing Americans that The Bahamas is not a place they should travel to.
In that same 2008 cable after the murder of Cargill, listed as unclassified/for official use only, the embassy described the fear of such an advisory as a “national anxiety.”
“The downtown killing at the peak of the afternoon rush hour prompted renewed concern in the public and press about the potential issuance of a travel advisory or warning by the U.S. Embassy — an almost compulsive anxiety within the tourist-dependent island,” said the cable.
“In fact, the media have speculated for months, as the murder tally rose, over such an announcement and its potential negative effects on the all-important tourism sector, which forms the backbone of the economy in Nassau and The Bahamas.”
The embassy noted that officials had to make public statements indicating that no such advisory was imminent. Public consular information is already available for Americans advising them of safety issues in The Bahamas.
The realization by the Americans of this Bahamian fear likely means that if The Bahamas was to become uncooperative, as it was during the ‘drug days’ of the 1970s and 1980s, the use of this punishment would at the least get the attention of the leaders of the country.
5/25/2011
thenassauguardian
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Cassius Stuart likened Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham to Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe and former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide - when he met with a U.S. Embassy official in Nassau - according to diplomatic cables
Stuart compared PM to dictator
By CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com
Cables reveal former BDM leader's statements to Americans
When Cassius Stuart met with a U.S. Embassy official before the Elizabeth by-election last year, he claimed he had been approached by Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) leader Perry Christie “who said he was looking for someone to mold to eventually take over the leadership of the PLP.” Stuart also likened Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham to Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe, according to one of the diplomatic cables The Nassau Guardian obtained through the whistle-blowing non-profit organization WikiLeaks.
Now a member of the Free National Movement (FNM), Stuart was leader of the Bahamas Democratic Movement (BDM) at the time.
The cable said Stuart also likened Ingraham to former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and said the PM was “letting the country go to hell and allowing it to be bought by China”.
But a lot has changed since the by-election and Stuart’s meetings with the American diplomats.
He joined the FNM in April this year, acknowledging at the time that the move was a good one for the members of the BDM because the FNM’s ideals matched theirs.
“My message over the past decade has been adding value to the lives of every Bahamian,” Stuart said at a press conference to announce the BDM members’ decision to join the FNM.
“Moving forward, the prime minister has assured us that the next years will be just that, building lives.”
According to the cable, Stuart had been highly critical of FNM policies, which he said caused the country to be in such a position that it could “easily become another Haiti”.
He told the embassy official that the United States had a stake in not allowing this to happen because “you don’t want boat loads of Bahamians to begin arriving on your shores.”
He also raised what he characterized as “significant concerns” about the Government of The Bahamas being courted by the People’s Republic of China.
According to the cable, Stuart told the American diplomat the country’s education system was “randomly drifting…We’re stuck on a treadmill and we’re moving backwards.”
Regarding the purported offer by Christie, Stuart said he told the PLP leader he could not align himself with either of the major parties because of the endemic corruption in both, according to the cable.
Stuart said the only defining line in the February 2010 Elizabeth by-election between the BDM and the other two major political parties was resources, the cable said.
He said if he could raise $250,000 he would win the election, noting that he needed to get free T-shirts out into the community.
The Nassau Guardian contacted Stuart yesterday about the information contained in the diplomatic documents. He seemed surprised when told what was attributed to him, but did not deny the comments.
Asked whether it is still his view that corruption is endemic in the FNM, he explained that he had not referred specifically to the party, but was suggesting that because corruption is widespread in certain agencies of the country, as the government the FNM needed to take the blame.
Stuart was also asked about his comment, which suggested that Christie wanted to groom him to take over the leadership of the PLP.
“I think they (the Americans) took it a little out of context. He (Christie) said he wanted to court someone to take over the party,” the former BDM leader explained.
“It wasn’t necessarily me.”
Regarding his reported Mugabe comment, Stuart said, “I can’t definitively remember the conversation, but I do remember we were talking about leaders who served a long time and at that time Mugabe was headline news as a leader of his country for a long time and in that context we were talking.”
Asked about his overall impressions of what the Americans recorded from their conversations with him, Stuart said, “It’s interesting. I think they have a responsibility to communicate their findings within a society to their government. This whole leaking of secret cable information, it’s an issue that needs to be addressed.
“It’s interesting that everything that comes out of your mouth is recorded. You have to be very careful what you say. We had casual conversations on many occasions…I didn’t realize that this information was being highly documented for the president of the United States.”
ELIZABETH BY-ELECTION
The Elizabeth by-election cable noted that the election could very well be a bellwether for the next general election.
The cable also details the resignation of Malcolm Adderley (former Elizabeth MP) from the PLP and the House of Assembly.
It noted that Christie accused the FNM government of undermining democracy by offering Adderley a Supreme Court position, which he thinks necessitated Adderley’s resignation.
But there was never any evidence of this.
The cable pointed out that PLP chairman Bradley Roberts remarked that both Adderley and former PLP Kenyatta Gibson (MP for Kennedy) were trying to destabilize the party.
Stuart ended up receiving fewer than 100 votes in the election, which was won by the PLP’s Ryan Pinder.
The cable points out that Pinder at the time had “strong ties to the U.S.”.
“Pinder was a dual Bahamian-U.S. citizen but renounced his citizenship on January 19 (2010) after bowing to pressure from his own party,” the cable said.
At the time, the U.S. embassy official wrote: “Pinder is noticeably one of the few white members of his party and the role that his race will play in garnering grassroots PLP support for him as a candidate remains to be seen.”
The embassy official also wrote that despite the fact that Pinder is a white member of an overwhelmingly black party, one contact said the constituency is so heavily rooted in the PLP the party “could nominate a puppy and it would be elected”.
In the cable, the diplomat reports in detail about what speakers at a PLP rally had to say on January 19, 2010.
The cable noted that the focus of many of the speakers was Ingraham’s decision to grant temporary protective status to illegal Haitian detainees in the wake of the Haiti earthquake.
“While not directly criticizing the decision, the PLP said they were not consulted and argued that the move was designed to ‘cause strife and separation’,” noted the cable.
In referring to the FNM’s candidate, Dr. Duane Sands, the diplomat noted that he is a cousin of National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest and a prominent heart surgeon.
The diplomat wrote, “Sands has been difficult for the PLP to criticize because he is well-respected in the community. Therefore, the focus has been on aligning him with the policies of PM Ingraham.”
The American diplomat wrote that while media reports were generally predicting a PLP victory, many articles indicated that Elizabeth residents were open to a third party candidate and were “sick of both parties”.
“Some of the third party candidates have called for campaign finance reform in the run up to the election, an acknowledgement of the view that whoever spends the most will win,” noted the cable.
The diplomat also wrote: “The opposition party PLP is likely to win what promises to be a close election, which would boost their chances in the national elections.
“Despite favorable media attention for third party candidates, this race is strictly a PLP and FNM affair. A poor economy and increasing crime play favorably for the PLP.
“However, bolstering the position of the FNM was the poor performance and lack of resources that the previous PLP candidate (Malcolm Adderley) was able to bring to the constituency.
“Although no one has publicly questioned Pinder’s race, privately, contacts admit it could be a significant factor. The key will be the amount of resources each party is able to spend on the election.”
Several weeks after the election, the Election Court declared Pinder the winner of the race after allowing his challenged votes.
5/25/2011
thenassauguardian
By CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com
Cables reveal former BDM leader's statements to Americans
When Cassius Stuart met with a U.S. Embassy official before the Elizabeth by-election last year, he claimed he had been approached by Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) leader Perry Christie “who said he was looking for someone to mold to eventually take over the leadership of the PLP.” Stuart also likened Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham to Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe, according to one of the diplomatic cables The Nassau Guardian obtained through the whistle-blowing non-profit organization WikiLeaks.
Now a member of the Free National Movement (FNM), Stuart was leader of the Bahamas Democratic Movement (BDM) at the time.
The cable said Stuart also likened Ingraham to former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and said the PM was “letting the country go to hell and allowing it to be bought by China”.
But a lot has changed since the by-election and Stuart’s meetings with the American diplomats.
He joined the FNM in April this year, acknowledging at the time that the move was a good one for the members of the BDM because the FNM’s ideals matched theirs.
“My message over the past decade has been adding value to the lives of every Bahamian,” Stuart said at a press conference to announce the BDM members’ decision to join the FNM.
“Moving forward, the prime minister has assured us that the next years will be just that, building lives.”
According to the cable, Stuart had been highly critical of FNM policies, which he said caused the country to be in such a position that it could “easily become another Haiti”.
He told the embassy official that the United States had a stake in not allowing this to happen because “you don’t want boat loads of Bahamians to begin arriving on your shores.”
He also raised what he characterized as “significant concerns” about the Government of The Bahamas being courted by the People’s Republic of China.
According to the cable, Stuart told the American diplomat the country’s education system was “randomly drifting…We’re stuck on a treadmill and we’re moving backwards.”
Regarding the purported offer by Christie, Stuart said he told the PLP leader he could not align himself with either of the major parties because of the endemic corruption in both, according to the cable.
Stuart said the only defining line in the February 2010 Elizabeth by-election between the BDM and the other two major political parties was resources, the cable said.
He said if he could raise $250,000 he would win the election, noting that he needed to get free T-shirts out into the community.
The Nassau Guardian contacted Stuart yesterday about the information contained in the diplomatic documents. He seemed surprised when told what was attributed to him, but did not deny the comments.
Asked whether it is still his view that corruption is endemic in the FNM, he explained that he had not referred specifically to the party, but was suggesting that because corruption is widespread in certain agencies of the country, as the government the FNM needed to take the blame.
Stuart was also asked about his comment, which suggested that Christie wanted to groom him to take over the leadership of the PLP.
“I think they (the Americans) took it a little out of context. He (Christie) said he wanted to court someone to take over the party,” the former BDM leader explained.
“It wasn’t necessarily me.”
Regarding his reported Mugabe comment, Stuart said, “I can’t definitively remember the conversation, but I do remember we were talking about leaders who served a long time and at that time Mugabe was headline news as a leader of his country for a long time and in that context we were talking.”
Asked about his overall impressions of what the Americans recorded from their conversations with him, Stuart said, “It’s interesting. I think they have a responsibility to communicate their findings within a society to their government. This whole leaking of secret cable information, it’s an issue that needs to be addressed.
“It’s interesting that everything that comes out of your mouth is recorded. You have to be very careful what you say. We had casual conversations on many occasions…I didn’t realize that this information was being highly documented for the president of the United States.”
ELIZABETH BY-ELECTION
The Elizabeth by-election cable noted that the election could very well be a bellwether for the next general election.
The cable also details the resignation of Malcolm Adderley (former Elizabeth MP) from the PLP and the House of Assembly.
It noted that Christie accused the FNM government of undermining democracy by offering Adderley a Supreme Court position, which he thinks necessitated Adderley’s resignation.
But there was never any evidence of this.
The cable pointed out that PLP chairman Bradley Roberts remarked that both Adderley and former PLP Kenyatta Gibson (MP for Kennedy) were trying to destabilize the party.
Stuart ended up receiving fewer than 100 votes in the election, which was won by the PLP’s Ryan Pinder.
The cable points out that Pinder at the time had “strong ties to the U.S.”.
“Pinder was a dual Bahamian-U.S. citizen but renounced his citizenship on January 19 (2010) after bowing to pressure from his own party,” the cable said.
At the time, the U.S. embassy official wrote: “Pinder is noticeably one of the few white members of his party and the role that his race will play in garnering grassroots PLP support for him as a candidate remains to be seen.”
The embassy official also wrote that despite the fact that Pinder is a white member of an overwhelmingly black party, one contact said the constituency is so heavily rooted in the PLP the party “could nominate a puppy and it would be elected”.
In the cable, the diplomat reports in detail about what speakers at a PLP rally had to say on January 19, 2010.
The cable noted that the focus of many of the speakers was Ingraham’s decision to grant temporary protective status to illegal Haitian detainees in the wake of the Haiti earthquake.
“While not directly criticizing the decision, the PLP said they were not consulted and argued that the move was designed to ‘cause strife and separation’,” noted the cable.
In referring to the FNM’s candidate, Dr. Duane Sands, the diplomat noted that he is a cousin of National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest and a prominent heart surgeon.
The diplomat wrote, “Sands has been difficult for the PLP to criticize because he is well-respected in the community. Therefore, the focus has been on aligning him with the policies of PM Ingraham.”
The American diplomat wrote that while media reports were generally predicting a PLP victory, many articles indicated that Elizabeth residents were open to a third party candidate and were “sick of both parties”.
“Some of the third party candidates have called for campaign finance reform in the run up to the election, an acknowledgement of the view that whoever spends the most will win,” noted the cable.
The diplomat also wrote: “The opposition party PLP is likely to win what promises to be a close election, which would boost their chances in the national elections.
“Despite favorable media attention for third party candidates, this race is strictly a PLP and FNM affair. A poor economy and increasing crime play favorably for the PLP.
“However, bolstering the position of the FNM was the poor performance and lack of resources that the previous PLP candidate (Malcolm Adderley) was able to bring to the constituency.
“Although no one has publicly questioned Pinder’s race, privately, contacts admit it could be a significant factor. The key will be the amount of resources each party is able to spend on the election.”
Several weeks after the election, the Election Court declared Pinder the winner of the race after allowing his challenged votes.
5/25/2011
thenassauguardian
There are no campaign finance laws in The Bahamas, so Bahamian political parties do not have to disclose who finances their operations
Cables reveal discussions of money in elections
By BRENT DEAN
NG Deputy News Editor
thenassauguardian
brentldean@nasguard.com
A senior member of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) disclosed that his party spent around $7 million on the 2002 general election campaign, and a senior member of the Free National Movement (FNM) revealed that his party would need to spend between $150,000 and $250,000 on a potential by-election in the then Holy Cross constituency, according to diplomatic cables obtained by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.
There are no campaign finance laws in The Bahamas and the two main political parties do not disclose who finances their operations.
According to a 2003 confidential cable by the United States Embassy in Nassau, former PLP MP and businessman Frankie Wilson told embassy officials that the PLP spent approximately $7 million on the 2002 campaign. In a note in the cable, the embassy said the FNM claims to have spent about $4 million on that campaign.
The embassy did not cite its source for the FNM figure. However, the embassy did note that, “neither (party) is required to provide any accounting for campaign contributions or expenditures, so both figures are suspect.”
The U.S. said that though Wilson disclosed the figure during the meeting in May 2003, “he did not elaborate on where all this money came from.”
Because money donated in The Bahamas to political parties is donated with the understanding that the donors’ identities will not be publicly disclosed, political parties are under an ‘unofficial obligation’ to keep the sources of party financing secret.
The PLP has historically lingered behind the FNM when it comes to party financing. The party has admitted this publicly.
The FNM was formed from an amalgamation of disaffected PLPs in the late 1960s and early 1970s and the remnants of the old United Bahamian Party, including many of the old white merchant elite. The consistency of support from the old white merchant class has provided the FNM a base of financial stability the PLP has not really had.
Coming out of the 2002 general election when the PLP won 29 seats and the FNM won 7 seats – four independents were elected – the PLP was confident that it would win the next general election.
“Wilson confidently predicted the PLP would win the election again in 2007, and dismissed the FNM as disorganized and poorly led,” he said of the FNM under the leadership of then Senator Tommy Turnquest according to the cable.
“He also said that for the first time in 2002, the PLP was competitive in terms of campaign financing.”
The potential Holy Cross by-election
In a confidential May 2004 cable, Turnquest talked party financing during a meeting with U.S. officials.
This meeting took place in the wake of the bankruptcy order issued by then Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson in March 2004 against the then PLP MP for Holy Cross, Sidney Stubbs.
Bankrupt individuals are not eligible to sit in Parliament. If the court order had stood, Stubbs would have had to vacate the seat and a by-election would have been called.
“Turnquest estimated that the FNM would spend between $150,000 – $250,000 on the election, should it take place,” according to the cable.
The Americans said they asked Turnquest how he could possibly spend that much money on so few voters and, according to the cable, he replied that Bahamians like free paraphernalia.
If the $150,000 to $250,000 figure is multiplied out through 40 constituencies – the number of constituencies in the 2002 general election – the FNM would spend between $6 million and $10 million on a campaign.
Turnquest offered further insight into the thinking of the FNM around the potential by-election. The cable depicts a FNM leader who was not confident that his party could win the seat against the sitting government.
“Turnquest indicated that he has no plans to run for this seat, but fully supports ‘his close friend’, Carl Bethel, to represent the FNM. Turnquest estimated the FNM's chances of winning the seat at 50/50,” according to the embassy in the cable.
“Claiming that the sitting government had tremendous resources – public works projects and jobs – to bring to bear in the campaign, Turnquest sniped that were the PLP government not so weak its odds of retaining the seat would be 70 to 30.”
The cable also revealed that Turnquest thought that such a by-election would have been a war.
“The election, predicted Turnquest, would be costly for both parties as each would pour resources into it, his FNM to embarrass the government, the PLP to avoid an embarrassing defeat,” the embassy said in the cable.
“Each of the voters in the constituency would be personally contacted and both parties would hold almost nightly (and expensive) rallies. As many as 40 to 80 campaign workers would be brought in by each party for the campaign.”
A politically savvy Turnquest, however, realized that it should not be assumed that a by-election would happen.
“Turnquest expressed some doubt that the election would even be called, pointing out that Stubbs could avoid resignation if his attorneys succeed in overturning the court's bankruptcy finding,” according to the cable.
Turnquest assumed correctly. In May 2005, Her Majesty’s Privy Council ruled that the Court of Appeal erred when it determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal of Stubbs against his bankruptcy order issued by the Supreme Court.
The order of bankruptcy was set aside allowing Stubbs to take his seat in Parliament.
Turnquest also discussed with the Americans the potential of a by-election in the PLP stronghold of St. Cecilia, which was and still is held by Cynthia Pratt, according to the cable.
Pratt stepped down as PLP deputy leader in 2009, but there was speculation long before she made the move that she would leave front-line politics. In 2004, Turnquest understood that St. Cecilia was a lost cause for the FNM.
“Turnquest hinted that the odds of FNM victory in the PLP stronghold of St. Cecilia were so slim that his party might not even contest the election,” said the embassy if such a by-election were to take place.
The Americans attempted to decipher what the issues of relevance would be in a potential Holy Cross by-election.
“Asked about the issues likely to dominate the campaign, Turnquest acknowledged that the FNM had hired a marketing company to conduct polls during the general election – although the results were closely held within the party leadership – and that he had lately been commissioning focus groups to probe public opinion,” according to the cable.
“Turnquest said that he had personally attended quite a few of these focus groups.”
Looking at the Bahamian election process in 2004, the Americans remarked in the cable, “As expensive as Bahamian elections have become, they remain relatively unsophisticated.”
They said that Turnquest's belief that he can sit in on focus groups probing his character and image without biasing the results reflects the relative naivety with which Bahamian politicians in general approach survey research.
5/24/2011
thenassauguardian
By BRENT DEAN
NG Deputy News Editor
thenassauguardian
brentldean@nasguard.com
A senior member of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) disclosed that his party spent around $7 million on the 2002 general election campaign, and a senior member of the Free National Movement (FNM) revealed that his party would need to spend between $150,000 and $250,000 on a potential by-election in the then Holy Cross constituency, according to diplomatic cables obtained by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.
There are no campaign finance laws in The Bahamas and the two main political parties do not disclose who finances their operations.
According to a 2003 confidential cable by the United States Embassy in Nassau, former PLP MP and businessman Frankie Wilson told embassy officials that the PLP spent approximately $7 million on the 2002 campaign. In a note in the cable, the embassy said the FNM claims to have spent about $4 million on that campaign.
The embassy did not cite its source for the FNM figure. However, the embassy did note that, “neither (party) is required to provide any accounting for campaign contributions or expenditures, so both figures are suspect.”
The U.S. said that though Wilson disclosed the figure during the meeting in May 2003, “he did not elaborate on where all this money came from.”
Because money donated in The Bahamas to political parties is donated with the understanding that the donors’ identities will not be publicly disclosed, political parties are under an ‘unofficial obligation’ to keep the sources of party financing secret.
The PLP has historically lingered behind the FNM when it comes to party financing. The party has admitted this publicly.
The FNM was formed from an amalgamation of disaffected PLPs in the late 1960s and early 1970s and the remnants of the old United Bahamian Party, including many of the old white merchant elite. The consistency of support from the old white merchant class has provided the FNM a base of financial stability the PLP has not really had.
Coming out of the 2002 general election when the PLP won 29 seats and the FNM won 7 seats – four independents were elected – the PLP was confident that it would win the next general election.
“Wilson confidently predicted the PLP would win the election again in 2007, and dismissed the FNM as disorganized and poorly led,” he said of the FNM under the leadership of then Senator Tommy Turnquest according to the cable.
“He also said that for the first time in 2002, the PLP was competitive in terms of campaign financing.”
The potential Holy Cross by-election
In a confidential May 2004 cable, Turnquest talked party financing during a meeting with U.S. officials.
This meeting took place in the wake of the bankruptcy order issued by then Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson in March 2004 against the then PLP MP for Holy Cross, Sidney Stubbs.
Bankrupt individuals are not eligible to sit in Parliament. If the court order had stood, Stubbs would have had to vacate the seat and a by-election would have been called.
“Turnquest estimated that the FNM would spend between $150,000 – $250,000 on the election, should it take place,” according to the cable.
The Americans said they asked Turnquest how he could possibly spend that much money on so few voters and, according to the cable, he replied that Bahamians like free paraphernalia.
If the $150,000 to $250,000 figure is multiplied out through 40 constituencies – the number of constituencies in the 2002 general election – the FNM would spend between $6 million and $10 million on a campaign.
Turnquest offered further insight into the thinking of the FNM around the potential by-election. The cable depicts a FNM leader who was not confident that his party could win the seat against the sitting government.
“Turnquest indicated that he has no plans to run for this seat, but fully supports ‘his close friend’, Carl Bethel, to represent the FNM. Turnquest estimated the FNM's chances of winning the seat at 50/50,” according to the embassy in the cable.
“Claiming that the sitting government had tremendous resources – public works projects and jobs – to bring to bear in the campaign, Turnquest sniped that were the PLP government not so weak its odds of retaining the seat would be 70 to 30.”
The cable also revealed that Turnquest thought that such a by-election would have been a war.
“The election, predicted Turnquest, would be costly for both parties as each would pour resources into it, his FNM to embarrass the government, the PLP to avoid an embarrassing defeat,” the embassy said in the cable.
“Each of the voters in the constituency would be personally contacted and both parties would hold almost nightly (and expensive) rallies. As many as 40 to 80 campaign workers would be brought in by each party for the campaign.”
A politically savvy Turnquest, however, realized that it should not be assumed that a by-election would happen.
“Turnquest expressed some doubt that the election would even be called, pointing out that Stubbs could avoid resignation if his attorneys succeed in overturning the court's bankruptcy finding,” according to the cable.
Turnquest assumed correctly. In May 2005, Her Majesty’s Privy Council ruled that the Court of Appeal erred when it determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal of Stubbs against his bankruptcy order issued by the Supreme Court.
The order of bankruptcy was set aside allowing Stubbs to take his seat in Parliament.
Turnquest also discussed with the Americans the potential of a by-election in the PLP stronghold of St. Cecilia, which was and still is held by Cynthia Pratt, according to the cable.
Pratt stepped down as PLP deputy leader in 2009, but there was speculation long before she made the move that she would leave front-line politics. In 2004, Turnquest understood that St. Cecilia was a lost cause for the FNM.
“Turnquest hinted that the odds of FNM victory in the PLP stronghold of St. Cecilia were so slim that his party might not even contest the election,” said the embassy if such a by-election were to take place.
The Americans attempted to decipher what the issues of relevance would be in a potential Holy Cross by-election.
“Asked about the issues likely to dominate the campaign, Turnquest acknowledged that the FNM had hired a marketing company to conduct polls during the general election – although the results were closely held within the party leadership – and that he had lately been commissioning focus groups to probe public opinion,” according to the cable.
“Turnquest said that he had personally attended quite a few of these focus groups.”
Looking at the Bahamian election process in 2004, the Americans remarked in the cable, “As expensive as Bahamian elections have become, they remain relatively unsophisticated.”
They said that Turnquest's belief that he can sit in on focus groups probing his character and image without biasing the results reflects the relative naivety with which Bahamian politicians in general approach survey research.
5/24/2011
thenassauguardian
Tommy Turnquest was “born with a silver spoon in his mouth” and was “uninspiring”, but had a “reputation for honesty”, says U.S. Embassy officials in Nassau
Turnquest examined in cables
By CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com
Former FNM leader viewed as uninspiring
As someone who went head to head with Perry Christie, a formidable opponent in 2002, Tommy Turnquest was closely analyzed by the Americans, who met with him more than once to discuss various issues of a political and national nature, reveals several cables obtained by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.
U.S. Embassy officials wrote that Turnquest was “born with a silver spoon in his mouth” and was “uninspiring”, but had a “reputation for honesty”.
The meetings those officials had with Turnquest occurred while he was in the political wilderness — a senator as he had not won the Mount Moriah constituency race.
An embassy official wrote that Turnquest’s failure to win the seat in May 2002 was “a humiliation”, given that he had become FNM leader only two months earlier.
In 2004, Turnquest spoke to those officials in his capacity as leader of the Free National Movement (FNM).
An embassy official recorded that he was born to the wealthy family of Sir Orville and Lady Edith Turnquest (now deceased).
The cable said Turnquest admitted that he comes from "privilege".
He subsequently married into a wealthy Bahamian family as well, it said.
“As a shareholder of Focol, a Freeport-based oil company, the Turnquests have a steady stream of income,” the cable noted.
“Many Bahamians see this as a barrier to his political career. Whereas his father was a self-made man, Tommy is seen by some Bahamians as a spoiled brat.
“His three children are all attending/have attended exclusive prep schools in the United States and all are bound for similarly-expensive Ivy League universities.”
Further analyzing Turnquest’s personality, an embassy official wrote that in The Bahamas — “a small country where the ‘Cheers’ phrase ‘everyone knows your name’ really is true — charisma and dynamism, both personally and publicly, are prerequisites for a politician.
“Bahamians expect their political leaders to ‘perform’ when giving speeches. As the son of the former Governor General Sir Orville, Tommy's opportunities to date have come because of his family lineage,” the cable said.
“Privately Turnquest does not project the ‘gravitas’ expected of a leader, nor publicly the rivalist oratorical skills expected of a politician.”
According to a 2004 cable, during a meeting with embassy officials — one of them being Charge d’Affaires Robert Witajewski —Turnquest maintained fierce loyalty to the FNM and queried repetitively the U.S. view of the performance of the Christie administration.
“He ranted that Prime Minister (Perry) Christie's slow decision-making has wasted valuable Bahamian resources, lost many contracts and put the Bahamian people at a disadvantage. On the FNM website, Turnquest gives the PLP an ‘F’ for effectiveness,” the cable said.
In 2005, in a move that Turnquest said took him completely by surprise, Hubert Ingraham effortlessly snatched back the leadership of the Free National Movement, saying he had come back after so many FNMs asked for his return.
While many pundits agreed that the move left Turnquest further humiliated, he assured Ingraham that he would never have to watch his back and that he fully supported the former prime minister as party leader.
An embassy official wrote that Turnquest had to “step down” to “make way” for Ingraham’s return.
“Turnquest assumed leadership of the FNM from Ingraham in 2002 in the face of near-certain electoral defeat and gracefully relinquished his leadership to Ingraham in time for 2007 elections,” the cable said.
In November 2005, members of the FNM voted almost two to one to reject Turnquest, opting instead to replace him with Ingraham.
Not long after he regained full power of the party, Ingraham was asked by reporters to respond to a statement Turnquest had made that he had gone back on his word.
Ingraham explained that he did not decide to run until the morning after he spoke with Turnquest, advising him that he would not seek the leadership again.
Ingraham said “the calls were incessant, the demands were great by party supporters and others throughout the country and I decided the following morning that I will allow my name to go forward”.
In 2007 when Ingraham became prime minister again, he appointed Turnquest minister of national security, a key position during any period of national development, but particularly at that time when there were growing worries about crime and the fear of crime.
One of the cables said Ingraham’s decision to appoint Turnquest to that post “will strengthen party unity”.
According to the cable, “Turnquest's loyalty and self-sacrifice for the party has clearly kept him in Ingraham's inner circle.”
It said, “Turnquest does not have a strong national security background, although his experience as immigration minister will serve him well.
“With a reputation for honesty and a good relationship with the embassy, Turnquest should be an effective partner in ensuring continued close law enforcement and military partnerships. This portfolio has traditionally been the purview of the Deputy Prime Minister, and gives Turnquest an opportunity to demonstrate his ability to lead the party in a post-Ingraham era.”
5/24/2011
thenassauguardian
By CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com
Former FNM leader viewed as uninspiring
As someone who went head to head with Perry Christie, a formidable opponent in 2002, Tommy Turnquest was closely analyzed by the Americans, who met with him more than once to discuss various issues of a political and national nature, reveals several cables obtained by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.
U.S. Embassy officials wrote that Turnquest was “born with a silver spoon in his mouth” and was “uninspiring”, but had a “reputation for honesty”.
The meetings those officials had with Turnquest occurred while he was in the political wilderness — a senator as he had not won the Mount Moriah constituency race.
An embassy official wrote that Turnquest’s failure to win the seat in May 2002 was “a humiliation”, given that he had become FNM leader only two months earlier.
In 2004, Turnquest spoke to those officials in his capacity as leader of the Free National Movement (FNM).
An embassy official recorded that he was born to the wealthy family of Sir Orville and Lady Edith Turnquest (now deceased).
The cable said Turnquest admitted that he comes from "privilege".
He subsequently married into a wealthy Bahamian family as well, it said.
“As a shareholder of Focol, a Freeport-based oil company, the Turnquests have a steady stream of income,” the cable noted.
“Many Bahamians see this as a barrier to his political career. Whereas his father was a self-made man, Tommy is seen by some Bahamians as a spoiled brat.
“His three children are all attending/have attended exclusive prep schools in the United States and all are bound for similarly-expensive Ivy League universities.”
Further analyzing Turnquest’s personality, an embassy official wrote that in The Bahamas — “a small country where the ‘Cheers’ phrase ‘everyone knows your name’ really is true — charisma and dynamism, both personally and publicly, are prerequisites for a politician.
“Bahamians expect their political leaders to ‘perform’ when giving speeches. As the son of the former Governor General Sir Orville, Tommy's opportunities to date have come because of his family lineage,” the cable said.
“Privately Turnquest does not project the ‘gravitas’ expected of a leader, nor publicly the rivalist oratorical skills expected of a politician.”
According to a 2004 cable, during a meeting with embassy officials — one of them being Charge d’Affaires Robert Witajewski —Turnquest maintained fierce loyalty to the FNM and queried repetitively the U.S. view of the performance of the Christie administration.
“He ranted that Prime Minister (Perry) Christie's slow decision-making has wasted valuable Bahamian resources, lost many contracts and put the Bahamian people at a disadvantage. On the FNM website, Turnquest gives the PLP an ‘F’ for effectiveness,” the cable said.
In 2005, in a move that Turnquest said took him completely by surprise, Hubert Ingraham effortlessly snatched back the leadership of the Free National Movement, saying he had come back after so many FNMs asked for his return.
While many pundits agreed that the move left Turnquest further humiliated, he assured Ingraham that he would never have to watch his back and that he fully supported the former prime minister as party leader.
An embassy official wrote that Turnquest had to “step down” to “make way” for Ingraham’s return.
“Turnquest assumed leadership of the FNM from Ingraham in 2002 in the face of near-certain electoral defeat and gracefully relinquished his leadership to Ingraham in time for 2007 elections,” the cable said.
In November 2005, members of the FNM voted almost two to one to reject Turnquest, opting instead to replace him with Ingraham.
Not long after he regained full power of the party, Ingraham was asked by reporters to respond to a statement Turnquest had made that he had gone back on his word.
Ingraham explained that he did not decide to run until the morning after he spoke with Turnquest, advising him that he would not seek the leadership again.
Ingraham said “the calls were incessant, the demands were great by party supporters and others throughout the country and I decided the following morning that I will allow my name to go forward”.
In 2007 when Ingraham became prime minister again, he appointed Turnquest minister of national security, a key position during any period of national development, but particularly at that time when there were growing worries about crime and the fear of crime.
One of the cables said Ingraham’s decision to appoint Turnquest to that post “will strengthen party unity”.
According to the cable, “Turnquest's loyalty and self-sacrifice for the party has clearly kept him in Ingraham's inner circle.”
It said, “Turnquest does not have a strong national security background, although his experience as immigration minister will serve him well.
“With a reputation for honesty and a good relationship with the embassy, Turnquest should be an effective partner in ensuring continued close law enforcement and military partnerships. This portfolio has traditionally been the purview of the Deputy Prime Minister, and gives Turnquest an opportunity to demonstrate his ability to lead the party in a post-Ingraham era.”
5/24/2011
thenassauguardian
Branville McCartney says: ...the PLP and FNM are working together, and they will try to work together to try and stop the DNA from becoming the next government of The Bahamas
Bran: Documents show 'true democracy' denied to Bahamians for years
By PAUL G TURNQUEST
Tribune Staff Reporter
tribune242
pturnquest@tribunemedia.net
CITING the close working relationship between the leaders of the PLP and FNM in recently revealed Wikileaks documents, DNA leader Branville McCartney said it should now be painfully obvious that "true democracy" has been denied to the Bahamian people for many years.
"There is no doubt that both the prime minister and the leader of the opposition have been friends for many, many years. They have been business partners and nothing has changed. They contact each other on a regular basis and they seem to want to ensure that each one of them will be successful in their own right. When people now speak about a two party system, it is indeed a two party system now; you have on one side the PLP and the FNM together, and on the other you have the DNA. There is no doubt about that," Mr McCartney declared.
Pointing to a US Embassy cable from 2003 released by Wikileaks, in which Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham is quoted by a US official as saying that he speaks to and offers advice to PLP leader Perry Christie a few times a week, Mr McCartney said there is no surprise why both political parties want to make the upcoming election purely about both the PLP and the FNM.
"This is exactly what they want. If it's not Mr Ingraham, then it is going to be Mr Christie and vice versa. That's how it is and that is how it has been. They are playing yo-yo with the Bahamian people," he said.
This tactic, Mr McCartney said, denies the Bahamian people a true democratic process because as long as both leaders of the PLP and the FNM are working together, the Bahamian people never really have an option.
"They are working together, and they will try to work together to try and stop the DNA from becoming the next government of the Bahamas. That has been said to me personally. You would recall when Mr Christie was ill as prime minister, he called Hubert Ingraham to ask for his advice. What does that tell you? The Bahamian people ought to really see beyond that and go for an entity that will give true change for the country.
"If these guys were truly serious about change and serious about moving forward, both of them would have stepped down and allowed some of the other persons in the FNM and the PLP to take the reins."
The DNA is expected to travel to Grand Bahama next week and introduce the island to three of the six candidates they expect to name there for the upcoming general election.
The party has said it hopes to have a full slate of 41 candidates to challenge both the PLP and the FNM in every constituency.
Mr McCartney is the current independent MP for the Bamboo Town constituency.
May 24, 2011
tribune242
By PAUL G TURNQUEST
Tribune Staff Reporter
tribune242
pturnquest@tribunemedia.net
CITING the close working relationship between the leaders of the PLP and FNM in recently revealed Wikileaks documents, DNA leader Branville McCartney said it should now be painfully obvious that "true democracy" has been denied to the Bahamian people for many years.
"There is no doubt that both the prime minister and the leader of the opposition have been friends for many, many years. They have been business partners and nothing has changed. They contact each other on a regular basis and they seem to want to ensure that each one of them will be successful in their own right. When people now speak about a two party system, it is indeed a two party system now; you have on one side the PLP and the FNM together, and on the other you have the DNA. There is no doubt about that," Mr McCartney declared.
Pointing to a US Embassy cable from 2003 released by Wikileaks, in which Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham is quoted by a US official as saying that he speaks to and offers advice to PLP leader Perry Christie a few times a week, Mr McCartney said there is no surprise why both political parties want to make the upcoming election purely about both the PLP and the FNM.
"This is exactly what they want. If it's not Mr Ingraham, then it is going to be Mr Christie and vice versa. That's how it is and that is how it has been. They are playing yo-yo with the Bahamian people," he said.
This tactic, Mr McCartney said, denies the Bahamian people a true democratic process because as long as both leaders of the PLP and the FNM are working together, the Bahamian people never really have an option.
"They are working together, and they will try to work together to try and stop the DNA from becoming the next government of the Bahamas. That has been said to me personally. You would recall when Mr Christie was ill as prime minister, he called Hubert Ingraham to ask for his advice. What does that tell you? The Bahamian people ought to really see beyond that and go for an entity that will give true change for the country.
"If these guys were truly serious about change and serious about moving forward, both of them would have stepped down and allowed some of the other persons in the FNM and the PLP to take the reins."
The DNA is expected to travel to Grand Bahama next week and introduce the island to three of the six candidates they expect to name there for the upcoming general election.
The party has said it hopes to have a full slate of 41 candidates to challenge both the PLP and the FNM in every constituency.
Mr McCartney is the current independent MP for the Bamboo Town constituency.
May 24, 2011
tribune242
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Hubert Ingraham is still the FNM’s most popular politician...
Bahamas WikiLeaks cables revealed
By CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasgaurd.com
Inside the mind of Hubert Ingraham
When he sat down with a U.S. Embassy official at his law office on April 8, 2003, Hubert Ingraham outlined who he thought would make up the new FNM leadership team, and dismissed any chance of Brent Symonette being a part of it due to his “personality and lack of appeal” outside the bounds of his wealthy constituency, according to an embassy cable obtained by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.
While he dismissed Symonette’s chance at a successful leadership bid, Ingraham denied that his race had anything to do with it.
According to the cable — which was classified by the embassy’s political/economic chief at the time, Brian Bachman — Ingraham said the best thing that could happen would be for Symonette to challenge for the leadership, because he “would be beaten so soundly that it would shatter all his illusions.”
But at the FNM convention more than two years later, Symonette did not challenge for the leadership. He went for deputy leader and won. He was made deputy prime minister when the party won at the polls in 2007.
The 2003 cable said Ingraham quickly and confidently rattled off who he believed the new FNM leadership team would be after the next party election: Turnquest as leader; former Minister of Economic Development Zhivargo Laing as deputy leader; former Attorney General Carl Bethel as party chairman, and former legislators Johnley Ferguson and Darron Cash to round out the leadership slate.
Ingraham characterized that group as “young, energetic and talented.”
According to that 2003 cable, Ingraham confidently predicted that the FNM would win the next election, saying Christie’s PLP “already had the markings of a one-term government.”
He was spot on in his assessment.
The cable also revealed that Ingraham said that he had already become convinced by January 2002 that the FNM would lose the May 2002 general election.
He scheduled the February referendum on citizenship and other issues “because he was confident that it would pass and would give the FNM momentum going into the election.”
The referendum failed.
When asked if he had any regrets from his 10 years in office, or if he would do anything differently if given the opportunity, Ingraham, according to the cable, quickly responded “Absolutely not!”
He said he was a contented man, and that he had accomplished virtually everything he set out to do.
On further reflection, he admitted that he wished that the FNM leadership transition had been better handled, but he deflected blame for that, saying that it should have been done earlier and smoother, but he was delayed by FNMs who kept urging him to put it off and trying to get him to run again, the cable said.
With regard to the failed constitutional referendum, which many point to as a key factor in the FNM’s electoral loss, Ingraham denied that it was a factor.
“He admitted to being shocked when the PLP came out against the referendum, since they had all voted for the various amendments in Parliament, but refused to characterize it as a political miscalculation,” the cable said.
“Ingraham showed a glint of anger at the suggestion that some in the FNM blamed him for the electoral loss, and fired back.
“He strongly defended his record and claimed that he was still the FNM’s most popular politician.
“He pointed out that he won in 1992 and 1997 by strong margins, and that it was only after he left the leadership that the FNM lost.”
According to Ingraham, the FNM asked him to step away from the campaign not because he was unpopular, but because his popularity left Turnquest in his shadow.
“Finally, he did grudgingly admit that he might have to share some of the blame for the FNM loss,” the cable said.
It quoted Ingraham as saying, “I guess if I take credit for the victories I also have to take credit for the losses.
“And no one can deny that I was responsible for the victories in 1992 and 1997!”
Ingraham said that he was not surprised the FNM lost in May, but only reluctantly agreed that he might share some of the blame for the loss, the cable said.
“He said he was fully confident of his continued popularity and consistently dodged questions about his own political future.”
The cable described Ingraham’s law office as “relatively small but nicely appointed.”
Ingraham at the time worked there alone with just a part-time receptionist who left before the meeting concluded.
The cable said, “Ingraham freely admitted that he was not very active in Parliament and didn’t anticipate that he would become more active any time soon.
He said he still considers himself an FNM, and will vote with the FNM parliamentarians, but is taking no role in ongoing party politics.
“When asked if he would complete his term or retire completely from politics, Ingraham said he hadn’t given it much thought.”
The embassy official wrote: “Ingraham quickly warmed to the political discussion however, and his love for the game sparkled in his eyes” as he discussed a broad range of topics.
'AMBITIOUS INCOMPETENTS'
Addressing the management style of then Prime Minister Perry Christie, Ingraham said he has always been weak and indecisive and lacks vision, but is a good man.
Ingraham, according to the cable, also said however that Christie is the only one in the PLP with broad enough appeal to bring in swing voters, largely because he, unlike many other PLP politicians, is viewed as “trustworthy” and “solid”.
Ingraham said even FNMs don’t fear for the country with Christie in charge, as he is unlikely to do anything rash, the cable said.
Ingraham described the Christie cabinet as “a collection of ambitious incompetents”.
He termed the PLP government’s legislative agenda non-existent, and vigorously defended his record during his 10 years in office, claiming to have no regrets.
Ingraham told the embassy official that he and Christie remained good friends and talked by phone a couple times a week.
“Ingraham said that they didn’t always talk politics, but didn’t avoid the topic either, and said he offered advice to Christie regularly.
“He said that he believes Christie is a good man, and well-intentioned, but criticized his leadership style.”
Ingraham said, “Perry has always been indecisive, and will always be indecisive. It’s just the way he is. He can’t change.”
He also alleged that Christie had no real vision other than a general desire to improve social programs, and nothing he really wanted to accomplish, the cable said.
Ingraham contrasted Christie with himself, saying he had come in with a definite agenda and moved decisively to accomplish it, whereas Christie “enjoys being prime minister” but doesn’t really feel any urgency to get things done.
The cable said: “Combined with the fact that he loves his job, Ingraham sees Christie as firmly implanted in the PLP leadership and consequently, the PM’s office.”
“It would take dynamite to get him out of that seat,” said Ingraham, when asked if he thought Christie would run for another term.
The cable reveals that Ingraham had nothing good to say about the cabinet of his friend Perry Christie, although he was generally complimentary about Christie.
“Once you get past Perry, what have you got?” he was quoted as saying.
Ingraham described the Christie cabinet as “inexperienced, incompetent and politically unschooled.”
He also said many of them harbor political ambitions and have their own agendas, and shook his head at Christie’s seeming inability to control them, the cable said.
Ingraham said he “never would have tolerated such behavior” in his own cabinet.
He sympathized with Christie, however, noting how, under the Westminster system, it is difficult to just remove a cabinet minister or discipline him effectively, as all it may do is create a political enemy who retains his seat in Parliament.
The cable said: “Ingraham acknowledged that this had never stopped him, but claimed, with a mischievous gleam in his eye, that that was ‘because I was always confident — confident that I had the support of the people. Perry doesn’t have that confidence’.”
In fact, Ingraham said he believed the PLP had squandered its mandate almost immediately and no longer enjoyed the support of the people, because of its inaction and political stumbles.
THOUGHTS ON THE FNM
But in 2003 Ingraham was not only critical of the PLP, a read of the cable shows.
He acknowledged that just because the PLP was losing support that didn’t mean that people were ready to turn back to the FNM.
He said that the FNM had a lot of work to do before it would be competitive politically again.
What was most needed, he said, was unity.
According to Ingraham, many of the FNM’s wounds were self-inflicted, and he had harsh criticism for former ministers Algernon Allen and Tennyson Wells, who attacked the leadership process that saw them unsuccessfully challenge Turnquest, Ingraham’s handpicked successor, and then complained bitterly in public about Ingraham’s stacking the deck, the cable said.
It added that Ingraham “vehemently but unconvincingly” denied influencing the leadership process and defended Turnquest as “the best man for the job at the time.”
The cable said Ingraham did criticize Turnquest’s decision to accept a celebratory party financed by a contractor doing business with his ministry, saying it gave the PLP and Allen and Wells a convenient target.
Ingraham said it was an “unfortunate decision”. According to the cable, he thought it was very damaging to Turnquest’s chances in the next leadership election.
“Nonetheless,” the cable continued, “Ingraham predicted that Tommy would survive any leadership challenge in the upcoming May FNM convention.
“In fact, he predicted that no serious challenge would emerge at this convention.
“According to Ingraham, those most likely to challenge Tommy Turnquest would lay low at this convention, since they don’t really have any desire to be the leader of an opposition party for the next four years, and would bring out their serious challenge at the next convention, which he predicted would be in another 18 months, by which time the next election would already be in sight on the horizon.”
In 2005, Ingraham entered the leadership race, and again emerged as the leader of the FNM.
He took the party into the 2007 election, promoting his trust agenda, and wrested power from Christie and the PLP.
Today, Ingraham is seeking a fourth non-consecutive term in office.
5/23/2011
thenassauguardian
By CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasgaurd.com
Inside the mind of Hubert Ingraham
When he sat down with a U.S. Embassy official at his law office on April 8, 2003, Hubert Ingraham outlined who he thought would make up the new FNM leadership team, and dismissed any chance of Brent Symonette being a part of it due to his “personality and lack of appeal” outside the bounds of his wealthy constituency, according to an embassy cable obtained by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.
While he dismissed Symonette’s chance at a successful leadership bid, Ingraham denied that his race had anything to do with it.
According to the cable — which was classified by the embassy’s political/economic chief at the time, Brian Bachman — Ingraham said the best thing that could happen would be for Symonette to challenge for the leadership, because he “would be beaten so soundly that it would shatter all his illusions.”
But at the FNM convention more than two years later, Symonette did not challenge for the leadership. He went for deputy leader and won. He was made deputy prime minister when the party won at the polls in 2007.
The 2003 cable said Ingraham quickly and confidently rattled off who he believed the new FNM leadership team would be after the next party election: Turnquest as leader; former Minister of Economic Development Zhivargo Laing as deputy leader; former Attorney General Carl Bethel as party chairman, and former legislators Johnley Ferguson and Darron Cash to round out the leadership slate.
Ingraham characterized that group as “young, energetic and talented.”
According to that 2003 cable, Ingraham confidently predicted that the FNM would win the next election, saying Christie’s PLP “already had the markings of a one-term government.”
He was spot on in his assessment.
The cable also revealed that Ingraham said that he had already become convinced by January 2002 that the FNM would lose the May 2002 general election.
He scheduled the February referendum on citizenship and other issues “because he was confident that it would pass and would give the FNM momentum going into the election.”
The referendum failed.
When asked if he had any regrets from his 10 years in office, or if he would do anything differently if given the opportunity, Ingraham, according to the cable, quickly responded “Absolutely not!”
He said he was a contented man, and that he had accomplished virtually everything he set out to do.
On further reflection, he admitted that he wished that the FNM leadership transition had been better handled, but he deflected blame for that, saying that it should have been done earlier and smoother, but he was delayed by FNMs who kept urging him to put it off and trying to get him to run again, the cable said.
With regard to the failed constitutional referendum, which many point to as a key factor in the FNM’s electoral loss, Ingraham denied that it was a factor.
“He admitted to being shocked when the PLP came out against the referendum, since they had all voted for the various amendments in Parliament, but refused to characterize it as a political miscalculation,” the cable said.
“Ingraham showed a glint of anger at the suggestion that some in the FNM blamed him for the electoral loss, and fired back.
“He strongly defended his record and claimed that he was still the FNM’s most popular politician.
“He pointed out that he won in 1992 and 1997 by strong margins, and that it was only after he left the leadership that the FNM lost.”
According to Ingraham, the FNM asked him to step away from the campaign not because he was unpopular, but because his popularity left Turnquest in his shadow.
“Finally, he did grudgingly admit that he might have to share some of the blame for the FNM loss,” the cable said.
It quoted Ingraham as saying, “I guess if I take credit for the victories I also have to take credit for the losses.
“And no one can deny that I was responsible for the victories in 1992 and 1997!”
Ingraham said that he was not surprised the FNM lost in May, but only reluctantly agreed that he might share some of the blame for the loss, the cable said.
“He said he was fully confident of his continued popularity and consistently dodged questions about his own political future.”
The cable described Ingraham’s law office as “relatively small but nicely appointed.”
Ingraham at the time worked there alone with just a part-time receptionist who left before the meeting concluded.
The cable said, “Ingraham freely admitted that he was not very active in Parliament and didn’t anticipate that he would become more active any time soon.
He said he still considers himself an FNM, and will vote with the FNM parliamentarians, but is taking no role in ongoing party politics.
“When asked if he would complete his term or retire completely from politics, Ingraham said he hadn’t given it much thought.”
The embassy official wrote: “Ingraham quickly warmed to the political discussion however, and his love for the game sparkled in his eyes” as he discussed a broad range of topics.
'AMBITIOUS INCOMPETENTS'
Addressing the management style of then Prime Minister Perry Christie, Ingraham said he has always been weak and indecisive and lacks vision, but is a good man.
Ingraham, according to the cable, also said however that Christie is the only one in the PLP with broad enough appeal to bring in swing voters, largely because he, unlike many other PLP politicians, is viewed as “trustworthy” and “solid”.
Ingraham said even FNMs don’t fear for the country with Christie in charge, as he is unlikely to do anything rash, the cable said.
Ingraham described the Christie cabinet as “a collection of ambitious incompetents”.
He termed the PLP government’s legislative agenda non-existent, and vigorously defended his record during his 10 years in office, claiming to have no regrets.
Ingraham told the embassy official that he and Christie remained good friends and talked by phone a couple times a week.
“Ingraham said that they didn’t always talk politics, but didn’t avoid the topic either, and said he offered advice to Christie regularly.
“He said that he believes Christie is a good man, and well-intentioned, but criticized his leadership style.”
Ingraham said, “Perry has always been indecisive, and will always be indecisive. It’s just the way he is. He can’t change.”
He also alleged that Christie had no real vision other than a general desire to improve social programs, and nothing he really wanted to accomplish, the cable said.
Ingraham contrasted Christie with himself, saying he had come in with a definite agenda and moved decisively to accomplish it, whereas Christie “enjoys being prime minister” but doesn’t really feel any urgency to get things done.
The cable said: “Combined with the fact that he loves his job, Ingraham sees Christie as firmly implanted in the PLP leadership and consequently, the PM’s office.”
“It would take dynamite to get him out of that seat,” said Ingraham, when asked if he thought Christie would run for another term.
The cable reveals that Ingraham had nothing good to say about the cabinet of his friend Perry Christie, although he was generally complimentary about Christie.
“Once you get past Perry, what have you got?” he was quoted as saying.
Ingraham described the Christie cabinet as “inexperienced, incompetent and politically unschooled.”
He also said many of them harbor political ambitions and have their own agendas, and shook his head at Christie’s seeming inability to control them, the cable said.
Ingraham said he “never would have tolerated such behavior” in his own cabinet.
He sympathized with Christie, however, noting how, under the Westminster system, it is difficult to just remove a cabinet minister or discipline him effectively, as all it may do is create a political enemy who retains his seat in Parliament.
The cable said: “Ingraham acknowledged that this had never stopped him, but claimed, with a mischievous gleam in his eye, that that was ‘because I was always confident — confident that I had the support of the people. Perry doesn’t have that confidence’.”
In fact, Ingraham said he believed the PLP had squandered its mandate almost immediately and no longer enjoyed the support of the people, because of its inaction and political stumbles.
THOUGHTS ON THE FNM
But in 2003 Ingraham was not only critical of the PLP, a read of the cable shows.
He acknowledged that just because the PLP was losing support that didn’t mean that people were ready to turn back to the FNM.
He said that the FNM had a lot of work to do before it would be competitive politically again.
What was most needed, he said, was unity.
According to Ingraham, many of the FNM’s wounds were self-inflicted, and he had harsh criticism for former ministers Algernon Allen and Tennyson Wells, who attacked the leadership process that saw them unsuccessfully challenge Turnquest, Ingraham’s handpicked successor, and then complained bitterly in public about Ingraham’s stacking the deck, the cable said.
It added that Ingraham “vehemently but unconvincingly” denied influencing the leadership process and defended Turnquest as “the best man for the job at the time.”
The cable said Ingraham did criticize Turnquest’s decision to accept a celebratory party financed by a contractor doing business with his ministry, saying it gave the PLP and Allen and Wells a convenient target.
Ingraham said it was an “unfortunate decision”. According to the cable, he thought it was very damaging to Turnquest’s chances in the next leadership election.
“Nonetheless,” the cable continued, “Ingraham predicted that Tommy would survive any leadership challenge in the upcoming May FNM convention.
“In fact, he predicted that no serious challenge would emerge at this convention.
“According to Ingraham, those most likely to challenge Tommy Turnquest would lay low at this convention, since they don’t really have any desire to be the leader of an opposition party for the next four years, and would bring out their serious challenge at the next convention, which he predicted would be in another 18 months, by which time the next election would already be in sight on the horizon.”
In 2005, Ingraham entered the leadership race, and again emerged as the leader of the FNM.
He took the party into the 2007 election, promoting his trust agenda, and wrested power from Christie and the PLP.
Today, Ingraham is seeking a fourth non-consecutive term in office.
5/23/2011
thenassauguardian
Hubert Ingraham: “Supremely self-confident, unapologetic and, dare we say, arrogant as ever...", says a United States Embassy official in Nassau
The Ingraham logs: An analysis
By ERICA WELLS
NG Managing Editor
thenassauguardian
erica@nasguard.com
As a sitting opposition member of Parliament (MP) in April 2003, more than a year after he had stepped aside as leader of the Free National Movement, former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham bragged with apparent delight to a U.S. Embassy official that he was still the FNM’s most popular politician.
That some within the country and in the FNM laid the blame of the party’s embarrassing 2002 election defeat squarely at his feet only seemed to fuel his widely perceived arrogance.
That his critics pointed to the disastrous constitutional referendum and the poor handling of the FNM’s leadership transition as major contributors to the FNM’s defeat only seemed to cement Ingraham’s conviction that “it was only after he left the leadership that the FNM lost”.
“According to Ingraham, the FNM asked him to step away from the campaign not because he was unpopular, but because his popularity left Tommy Turnquest in his shadow,” the official wrote in a confidential U.S. Embassy cable obtained exclusively by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.
“Finally, he did grudgingly admit that he might have to share some of the blame for the FNM’s loss. ‘I guess if I take credit for the victories I also have to take credit for the losses,’ Ingraham said, but added with fire in his voice, ‘And no one can deny that I was responsible for the victories in 1992 and 1997’.”
The conversation with then U.S. Embassy Political/Economics Chief Brian Bachman took place on April 8 in what was then Ingraham’s law office in Cable Beach.
The cable goes into surprising detail: “Pol/Econ chief called on Ingraham at his Cable Beach office which was relatively small but nicely appointed. Ingraham works there alone, with just a single employee, a part-time receptionist who left before the meeting concluded. He did not seem terribly busy, as the phone rang only twice during the hour-and-a-half long conversation, and neither call seemed work-related. His desk was near empty and his TV was turned to CNN to watch war news."
The conversation was characterized in the cable as a wide-ranging discussion of his tenure in office and current political developments.
It provides a unique insight into what our greatest ally — the U.S. — thought of Ingraham at the time.
It also provides insight into Hubert Ingraham’s complex political persona.
‘SELF-CONFIDENT, UNAPOLOGETIC AND ARROGANT’
In the comment section at the end of the cable, the Embassy official had this to say:
“Supremely self-confident, unapologetic and, dare we say, arrogant as ever, Ingraham still has a forceful and formidable presence.
“Currently inactive in Parliament and largely out of the public view, he obviously is still keeping a close eye on political events both inside and outside the party, and we have little doubt that he still has influence within the FNM if he chooses to use it.
“Ingraham is still a relatively young man for a politician, and seems to have little desire to return to his former trade (the law).
“If the (Perry) Christie government continues to struggle against a weak economy and the widespread perception that it is inactive, and Bahamian voters begin to feel a little nostalgia for the strong hand on the tiller, we wouldn’t be surprised if Hubert Ingraham reemerges as a potential ‘savior’ for his party and The Bahamas.”
Hubert Ingraham ended up doing just that.
At the time of the conversation, Ingraham claimed that he had no intention of defending his seat in 2007, and did not intend to take an active role in the upcoming FNM convention, but “when asked directly if he would ever consider re-entering politics, Ingraham dodged the question completely”, according to the cable.
“He did admit that various people within the FNM continued to push him to retake the leadership, however, and refused several clear opportunities to say he was definitely not interested.”
Less than three years after that conversation he was convincingly returned as leader of the FNM after running against his hand-picked successor, Tommy Turnquest.
And in 2007 he was elected prime minister for a third non-consecutive term — although the FNM won by a small margin, and it was well below the numbers that Ingraham had predicted while on the 2007 campaign trail.
CONTRADICTIONS
The contradiction between what was said and what eventually took place is an example of the contradictory and mixed character traits that are not foreign to politics, but have come to define Ingraham the politician.
Hubert Ingraham is seen by most Bahamians as extremely competent, hardworking and smart.
Throughout the U.S. cables, Ingraham is referred to as “sharply focused on issues”, “a man of action”, “pragmatic, “no-nonsense”.
Many see him as a man of integrity who means the best. But there is a clear sense that he can be ruthless when necessary. There is also a strong streak of stubbornness that in the past has gotten him into trouble — the Clifton Cay development and Constitutional Referendum.
As noted by Guardian columnist Ian Strachan recently, Ingraham can be both arrogant and exemplify simplicity at the same time.
He is usually himself and does not put on airs. He lives in a modest home, has modest tastes, and is not given to extravagance in his habits. But he can also be arrogant and highhanded, seen often in his administration’s penchant for not seeing the importance of communicating to the public why its policies are important to the country.
He can be brash and removed, yet very accessible to the average Bahamian. His home telephone is listed in the phone book and he often answers the phone himself.
The same man who can be crude at times in terms of language and brashness, can also be quite charming when necessary.
Hubert Ingraham can also let his temper get the best of him, hitting out unnecessarily and at a cost to himself and others. Yet he can show restraint in not responding to some of his regular critics.
Ingraham is genuinely democratic when it comes to national issues and his administrations have moved to implement a number of measures that have improved democracy. Opening up the airwaves, drafting revised libel laws, among them.
However, he is famously autocratic party-wise. And while some in his Cabinet say it is much more consensual than many imagine, he can push into a minister’s ministry if he believes something is not getting done.
According to the cable, while discussing Christie’s Cabinet with Bachman, Ingraham said, “many of them harbor further political ambitions and have their own agendas,” and he shook his head at Christie’s seeming inability to control them.
“Ingraham said he ‘never would have tolerated such behavior’ in his own Cabinet, however, noting how, under the Westminster system, it is difficult to just remove a Cabinet minister or discipline him effectively, as all it may do is create a political enemy who retains his seat in Parliament.
“Ingraham acknowledged that this had never stopped him, but claimed with a mischievous gleam in his eye, that this was ‘because I was always confident — confident that I had the support of the people. Perry doesn’t have that confidence’.”
Many political observers have been left to wonder about the curious events that lead to Ingraham’s return to the FNM as leader.
It was not until the last minute that it was revealed that Ingraham would offer himself for the leadership of the FNM, directly challenging Turnquest.
On the morning of the elections, Turnquest told reporters at the party’s convention that Ingraham had called him directly and assured him that he would not be running.
Hours later Ingraham was escorted to the podium, heralded as a savior of the party. His wife Delores was nowhere to be seen.
Ingraham is famous for keeping key decisions well-guarded, but the seemingly last-minute decision to run as leader could easily be seen as a deep betrayal, even though the party appears to have moved beyond that chapter.
Another obvious contradiction is his relationship with long-time political foe, and personal friend, Progressive Liberal Party leader Perry Christie.
Ingraham and Christie will beat up on each other on certain matters, but never on personal issues.
In the same cable covering the political discussion in 2003, under the heading ‘Perry and Hubert’, according to the U.S. Embassy official Ingraham said that he and Perry Christie remained good friends and they talked by phone a couple of times a week.
“Ingraham said that they didn’t always talk politics, but didn’t avoid the topic either, and said that he offered advice to Christie regularly.
“He said that he believes Christie is a good man, and well-intentioned, but criticized his leadership style.
“Ingraham said, ‘Perry has always been indecisive, and will always be indecisive. It’s just the way he is. He can’t change’.”
POLITICAL MISCALCULATION?
Asked by the Embassy official if he had any regrets from his 10 years in office, or if he would do anything differently, if given the opportunity, Ingraham reportedly quickly responded, “Absolutely not!”
“He said he was a contented man, and that he had accomplished virtually everything he had set out to do.
“On further reflection, he admitted that he wished that the FNM leadership transition had been handled better, but he deflected blame for that, saying that it should have been done earlier and smoother, but he was delayed by FNMs who kept urging him to put it off and trying to get him to run again.”
Regarding the failed constitutional referendum, Ingraham denied that it was a factor in the FNM’s loss, according to the cable.
“In fact, he said, he had already become convinced by January of 2002 that the FNM would lose the general election, and scheduled the referendum because he was confident that it would pass and would give the FNM momentum going into the election.”
According to the cable, Ingraham refused to characterize it as a political miscalculation.
Only Hubert Ingraham knows just how genuine those words were, or if he was simply re-writing events of the past to protect his political legacy.
An election is on the horizon, and Ingraham and his FNM can ill-afford any political miscalculations in the current political environment.
5/23/2011
thenassauguardian
By ERICA WELLS
NG Managing Editor
thenassauguardian
erica@nasguard.com
As a sitting opposition member of Parliament (MP) in April 2003, more than a year after he had stepped aside as leader of the Free National Movement, former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham bragged with apparent delight to a U.S. Embassy official that he was still the FNM’s most popular politician.
That some within the country and in the FNM laid the blame of the party’s embarrassing 2002 election defeat squarely at his feet only seemed to fuel his widely perceived arrogance.
That his critics pointed to the disastrous constitutional referendum and the poor handling of the FNM’s leadership transition as major contributors to the FNM’s defeat only seemed to cement Ingraham’s conviction that “it was only after he left the leadership that the FNM lost”.
“According to Ingraham, the FNM asked him to step away from the campaign not because he was unpopular, but because his popularity left Tommy Turnquest in his shadow,” the official wrote in a confidential U.S. Embassy cable obtained exclusively by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.
“Finally, he did grudgingly admit that he might have to share some of the blame for the FNM’s loss. ‘I guess if I take credit for the victories I also have to take credit for the losses,’ Ingraham said, but added with fire in his voice, ‘And no one can deny that I was responsible for the victories in 1992 and 1997’.”
The conversation with then U.S. Embassy Political/Economics Chief Brian Bachman took place on April 8 in what was then Ingraham’s law office in Cable Beach.
The cable goes into surprising detail: “Pol/Econ chief called on Ingraham at his Cable Beach office which was relatively small but nicely appointed. Ingraham works there alone, with just a single employee, a part-time receptionist who left before the meeting concluded. He did not seem terribly busy, as the phone rang only twice during the hour-and-a-half long conversation, and neither call seemed work-related. His desk was near empty and his TV was turned to CNN to watch war news."
The conversation was characterized in the cable as a wide-ranging discussion of his tenure in office and current political developments.
It provides a unique insight into what our greatest ally — the U.S. — thought of Ingraham at the time.
It also provides insight into Hubert Ingraham’s complex political persona.
‘SELF-CONFIDENT, UNAPOLOGETIC AND ARROGANT’
In the comment section at the end of the cable, the Embassy official had this to say:
“Supremely self-confident, unapologetic and, dare we say, arrogant as ever, Ingraham still has a forceful and formidable presence.
“Currently inactive in Parliament and largely out of the public view, he obviously is still keeping a close eye on political events both inside and outside the party, and we have little doubt that he still has influence within the FNM if he chooses to use it.
“Ingraham is still a relatively young man for a politician, and seems to have little desire to return to his former trade (the law).
“If the (Perry) Christie government continues to struggle against a weak economy and the widespread perception that it is inactive, and Bahamian voters begin to feel a little nostalgia for the strong hand on the tiller, we wouldn’t be surprised if Hubert Ingraham reemerges as a potential ‘savior’ for his party and The Bahamas.”
Hubert Ingraham ended up doing just that.
At the time of the conversation, Ingraham claimed that he had no intention of defending his seat in 2007, and did not intend to take an active role in the upcoming FNM convention, but “when asked directly if he would ever consider re-entering politics, Ingraham dodged the question completely”, according to the cable.
“He did admit that various people within the FNM continued to push him to retake the leadership, however, and refused several clear opportunities to say he was definitely not interested.”
Less than three years after that conversation he was convincingly returned as leader of the FNM after running against his hand-picked successor, Tommy Turnquest.
And in 2007 he was elected prime minister for a third non-consecutive term — although the FNM won by a small margin, and it was well below the numbers that Ingraham had predicted while on the 2007 campaign trail.
CONTRADICTIONS
The contradiction between what was said and what eventually took place is an example of the contradictory and mixed character traits that are not foreign to politics, but have come to define Ingraham the politician.
Hubert Ingraham is seen by most Bahamians as extremely competent, hardworking and smart.
Throughout the U.S. cables, Ingraham is referred to as “sharply focused on issues”, “a man of action”, “pragmatic, “no-nonsense”.
Many see him as a man of integrity who means the best. But there is a clear sense that he can be ruthless when necessary. There is also a strong streak of stubbornness that in the past has gotten him into trouble — the Clifton Cay development and Constitutional Referendum.
As noted by Guardian columnist Ian Strachan recently, Ingraham can be both arrogant and exemplify simplicity at the same time.
He is usually himself and does not put on airs. He lives in a modest home, has modest tastes, and is not given to extravagance in his habits. But he can also be arrogant and highhanded, seen often in his administration’s penchant for not seeing the importance of communicating to the public why its policies are important to the country.
He can be brash and removed, yet very accessible to the average Bahamian. His home telephone is listed in the phone book and he often answers the phone himself.
The same man who can be crude at times in terms of language and brashness, can also be quite charming when necessary.
Hubert Ingraham can also let his temper get the best of him, hitting out unnecessarily and at a cost to himself and others. Yet he can show restraint in not responding to some of his regular critics.
Ingraham is genuinely democratic when it comes to national issues and his administrations have moved to implement a number of measures that have improved democracy. Opening up the airwaves, drafting revised libel laws, among them.
However, he is famously autocratic party-wise. And while some in his Cabinet say it is much more consensual than many imagine, he can push into a minister’s ministry if he believes something is not getting done.
According to the cable, while discussing Christie’s Cabinet with Bachman, Ingraham said, “many of them harbor further political ambitions and have their own agendas,” and he shook his head at Christie’s seeming inability to control them.
“Ingraham said he ‘never would have tolerated such behavior’ in his own Cabinet, however, noting how, under the Westminster system, it is difficult to just remove a Cabinet minister or discipline him effectively, as all it may do is create a political enemy who retains his seat in Parliament.
“Ingraham acknowledged that this had never stopped him, but claimed with a mischievous gleam in his eye, that this was ‘because I was always confident — confident that I had the support of the people. Perry doesn’t have that confidence’.”
Many political observers have been left to wonder about the curious events that lead to Ingraham’s return to the FNM as leader.
It was not until the last minute that it was revealed that Ingraham would offer himself for the leadership of the FNM, directly challenging Turnquest.
On the morning of the elections, Turnquest told reporters at the party’s convention that Ingraham had called him directly and assured him that he would not be running.
Hours later Ingraham was escorted to the podium, heralded as a savior of the party. His wife Delores was nowhere to be seen.
Ingraham is famous for keeping key decisions well-guarded, but the seemingly last-minute decision to run as leader could easily be seen as a deep betrayal, even though the party appears to have moved beyond that chapter.
Another obvious contradiction is his relationship with long-time political foe, and personal friend, Progressive Liberal Party leader Perry Christie.
Ingraham and Christie will beat up on each other on certain matters, but never on personal issues.
In the same cable covering the political discussion in 2003, under the heading ‘Perry and Hubert’, according to the U.S. Embassy official Ingraham said that he and Perry Christie remained good friends and they talked by phone a couple of times a week.
“Ingraham said that they didn’t always talk politics, but didn’t avoid the topic either, and said that he offered advice to Christie regularly.
“He said that he believes Christie is a good man, and well-intentioned, but criticized his leadership style.
“Ingraham said, ‘Perry has always been indecisive, and will always be indecisive. It’s just the way he is. He can’t change’.”
POLITICAL MISCALCULATION?
Asked by the Embassy official if he had any regrets from his 10 years in office, or if he would do anything differently, if given the opportunity, Ingraham reportedly quickly responded, “Absolutely not!”
“He said he was a contented man, and that he had accomplished virtually everything he had set out to do.
“On further reflection, he admitted that he wished that the FNM leadership transition had been handled better, but he deflected blame for that, saying that it should have been done earlier and smoother, but he was delayed by FNMs who kept urging him to put it off and trying to get him to run again.”
Regarding the failed constitutional referendum, Ingraham denied that it was a factor in the FNM’s loss, according to the cable.
“In fact, he said, he had already become convinced by January of 2002 that the FNM would lose the general election, and scheduled the referendum because he was confident that it would pass and would give the FNM momentum going into the election.”
According to the cable, Ingraham refused to characterize it as a political miscalculation.
Only Hubert Ingraham knows just how genuine those words were, or if he was simply re-writing events of the past to protect his political legacy.
An election is on the horizon, and Ingraham and his FNM can ill-afford any political miscalculations in the current political environment.
5/23/2011
thenassauguardian
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)