The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) is doubtful that this Perry Christie led Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) administration ...is capable ...or interested in keeping any of its promises to the Bahamian electorate

DNA says: PLP Late Again!

DNA Leader - Branville McCartney

The PLP’s approach to governance since taking office in 2012 has left much to be desired. In what has seemingly become their modus operandi, this government has proven time and time again that it is unfit to oversee the affairs of the nation. Despite numerous public assurances that they would aggressively tackle the country’s many pressing issues, this PLP administration has proven itself dysfunctional, unfocused and incompetent; failing to meet their own legislative deadlines on issues relative to tax reform, a Freedom of Information Act, gaming, crime and countless other policy initiatives such as job creation, all while reneging on the countless promises made while in opposition.

Most recently, the Minister responsible for referendums Bernard Nottage admitted the government’s failure to set a definitive date for the proposed constitutional referendum. Shortly after taking office, the Prime Minister offered grand pronouncements of the government’s plans in this regard in which he set a November 2013 date.

The Constitutional Commission headed by renowned local Attorney Sean McWeeny did an excellent job in securing public feedback and reviewing the various aspects of the constitution which deserved attention; eventually compiling an impressive and comprehensive report which was presented to the government well in advance of its initial target date. Their work is certainly to be commended. True to form however, Mr. Christie showed no follow through and was forced to push the date to June of 2014.

How disappointing! Rather than use the additional planning time wisely however, this administration has again squandered the better part of this year focusing on trivial and insignificant matters and will by all indications, be forced to postpone the vote for a second time. While these revelations are certainly disappointing, they are far from surprising, particularly considering the ineffective nature of this administration.

Would the additional time not been ideal to launch the promised education campaign on the issue? Where is the so called commitment which the Prime Minister pledged to removing all vestiges of discrimination against women from the country’s constitution? This apparent lack of focus and political will is only further evidence of the careless and flippant disregard the PLP and members of this administration have shown and continue to show for the contributions of Bahamian women in this country.

Further, the Bahamian public ought to be reminded that the former PLP Administration commissioned a constitutional Commission to review the Constitution headed by the late Paul Adderley. Recommendations were made and true to form NOTHING HAPPENED!

Even more disappointing, is the fact that this is not the first time that a Christie led government has floundered on the planning and execution of a referendum. One need only think back to the disastrous January 28, 2013 referendum on Gaming which was also delayed as a result of the government’s failure to plan appropriately. First, this administration failed to properly educate the voting public on the impact of a legalized web shop industry, while refusing to consider addressing existing laws which discriminate against Bahamians in their own country. Then, rather than respecting the wishes of the Bahamians who voted, this administration has shown a deep disrespect for the democratic process and has chosen to proceed with the legalization and regulation of the industry anyway.

The Democratic National Alliance is doubtful that this administration is capable or interested in keeping any of its promises to the electorate. It appears that the Prime Minister and his band of merry men have stopped caring about their duties for the betterment and advancement of the country. The government must get serious about its responsibilities and abandon this LATE AGAIN and less than mediocre style of governance. The Bahamian people must demand and expect good governance from the party they elected.

Branville McCartney
DNA Leader
Facebook

April 21, 2014

And so the torch has been passed once again... and Perry Christie has been given a second chance to rectify some of the missteps of his last term... ...We are confident that he is aware that there is a very thin line between love and hate... that the electorate is impatient... and that there is a very high expectation that his new government will lead The Bahamas to greater heights in the days ahead...

The voice of the people

By Philip C. Galanis

“The voice of the people is the voice of God.” – Sir Lynden Pindling

What a difference a day makes.  Monday, May 7, 2012 will be recorded in Bahamian history as a day when the Bahamian people spoke loudly and unequivocally, although their behavior was anything but.  In fact, when Bahamians went to the polls, they quietly exercised their constitutionally guaranteed democratic right, emphatically asserting their displeasure with the Free National Movement (FNM) government.  The outcome of the election was a resounding rejection of the leadership of Hubert Ingraham and his government’s management of the country from 2007 to 2012.  This week, we would like to Consider This...what really happened on Election Day, 2012 and what lessons, if any, are to be learned about governance and the will of the people?

A macro-analysis

The results of the elections, as confirmed by the parliamentary registrar, indicate that the majority of the nearly 156,000 persons who cast their votes — a turnout of 91 percent of the registered voters — rejected Ingraham’s belligerent behavior that bordered on tyranny, representing a leadership style that was not to be tolerated and had to be terminated.

Nearly 76,000, or 49 percent, of the voters supported the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and another 13,422, or nine percent, supported the fledgling Democratic National Alliance (DNA), making a combined total of nearly 58 percent of the voters who rejected the Free National Movement (FNM).  Of the 38 seats that were contested, the PLP won 29 seats; the FNM won nine seats with 65,651 votes; and the DNA did not win any.

The professional pollsters predicted that the election results would be close and no one publically forecasted the resounding landslide.  There were two seats where the victor won with a razor-slim margin of less than 25 votes, six seats where the winner edged out by less than 100 votes, and 11 seats where the winner won by less than 200 votes.

The FNM won only three of the 23 seats in New Providence, both seats in Abaco, two of the five seats in Grand Bahama, and two of the eight seats in the other Family Islands.  Only four of Ingraham’s 17 Cabinet ministers survived the contest, with notable losses by veteran politicians Tommy Turnquest, Zhivargo Laing, Desmond Bannister, Charles Maynard and Carl Bethel.

The most difficult call in the election was the effect that the DNA would have on the outcome, but its presence was impactful.  In fact, there were several seats where, but for the presence of the DNA, the PLP would have likely taken the seats that the FNM wound up winning.  This was most evident in Montagu and Central Grand Bahama where the combined votes of the PLP and the DNA outnumbered those cast for the FNM.  This suggestion is supported by the hypothesis that the DNA votes were in fact anti-FNM votes.

Lessons learned

There are at least four lessons that can be learned from the election results.  First, we are a two-party system and, once again, these elections confirmed that the presence of a third party in the body politic is largely irrelevant and inconsequential as regards its ability to form a government, although its existence affected the election outcome.

The second lesson was that when Bahamians have lost faith in a political party, they will unceremoniously and decisively vote them out.  We saw this in 1992, 2002, 2007 and again in 2012.

The third lesson is that Bahamians fully comprehend the power of their votes and that the social contract between politicians and the people has a five-year life span, sometimes less as was the case in the Elizabeth by-election, but certainly not longer than five years.  Ingraham has now joined Perry Christie in being booted out of office after just one term.  Bahamians have proven that they will not tolerate arrogance, negligence, scandals, despotism or corruption.

The fourth lesson is that Grand Bahama is no longer FNM country, precipitated by the government’s gross neglect of the pain and suffering of the residents of that island over the last five years.  For the first time in decades, the PLP has won the majority of seats on Grand Bahama, proving once again that if the social contract is unfulfilled, there will be consequences.

Sore losers

It was amazing and disappointing to note the reaction of both the press and the vanquished.  In a Tribune editorial of Tuesday, May 8, the day after the general election, the editor of that tabloid noted: “Bahamians went to the polls yesterday and showed the depth of their ingratitude to a man who had dedicated 35 selfless years to their service.”

What drivel, what arrogance, what utter rubbish.  The editor, more than many, should appreciate that the mandate that is given to any politician and any government is for five years, and to reject them for whatever reason is the voters’ constitutional right.  We invite the editor to join us in the 21st century and recognize that that kind of patronizing plantation posturing offends the inalienable right and civic obligation to tell any leader — PLP, FNM, DNA or otherwise — that we have had enough of you, your policies and bullying tactics and that we invite you to leave and leave now.

We also observed Ingraham’s ungracious reaction to his thorough trouncing by the Bahamian people.  In an interview with the press days after being completely rejected, Ingraham “hinted” that bribery was involved in the PLP’s win on Monday.  How can he make such a claim with a straight face?  What did the former prime minister think he was doing when he embarked upon a massive contract signing marathon after calling the elections; or when he offered temporary jobs to voters in order to win their support at the polls; or when he approved last-minute citizenship for countless applicants who had been awaiting such approval for years; or when he increased public servants’ salaries on the eve of elections and extended other such political patronage that he doled out days before the elections?

Bribery comes in many forms, shapes and sizes and is fully recognizable even when incognito, camouflaged as a contract, a job, citizenship or otherwise.  If Ingraham would seriously reflect on this matter, perhaps he might appreciate that the Bahamian people told him and his ministers on May 7 that they were tired of him, and his bully tactics, his belligerent behavior, his one-man band approach to governance, his Pied Piper complex, his arrogance and that of some of his colleagues.  As loudly as Bahamians spoke on Monday, you would have expected him to get the message that just maybe, “he is simply not the best”.

Conclusion

And so the torch has been passed once again and Christie has been given a second chance to rectify some of the missteps of his last term.  We are confident that he is aware that there is a very thin line between love and hate, that the electorate is impatient, and that there is a very high expectation that his new government will lead the country to greater heights in the days ahead.  Christie has first-hand knowledge that hard earned political currency, which often takes many years to amass, will be quickly spent if those expectations are not satisfied within a reasonable period of time.  Most importantly, Christie, like the rest of the new government, has clearly heard the voice of the people; we can but hope they are acutely aware that it is also the voice of God.

 

• Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis & Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament. Please send your comments to: pgalanis@gmail.com

May 14, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) political con game on the Bahamian electorate

By Dennis Dames



I have received a number of comments on my initial piece in relations to the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) election strategy - dated November 26, 2011, from a number of supporters of the party in question. The gist of their reactions was that if the DNA wins a few seats, they feel that they would have enough turncoats in the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), and Free National Movement (FNM) to form a Democratic National Alliance (DNA) government in The Bahamas.

Well what is this!?

How could a minor political party expect elected members of two major organizations to join them in mass to form an administration in The Bahamas? The DNA is obviously living a political fantasy in a castle in the sky; and so called intelligent Bahamians have bought in to the Democratic National Alliance con game on the nation.

They don’t expect to win outright, they don’t expect to pull any deals with the major parties to form a government - if the opportunity presents, and they are blindly confident of PLP and FNM elected traitors coming over to their side to form the next Bahamas government – if push comes to shove.

It is safe to assume that the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) is banking on political chaos after the results are confirmed following the 2012 general election. In this way, the spotlight and pressure could be on the respective leaders of the PLP and FNM; Messrs Christie and Ingraham. The Progressive liberal Party, and Free National Movement supporters could turned against their skippers in an atmosphere of political confusion and turmoil; and the Democratic National Alliance would relish irrationally in the uncertainty.

There must be a winner when the smoke clears though, even if it means a re-run of the election.
Here is where we the Bahamian people need to seriously consider who we are going to vote for, and our reasons for doing so. Are we going to vote for a DNA political stalemate and service Branville McCartney and Co’s ego or what?

The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) is not ready to govern on day one, because they expect to fall well short of the new 20 (twenty) member majority needed for a decisive victory. They would tell anyone who would listen, that they do not expect to win the 2012 election. They are relying on FNM and PLP double agents to pull them through.

It’s a long shot, and a very unrepresentative diversion being played on the Bahamian electorate by the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) – in my humble opinion.

Caribbean Blog International

...five years after the May 02, 2007 general election, Bahamians face a new round with a decisive man at the top... It is now up to the electorate to decide whether they are going to entrust their future to a leader of indecision, or one of decision

FNM and PLP prepare for an election

tribune242 editorial


ON MONDAY, Prime Minister Ingraham announced the appointment of the Constituencies (Boundaries) Commission, which is expected to make its recommendations to Parliament by the end of this year with voters' cards ready for issue by early in the New Year.

By October 7, 134,000 voters had already registered in the 41 electoral constituencies for the 2012 election. They are still registering. However, the Boundaries Commission now has sufficient numbers to study the shifts in population in the various constituencies, and make recommendations to government on how the boundaries should be drawn for this election.

The Constitution provides for a minimum of 38 House members. Presently there are 41 (one extra seat added by the PLP in 2007), and so, if the population shifts warrant it, at least three constituencies can be eliminated and merged.

What a difference five years can make with a decisive prime minister at the helm.

At this time five years ago, then Prime Minister Perry Christie was still dithering. He had not yet announced the close of the register, because of the poor turnout of citizens. By November 2006 just over 63,000 voters had registered in New Providence out of a projected 120,000 voters.

According to Mr Christie, he could not close the register because Bahamians were not registering fast enough, which resulted in him not being able to appoint a Boundaries Commission to decide electoral boundaries.

On March 22, 2007 Mr Christie said that there were compelling reasons why the work of the commission had to be delayed, which had nothing to do with inaction by the commission or the government.

"Instead," he said, "the delay, regrettably as it was, was the direct result of the very slow process of Bahamians registering to vote."

By comparison, Mr Ingraham announced this week that by the first week in January 2012 the Parliamentary Registration Department is expected to start the distribution of voters' cards. By the same time five years ago Mr Christie was still begging Bahamians to register so that the Commission could make a decision on the boundaries.

Apparently, Mr Christie refused to recognise that many Bahamians are very much like him -- slow to decide and even slower to act. Although Mr Christie was advised to announce a closure date early in 2006 for the 2007 election -- as Mr Ingraham had done earlier this year for the 2012 election -- he refused to do so. He was told that the only way to get Bahamians to move was to fix a date -- the floodgates would open, and registration offices would be filled. This seemed to take an extra long time for Mr Christie to compute and so three months before the 2007 election the Boundaries Commissioners were still floundering -- still nothing to report. It was only on the morning of March 19, 2007 - two months before the election - that Mr Christie presented the House with the Boundaries report.

It did not take a genius to predict that the 2007 election was going to be one of confusion. Up to that point political candidates were not even certain of their districts. First Bahamians were blamed because they were too slow to register. And naturally at the end of the day, someone else had to be blamed for the inevitable confusion that was to follow when voting did start. Naturally, the poor Parliamentary Commissioner, through no fault of his own, had to be the fall guy for the indecision at the top.

Here it was March 19, 2007 with Mr Christie standing before the House with the Boundaries Commissions report to be presented. One of the Commissioner's signatures was missing -- that of Brent Symonette, the only Opposition member on the committee. Mr Symonette had refused to sign because the PLP members had shunted him aside, treating his opinion with complete contempt. This will not happen this year as Mr Symonette, again appointed to the Commission, is one of the two members representing the government.

At this point in 2007, the Constitution was closing in on Mr Christie. If he didn't do his famous two-step shuffle quickly, on May 22 Parliament would automatically dissolve itself without him.

It was a huffing and a puffing to the finish line, which was eventually announced for May 2. The results were inevitable - the FNM won 23 of the 41 seats with the PLP winning the other 18. And now five years later Bahamians face a new election with a decisive man at the top. It is now up to the electorate to decide whether they are going to entrust their future to a leader of indecision, or one of decision.

It is only a matter of months before Bahamians are called upon to make that decision.

October 12, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

What does the Bahamian electorate really think of Perry Christie? ... Is he more popular and more respected than Hubert Ingraham? ... Than Bran McCartney?

Christie’s keys to success (Pt. 1)

By Dr. Ian Strachan

Logic would seem to dictate that in this long season of discontent, in this season of record unemployment, in this season of record bloodshed, in this interminable season of frustrating, confusing, infuriating “road works”, in this season of collapse for many homegrown businesses, in this time of rising fuel and food prices, logic would seem to dictate that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), under Perry Gladstone Christie, will be swept into office and the Free National Movement (FNM) will be ingloriously swept out.

Logic would seem to dictate that the FNM will be hard pressed to secure seats in New Providence other than those held by Brent Symonette, Dr. Hubert Minnis and Loretta Butler-Turner.

But there are some problems with this assessment.  There are some very big questions looming like storm clouds over the PLP.  The first is whether enough people feel comfortable returning Perry Christie to power.  The second is whether the PLP has changed sufficiently or has a strong enough message to persuade crucial swing voters that the PLP is still the best alternative, despite how they feel about Leslie Miller, Bradley Roberts, Picewell Forbes, V. Alfred Gray, Shane Gibson, Allyson Maynard-Gibson and company.

It might seem reasonable to assume that the PLP hasn’t really lost much of its base since 2007.  In fact, that base should have grown over the last four years given all the suffering and fear in the country.  But the fact is, most Bahamians want to see a change in leadership in both established political parties, and they’re not going to get it.  So interest in this election might be lower than normal.  Even some traditional PLPs may register but stay away on election day.

It’s also reasonable to assume that some of the swing vote that was attracted to the National Democratic Party’s “Bahamians-first” message might gravitate toward the PLP, now that Dr. Andre Rollins and Renward Wells have joined and the NDP has fizzled.  Their inclusion bodes well for Christie, particularly if they both get nominations.  They will appeal to young change-minded voters.

But what do people really think of Perry Christie?  Is he more popular and more respected than Hubert Ingraham?  Than Bran McCartney?  Without the national affection and regard felt for former PLP deputy leader Cynthia ‘Mother’ Pratt to buoy him, can Christie gain the confidence and trust of the majority of voters?  The Christian community (which is mostly Baptist and Pentecostal) and the working poor identified strongly with ‘Mother’ Pratt. Where will the PLP get that kind of credibility from now?  Is Deputy Leader Brave Davis a help or a hindrance?  What about Chairman Bradley Roberts?  Should Christie have persuaded Dr. Bernard Nottage, a man highly regarded by swing voters and Bahamians generally, to go for deputyship?  Will the ghost of Lynden Pindling or the dignity and grace of Dame Marguerite be enough this time around?

Christie’s Achilles’ heel is the perception that he is a less decisive and results oriented, and a less effective manager than Ingraham.  This is a big sticking point for the swing vote and the professional class.  But Christie is not without advantages in this fight.  For one, he is the warmer of the two men in interviews and more of an inspirational leader than Ingraham.  The people may be tired of Ingraham’s short, dry-eyed approach and may want someone they perceive as more sympathetic and approachable at the helm.

Christie also has the luxury of sitting back and poking holes in all the FNM’s efforts to address the troubled justice and educational systems and the sputtering economy.  Christie knows most voters have short memories and don’t care about what the PLP did or didn’t do five to 10 years ago.  This is why he can say he supports hanging and not get laughed out of town.

Christie also has at his disposal the collective disenchantment, anger and fear that permeates the society.  He is likely to milk this for all it’s worth and it’s worth a lot.  Many of the angry and disenchanted will abstain from voting or vote DNA, but at least they won’t vote FNM.   If the PLP can get its base out to the polls and woo even half or a third of the angry voters out there, it stands a good chance of coming out on top--even if “on top” means heading a minority or coalition government.

Sep 05, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

The 2012 general election issues are: Jobs, Crime, and Leadership

Leadership will be an issue in 2012 election

tribune242 editorial



IN A crescendo of emotion during the debate last month on the sale of BTC to Cable & Wireless, a member of the Opposition on the floor of the House loudly declared that the 2012 election would be fought on leadership.

Anxious to change the focus, Opposition leader Perry Christie at a PLP rally in Freeport on March 18 was quick to tell his party supporters that the general election will have nothing to do with personalities, but will be fought on issues. He declared that the Ingraham administration had been bad for the country, which had been "on a steep downhill ride for the past four years."

At his own rally in Nassau on the following evening, Prime Minister Ingraham directed the people's attention back to the drawing board. Agreeing that the election would be about jobs and crime, he wanted it to be known that it would also be about leadership.

"Don't forget, Mr Christie," he said, "it will also be about leadership. People of the Bahamas know what they can get when they are tired of what they got."

In the 2002 election, Mr Christie was an untried leader who promised that his was a "new" PLP --not of the Pindling stripe, which Bahamians had soundly rejected in 1992 -- but a new party that would bring them "help and hope." He also promised that, unlike the first PLP, his would be a scandal-free administration.

After five years under an indecisive leader and much scandal within the party, the PLP government failed to deliver on most of its promises. Other than much talk, there was little help and many voters had given up hope. As a result, the 2007 election was won on leadership. Five years of indecision was too much to tolerate. FNM leader Ingraham won the contest. Naturally, leadership is not an issue that Mr Christie would want to face again.

It is good to have all the answers for the country's ills, but if the country's leader is slow in executing them, then solutions are useless.

Mr Christie has claimed that Mr Ingraham is to blame for not quickly completing and executing plans that his government had taken to final signature, but which he had failed to sign. What Mr Christie does not seem to grasp is that if he had executed those agreements on time, many of the projects would have been completed, or nearing completion and Bahamians would have still been employed when the economic crash took the Bahamas and the rest of the world down.

However, it has to be admitted that Mr Christie's indecision has saved the Bahamas much. It gave the Ingraham government an opportunity to revise and renegotiate many of the contracts -- especially the Baha Mar deal, and the rejection of the Bluewater purchase of BTC, which would have been a disaster for this country.

In a radio talk show in February 2007 -- just before the May election -- then Prime Minister Christie admitted that he "could have done more" and was disappointed that he hadn't.

He said he had wanted to have a new straw market two years earlier. However, he only got around to signing the contract for a $22 million structure on February 16, 2007 - three months before the election. The old market had burned down in September 2001. When the FNM came to power in 2007 the overpriced new market was a controversial issue. Eventually the PLP's plans were scrapped, new plans were drawn, and on December 15, 2009 a new contract for its construction was signed. The Bay Street Market is now nearing completion.

Mr Christie said he wanted to have "the Royal Oasis opened a year ago, six months ago, and we're just now moving towards a final resolution of that" -- three months before a general election!

"Things have to take time and sometimes in the lives of politicians, the time is judged by five years," he told his radio audience. That is why a strong, decisive leader with vision is so important. The electorate has to understand that five years cannot accommodate an indecisive leader with an indifferent work ethic.

"I'm disappointed," Mr Christie had told his radio audience, three months before the Bahamian people voted him from office, "in the slowness of the realisation of the PLP's vision for the country. The major disappointment I have is that I could have done more."

It was an amazing admission of defeat - but with an excuse.

Mr Christie has presented the best argument of why Bahamians should not consider handing the government to him and his party in 2012. A rejection of the PLP at the polls in 2012 will spare both Mr Christie and the Bahamian people another five years of disappointment.

Even in defeat at the polls in 2007, indecision caused another 24 hours of confusion before the PLP could accept that they had in fact lost the government. According to his own testimony, Mr Christie had failed to grasp that a decisive, hard working leader was needed at the helm if much was to be accomplished in five years.

April 18, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Bahamas Blog International

The Public Domain poll reveals that 47 percent of the people contacted were either somewhat dissatisfied of very dissatisfied with the Ingraham adminstration

Poll: Nearly half of electorate uninterested in PLP and FNM


By KRYSTEL ROLLE
Guardian Staff Reporter
krystel@nasguard.com


The latest Public Domain poll has revealed that nearly half of Bahamians surveyed are not satisfied with the current government, nearly half do not want to vote for either of the two main political parties and there is a significant portion of the electorate considering a third party.
According to the poll, 47 percent of the 402 people contacted said they were either somewhat dissatisfied of very dissatisfied with the Ingraham adminstration.

Public Domain, a new Bahamian market research firm, conducted the telephone survey between February 16 and March 11 with Bahamians across the country. Public Domain president M’wale Rahming said yesterday that the sample size has a maximal margin of error of 4.9 percent.

According to the poll, 28 percent of respondents said if an election were called today they would vote for the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP); 25 percent said they would vote for the Free National Movement (FNM); 26 percent were undecided; and 21 percent said they are unhappy with both parties and would consider a third party.

“A winning strategy for the major parties would be to secure a coalition and convince third party-minded and undecided voters to support the party,” Public Domain said in the report released yesterday to the media.

When respondents were asked the likelihood of them voting for a third political party that presented a full slate of candidates, with a mix of veteran and new candidates, 32 percent of those polled said they would very likely vote for such a group. Another 25 percent said they would be somewhat likely; 11 percent said they would be not very likely; 21 percent said not likely at all; and 11 percent of respondents were unsure.

Public Domain, however, said respondents who said they would vote for an unbranded third party should not automatically be considered third party supporters.

“Third party voters should be considered disaffected voters. They are unhappy with both parties. Their identified third party affiliation does not mean they have or will vote for a third party,” said Public Domain.

The polling results were released as at least one third party prepares to roll out its slate of candidates.

Former Free National Movement (FNM) Cabinet minister Branville McCartney has formed the Democratic National Alliance (DNA). The Nassau Guardian understands that the party already has a constitution and it is preparing to register with the Parliamentary Registration Department. A DNA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the party plans to run candidates in all 41 constituencies in the upcoming general election and it is almost done vetting about 20 candidates.

Public opinion on whether a third party would be viable has been split over the past weeks.

Rahming said their sample and data is much more accurate than a street poll, as a wider sample is captured through their automated call center.

According to Public Domain, the data was weighted by region, age and gender in order to represent the Bahamian adult population.

Rahming added that the sample is randomly taken from New Providence, Grand Bahama, Abaco and other islands.

The public opinion poll was conducted from Public Domain’s call center in New Providence, which is equipped with the latest computer assisted telephone interviewing technology, Rahming said.

4/14/2011

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

The Perry Christie camp is certainly desperate to win an election

Election tactics to fool Bahamians in full swing

tribune242 editorial



DURING yesterday's rally Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union president Bernard Evans expressed the hope that "between now and the vote something will happen to derail the sale" of BTC to Cable & Wireless.

We are certain that the Bahamian woman who called a radio show yesterday morning to complain that she tried to pay her telephone bill but found no cashier on duty at any of the outlets-- except at the BTC Marathon office -- to assist her is anxious for the sale to go through. She is probably among the many Bahamians who -- unlike Mr Evans -- cannot wait for the company to be privatised so that persons like herself will get the standard of service they have every right to expect.

It is presumed that instead of manning their stations yesterday many of the missing staff were on Bay Street protesting the sale of BTC. Lower fees, better service and more choice in their public communications is what the public wants -- as far as many of them are concerned, it cannot come soon enough. Sunday night an internal e-mail, claiming to have been sent by Philip "Brave" Davis to six party members, mysteriously found its way to the desks of several newspaper editors and reporters.

With daily information being supplied by TV, Twitter, Face book and all the other new fangled means of information, Bahamians are sufficiently well informed not to buy into the PLP's propaganda blaming the Bahamas' economic downturn on the Ingraham government, rather than where it rightfully belongs -- the world economic crash.

"We have not been able to persuade the electorate that it is management and not the global economy that is causing the woes today..." said the e-mail. Party members have been advised to change their tactics. The e-mail claims that what is "resonating is the intentional delay and slothfulness to get things started that was left in place." We do not think that what the PLP like to call "stop, review and cancel" will resonant with Bahamians either if they fully understand what the Ingraham government has saved for them by going over all agreements left in place by the Christie government. When they realise what they would have lost had this not been done, we do not believe that even this propaganda slogan will resonate with anyone.

The Davis e-mail suggested that the chorus line to this week's debate about the sale has to be the five reasons why the "BTC deal stinks and this word has to be the chorus line to all contributions." Taking Mr Davis' advice yesterday, Fort Charlotte MP Alfred Sears during his contribution to the debate called for a Commission of Inquiry because the deal "does not pass the smell test."

The Christie camp is certainly desperate to win an election. They are clutching at any and every straw that passes their way to try to capture votes.

The e-mail advised the party stalwarts to be "dismissive" of the rally. This was a reference to Saturday night's FNM rally attended by a large, enthusiastic and orderly crowd. We presume that the directive was to ignore it, but one intrepid PLP MP broke ranks and suggested that the FNM were disappointed by the poor turnout to their rally. The police estimated that on Saturday night the rally drew a crowd of about 7,000-- hardly a poor turnout.

One bystander watching yesterday's demonstration outside the House believed the people should protest, but wondered if "anyone is listening." Why should anyone listen when reports persist that "party operatives" are paying many of them to be there.

We have been told by eyewitnesses that when the House broke for lunch around 1pm yesterday, a long line --"from the top to the bottom of the stairs" -- of demonstrators waited outside the Opposition's office door in the Bayparl building, demanding payment for doing what they claimed they were paid to do at the rally. "One of them urinated on the stairs, they were smoking grass, swearing and saying they wanted their money," an eyewitness said.

We then had reports of another disturbance at the PLP's Gambier headquarters last night when a fight broke out and police and an ambulance had to be called. Again, according to an eyewitness, it was claimed that a bus load of persons arrived demanding payment. How can anyone listen to demonstrators, a large number of whom are being paid by "party operatives" to swell the ranks. Obviously many of them neither understand nor care about the issues. Despite these alleged inducements, the turnout has been sparse, especially for an issue about which Opposition politicians claim the people are so passionate. Paid protesters do not reflect the opinion of the general public and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.

This tactic of paying this type of person-- some of whom the police say are "well known" to them -- to disturb the peace is dangerous. One only has to look at what eventually happened to politicians in Jamaica who played this game too long. Bruce Golding is a case in point.

It would be wise for Bahamian politicians -- especially after what must be to them an embarrassing episode -- to call a halt and change course. Bahamians want to know the truth for a change. They are tired of propaganda.

March 22, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Bahamas Blog International

The political silly season has begun

The political silly season
thenassauguardian editorial



It appears that the political ‘silly season’ has already begun. A general election must be called by May 2012, which is well over a year away, but in political campaign terms the election might as well be right around the corner.

Last week, the Progressive Liberal Party held an anniversary victory rally in the Elizabeth constituency — no doubt a teaser to the larger, more extravagant shows that in recent years have become synonymous with Bahamian elections.

The PLP also welcomed former National Development Party candidate Dr. Andre Rollins back into its fold with great pronouncement.

And the PLP, the Free National Movement and the National Development Party continued to trade insults and accusations over the sale of 51 percent of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company to Cable and Wireless.

The major parties seem to have already kicked into high gear, releasing a plethora of statements almost on a daily basis; the PLP has started ratifying candidates; and local politicians are using the internet in increasing numbers.

So far, the political landscape is showing all the usual trappings of an election campaign.

The politics of personal destruction reigns supreme in this political culture. And while it did not start yesterday and is not particular to The Bahamas, it’s a culture that a maturing electorate is growing tired of.

There are myriad issues facing our country, and the Bahamian people deserve to hear how each party plans to address these issues.

We saw a record-breaking murder count last year; our public education students continue to perform poorly; our healthcare system is stretched; and the illegal immigration problem is still largely out of control.

There is also the pressing issues of job creation to mop up the high unemployment rate.

It should not be good enough for a political party to reveal its strategy for the country in a ‘manifesto’ or ‘plan’ released days before the election.

Voters should have the opportunity to carefully consider what positions the different political parties take on substantive issues, within a reasonable time, before marking their X.

There is the obvious politicking that takes place over the course of the campaign, but local politicians need to spend less time on personal attacks and more time addressing the real issues.

It is time for a new type of politics, one that focuses on urgent national priorities rather than narrow interests, and one that helps to hold our elected officials more accountable for the many promises made from the rally podium.

Voters want politicians with ideas and energy, who have thought deeply about the issues and are committed to making a change for the better, even if it means making tough, unpopular decisions.

2/22/2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamas Blog International

...the Free National Movement (FNM) must be careful that it does not make a rudderless and reactionary opposition Progressive Liberal Party seem attractive to voters based on its decisions

Angering electorate at election time
thenassauguardian editorial


We were surprised at a notice in the newspapers on Tuesday. The government has decided to inform the public that police, beginning on Monday, will strictly enforce the seatbelt laws enacted in March 2002.

We support the enforcement of the seatbelt laws. The laws protect drivers and passengers. They also help reduce health care costs by preventing more serious injuries.

However, the government must understand the culture it is a part of. Bahamians are not accustomed to wearing seatbelts in The Bahamas. Consequently, a more reasonable notice period is needed in order for motorists to become aware and more comfortable with the change in enforcement policy.

That notice period could have been a month to two months, including a robust public relations campaign focused on ensuring the seatbelt message is widely disseminated throughout the country.

If on Monday police start handing out $300 fines to motorists for not wearing seatbelts, the electorate will not be pleased.

Even if a member of the government mentioned that this would happen in some obscure speech, few Bahamians thus far are aware that this significant change is to take place.

The Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) sale is also leading to growing unease in the country.

The government is about to sell 51 percent of BTC to the British firm Cable and Wireless Communications.

This paper has gone on record stating that Bahamian assets should be sold to Bahamians – this includes joint ventures between Bahamians and strategic partners.

Having a Bahamian owner, or a joint venture ownership structure between Bahamians and a strategic partner, would ensure more profits from the company stay in the country. Those profits that stay here would help create more jobs and prosperity in The Bahamas.

Both unions that represent workers at BTC have said they support Bahamians being owners of a privatized BTC.

Christian Council President Rev. Patrick Paul made comments yesterday that should concern the government.

“And so we stand with you this morning in agreement that (BTC) should belong to the Bahamians,” said Paul to those assembled during the union protest at BTC.

Paul assured the hundreds of BTC workers that the Christian church in The Bahamas supports their cause – that is, standing in opposition to the BTC sale to foreigners.

Earlier this year, the Free National Movement administration considered legalizing gambling for Bahamians and legal residents. The opposition, led by the church, stopped the government from making the bold move. That same church movement the government backed down from is now standing in opposition to the BTC sale.

Governing parties must pursue policies considered right for the country. They have an electoral mandate to do so. This authority, however, must be exercised in conjunction with the current moods and sentiments of the people.

When a political party pursues a policy it thinks is right, but that policy angers the people, this decision by the party usually leads it to opposition.

For its sake, the FNM must be careful that it does not make a rudderless and reactionary opposition Progressive Liberal Party seem attractive to voters based on its decisions.

12/8/2010

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Supporters of Free National Movement (FNM) Leader Senator Tommy Turnquest along with some FNM Action Group members Attack Hubert Ingraham

FNMs Attack Ingraham

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

October 10, 2005

Supporters of Free National Movement Leader Senator Tommy Turnquest, including some members of the FNM Action Group, have launched what has amounted to a campaign to block the return of former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham as leader of the party.

"Hubert Ingraham ‐ you are still the most hated man in this country and the people will remind you of it if you go back on your word and challenge Tommy Turnquest as leader," said a letter forwarded to the press by supporters of Senator Turnquest over the weekend.

The scathing letter blames Mr. Ingraham for certain "failures", but does not acknowledge that Senator Turnquest was also a part of the Cabinet when those alleged failures occurred.

The letter came more than a week after FNM MP's secured the support of the party's Central Council to have Mr. Ingraham replace Alvin Smith as the FNM's parliamentary leader.

The vote has resulted in a fierce internal battle in the party as observers wait to see if Mr. Smith will resign as leader of the Official Opposition.

Oswald Marshall, chairman of the Action Group, who commented on the matter on Saturday, said he doubts Mr. Ingraham will become the parliamentary leader.

"I don't expect Ingraham [to return]," Mr. Marshall added. "They had some kind of idea that they would push Ingraham to the front of the party by getting him to take over leadership (in the House).  I think they polluted that process and I understand that he is not doing that anymore.  The council members [who voted against the move] felt that this was a prelude to Ingraham taking over the party."

The letter from Senator Turnquest's supporters reminds council members who supported Mr. Ingraham's return that it was the former prime minister "who botched the referendum" in 2002.

The letter continues: "It was Hubert Ingraham that promoted and left PLP's in office while you the FNM controlled the government.

"It was Hubert Ingraham that destroyed the financial services sector through the enactment of ill-advised legislation;

"It was Hubert Ingraham that bludgeoned Batelco by giving packages to existing management and staff who were performing and performing well; "It was Hubert Ingraham that had all of the major unions up in arms through his policies and action;

"It was Hubert Ingraham who expelled senior men in the FNM who had been with the party way before he was on the scene."

The letter says, "Men such as Tennyson Wells and Pierre Dupuch, loyal supporters of ideals of the party, were discarded by Hubert Ingraham."

Although it was a claim former Deputy Prime Minister Frank Watson denied when he appeared on the Love 97 programme, "Jones and Company" just over a week ago.

Supporters of Senator Turnquest also accused Mr. Ingraham of operating "on his own terms without regard to his ministers."

The letter also accused the former prime minister of doing as he wished without reference to the concerns of the Bahamian electorate.

"He did not listen and the people just as they fell in love with him in 1992 and 1997 - hated him in 2002 and consequently voted the FNM out.  That is why we lost by the margins we did, it said."

The letter added, "Now Mr. Ingraham seeks to use the FNM once more for his own selfish gain by sending his hatchet men such as Frank Watson, Hubert Minnis, Brent Symonette and those less than men parliamentarians to say the party needs him.

"No way, do we need Hubert Ingraham to lead this party.  We have a leader of our own; one bred in the party - who paid his dues and has risen to the leadership position."

The letter continues, "We have reached an important milestone in the FNM when history will judge our actions as we prepare for the election in 2006 or 2007.  Do we [want to] embrace a new leader who will take care of FNM's in a fair way or do we bring back a rejected man?

"Tommy Turnquest may not be perfect in everyone's eye, but he is 100 percent FNM."

When he spoke with The Bahama Journal on Thursday, Senator Turnquest said he had "no idea" whether Mr. Ingraham will become the new parliamentary leader as the other FNM MP's wish.

But he reiterated that the former prime minister has assured him that he has no plans to again seek the leadership post of the FNM.