Value Added Tax (VAT) is unfair, untimely, unreasonable and undesirable ... says Democratic National Alliance (DNA) leader, Branville McCartney

Vat Is 'Unfair, Untimely And Unreasonable' - Dna

Tribune242:


DNA leader Branville McCartney continued his push for the government to rethink the introduction of Value Added Tax (VAT), calling it an “unfair, untimely, and unreasonable” burden to place on the backs of Bahamians.

Noting that in September 2012, five months prior to the failed gambling poll, Minister of State for Finance Michael Halkitis, in response to the sovereign credit downgrade by Standard & Poor, indicated that the Government was planning to release its Tax Reform White Paper for public consultation “next month” (October 2012), Mr McCartney said it is clear from all indications that the idea of introducing VAT was well in play prior to January 2013.

“The Prime Minister confirmed this during the mid-term budget debate in February 2013 saying; ‘The Government is implementing a broad tax reform package that includes the introduction of a Value Added Tax (VAT) in July 2014. While that is an ambitious timeframe, I would note that we have had the benefit of detailed studies of the feasibility of VAT in The Bahamas’.”

Mr McCarntey added: “Mr Christie in the House of Assembly continued: ‘The White Paper (which was completed in September 2012) contains a fully articulated policy framework for VAT. Following the public consultation process, the Government will present a refined proposal, and advanced legislation to bring VAT into effect’. We are gravely concerned about Mr Christie who recently suggested to Parliament and the nation that the Prime Minister had high level talks with the Minister of Finance on the VAT issue.

“At this meeting the Prime Minister confirmed that the Minister of Finance, who apparently does not listen to the Prime Minister, was moving ahead on VAT and for this reason he (the Prime Minister) left him (the Minister of Finance) at home and would only let the Prime Minister speak.”

With these comments in mind, Mr McCartney said the public needs to worry that Mr Christie’s views are “schizophrenic” on this issue as he appears to be blaming “his alter ego for VAT”.

“Mr Michael Halkitis, the Minister of State for Finance, stated earlier this year that, apart from the imposition of Value Added Tax (VAT), the Bahamas has no other viable option to spark the required streams of revenue it needs to arrest government debt.

“However, Prime Minister Christie, speaking either as Prime Minister or one of his alter egos, stated that if anyone in the public sector has a better idea he is ready to listen. Numerous local and foreign consultancy groups later, we in the Democratic National Alliance ask, is this the same Christie who in 2013 rejected the Nassau Institute commissioned independent research study of ‘The Potential Impact of VAT for our country’ by Mr David Godsell accusing him of ‘distorting the truth’, and dismissed the DNA’s ideas as ‘nonsense’?

“Our country has not rebounded from the most devastating recession we have ever had and in light of the pending introduction of Value Added Tax we in the DNA are left to wonder if this current government truly cares about Bahamians. It cannot be fair for struggling hard working citizens of the Bahamas trying to make ends meet to now be faced with the fear of not being able to afford the basic survival items because of VAT. Moreover, the people of the Bahamas must be reminded that this government campaigned on putting people back to work and instead they now propose to put extra taxes on their backs,” he said.

At this time, the DNA leader noted, VAT is unfair, untimely, unreasonable and undesirable.

He said: “Mr Prime Minister there are alternatives… you just need to listen. Bahamians are living in a state of fear. Fear of crime, fear of increasing financial insecurity, and now, fear of VAT. There is no clear vision in sight from this group of merry men in the PLP. Their leader has been late, inconsistent and out of touch with the issues that face Bahamians daily.

“Our country is at a critical crossroad and demands that we make the tough decisions to lead our country to prosperity. We need strong dynamic leadership with a clear vision for our country. We need leadership that is not afraid to lead.”

February 24, 2014

Tribune 242

Many younger voters are hungry for change and may take a chance on Branville McCartney and his Democratic National Alliance (DNA).... ...Many older voters don’t have the confidence in the party

A vision for The Bahamas

By Erica Wells
Guardian Managing Editor
erica@nasguard.com

In the opening pages of the Democratic National Alliance’s (DNA) document outlining its plans for The Bahamas, the party’s leader, Branville McCartney, promises that his DNA will recast the “national vision” for the country.

This vision, he said, is the vision that was first cast in 1967 and 1973.  It was a vision that “included all Bahamians”.

According to McCartney, “44 years after majority rule and 38 years after independence, our nation has lost sight of this vision to create a Bahamian society based on equality of opportunity and a collective effort to ensure that our people get the best that the country and the world has to offer.  The vision has been derailed and we have been led off course.”

The DNA, said McCartney, is able to recast that vision because it is steeped in an understanding of the past and is focused on the opportunities of the future.  The document meant to convince voters of this – Vision 2012 and Beyond – was the result of collaboration between the DNA and the Bahamian public “at large”, said McCartney.

“It reflects what you care about deeply: the economy and diversification of the economy, crime, education, youth development and other issues which are plaguing the country,” he said.  “It also reflects the notion that these issues, when addressed with thoughtful ingenuity and skill, have the potential to revolutionize the country.”

Like all written plans, the proof is in the execution of what is outlined.  And whether the DNA will get the chance to execute those plans after the May 7 general election remains to be seen.

While the DNA was the first to release its plan for the country and promise to voters, (the Free National Movement released its plan shortly after and the Progressive Liberal Party is expected to release its document this week) voters have little time to digest the DNA’s or the other parties’ agendas before the election.

The vision

The DNA’s vision touches on key areas of national importance: crime, healthcare, jobs and the economy, education, immigration, youth, sports and culture, Grand Bahama, Family Island development, good governance, tourism, labor and industrial relations, and energy and the environment.

The promises are not expanded upon and there is no detail provided on how the plan will meet its objectives, which has been typical of these types of political publications.

Some political observers give McCartney’s DNA credit for having some of the best ideas for national development of the three major parties.  Others dismiss some of the ideas as unrealistic and in some cases unmanageable.

For example, under the heading of crime, the DNA’s idea to develop a comprehensive and research proven system to rehabilitate offenders, inclusive of academic programs and work readiness and skills building programs, is a commendable one.

But the DNA also promises to enforce capital punishment and ensure that bail is not granted for accused murderers.  Given the Privy Council’s rulings that directly impact the capacity for any government to carry out capital punishment, and the right to a fair and speedy trial afforded to all Bahamians under the constitution, it will be extremely difficult for a DNA or any other government to enforce and ensure such actions.

Other promises hinge greatly on available finances, at a time when it’s difficult for many to see where the money will come from.  The deficit is at $4.2 billion and the economy is still struggling to regain ground from a worldwide recession.

Take for example, the promise to reduce class sizes by “building modern school facilities and enhancing existing school facilities”; and to increase infrastructure funding for the redevelopment and expansion of road networks, healthcare facilities and airports in the Family Islands.

The party also promises to balance the budget within five years.

While the DNA is ambitious in its plans for the country and it should be commended for its aspirations, it must be careful not to play to the gallery and risk losing the trust of more sober minds and eventually the public at large.

Perhaps the most progressive portion of the DNA’s Vision is under the heading of Good Governance, where the party promises to:

• Amend the constitution to limit the powers of the prime minister.

• Enact legislation to limit the length of service of the prime minister to two terms.

• Enact legislation to cause the recall of members of Parliament if a majority of their constituents are dissatisfied with their performance.

• Establish fixed constituencies, which can only be changed according to international criteria.

• Establish the Office of the Ombudsman to serve as the watchdog of the government for the people.

The DNA has also promised to create a much needed code of conduct for public officials.

Among its other major promises are a focus on economic diversification, to establish a basic healthcare plan, to hold a referendum on whether children born in The Bahamas to illegal immigrants should have the right to apply for citizenship, and to regularize generation property.

A young party

The DNA is a young party.  On Election Day, it will be five days short of its one-year anniversary.  It has attempted to brand itself as a party that is making a bold statement.  A party made up of a new breed of young Bahamian politicians, entrepreneurs, professionals and blue-collar workers.

Its leader has relatively little experience in frontline politics.  Most Bahamians first heard of him in 2007 when he ran under the Free National Movement’s banner for Bamboo Town.  Less than three years later he would resign from Hubert Ingraham’s Cabinet, where he sat as a junior minister.

His decision to leave the party left many baffled; however, others gave him credit for “standing up” to Ingraham.

McCartney has been heavily criticized on some of his positions taken on immigration, and more recently the marital rape law.  His statement that a Marital Rape Bill would not be passed under his administration was seen as a major misstep in his campaign, and it could have put off potential female voters.  The party was forced into damage control mode at a time when its efforts should have been focused on the election campaign.

The party will field a candidate in every one of the 38 constituencies, and while many political observers seriously doubt the party leader’s prediction that the DNA will win the May 7 general election, the party does have some support.

A Public Domain/Nassau Guardian poll conducted in March indicated that the DNA had a total support base of 21.7 percent.  According to the poll, the FNM and PLP were in a virtual dead heat.  The FNM with 34.2 percent and the PLP with 30.3 percent.

The 2007 general election results show just how close the race this time around could be.  Although the FNM captured 23 of the 41 seats, with 49.86 percent it did not capture the popular vote.  The PLP captured 18 seats and 47.02 percent of the vote.  The number of votes between the PLP and FNM was just 3,905.

This sets up a potentially interesting scenario if the DNA manages to win a few seats in the general election, and manages to upset the balance of power on Election Day.

What is attractive about the DNA is the simple fact that it is an alternative to what have been mainstays in Bahamian politics for so long — Hubert Ingraham and PLP Leader Perry Christie.  Its weakness mainly centers on the lack of experience of its leader and the party’s candidates.

Many younger voters are hungry for change and may take a chance on McCartney and his DNA.  Many older voters don’t have the confidence in the party.

But whatever the result on May 7, McCartney and his DNA have shown that a third party can get support.  The question is, can it get enough support?

Apr 23, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

It is likely that Mr. Branville McCartney’s electoral prospects will be doused at the polls... and, following the 2012 general election, he would be relegated to the political dustbin... having been set on the treadmill to political oblivion

The Enigma of Branville McCartney

By ADRIAN GIBSON

ajbahama@hotmail.com

 OVER time, my outlook on Branville McCartney has evolved from being particularly enthusiastic about his youthful vigour and gravitas to a diverse perspective where one appreciates his outspokenness and ability to organize, to an opinion that his apparent arrogance, messianic deportment and smug giddiness has created a seemingly enigmatic figure.

 A one-time blue-eyed boy of the local media, Bran McCartney is today a hyperactive populist who leads a fledgling third political party—the Democratic National Alliance (DNA).  Undoubtedly, Mr McCartney ignited the political flames leading up to this election year, flicking lit firecrackers into the core of the political establishment. Bran McCartney—regardless of his razor thin political résumé now the centrepiece of the DNA, whilst the other DNA candidates appear to be mere space-filling, political accessories. Having heard Mr. McCartney’s hot political rhetoric of late, one can conclude that he has seemingly become a mealy-mouthed, one man news cycle. Even more, recently there seems to have been more political departures and drama within the DNA than is on an episode of the Oxygen Network’s TV show “Girls Behaving Badly.” Certainly, it makes for great theatre.

 Politically standing between PLP leader Perry Christie and Prime Minister/FNM leader Hubert Ingraham, Bran McCartney has now forayed into the land of giants where he hopes to out-manoeuvre PM Ingraham and outfox Mr. Christie at the polls.

 That said, the DNA leader has shown himself to be a flip-flopper over the years. Whilst his opinion about PM Ingraham may now differ due to politically expedient motives, in a story published in The Tribune on Wednesday, March 3, 2010 he said:

 “The Prime Minister is also a person who I have learnt a lot from as well. I think he has the best interest of the country at heart. He makes decisions and he is very direct.”

 In another Tribune story, published on the aforementioned date and entitled “I want to run for FNM in Bamboo Town at next election”, Mr. McCartney asserted that he was hopeful that the Prime Minister (PM) would not seek to “punish” him, noting that he hadn’t decided if he would again contest the Bamboo Town seat.

However, he went on to say:

 “I had five years to serve. Right now I have two more years. If I don’t get a nomination from the party I doubt I will run as an Independent—or anything else for that matter. I would have done my time and I would have done my time well. I guarantee you that. I would have done my time well and I will move on.”

 What?! In the wake of this statement, Mr McCartney waffled and not only decided to run—he even formed an entire political party in the process.

 In the earlier report, Mr McCartney maintained that he came into Bamboo Town as an FNM and would leave Bamboo Town as an FNM. Of course, the evidence clearly contradicts that statement.

 In a Tribune article published on Monday, October 4, 2010 and entitled “McCartney predicts tough 2012 general election fight for FNM,” Mr. McCartney declared that the FNM was still the best choice for the country although the party would have to go in overdrive to win over disgruntled voters.

According to the Bamboo Town MP:

 “And I think the FNM, it’s a party of doing things but we’ve not promoted what we’ve done, public relations is not good with the FNM. There have been things done and statements made that perhaps turned off a lot of people, I think showing a lack of compassion. The party will also have to win over young ‘swing’ voters who were not old enough to cast a vote in 2007.”

 Mr McCartney added:

 “It places us to a certain extent at a disadvantage but I have no doubt in my mind that the FNM is the best party (to lead the country).” He then referred to the FNM as an “awesome political machinery.”

 Wow! I wonder if Mr. McCartney still feels that the FNM—and not the DNA—is the best party to lead the country. Such a statement makes one wonder about the real reason behind the formation of the DNA and why Mr McCartney had a sudden change of heart just seven months later (the DNA was launched in May 2011). Could it be that Mr McCartney was upset that the FNM did not hold a convention, one where it was speculated that he had plans to challenge Mr Ingraham for party’s leadership? Was he angry that the PM had not yielded the reigns of the FNM/government when he (McCartney) stated that the time had come for Mr Ingraham to “pass the baton” of party leadership to the next generation?

 When Mr. McCartney resigned from the Cabinet in 2010, he commended Prime Minister Ingraham in his resignation statement and showered praise upon the FNM.

 At that time, Mr. McCartney said:

 “Subsequently, I have been the benefactor of Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham’s political precision and decisiveness. One need to look no further than his decision to introduce me to citizens of the constituency of Bamboo Town as evidence of his unique ability to think, reflect, consider and make the right decision.”

 “We are facing tough times, but I confidently believe that the nation has been mobilized by Mr Ingraham and the FNM and rallied for a great national effort. I have learned why this Prime Minister and leader of the FNM is the most successful leader of our party. And it is because of this that I say, I have no sympathy with and will give no credence or comfort to those who would want to use this resignation to undermine his leadership of the FNM and/or the Commonwealth of the Bahamas,” he then said.

 Say what?! I’m thunderstruck. Is the current incarnation of Bran McCartney the same person who said the abovementioned? What changed Mr. McCartney, what changed?

 In his 2010 resignation statement, Mr. McCartney also said:

 “That the Free National Movement has achieved since its election to a third non-consecutive term as the Government of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas gives me hope for what we can and must achieve in the future and I am humbled to have participated so instrumentally to this end. I am indeed proud to be FNM.”

 Wow. I’m speechless. So, why is this proud FNM now running away from the FNM’s record, one that he admitted that he was an instrumental participant in?

 In the concluding paragraph of his statement relinquishing his seat around the Cabinet table, Branville McCartney stated:

 “Bamboo Town will be ready and the FNM party will continue to lead this great national effort to a fourth election victory with my full, unwavering and steadfast loyalty and support.”

Well blow me down! A fourth election victory and with his “full, unwavering and steadfast loyalty and support!”

 Was the formation of the DNA an example of Mr McCartney’s steadfast loyalty and support? Was it an indication of his lust for power? Mr. McCartney, in the face of your own words, why should Bahamians trust you?

 In February/March 2010, Mr. McCartney pledged his “full, unwavering and steadfast loyalty and support” for the FNM and by mid-March, 2011, Bran McCartney had flip-flopped, broke ranks with the FNM and was on a platform telling people about his dreams and encouraging them to imagine this and that.

 In the announcement of his divorce from the FNM, Mr. McCartney said:

 “It has been difficult, to say the least, facing challenges, which contradicted my philosophy, convictions and values. I have prayed constantly for an answer to solve this dilemma and my prayers have been answered. I have made a conscience decision to severe my relationship with the Free National Movement.”

 As my grandparents on Long Island say, “these are the last days” and, unquestionably, hypocrisy reigns supreme!

 Now leader of the DNA, Bran McCartney is not Barack Obama (circa 2008)—regardless of the fanatical support of a few obsessive supporters who see him as the second coming of Obama.

 Indeed, the race in Bamboo Town will be the hottest electoral contest in 2012. There will be political bloodletting in Bamboo Town, with Cassius Stuart (FNM), Renward Wells (PLP) and Craig Butler (Independent) all running and plotting to ambush McCartney at the polls. The contest for the Bamboo Town seat is a highly contentious matter, leaving McCartney to combat the massive electoral machinery of both major parties. Indeed, it appears that the DNA leader will suffer a political death, even though he has demonstrated an ideal work ethic within his constituency and is heralded as a hard worker, as a young man who understands the true purpose of parliamentary representation of his constituents.

 Perhaps, Mr. McCartney should’ve switched to the South Beach seat or, even more, postponed his plans for the DNA’s launch to focus on winning his own seat as an Independent.

 It is likely that Mr. McCartney’s electoral prospects will be doused at the polls and, following the elections, he would be relegated to the political dustbin— having been set on the treadmill to political oblivion.  

                                 

Caribbean Blog International

Branville McCartney - Democratic National Alliance (DNA) leader's gross error in judgement in relations to his party’s MICAL candidate, Delano Munroe ...who is facing a criminal charge... ...stealing by reason of employment...

The DNA leader’s mistake

thenassauguardian editorial

Branville McCartney, leader of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA), is new to politics.  He is just finishing his first term as a member of Parliament.  Yet, he leads a party which hopes to have a permanent presence in The Bahamas.

In a story in The Nassau Guardian on Wednesday the DNA leader admitted that he knew that his party’s MICAL candidate, Delano Munroe, was facing a criminal charge when Munroe was made a candidate by the party.  Munroe has been charged with stealing by reason of employment.

All individuals are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law in our country.  Munroe should be allowed to defend his name in court and should not be in frontline politics while this matter is pending.  McCartney should know this.  He is an attorney, a MP and a party leader.

“We are looking into it and we will make a statement once we have looked into it further,” said McCartney on Wednesday.

He said the party will determine the future of Munroe’s candidacy pending the investigation and the eventual outcome of the court case.

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham and Opposition Leader Perry Christie have been in the House of Assembly since 1977.  They have been MPs for parts of five different decades.  A component of McCartney’s appeal to some voters is that he is a ‘fresh face’.

The major criticism of McCartney, however, is that he does not have the experience to be prime minister.  Consequently, those who are considering voting for his fledgling party are evaluating all of his decisions to determine if this criticism is true or not.  Selecting and keeping Munroe as a candidate does not engender trust among these potential supporters of the DNA.

Running candidates with complicated lives can cost votes.  In the 2007 general election the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) ran Shane Gibson after embarrassing pictures of Gibson and Anna Nicole Smith in an embrace were published in The Tribune.  Gibson won his Golden Gates seat, but the PLP lost the election.

The Free National Movement (FNM) has continued to attack Gibson since 2007 on his record as the minister of housing in the last PLP administration, questioning his administration of the affairs of the ministry.  Yet, the PLP has nominated Gibson again to be a candidate in the 2012 general election.

Reasonable observers would agree that the Anna Nicole photos caused the PLP great embarrassment and votes.  The PLP, for some reason, sticks with Gibson.  We are not saying that he did anything wrong.  In politics some people simply become liabilities because of negative voter perception of the issues they face.  Leaders who cannot ensure that these individuals serve from behind-the-scenes, or not at all, demonstrate that they are either not strong enough to make this happen or that they are out of touch with the public mood.

McCartney has made a mistake.  He should inform Munroe that he should take a break from the frontline until the matter is resolved.  If cleared of the charge, Munroe would be able to reenter frontline politics and state his case as a potential political candidate.

Jan 27, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Is there political ideology or philosophy in Bahamian politics? ...Is Hubert Ingraham a conservative? ...Is Perry Christie a liberal? ...Is Branville McCartney a centrist? ...Who knows? ...Fellow Bahamians - It is important to know the political philosophy of parties and their leaders

Is there political ideology or philosophy in Bahamian politics?

thenassauguardian editorial

We now know almost all the election candidates of the three parties with representation in the House of Assembly.  The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and Free National Movement (FNM) have selected all the men and women who will run under their respective banners.  The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) has a few more to chose.

What is interesting is that each of the parties have a few candidates who have run for, or been supporters of, other parties.  There are some interesting examples.

For the PLP, Dr. Andre Rollins was a candidate in 2010 at the Elizabeth by-election for the National Development Party, and Dr. Bernard Nottage (the current Bain and Grants Town MP) led the Coalition for Democratic Reform against the PLP in the 2002 general election.

For the FNM, Cassius Stuart was the leader of the Bahamas Democratic Movement.  His colleagues on the FNM ticket Kenyatta Gibson, Edison Key and Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham are all former PLP MPs.

Dr. Madlene Sawyer, the DNA candidate for Southern Shores, was a former head of the PLP women’s branch.  Her DNA colleague Wallace Rolle ran for the PLP in the 2007 general election.  The DNA candidate for Bains Town and Grants Town, Rodney Moncur, was the leader of the obscure Worker’s Party before joining the DNA.  And Branville McCartney, the party’s leader, was a former FNM MP and Cabinet minister.

These are just a few prominent examples of the flow of people in Bahamian politics.  There are other candidates in the major parties who have been strong supporters of organizations opposed to the groups they are currently with.

What does it all mean?  Well, some would say nothing, as politicians in countries around the world change party affiliation all the time.  But, it could also be argued that the flow of people from party to party, running under any banner, exists here because there is little to no philosophical difference between the organizations.

In fact, it would be hard to use any traditional economic or political philosophy to describe any of the Bahamian political parties.  Could you describe the PLP, DNA or FNM as left or right wing, conservative or liberal?  No, you could not.

For example, in the 2012 Republican presidential race in the United States candidate Ron Paul is a libertarian.  Paul has very different view of the world from 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, who is a social democrat.  Libertarians are suspicious of the state and argue for small government and low rates of taxation.  Social democrats think the state and taxation should be used to advance social justice.

It is important to know the political philosophy of parties and their leaders.  When parties and leaders have strong beliefs, they bring forward policies that change the lives of people in distinct ways.  A libertarian would essentially eliminate welfare.  They do not think the wealth of individuals should be taken away by the state to be given to others with less wealth.

Social democrats always want more taxation to advance some Utopian social program to ‘help’ people.  The business climate changes significantly when one of these politicians is elected, as opposed to the other.

Is Hubert Ingraham a conservative?  Is Perry Christie a liberal?  Is Branville McCartney a centrist?  Who knows?  Lately, our elections have been run on management style.  Essentially, this is the essence of the debate: “I am a better man than you.  Vote for me.”

A cynic could argue that it is difficult to pin down the political philosophy of our parties and politicians because they have none.  Instead, they simply seek power to dispense the authority and wealth of the state.  The voters then choose the person they think most able, and that’s that.  The better manager manages things in a better ad hoc manner not under any recognizable system of ideals.

If this type of politics is good enough for the people, it will continue.  For something else to evolve the people would have to demand more of the process and the people involved.

Jan 20, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Whitney Bastian says he was denied a nomination to run on the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) ticket in South Andros because some members of the organization were afraid that party leader - Branville McCartney would not win his Bamboo Town seat... and if Mr Bastian won in South Andros, he would become leader of Branville McCartney's party

BASTIAN BLASTS BRAN IN DNA ROW



By SANCHESKA BROWN
Tribune Staff Reporter
sbrown@tribunemedia.net



BAMBOO Town MP Branville McCartney appointed himself leader of the DNA despite suggestions that he was elected internally, former party member Whitney Bastian has claimed.

In an interview with The Tribune, Mr Bastian said he cannot accept the official story of how Mr McCartney became leader of the party - because it was he, Mr Bastian, who had made up that story in the first place.

He said: "I advised them to tell to people the elections were over, when the truth is there were no elections. He appointed himself leader.

"When we had a meeting with potential members, we told them there was an election and the leader post was taken, but that was not true," he said.

"I dare him to say otherwise. He knows he appointed himself. If he says he didn't, let him produce the minutes of this so-called meeting where he was elected. Where was it? When was it? Who was there?

"He couldn't tell you because there was no election."

Mr Bastian said he originally planned not to say anything, but because Mr McCartney refuses to acknowledge that the former South Andros MP helped start the party, he feels compelled to speak out.

"I did not want people to think just because I did not get the nomination I was bitter and was making up things about Mr McCartney.

"I was just going to let him get beat up from the PLP and the FNM, but he started this so I'll finish it.

"He is still a novice in politics and he still has a lot to learn.

"He seems to forget I went to the Parliamentary Commissioner to negotiate on behalf of the DNA to use the lighthouse as the symbol for DNA. I didn't do that as a potential candidate, I did that as a partner.

"He seems to forget I encouraged him to leave the FNM. I told him if he didn't the Prime Minister would chap him at the knee and kill him politically."

Mr Bastian said he was going to form a party on his own, but Mr McCartney asked him to wait.

"We both decided that he would leave the FNM when the BTC issue came up. When I went to Panama, he called me and told me he couldn't wait until then. I told him I would support him in whatever he decided. After that we began working on the DNA and having long meetings. He constantly asked my advice and I have emails to the effect.

"Did he do that with every potential candidate? No, he didn't," Mr Bastian replied.

On Monday, Mr McCartney denied he started the DNA with Mr Bastian. In fact, he said, if Mr Bastian really did help form the DNA, he would have never been denied a nomination to run on the DNA ticket in South Andros.

In response, Mr Bastian said he was denied because some members of the party were afraid Mr McCartney would not win his seat and if Mr Bastian won, he would become leader of the party.

Mr Bastian said he still considers Mr McCartney to be "a brother," but said he could let his involvement in the DNA be misrepresented.

Mr Bastian is now running in the South Andros constituency as an independent candidate.

Mr McCartney could not be reached for comment last night.

January 11, 2012

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

This year in Bahamian politics - 2011: ... and in 2012... crime, the economy, the New Providence roadworks and leadership are likely to be the major issues debated during the general election campaign... The Bahamian electorate will decide if they want Perry Christie, Hubert Ingraham or Branville McCartney — that is, if a clear winner is chosen

An intriguing year in politics

Year in review 2011

By Brent Dean
Guardian Associate Editor
brentldean@nasguard.com

This year in politics has been a preparation for the year to come.  Next year men who have dedicated their lives to politics are preparing to fight for power, likely for the last time.

Hubert Ingraham and Perry Christie, leaders of the Free National Movement (FNM) and Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) respectively, are the main contenders.  Branville McCartney and his Democratic National Alliance (DNA) are making their first appearance.

In 2011, each political leader was faced with internal upset.  Sitting parliamentarians, potential candidates and political wannabes all expressed anger in the public sphere when it became evident that the end had come to their ambitions or careers.

A minister is fired

Kenneth Russell, MP for High Rock and former housing minister, sat next to Hubert Ingraham in the House of Assembly.  Up until November, he rigorously defended Ingraham, his leader, and the policies of his administration.

Then in December, that bond between the men was broken with Russell publicly calling Ingraham a ‘tyrant’ and a ‘dictator’ after being fired from Ingraham’s Cabinet.

“I worked with him a long time and this is the first time I have seen this negative side of him,” said Russell on December 9, the day he was fired.

“The prime minister was my friend.  In fact, we are related.  The same aunties and uncles he has in Cooper’s Town (Abaco), so do I.

“I don’t know why he turned this way, but I have no problem with it; it’s his choice to make.  Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, the Lord is always with me.  And even though Ingraham would attempt to slay me, I still love him.”

Ingraham indicated Russell was fired for inappropriately discussing Cabinet business — a project for Grand Bahama that was rejected by Cabinet.  However, some political observers think Russell’s termination resulted from Ingraham’s desire not to run him in the next election and his public complaints about that decision.

Whatever the reason, Russell ends 2011 an outsider.  He will not be a candidate for Ingraham’s FNM.

Opposition party upset

Christie and McCartney had their share of public break-ups too over nominations.

In June, then PLP treasurer Craig Butler resigned his post and left the party because he could not secure a PLP nomination.

Butler sought the party nomination in the February 2010 Elizabeth by-election.  He was rejected.  He then tried for the PLP nomination for the old Kennedy constituency.  He was rejected again.

Butler has admitted past drug use.  The PLP, a party that has had to wrestle with embarrassing scandals in the past, would not budge on its opposition to Butler’s candidacy under its banner.  Butler has vowed to run as an independent.

While Butler left the party because he could not get a nomination, a former PLP colleague of his was forced to announce he would not run in the general election.

Vincent Peet, the North Andros and Berry Islands MP, on December 20 bowed out after an issue regarding $180,000 in client funds was made public in a series of Nassau Guardian stories.

“After much prayerful deliberation and after much consultation with constituents, colleagues, family and friends, including the esteemed leader of my party, Perry Christie, I have decided not to stand for re-election in the forthcoming general election,” Peet said in a statement.

“My decision in this regard is final and irreversible and I have informed my leader and the relevant councils of my party accordingly.  At this particular juncture of my life, I need to concentrate my attention and energy on my legal practice.”

Dr. Perry Gomez is to take Peet’s place as the PLP’s North Andros candidate.

DNA disputes

McCartney’s party revoked the nominations of two candidates, it said, for non-performance.

Former High Rock candidate Philip Thomas and former South Beach candidate Sammie Poitier, also known as Sammi Starr, were out at the end of November.

However, McCartney and Thomas gave different reasons as to why Thomas is no longer the candidate for High Rock.

Thomas claimed he was kicked out for disagreeing with McCartney, while McCartney claimed Thomas was not living up to the commitment he made to the party.

On December 5, McCartney denied reports that his party was falling apart after the break-up with Thomas and Poitier.

“It’s not falling apart at all; it’s growing every day and getting stronger and stronger,” he said.

“We’ve been in existence for six months, we’ve made history in six months and we have become a major party within a six-month period.”

Is the DNA real?

McCartney faced these political issues at year’s end.  His DNA party was launched May 12.  At his launch event at the Wyndham Nassau Resort on Cable Beach he called on Bahamians to “redefine the possible”.

“I truly believe that you are not here simply because you have nothing better to do, but because you believe that change is necessary, and you know, like I know, that our country is not the country we envisioned it to be,” he said.

McCartney hopes to take advantage of perceived dissatisfaction with the PLP and FNM.

In 2002, with Ingraham as leader and Tommy Turnquest as leader-elect, the FNM lost by a landslide margin to the PLP.  In 2007, with a growing economy, Christie’s PLP lost to the Ingraham-led FNM.  In 2012, Ingraham and Christie plan to return to the electorate as the leaders of their respective parties.

They present themselves at a time when the country has set four murder records in five years and the unemployment rate is above 13 percent.

McCartney thinks the Bahamian people now want a change.

Even if this is true, Bahamians are conservative voters.  Dr. Bernard Nottage was the leader of the Coalition for Democratic Reform (CDR) in 2002.  He was the sitting Member of Parliament for Kennedy at the time, having left the PLP.  In that election Dr. Nottage’s party only won two percent of the vote and he lost his seat.

History is not on McCartney’s side.

The stakes are high for the leaders

Ingraham and Christie have been at it, politically, for quite a while.  Both have been MPs since 1977.  Both were young ministers in Sir Lynden Pindling’s Cabinet.  Both served as leader of the opposition and as prime minister.

Christie will be 69 next year.  Ingraham will be 65.  These friends and adversaries have become so powerful in their respective parties that neither could be moved internally.  But, the years have taken their toll and most observers think that this is the last race for the historic duo — the winner becoming prime minister again and the loser going in to retirement.

For McCartney, the stakes are also high.  If his DNA does poorly and he loses his seat in the House, a promising career could be over.

Crime, the economy, the New Providence roadworks and leadership are likely to be the major issues debated during the campaign.  The voters will decide if they want Christie, Ingraham or McCartney — that is, if a clear winner is chosen.

The 2007 general election was decided by fewer than 4,000 votes and the 2010 Elizabeth by-election by only three votes after a court case.  The country has remained divided from the last general election and a third party makes the race more unpredictable.

If Ingraham wins again his political success will debatably rival his mentor Sir Lynden Pindling.  If Christie wins he would be able to complete an agenda he thinks was pulled from him too soon.  If McCartney wins, even just a few seats, Bahamian politics would change forever.

With 38 seats in play –—the boundaries commission cut the constituency number to the constitutional minimum — this battle will play out seat by seat in community after community.  As it should be, the people will decide the fates of these leaders and their parties.

Dec 28, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

...my thoughts on the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) and Branville McCartney, Kendal Wright, the boundary cuts, the Progressive Liberal Party's (PLP’s) nomination process and that party’s future leadership

A Bran-less Bamboo Town?

By ADRIAN GIBSON

ajbahama@hotmail.com

I am presently sitting exams which will conclude on December 20th. However, due to this being a pivotal time in our national/political development, I’ve already pre-written columns prior to my examinations period since I anticipated that my studies would likely prohibit me from doing so. These upcoming columns will be submitted to The Tribune. To those loyal readers of YMV, who always express to me how they miss the column during such absences, the beat will go on.

*****

Over the last few weeks, feedback to my columns has been tremendous and so today I’ve decided to answer a few of the public’s questions related to my thoughts on the DNA and Branville McCartney, Kendal Wright, the boundary cuts, the PLP’s nomination process and that party’s future leadership.

The other day, as usual, I was chatting with a good friend/political sage when he cracked a hilarious joke about Bran McCartney’s political fortunes relative to the boundary cuts.

According my friend, he could almost envisage a fictional scene of Bran McCartney in Rawson Square, stopping a Haitian—“perhaps one who is (naturalised) and voting for the first time”—and having to ask the Haitian where he was on the political map as he himself would be befuddled since the recent cuts.

My friend, whose humourous telling of the imaginary story had me in stitches, said that he imagines that the Haitian responds (using his best impersonation of a Creole speaker): “I see Bamboo Town, I see South Beach, I see Golden Gates. But, I see no Bran on the map!”

Based upon recent reports, the DNA seems to be imploding.

It appears that the recent rescission of Sammie “Starr” Poitier’s nomination, which was done under the pretext of him not working in the constituency—an account that Mr Poitier has emphatically denied—was a ruse for Bran McCartney to switch from his current Bamboo Town seat to South Beach. Frankly, since the recent boundary cuts, such a move makes political sense as the new Bamboo is in reality Kennedy and merely Bamboo Town in name as opposed to the new South Beach which can be more likened to the old Bamboo Town, where many of McCartney’s current constituents are situated. Noticeably, seven of Kennedy’s polling divisions were repositioned into the new Bamboo Town.

If McCartney stays in the new, reconfigured Bamboo Town—which I doubt—he will have an even tougher race since that seat will be contested by PLP candidate Renward Wells, likely FNM nominee Cassius Stuart and independent candidate Craig Butler, who will purportedly run in that constituency as opposed to the new Nassau Village seat.

What’s more, I’ve been reliably informed that the FNM is actively engaging DNA South Abaco candidate Roscoe Thompson, who, I’m told, will likely abandon the DNA and return to the FNM fold to run as its standard bearer in the same constituency. I’m told that current MP Edison Key will likely retire to facilitate this move. If this happens, the FNM will have stripped the DNA of its strongest candidate and scored a coup. So, will it be “bush crack, man gone” for Roscoe Thompson and the DNA?

Relative to the boundary cuts, Dr Hubert Minnis has been such a superb MP that his seat has been dissected to save Mount Moriah MP Tommy Turnquest and assist likely Fort Charlotte (expanded to include West Grove) nominee Vincent Vanderpool-Wallace.

Both Turnquest and Vanderpool-Wallace will have a chance to reap the dividends of Minnis’ political investment, whilst increasing the likelihood of winning their respective seats. Although the old names for both seats remain the same, one could just as well see the redrawn districts as Killarney East, 1 and 2, while Dr Minnis, who has taken on several polling divisions in the abolished Clifton seat, will now be running in Killarney West.

That said, in an act of political wizardry, incumbent Clifton MP Kendal Wright is seemingly at a crossroad as his seat—which has been eliminated—must now be in the deep blue seas, with polling divisions in the waters off of the Royal Bahamas Defence Force base. As it stands, it appears that Mr Wright doesn’t need to worry about anyone challenging him as he has been written “Wright” off the political map!

I’ve also been told that, in the wake of the boundary cuts, Elizabeth MP Ryan Pinder is actively lobbying to become the PLP’s nominee for the South Eleuthera seat. Moreover, I’m told that PLP leader Perry Christie himself might be interested in that seat, particularly since his forbears hail from South Eleuthera. Undoubtedly, whether he goes or stays in the Farm Road constituency is of no consequence, since Mr Christie is expected to politically annihilate any challenger vying for either seat.

Relative to the PLP’s nomination process, I think it was a fundamental misjudgment on the part of the party to have not nominated Dr Michael Darville to contest the Marco City seat against Zhivargo Laing. Undoubtedly, Dr Darville would politically annihilate Mr Laing in a head-to-head matchup. Both Dr Darville and Kwasi Thompson appear to be five-star candidates who must now cancel out the other. In our political culture, with a drought of new first-rate candidates coming to the fore, the race for Pineridge would be a political tragedy because regardless of who wins, the country/people could lose.

As I stated in my last two columns, in the era post PM Hubert Ingraham and Opposition Leader Perry Christie, the evolution of the major parties will be prime time drama with the country hopefully benefiting in the end.

Last weekend, it was brought to my attention that I did not mention some of the other outstanding young turks in the PLP who may have leadership interest and are anxiously awaiting their turns to vie for the top spot. So, here goes…

Ryan Pinder is an affable chap whose energetic, take-no-prisoners oratorical delivery has reinvigorated Parliamentary debates. Pinder has political appeal and, even I, can attest to dropping what I’m doing to listen to him speak in Parliament. The PLP with Ryan Pinder as leader. Imagine that! If Pinder ascends to the leadership of the PLP, it certainly would represent much growth within the PLP and of that party’s consciousness, whilst broadening its voting bloc and perhaps attracting some of the white supporters of the FNM with a more racially inclusive stance.

Perhaps, it’s all a dream. Dream over! In the long run, Pinder should not be coy or bashful about any future leadership aspirations particularly since he seems to have good potential.

Michael Halkitis is a one-term MP who is a rising star in the party. Halkitis also should be on the PLP’s watch list as a potential leadership challenger.

Andre Rollins, at this juncture, is a nondescript political journeyman who is discounted by some within the PLP as merely a political lightweight. However, his passionate take on the country’s affairs is appreciable and he could be one to watch in years to come.

That said, the next leader of both the PLP and the FNM could be a dark horse candidate or one who has yet to grace the political scene. As far as the PLP goes, perhaps such a dark horse candidate could be someone like my esteemed former law lecturer Keith Bell.

Published on Saturday, December 10, 2011 in the column Young Man's View, appearing in The Tribune's 'The Big T'

Caribbean Blog International

It’s time for political debates: ...Hubert Ingraham and Perry Christie refuse to debate each other... and they certainly won’t agree to debate with Branville McCartney

It’s time for debate

By Ian G. Strachan

I have said it before and I say it again here: the political directorate is lagging behind the people.  They are no longer leading the people, they are no longer in front of the people, clearing the way, cutting a path, leading by example, inspiring and mobilizing them.  No.  Instead they are behind the people.  More backward than the people.  More afraid than the people.  More reluctant to change than the people.  Less open-minded than the people.  Less prepared to have an honest, frank discussion than the people.  Less prepared to ‘put all their cards on the table’ than the people.

I don’t pretend that Bahamians have it all together and are not themselves victims of inferiority complexes, phobias, or crippling fundamentalisms.  I don’t pretend for instance that Ingraham is more backward than the people because he opposes the death penalty.  No, I don’t mean that our leaders are behind the people in every sense.  But I do mean it in one very, very important sense. What I am saying is that the people are ready for a deeper version of our democracy; the people are ready to be included more fully in the processes of governance; and the politicians do not want this.   I say ‘the politicians’, but that is not precise.  The leaders of the parties don’t want democracy deepened – not the pace or in a fashion that could weaken their advantages, their privileges.  I can see Hubert Ingraham now smiling at my contention and reminding me that he liberated the airwaves.  I smile back and I am not moved.

Why debates are needed

I could speak to the fact that our political parties have lifetime voting delegates (a corrupt practice that perverts democracy and brings a suffocating determinism to our politics).  But instead I will discuss something so much smaller than that and yet so crucial to this moment in our history.  The small but telling example I offer is the notion of a national debate between the leaders, broadcast live on radio and television, where the questions (although pre-approved) are delivered by members of the media and civil society.  And where follow-up questions are allowed.  A simple enough proposition.  But apparently, out of the question.

No doubt, political junkies in this country have watched with a mixture of curiosity and amusement the nauseous Republican debates.  The party is struggling to find its alternative to Barack Obama.  The Republicans have decided that a gutted, paralyzed, starving America is better than a prosperous America led by a Negro.  So be it.

Here, we are being asked to choose between two men who have been in Parliament for more than 30 years, who pretend to be rivals but are actually blood brothers, Ingraham and Christie.  What difference will it really make in terms of policy, which one we pick?  And yes, we are also asked to consider newcomer Bran McCartney and the Democratic National Alliance (DNA).  But could we not save precious money and time by limiting the number of carnivalesque political ‘rallies’ we are subjected to over the next few months?  Wouldn’t it be wiser, safer (in terms of the bad behavior that follows these drunken rallies) and more efficient to hold three properly planned and organized debates between these three rivals?  A commission should be established to organize and execute just such debates in the interest of our democracy.

In the U.S. they have something called the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).  According to its webpage, it “was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.

“Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates.  The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008.

“To meet its ongoing goal of educating voters, the CPD is engaged in various activities beyond producing and sponsoring presidential debates.  Its staff prepares educational materials and conducts research to improve the quality of debates.  Further, the CPD provides technical assistance to emerging democracies and others interested in establishing debate traditions in their countries.  In recent years, the staff worked with groups from Bosnia, Burundi, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Haiti, Jamaica, Lebanon, Niger, Nigeria, Peru, Romania, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, and the Ukraine, among others. Finally, the CPD coordinates post-debate symposia and research after many of its presidential forums.”

Now, to be fair, the political directorate of The Bahamas is no different from the directorate in America in this crucial way: they will do everything in their power to control, modulate and contain political processes as much as possible to ensure that they obtain a favorable result.  A favorable result being: they remain in power or share power with as few as possible.

It should be noted that the CPD is co-chaired by two agents of the Republican and Democratic parties,  Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael McCurry.   Fahrenkopf is a former chairman of the GOP and  Michael D. McCurry was Bill Clinton’s press secretary.  The honorary co-chairmen of the commission are listed on the website as Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and William J. Clinton.  How you can have two honorary co-chairmen who are dead beats me (Ford and Reagan).

You can well imagine that if the Dems and Republicans run the commission itself, then third party candidates and independents will be marginalized – much in the same manner as Dr. Bernard Nottage, then leader of the now defunct Coalition for Democratic Reform, was excluded from a debate on Charles Carter’s 102.9FM between Perry Christie and Tommy Turnquest in the run-up to the 2002 election.

Public pressure on issue ­is needed

Power and privilege perpetuate themselves.  Different elements of the establishment collaborate to exclude those who threaten the order of things – even if the threat is slight.  So the political directorate, political financiers and media houses work together.  This is true in America and true in The Bahamas.  In the case of the current search for a Republican candidate, it is worth noting that moderate candidate and former governor of Louisiana, Buddy Roemer, has been completely excluded from the debates of the Republican Party while people with nowhere near his credibility and competence – like Herman Cain – have been included.  The Republican debates are not controlled by the CPD but (ostensibly) by the sponsors; still, the filtering takes place.  The reason: Roemer is anti-establishment.  He wants to take money out of electoral politics.  Roemer said, “Even when I garner the required one percent needed to qualify, Fox News has decided to exclude me.  I am the only candidate who has been a congressman and a governor, but apparently that is not good enough for the debate sponsors.”

So even if we create a system of debates for our elections we must be vigilant to ensure fair play and to ensure that vested interests do not hijack what is intended to be an open-ended process in which the best ideas and the best man or woman in the eyes of the public, emerge.

An organization has been created to challenge the practices of the CPD in America, called Open Debates.  According to its website: “Open Debates is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization working to reform the presidential debates so that they better serve the interests of the American people.  Currently, the presidential debates are secretly controlled by the Republican and Democratic parties, through a private corporation called the Commission on Presidential Debates.  As a result, challenging formats and popular independent candidates are often excluded from the debates.

“Open Debates is engaged in multiple campaigns to inform the public, the news media and policy makers about the antidemocratic conduct of the Commission on Presidential Debates.  Open Debates is also promoting an alternative presidential debate sponsor – the nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission – which is comprised of national civic leaders committed to maximizing voter education.”

I cannot pretend that a series of debates will heal all that ails our political system, and all that is wrong with our elections.  I cannot pretend that debates would be sufficient to create an informed and empowered populace or straight talking leaders who are prepared to put the public good first in every instance.  What I am prepared to say is that debates will add much more value to our electoral process than what is currently extant.

But Ingraham and Christie refuse to debate each other.  And they certainly won’t agree to debate with McCartney.  This is unacceptable in 2011.  Unacceptable.  The true disgrace, though, is not that these two men agree together not to challenge each other to a debate, the true disgrace is that their political parties, made up of every class of Bahamian, refuse to insist upon the same for the benefit and edification of the nation.

I therefore call on the head of the Chamber of Commerce, the Christian Council, the president of the College of The Bahamas, the publishers of The Tribune, Guardian and Bahama Journal, and the chief executive officer of every other media outlet, to convene a meeting on behalf of the people whom they serve to discuss a debates protocol.  They must devise a format for these debates.  Obviously the American Embassy can assist, if for some reason we think we don’t have the wherewithal to plan these ourselves.  Once the plan is prepared it should be presented to the public and to the prime minister and the leader of the opposition.  If these civic leaders do not rise to the occasion and insist that the Free National Movement (FNM) and Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) rise as well, they too must be indicted by history.

If Ingraham and Christie reject this plan (I can’t imagine McCartney rejecting it since he has the most to gain), then we will leave them to the public to judge and deal with accordingly on election day.

Dec 05, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Branville McCartney and the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) are really creations of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and Free National Movement (FNM) ...If the PLP and FNM had offerings that wowed the people, McCartney would never have created his party ...But because he senses a national dissatisfaction, he pushes forward

So much passion about Branville McCartney

thenassauguardian editorial

It is always interesting reading your letters and commentary – especially the pieces written on politics.  Lately much has been sent in about Branville McCartney, the Member of Parliament for Bamboo Town and leader of the Democratic National Alliance.  Some of it has been published; some will be published.

The common theme from the well-written pieces, to the average pieces is that there is great passion about McCartney.  Some argue aggressively that he is ‘the One’ who will lead The Bahamas to prosperity; some argue that he is an arrogant upstart, who is not prepared to be prime minister.

Two of our columnists of late have dedicated significant space to McCartney.  Dr. Ian Strachan, an English professor and political commentator, dissected McCartney and the DNA in recent pieces in our National Review section.  Simon, the writer of the Tuesday column Front Porch, who defends Hubert Ingraham and all things FNM all the time, waged war against the green party in successive columns in recent months.

Beyond those who send thoughts, or publish in the paper, there is obvious interest in the community about this politician.  People always ask our reporters and editors, “What do you think about Bran?  You think he has a chance?”

The attack on McCartney in the House of Assembly last week by South Abaco MP (FNM) Edison Key helped lift McCartney’s profile as much as it raised questions about his conduct as a minister in Ingraham’s Cabinet.  Key alleged that McCartney petitioned him for work for his law firm while he was a minister.  McCartney rejected the allegation.

What was most interesting is that McCartney was quite aggressive as he argued his innocence in the House.  A longtime political observer, who was there during the incident, said McCartney said at one point, “Old man, sit down.”

Whether he said this or not, is beside the point. That comment, perfectly, encapsulates the fascination with McCartney.

Bahamians want change to a political order that no longer inspires them.  Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham and Opposition Leader Perry Christie are historic figures.  Few men going forward will ever hold elected seats in Parliament for more than 30 years and be prime minister.  Both men have done so.

The problem is that at the latter part of your career, when you have served for so long, people have already seen the best of you.  And in times of crisis or malaise, those same people wonder if someone else, someone younger, someone with new and different ideas, might not be better suited to take a try at fixing common problems.

We are not arguing that McCartney is ‘the One’.  He has much to prove in the months to come.  It would be a major achievement if his party wins a few seats.

But, we must acknowledge that many Bahamians have not been satisfied with the direction the country has been heading in for many years, spanning PLP and FNM administrations.

McCartney and the DNA are really creations of the PLP and FNM.  If the PLP and FNM had offerings that wowed the people, McCartney would never have created his party.  But because he senses a national dissatisfaction, he pushes forward.

What he should not be attacked for is offering for higher public service.  More young Bahamians, educated and trained, need to step forward to help their country.  The tone of some of McCartney’s critics is excessive.  To sum it up, they appear angry that he would dare challenge the established order.

We live in a democracy – the more choice for the electorate the better.  Competition should help refine the two older parties.  The green party is no threat to our country.  Whether it survives or not after the general election, it is just another part of our political evolution.

Oct 26, 2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Branville McCartney and his Democratic National Alliance (DNA) party is not ready to govern The Bahamas

DNA not ready to govern

By Kevin Evans

I would like to comment on the ongoing saga surrounding the leader of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) and Member of Parliament for Bamboo Town, Branville McCartney.  While I commend the Bamboo Town MP for chiding his parliamentary colleagues for not disclosing their financial assets to the Public Disclosure Commission for the years 2009 and 2010, I take strong exception to him calling Opposition Leader Perry Christie a wimp and Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham a bully.

Both Ingraham and Christie have been in the House of Assembly since 1977.  At that time McCartney was probably just in primary school.  Ingraham and Christie have more than 68 years of combined experience in our parliamentary system.  Branville McCartney, on the other hand, has been in Parliament for only four-and-a-half years.  He served in Ingraham's Cabinet as minister of state for immigration.  He resigned from the Cabinet in early 2010 and he severed ties with the Free National Movement (FNM) earlier this year.

After McCartney left the FNM, he founded the DNA party.  The sudden formation of the DNA after McCartney's exodus from the governing party might very well be an indication that the Bamboo Town MP was planning all along to start his own political party; perhaps as early as 2010.

Remember, in early 2010 McCartney told a Nassau Guardian reporter that he had no intention of resigning from the FNM.  He also told the same reporter that he believed that the FNM was the best party for the country at that time.  So why the sudden change and what's this all about?

McCartney’s ambition

When he was introduced to the constituents of Bamboo Town as the FNM's standard bearer in 2007, or thereabouts, McCartney probably already had ambitions of becoming prime minister after only completing his first term as MP.  Never mind the senior FNM MPs who have faithfully toed the party line for years.  I never heard of Branville McCartney before 2007.  In fact, before 2007 I had never seen him before.  Ingraham ran him in a constituency that has been considered a safe seat for the FNM.  Had it not been for Ingraham, McCartney would not have been in the position he is in today.  Had McCartney ran as an independent candidate in 2007, he would have lost his election deposit.  The FNM has made him, politically speaking, what he is today.

Perhaps McCartney, in calling the prime minister a bully, was simply doing what all opposition parties are expected to do: Oppose the sitting government.  Or maybe the Bamboo Town MP was attempting to gain much-needed publicity.  As the saying goes: All publicity is good publicity.  When McCartney and the DNA came out of the blocks, they had momentum.  The party, however, has lost that momentum during the past few months. The DNA is losing its mojo and appeal.  This is why McCartney has fought hard to stay in the limelight.  Perhaps this can also explain why the Bamboo Town MP has sought to oppose the FNM government on almost every position it holds.  McCartney at times appears to be opposing the Ingraham administration just for the sake of opposing.

Is the public losing affection for McCartney?

Be that as it may, it is crucial that the DNA make the newspaper headlines every week if it wants to remain relevant to The Bahamian people.  The party simply does not have the clout of either the Progressive Liberal Party or the Free National Movement.  I believe that it was the prominent American journalist Margaret Carlson who once said that attention is a depreciating asset.  McCartney and his DNA party would do well to heed this warning.  Bahamians are always looking for the next new thing.  That is why so many Bahamians were euphoric over the initial unveiling of the DNA party.  But it now appears as if all the excitement has cooled down.

McCartney is obviously a very confident man.  He really believes that the Bahamian electorate will support him and his party in 2012.  There's a very thin line between confidence and arrogance, however.  That McCartney and his cadre of inexperienced DNA candidates would even dare to challenge the two most important political parties in Bahamian history tells me that they are biting off more than they can chew.  McCartney is asking The Bahamian electorate to entrust the nation to him and his team of candidates who have little to no experience at running a government.

I think that it would be more prudent for Bahamians to stick with either the FNM or the PLP.  Both of these parties have worked hard to build this nation since majority rule.  Besides, at least we know what we are getting in Ingraham and Christie.

McCartney hasn't even served out his first term as MP, yet he wants to be prime minister of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas.  Ingraham and Christie had been members of Parliament for many years before they became prime minister.  In fact, Christie had served an astounding 25 years before he became prime minister in 2002; Ingraham had served 15 years before he became this nation's chief executive in 1992; and Sir Lynden (Pindling) had served over 10 years before he became premier in 1967.  Furthermore, Ingraham was elected to his position as party leader during the FNM's convention in 2005.  On the other hand, the DNA has not yet held a convention.  In my humble opinion, the Bamboo Town MP is just too inexperienced for such an important position.

DNA government would harm country

I am afraid that if the DNA wins the 2012 general election, the party might very well end up running this country aground.  With all due respect to McCartney and the DNA, I don't believe that they are ready to govern The Bahamas.

Being a successful business person does not mean you are ready to sit around the cabinet table and make decisions that will impact the lives of over 330,000 Bahamians.  Managing a grocery store or a laundromat is way different from managing a country.

Handling the finances of a law firm is not the same as handling the finances of a nation.

Right now the DNA candidates are way out of their league.  The candidates are way in over their heads, with all due respect to them.  Maybe it would be best if the DNA candidates all get involved with local government.

They could gain much valuable experience at the local government level before attempting to get into the big leagues.

Oct 21, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Face to face, does the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) leader - Mr. Branville McCartney have the political pedigree to challenge or face-off with Mr. Hubert Ingraham - the governing Free National Movement (FNM) leader? Or will he be manhandled on the ground?

Ingraham lays into McCartney

By ADRIAN GIBSON

ajbahama@hotmail.com



As elected officials continue to place their partisan egos in front of a unity of purpose and passionate commitment to a well-reasoned vision for the country’s upliftment, one wonders whether Bahamians will focus on the issues and demand more of their elected leaders during the next general election cycle.

As the election draweth nigh, crime can without doubt be identified as enemy No.1. Quite frankly, if crime is not seen as being effectively dealt with the current government would be doomed in its attempts to enhance its political fortunes come election day. Frankly, issues such as unemployment, the economic downturn, poor agrarian productivity, political corruption, inconveniences suffered as a result of road works (in the minds of some), electricity stability and costs, et cetera, must be seen—by the Bahamian people— as being effectively addressed.

He’s ready for a fight

With a general election on the horizon, we’ve seen a Perry Christie renaissance and based upon Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham’s recent performance in the House of Assembly—as he addressed the race for the Bamboo Town seat—a reinvigorated FNM leader who is back on the electoral warpath. Frankly, the Prime Minister (PM) essentially dressed DNA leader Branville McCartney in a clown suit last week, hitting him with a political sucker punch and challenging him to a showdown in Bamboo Town—which will unquestionably be a political melee featuring three “leaders”, past and present, of splinter/third parties.

By allowing the Bamboo Town seat to remain untouched and in issuing his challenge to Mr McCartney, Mr Ingraham effectively shifted the spotlight/pressure on McCartney to prove his leadership mettle and political strength by, for one, winning his own seat. Of course, beyond a hand gesture suggesting that Mr Ingraham should meet him at the polls, and a few other utterances whilst seated, Mr McCartney was mum and said nothing for the record—having been the source of jovial, laughter-filled moments shared across the aisle by FNM and PLP members.

Indeed, the ground has effectively been loosened under Mr McCartney by two political titans who, in apparent cooperation in sending two former fringe party leaders as their standard bearers to challenge Mr McCartney, seem to think that he’s a latecomer who has become too big for his britches.

This week, as I watched Mr McCartney sit—stone-faced—as he got schooled by a political mastermind, I couldn’t help but think that perhaps PM Ingraham saw a bit of a younger, more politically apt/mature, Hubert Ingraham in him. Moreover, after Mr Ingraham’s blistering commentary, Mr McCartney—who has levelled verbal jabs at Mr Ingraham in the press and in other forums, appeared to cower in his presence, dumbfounded and—on national television— being exposed as a paper tiger in what appears to be an exploitable mismatch. Stand up Mr McCartney!

Face to face, does McCartney have the political pedigree to challenge or face-off with Mr Ingraham? Or will he be manhandled on the ground? Admittedly, Mr McCartney is a superb MP and has a strong foothold in his constituency.

That said, there are also those persons who would ask if the PM—based upon his comments—would prefer that the PLP win Bamboo Town, or even the government, rather than his younger political nemesis. Such questions abound, particularly in an age where progressive nations such as Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago have seen the emergence of a younger generation of leaders and potential successors—regardless of gender.

Certainly, with three parties vying for the hearts and votes of the Bahamian electorate, the stirring and impending electoral drama is lining up to be a political circus with plenty of suspense. Whilst contentious politics is woven into the fabric of Bahamian society, beyond the partisan bickering and preening egos, the issues and concerns of the Bahamian people must not and should not be ignored or cast into the background.

As election season heats up, certain MPs are beginning the mad dash to their respective constituencies with the hope of being given another chance. The coming months, for some Bahamians, will be the first time they have seen their elected representative in nearly five years. This upcoming general election is a time for Bahamians to vote conscientiously and let the power of their votes resonate throughout the archipelago.

On the judicial system

National Security minister Tommy Turnquest should be given a pat on the back and a congratulatory hoorah for his recent remarks regarding the judicial process in the Bahamas. He spoke the truth and, for amazingly showing that he has the cojones to speak it, he deserves two thumbs up!

Frankly, the Bahamas’ judicial system is an archaic mess that has long been neglected to the point that case backlogs and disorganization has led to various sadistic criminals roaming our streets—time after time on bail—whilst frustrating the police and creating openings for criminals to prey, yet again, on another ill-fated victim.

Quite honestly, crime is ravaging our society, causing law abiding Bahamians to live as prisoners in their own homes as the criminal element wreaks havoc in different corners of our archipelago.

Terribly mismanaged

Indeed, the criminal justice system—over the years—has been grossly mismanaged. In recent times, lawlessness has become the order of the day as criminals realize that with the right attorney—and a complementary molasses-like judicial system—their cases would be delayed and buried in our higgledy-piggedly court system and that they could be granted bail to roam, with little or no restraints, in a matter of hours, days or a few months. How many murders, armed robberies and other serious crimes have persons on bail been suspected of, and charged for, committing this year?

Police statistics compiled from 2001 to September 2007 has revealed a significant increase in the number of persons that have been granted bail. In 2001, five people were on bail for murder, rape and armed robbery; six persons were on bail in 2002; five in 2003; 47 in 2004; 39 in 2005; 107 in 2006 and more than 200 in 2007. Wow, one can only imagine the statistic for 2011!

In order to fix the nation’s defunct judicial system and in turn alleviate the logjam, more judges—natives and foreigners—must be sought after for appointment to the bench and efficiency must be the order of the day among court officers/staff. One can see that a step has already been taken in the right direction with the construction of new court rooms and the current Bills before Parliament addressing crime.

The price of justice in this country is too high, too prolonged and simply Third World! Kudos to you Mr Turnquest for saying what so many jelly-belly politicians were too afraid to say!

Published: October 22nd, 2011

Column: Young Man's View, The Tribune's 'The Big T'

Caribbean Blog International

Branville McCartney - Democratic National Alliance (DNA) leader fails at convincing me that he truly understands the challenges and limits imposed on those who are governing The Bahamas... or worse yet, he doesn’t care about reality; he wants to sell us fantasies

Gone Green? Part 2

By Ian G. Strachan

“The DNA is here to create the same paradise for Bahamians that only tourists and foreigners seem to enjoy. The DNA is here to encourage you to dream beyond your wildest imagination; we are here to dare you to think the unthinkable, to do the impossible.”  -Branville McCartney’s address at the launch of the Democratic National Alliance, May 12, 2011

 
This week we continue our discussion of the career of  Branville McCartney, Member for Bamboo Town and leader of the Democratic National Alliance.

McCartney’s departure from Ingraham’s Cabinet seemed impulsive to me, poorly thought out.  His explanations weren’t very convincing.  I wasn’t convinced that he had a serious philosophical difficulty with the FNM (Free National Movement) and I wasn’t clear what he meant when he said he wasn’t being utilized fully.

His promise to challenge for the leadership of the FNM was bold and refreshing, yes, but ultimately foolish, since you ought never to tell a man like Ingraham that you are coming for him.  You just come for him.  Even if he had the opportunity he wanted to challenge Ingraham at convention, I seriously doubt he would have met a fate that was any different from the one meted out to Paul Moss, someone with a better political mind in my opinion than McCartney.

Since launching the DNA, McCartney’s remarks have simply confirmed my impression that he is playing a game and if he wins, we may lose.  What really is the difference, in terms of philosophy and vision, between the FNM and the DNA?  The PLP and the DNA?  Why does the DNA exist—outside of the fact that Ingraham refuses to leave the FNM and let McCartney lead?

And the DNA leader fails at convincing me that he truly understands the challenges and limits imposed on those who are governing this country—or worse yet, he doesn’t care about reality; he wants to sell us fantasies.  Witness these remarks from his maiden speech as DNA leader: “Imagine sidewalk cafes, well-lit streets, rows of theaters especially designed for young Bahamian playwrights, and a downtown that is world renowned and envied by the rest of the world, with Bahamian art and craft galore! . . . Imagine a Bahamas where citizens are no longer prisoners in their homes; where burglar bars are not a necessity . . .  Imagine a tertiary institution that attracts students from around the world and joins the top ranks of colleges and universities around the world. Imagine a Bahamian Harvard. Imagine these possibilities! . . . If we put people first, then perhaps we would no longer boast a national grade point average of a D that has made the outside world question our brilliance and our intelligence.  If we put people first, perhaps it will move to an A that will once again make us the respected and competitive, intellectually brilliant nation that we were meant to be and that many expect us to be; not only regionally but globally.”

I’ve said this before: the language, the tool of the “lotioner” is hyperbole.  PLP leader Perry Christie and McCartney specialize in exaggeration and overblown rhetoric.  Ingraham, the bulldog, specializes in red herrings, the tactic of distraction.  COB a Bahamian Harvard?  Harvard has a $32 billion endowment.  The Bahamas’ budgeted expenditure this year is $1.9 billion.  No more burglar bars in Nassau?  Really? The DNA will deliver that?  The city of Nassau will be envied by the world?  A model city, sure, but envied?  By the world?  The Bahamas will have an A average in its schools?  Really?  Every student will have an A average?  Christie couldn’t have done a better job at painting pies in the sky.

Then McCartney proposed that the country deny children born to illegals the right to apply for citizenship—ever.  This is a reckless and foolhardy proposition.  Rather than ensure the nation’s security it would undoubtedly endanger it.  McCartney is gambling here: demagoguing really.  Trying to capitalize on fear and paranoia.  Dividing us instead of uniting us.  All Bahamians of Haitian descent, Jamaican descent, all Bahamians whose parents or grandparents, out of desperation, came here illegally should note well and vote accordingly.  I for one will not vote for a party that proposes something so destructive and inhumane.  Yes, we must guard our borders, yes we must work toward a system of legal Haitian migration for purposes of employment, but I don’t see how dooming children to statelessness creates a better Bahamas.

McCartney then accused the FNM of being in the pocket of the Chinese and challenged them to reveal who financed them.  He himself refused to reveal who was financing the DNA. How does that make sense?  How is that a new political approach?  If you are going to demand that people be transparent, shouldn’t you first be transparent yourself?  Otherwise you are just like all the rest – playing the game.

And recently, he criticized Ingraham for not running in Bamboo Town and sending Cassius Stuart instead.  Was he serious or was this a bad joke?  Why on earth should Ingraham run in Bamboo Town?  Will McCartney run in North Abaco?  Does he imagine he will win in North Abaco?

I am not convinced that McCartney is experienced enough, thoughtful enough, skilled enough to lead this country at this time.  What I see is someone who too often is shallow, a “lotioner”, someone posing as firm, determined, and possessing a vision.

When I mention McCartney’s weaknesses to DNA insiders they tell me it’s a team effort.  But McCartney wants to be prime minister, the most powerful office in the land and I just don’t trust his judgment.  I have some serious doubts about the competence of some of the people he has entrusted with major responsibilities in his party.

And I think he moved too soon.  And moving too soon tells me one of two things: either you really don’t understand how politics works in this country or you have a monumentally over blown sense of your political capital.

He has certain qualities that make him an excellent candidate--until he actually speaks. And when he speaks he either utters facile nothings or he reveals a willingness to say anything to gain an advantage.  That makes him at best reckless and at worst desperate.

But I may be wrong.  I probably don’t speak for the majority of Bahamians.  We know what an empty talking PM looks like.  We also know what headstrong leadership without vision looks like.  We want better.  I know there is a yearning for change in Bahamians of all generations.  We want and need inspiring leadership.  Strong, innovative, competent leadership.  I just don’t think McCartney and the DNA are what we want them so desperately to be.  Nonetheless, the DNA will probably gain more votes than any third party in the last 20 years.

People have to choose the better of three unpalatable options in this election.  And it ain’t gonna be pretty.  Is it better to go with the devil you know or the one you don’t?  Certainly, the PLP and FNM have themselves to blame for a lot of what they will suffer in 2012, because they refuse to renew themselves, despite the people’s yearning for rebirth.

Now, there’s another possibility: I may be dead wrong in accusing McCartney of delusions of grandeur.  McCartney may well know the DNA can’t win it all (I don’t think he’ll even win his seat in Bamboo Town). But he may be gaining immense pleasure from knowing he’s going to give Christie and Ingraham fits.  He may also have concluded that he has nothing to lose and that by losing in 2012 as head of the DNA he sets himself ahead of anyone else who may be aspiring to lead the PLP or FNM in 2017. And that would make him a lot more savvy a politician than I have given him credit for being.

Oct 17, 2011

Gone Green? - Part 1

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International