Government's Paying The Price For Recession
By Dennis Morrison, jamaica-gleaner Contributor:
One does not have to be a student of political economy to understand how the global financial turmoil of the last four years has shaken up the political landscape.
In the United Kingdom, the Gordon Brown-led Labour Party was the first in a string of casualties arising from the sharp economic downturn which is still reverberating across the globe. It seems not to matter whether ruling parties are of right or left orientation, as dissatisfied voters express their anger by discarding incumbents.
Across the globe, the political environment remains volatile under the impact of widespread joblessness, record mortgage foreclosures, and the massive destruction of wealth.
The prospect that there will be no early relief, and the seeming intractable nature of the European debt crisis, mean that the sour political mood will persist.
In America, the Obama administration and the Democrats have borne the brunt of voter dissatisfaction, even though they inherited the crisis and had acted rapidly to halt the precipitous slide in the economy.
In mid-term elections at the end of 2010, American voters turned on the congressional Democrats and booted them out, as economic malaise deepened, and the ranks of the unemployed swelled. With the slow pace of the recovery and gridlock in Congress, the 2012 elections could see another wild swing of the political pendulum.
In the presidential race, the weakness of the Republican candidates could prove decisive, although President Obama's re-election chances are seen to be heavily tied to the pace of improvement in the job market.
gov'ts toppled
Governments were toppled in Belgium, the Netherlands, Iceland, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal and Spain. In France, the second-largest economy in Europe, presidential elections are due in April, and the latest opinion polls are showing President Nicolas Sarkozy trailing his main rival from the Socialist Party. While it is too soon to count him out, his ratings are being depressed by the slow progress in settling measures to stave off the debt crisis in the Eurozone.
Farther afield, the Opposition Democratic Party of Japan won a historic landslide victory in 2009, reflecting deep economic anxieties in that country which have still not eased. Japan's economy has been undergoing two decades of lethargic growth and is the cause of its continued political fragility.
Latin American countries were among the best-performing economies in the turbulent conditions since 2008, recovering fast from the recession and returning to strong growth. A region which is usually highly volatile, the political mood in Latin America has mirrored the economic stability experienced in recent times. Incumbents in Argentina and Brazil were returned to office, and in Brazil, in particular, the anti-poverty programmes of the Lula administration brought political stability.
Governments in the Caribbean have not been immune to the political backlash from the recession. The ruling People's Progressive Party in Guyana won its fifth consecutive term, helped no doubt by the fact that the Guyanese economy had fared better than most in the region. In St Lucia, the incumbent United Workers Party was thrown out after one term, weighed down by political wrangling and leadership issues, but more important, by difficult economic circumstances.
Role in jlp defeat
History was made in Jamaica with the Jamaica Labour Party administration being the first to have the dubious distinction of losing after one term in office since adult suffrage in 1944. Analysts have put arrogance and corruption at the top of the list of factors responsible for the party's defeat.
I would argue, however, that the fact that the Jamaican economy shrank by more than five per cent in the past four years and job losses climbed to more than 100,000 was a more powerful influence on the electoral outcome.
Political activity is heating up in The Bahamas, where elections are due later this year. On the current standing, there could well be another one-term administration in the works with the Hubert Ingraham-led Free National Movement seeming to be highly vulnerable. Although investment activity in tourism, its leading sector, is picking up, the negative impact of the global downturn is still being felt.
Barbados' election cycle runs to January 2013, and the incumbent government there will also be navigating strong economic headwinds.
Growth-inducing strategies and activities that generate employment are not only important to get regional economies moving again but will influence the political tide in the Caribbean. Politicians will have to show their skills at policymaking and management to survive the tide.
Dennis Morrison is an economist. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.
February 5, 2012
jamaica-gleaner
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
Showing posts with label Hubert Ingraham FNM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hubert Ingraham FNM. Show all posts
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Political activity is heating up in The Bahamas, where a general election is due soon... ...On the current standing, there could well be another one-term administration in the works with the Hubert Ingraham-led Free National Movement (FNM) seeming to be highly vulnerable... ...Although investment activity in tourism, its leading sector, is picking up, the negative impact of the global downturn is still being felt in The Islands
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Hubert Ingraham is still the FNM’s most popular politician...
Bahamas WikiLeaks cables revealed
By CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasgaurd.com
Inside the mind of Hubert Ingraham
When he sat down with a U.S. Embassy official at his law office on April 8, 2003, Hubert Ingraham outlined who he thought would make up the new FNM leadership team, and dismissed any chance of Brent Symonette being a part of it due to his “personality and lack of appeal” outside the bounds of his wealthy constituency, according to an embassy cable obtained by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.
While he dismissed Symonette’s chance at a successful leadership bid, Ingraham denied that his race had anything to do with it.
According to the cable — which was classified by the embassy’s political/economic chief at the time, Brian Bachman — Ingraham said the best thing that could happen would be for Symonette to challenge for the leadership, because he “would be beaten so soundly that it would shatter all his illusions.”
But at the FNM convention more than two years later, Symonette did not challenge for the leadership. He went for deputy leader and won. He was made deputy prime minister when the party won at the polls in 2007.
The 2003 cable said Ingraham quickly and confidently rattled off who he believed the new FNM leadership team would be after the next party election: Turnquest as leader; former Minister of Economic Development Zhivargo Laing as deputy leader; former Attorney General Carl Bethel as party chairman, and former legislators Johnley Ferguson and Darron Cash to round out the leadership slate.
Ingraham characterized that group as “young, energetic and talented.”
According to that 2003 cable, Ingraham confidently predicted that the FNM would win the next election, saying Christie’s PLP “already had the markings of a one-term government.”
He was spot on in his assessment.
The cable also revealed that Ingraham said that he had already become convinced by January 2002 that the FNM would lose the May 2002 general election.
He scheduled the February referendum on citizenship and other issues “because he was confident that it would pass and would give the FNM momentum going into the election.”
The referendum failed.
When asked if he had any regrets from his 10 years in office, or if he would do anything differently if given the opportunity, Ingraham, according to the cable, quickly responded “Absolutely not!”
He said he was a contented man, and that he had accomplished virtually everything he set out to do.
On further reflection, he admitted that he wished that the FNM leadership transition had been better handled, but he deflected blame for that, saying that it should have been done earlier and smoother, but he was delayed by FNMs who kept urging him to put it off and trying to get him to run again, the cable said.
With regard to the failed constitutional referendum, which many point to as a key factor in the FNM’s electoral loss, Ingraham denied that it was a factor.
“He admitted to being shocked when the PLP came out against the referendum, since they had all voted for the various amendments in Parliament, but refused to characterize it as a political miscalculation,” the cable said.
“Ingraham showed a glint of anger at the suggestion that some in the FNM blamed him for the electoral loss, and fired back.
“He strongly defended his record and claimed that he was still the FNM’s most popular politician.
“He pointed out that he won in 1992 and 1997 by strong margins, and that it was only after he left the leadership that the FNM lost.”
According to Ingraham, the FNM asked him to step away from the campaign not because he was unpopular, but because his popularity left Turnquest in his shadow.
“Finally, he did grudgingly admit that he might have to share some of the blame for the FNM loss,” the cable said.
It quoted Ingraham as saying, “I guess if I take credit for the victories I also have to take credit for the losses.
“And no one can deny that I was responsible for the victories in 1992 and 1997!”
Ingraham said that he was not surprised the FNM lost in May, but only reluctantly agreed that he might share some of the blame for the loss, the cable said.
“He said he was fully confident of his continued popularity and consistently dodged questions about his own political future.”
The cable described Ingraham’s law office as “relatively small but nicely appointed.”
Ingraham at the time worked there alone with just a part-time receptionist who left before the meeting concluded.
The cable said, “Ingraham freely admitted that he was not very active in Parliament and didn’t anticipate that he would become more active any time soon.
He said he still considers himself an FNM, and will vote with the FNM parliamentarians, but is taking no role in ongoing party politics.
“When asked if he would complete his term or retire completely from politics, Ingraham said he hadn’t given it much thought.”
The embassy official wrote: “Ingraham quickly warmed to the political discussion however, and his love for the game sparkled in his eyes” as he discussed a broad range of topics.
'AMBITIOUS INCOMPETENTS'
Addressing the management style of then Prime Minister Perry Christie, Ingraham said he has always been weak and indecisive and lacks vision, but is a good man.
Ingraham, according to the cable, also said however that Christie is the only one in the PLP with broad enough appeal to bring in swing voters, largely because he, unlike many other PLP politicians, is viewed as “trustworthy” and “solid”.
Ingraham said even FNMs don’t fear for the country with Christie in charge, as he is unlikely to do anything rash, the cable said.
Ingraham described the Christie cabinet as “a collection of ambitious incompetents”.
He termed the PLP government’s legislative agenda non-existent, and vigorously defended his record during his 10 years in office, claiming to have no regrets.
Ingraham told the embassy official that he and Christie remained good friends and talked by phone a couple times a week.
“Ingraham said that they didn’t always talk politics, but didn’t avoid the topic either, and said he offered advice to Christie regularly.
“He said that he believes Christie is a good man, and well-intentioned, but criticized his leadership style.”
Ingraham said, “Perry has always been indecisive, and will always be indecisive. It’s just the way he is. He can’t change.”
He also alleged that Christie had no real vision other than a general desire to improve social programs, and nothing he really wanted to accomplish, the cable said.
Ingraham contrasted Christie with himself, saying he had come in with a definite agenda and moved decisively to accomplish it, whereas Christie “enjoys being prime minister” but doesn’t really feel any urgency to get things done.
The cable said: “Combined with the fact that he loves his job, Ingraham sees Christie as firmly implanted in the PLP leadership and consequently, the PM’s office.”
“It would take dynamite to get him out of that seat,” said Ingraham, when asked if he thought Christie would run for another term.
The cable reveals that Ingraham had nothing good to say about the cabinet of his friend Perry Christie, although he was generally complimentary about Christie.
“Once you get past Perry, what have you got?” he was quoted as saying.
Ingraham described the Christie cabinet as “inexperienced, incompetent and politically unschooled.”
He also said many of them harbor political ambitions and have their own agendas, and shook his head at Christie’s seeming inability to control them, the cable said.
Ingraham said he “never would have tolerated such behavior” in his own cabinet.
He sympathized with Christie, however, noting how, under the Westminster system, it is difficult to just remove a cabinet minister or discipline him effectively, as all it may do is create a political enemy who retains his seat in Parliament.
The cable said: “Ingraham acknowledged that this had never stopped him, but claimed, with a mischievous gleam in his eye, that that was ‘because I was always confident — confident that I had the support of the people. Perry doesn’t have that confidence’.”
In fact, Ingraham said he believed the PLP had squandered its mandate almost immediately and no longer enjoyed the support of the people, because of its inaction and political stumbles.
THOUGHTS ON THE FNM
But in 2003 Ingraham was not only critical of the PLP, a read of the cable shows.
He acknowledged that just because the PLP was losing support that didn’t mean that people were ready to turn back to the FNM.
He said that the FNM had a lot of work to do before it would be competitive politically again.
What was most needed, he said, was unity.
According to Ingraham, many of the FNM’s wounds were self-inflicted, and he had harsh criticism for former ministers Algernon Allen and Tennyson Wells, who attacked the leadership process that saw them unsuccessfully challenge Turnquest, Ingraham’s handpicked successor, and then complained bitterly in public about Ingraham’s stacking the deck, the cable said.
It added that Ingraham “vehemently but unconvincingly” denied influencing the leadership process and defended Turnquest as “the best man for the job at the time.”
The cable said Ingraham did criticize Turnquest’s decision to accept a celebratory party financed by a contractor doing business with his ministry, saying it gave the PLP and Allen and Wells a convenient target.
Ingraham said it was an “unfortunate decision”. According to the cable, he thought it was very damaging to Turnquest’s chances in the next leadership election.
“Nonetheless,” the cable continued, “Ingraham predicted that Tommy would survive any leadership challenge in the upcoming May FNM convention.
“In fact, he predicted that no serious challenge would emerge at this convention.
“According to Ingraham, those most likely to challenge Tommy Turnquest would lay low at this convention, since they don’t really have any desire to be the leader of an opposition party for the next four years, and would bring out their serious challenge at the next convention, which he predicted would be in another 18 months, by which time the next election would already be in sight on the horizon.”
In 2005, Ingraham entered the leadership race, and again emerged as the leader of the FNM.
He took the party into the 2007 election, promoting his trust agenda, and wrested power from Christie and the PLP.
Today, Ingraham is seeking a fourth non-consecutive term in office.
5/23/2011
thenassauguardian
By CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasgaurd.com
Inside the mind of Hubert Ingraham
When he sat down with a U.S. Embassy official at his law office on April 8, 2003, Hubert Ingraham outlined who he thought would make up the new FNM leadership team, and dismissed any chance of Brent Symonette being a part of it due to his “personality and lack of appeal” outside the bounds of his wealthy constituency, according to an embassy cable obtained by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.
While he dismissed Symonette’s chance at a successful leadership bid, Ingraham denied that his race had anything to do with it.
According to the cable — which was classified by the embassy’s political/economic chief at the time, Brian Bachman — Ingraham said the best thing that could happen would be for Symonette to challenge for the leadership, because he “would be beaten so soundly that it would shatter all his illusions.”
But at the FNM convention more than two years later, Symonette did not challenge for the leadership. He went for deputy leader and won. He was made deputy prime minister when the party won at the polls in 2007.
The 2003 cable said Ingraham quickly and confidently rattled off who he believed the new FNM leadership team would be after the next party election: Turnquest as leader; former Minister of Economic Development Zhivargo Laing as deputy leader; former Attorney General Carl Bethel as party chairman, and former legislators Johnley Ferguson and Darron Cash to round out the leadership slate.
Ingraham characterized that group as “young, energetic and talented.”
According to that 2003 cable, Ingraham confidently predicted that the FNM would win the next election, saying Christie’s PLP “already had the markings of a one-term government.”
He was spot on in his assessment.
The cable also revealed that Ingraham said that he had already become convinced by January 2002 that the FNM would lose the May 2002 general election.
He scheduled the February referendum on citizenship and other issues “because he was confident that it would pass and would give the FNM momentum going into the election.”
The referendum failed.
When asked if he had any regrets from his 10 years in office, or if he would do anything differently if given the opportunity, Ingraham, according to the cable, quickly responded “Absolutely not!”
He said he was a contented man, and that he had accomplished virtually everything he set out to do.
On further reflection, he admitted that he wished that the FNM leadership transition had been better handled, but he deflected blame for that, saying that it should have been done earlier and smoother, but he was delayed by FNMs who kept urging him to put it off and trying to get him to run again, the cable said.
With regard to the failed constitutional referendum, which many point to as a key factor in the FNM’s electoral loss, Ingraham denied that it was a factor.
“He admitted to being shocked when the PLP came out against the referendum, since they had all voted for the various amendments in Parliament, but refused to characterize it as a political miscalculation,” the cable said.
“Ingraham showed a glint of anger at the suggestion that some in the FNM blamed him for the electoral loss, and fired back.
“He strongly defended his record and claimed that he was still the FNM’s most popular politician.
“He pointed out that he won in 1992 and 1997 by strong margins, and that it was only after he left the leadership that the FNM lost.”
According to Ingraham, the FNM asked him to step away from the campaign not because he was unpopular, but because his popularity left Turnquest in his shadow.
“Finally, he did grudgingly admit that he might have to share some of the blame for the FNM loss,” the cable said.
It quoted Ingraham as saying, “I guess if I take credit for the victories I also have to take credit for the losses.
“And no one can deny that I was responsible for the victories in 1992 and 1997!”
Ingraham said that he was not surprised the FNM lost in May, but only reluctantly agreed that he might share some of the blame for the loss, the cable said.
“He said he was fully confident of his continued popularity and consistently dodged questions about his own political future.”
The cable described Ingraham’s law office as “relatively small but nicely appointed.”
Ingraham at the time worked there alone with just a part-time receptionist who left before the meeting concluded.
The cable said, “Ingraham freely admitted that he was not very active in Parliament and didn’t anticipate that he would become more active any time soon.
He said he still considers himself an FNM, and will vote with the FNM parliamentarians, but is taking no role in ongoing party politics.
“When asked if he would complete his term or retire completely from politics, Ingraham said he hadn’t given it much thought.”
The embassy official wrote: “Ingraham quickly warmed to the political discussion however, and his love for the game sparkled in his eyes” as he discussed a broad range of topics.
'AMBITIOUS INCOMPETENTS'
Addressing the management style of then Prime Minister Perry Christie, Ingraham said he has always been weak and indecisive and lacks vision, but is a good man.
Ingraham, according to the cable, also said however that Christie is the only one in the PLP with broad enough appeal to bring in swing voters, largely because he, unlike many other PLP politicians, is viewed as “trustworthy” and “solid”.
Ingraham said even FNMs don’t fear for the country with Christie in charge, as he is unlikely to do anything rash, the cable said.
Ingraham described the Christie cabinet as “a collection of ambitious incompetents”.
He termed the PLP government’s legislative agenda non-existent, and vigorously defended his record during his 10 years in office, claiming to have no regrets.
Ingraham told the embassy official that he and Christie remained good friends and talked by phone a couple times a week.
“Ingraham said that they didn’t always talk politics, but didn’t avoid the topic either, and said he offered advice to Christie regularly.
“He said that he believes Christie is a good man, and well-intentioned, but criticized his leadership style.”
Ingraham said, “Perry has always been indecisive, and will always be indecisive. It’s just the way he is. He can’t change.”
He also alleged that Christie had no real vision other than a general desire to improve social programs, and nothing he really wanted to accomplish, the cable said.
Ingraham contrasted Christie with himself, saying he had come in with a definite agenda and moved decisively to accomplish it, whereas Christie “enjoys being prime minister” but doesn’t really feel any urgency to get things done.
The cable said: “Combined with the fact that he loves his job, Ingraham sees Christie as firmly implanted in the PLP leadership and consequently, the PM’s office.”
“It would take dynamite to get him out of that seat,” said Ingraham, when asked if he thought Christie would run for another term.
The cable reveals that Ingraham had nothing good to say about the cabinet of his friend Perry Christie, although he was generally complimentary about Christie.
“Once you get past Perry, what have you got?” he was quoted as saying.
Ingraham described the Christie cabinet as “inexperienced, incompetent and politically unschooled.”
He also said many of them harbor political ambitions and have their own agendas, and shook his head at Christie’s seeming inability to control them, the cable said.
Ingraham said he “never would have tolerated such behavior” in his own cabinet.
He sympathized with Christie, however, noting how, under the Westminster system, it is difficult to just remove a cabinet minister or discipline him effectively, as all it may do is create a political enemy who retains his seat in Parliament.
The cable said: “Ingraham acknowledged that this had never stopped him, but claimed, with a mischievous gleam in his eye, that that was ‘because I was always confident — confident that I had the support of the people. Perry doesn’t have that confidence’.”
In fact, Ingraham said he believed the PLP had squandered its mandate almost immediately and no longer enjoyed the support of the people, because of its inaction and political stumbles.
THOUGHTS ON THE FNM
But in 2003 Ingraham was not only critical of the PLP, a read of the cable shows.
He acknowledged that just because the PLP was losing support that didn’t mean that people were ready to turn back to the FNM.
He said that the FNM had a lot of work to do before it would be competitive politically again.
What was most needed, he said, was unity.
According to Ingraham, many of the FNM’s wounds were self-inflicted, and he had harsh criticism for former ministers Algernon Allen and Tennyson Wells, who attacked the leadership process that saw them unsuccessfully challenge Turnquest, Ingraham’s handpicked successor, and then complained bitterly in public about Ingraham’s stacking the deck, the cable said.
It added that Ingraham “vehemently but unconvincingly” denied influencing the leadership process and defended Turnquest as “the best man for the job at the time.”
The cable said Ingraham did criticize Turnquest’s decision to accept a celebratory party financed by a contractor doing business with his ministry, saying it gave the PLP and Allen and Wells a convenient target.
Ingraham said it was an “unfortunate decision”. According to the cable, he thought it was very damaging to Turnquest’s chances in the next leadership election.
“Nonetheless,” the cable continued, “Ingraham predicted that Tommy would survive any leadership challenge in the upcoming May FNM convention.
“In fact, he predicted that no serious challenge would emerge at this convention.
“According to Ingraham, those most likely to challenge Tommy Turnquest would lay low at this convention, since they don’t really have any desire to be the leader of an opposition party for the next four years, and would bring out their serious challenge at the next convention, which he predicted would be in another 18 months, by which time the next election would already be in sight on the horizon.”
In 2005, Ingraham entered the leadership race, and again emerged as the leader of the FNM.
He took the party into the 2007 election, promoting his trust agenda, and wrested power from Christie and the PLP.
Today, Ingraham is seeking a fourth non-consecutive term in office.
5/23/2011
thenassauguardian
Hubert Ingraham: “Supremely self-confident, unapologetic and, dare we say, arrogant as ever...", says a United States Embassy official in Nassau
The Ingraham logs: An analysis
By ERICA WELLS
NG Managing Editor
thenassauguardian
erica@nasguard.com
As a sitting opposition member of Parliament (MP) in April 2003, more than a year after he had stepped aside as leader of the Free National Movement, former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham bragged with apparent delight to a U.S. Embassy official that he was still the FNM’s most popular politician.
That some within the country and in the FNM laid the blame of the party’s embarrassing 2002 election defeat squarely at his feet only seemed to fuel his widely perceived arrogance.
That his critics pointed to the disastrous constitutional referendum and the poor handling of the FNM’s leadership transition as major contributors to the FNM’s defeat only seemed to cement Ingraham’s conviction that “it was only after he left the leadership that the FNM lost”.
“According to Ingraham, the FNM asked him to step away from the campaign not because he was unpopular, but because his popularity left Tommy Turnquest in his shadow,” the official wrote in a confidential U.S. Embassy cable obtained exclusively by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.
“Finally, he did grudgingly admit that he might have to share some of the blame for the FNM’s loss. ‘I guess if I take credit for the victories I also have to take credit for the losses,’ Ingraham said, but added with fire in his voice, ‘And no one can deny that I was responsible for the victories in 1992 and 1997’.”
The conversation with then U.S. Embassy Political/Economics Chief Brian Bachman took place on April 8 in what was then Ingraham’s law office in Cable Beach.
The cable goes into surprising detail: “Pol/Econ chief called on Ingraham at his Cable Beach office which was relatively small but nicely appointed. Ingraham works there alone, with just a single employee, a part-time receptionist who left before the meeting concluded. He did not seem terribly busy, as the phone rang only twice during the hour-and-a-half long conversation, and neither call seemed work-related. His desk was near empty and his TV was turned to CNN to watch war news."
The conversation was characterized in the cable as a wide-ranging discussion of his tenure in office and current political developments.
It provides a unique insight into what our greatest ally — the U.S. — thought of Ingraham at the time.
It also provides insight into Hubert Ingraham’s complex political persona.
‘SELF-CONFIDENT, UNAPOLOGETIC AND ARROGANT’
In the comment section at the end of the cable, the Embassy official had this to say:
“Supremely self-confident, unapologetic and, dare we say, arrogant as ever, Ingraham still has a forceful and formidable presence.
“Currently inactive in Parliament and largely out of the public view, he obviously is still keeping a close eye on political events both inside and outside the party, and we have little doubt that he still has influence within the FNM if he chooses to use it.
“Ingraham is still a relatively young man for a politician, and seems to have little desire to return to his former trade (the law).
“If the (Perry) Christie government continues to struggle against a weak economy and the widespread perception that it is inactive, and Bahamian voters begin to feel a little nostalgia for the strong hand on the tiller, we wouldn’t be surprised if Hubert Ingraham reemerges as a potential ‘savior’ for his party and The Bahamas.”
Hubert Ingraham ended up doing just that.
At the time of the conversation, Ingraham claimed that he had no intention of defending his seat in 2007, and did not intend to take an active role in the upcoming FNM convention, but “when asked directly if he would ever consider re-entering politics, Ingraham dodged the question completely”, according to the cable.
“He did admit that various people within the FNM continued to push him to retake the leadership, however, and refused several clear opportunities to say he was definitely not interested.”
Less than three years after that conversation he was convincingly returned as leader of the FNM after running against his hand-picked successor, Tommy Turnquest.
And in 2007 he was elected prime minister for a third non-consecutive term — although the FNM won by a small margin, and it was well below the numbers that Ingraham had predicted while on the 2007 campaign trail.
CONTRADICTIONS
The contradiction between what was said and what eventually took place is an example of the contradictory and mixed character traits that are not foreign to politics, but have come to define Ingraham the politician.
Hubert Ingraham is seen by most Bahamians as extremely competent, hardworking and smart.
Throughout the U.S. cables, Ingraham is referred to as “sharply focused on issues”, “a man of action”, “pragmatic, “no-nonsense”.
Many see him as a man of integrity who means the best. But there is a clear sense that he can be ruthless when necessary. There is also a strong streak of stubbornness that in the past has gotten him into trouble — the Clifton Cay development and Constitutional Referendum.
As noted by Guardian columnist Ian Strachan recently, Ingraham can be both arrogant and exemplify simplicity at the same time.
He is usually himself and does not put on airs. He lives in a modest home, has modest tastes, and is not given to extravagance in his habits. But he can also be arrogant and highhanded, seen often in his administration’s penchant for not seeing the importance of communicating to the public why its policies are important to the country.
He can be brash and removed, yet very accessible to the average Bahamian. His home telephone is listed in the phone book and he often answers the phone himself.
The same man who can be crude at times in terms of language and brashness, can also be quite charming when necessary.
Hubert Ingraham can also let his temper get the best of him, hitting out unnecessarily and at a cost to himself and others. Yet he can show restraint in not responding to some of his regular critics.
Ingraham is genuinely democratic when it comes to national issues and his administrations have moved to implement a number of measures that have improved democracy. Opening up the airwaves, drafting revised libel laws, among them.
However, he is famously autocratic party-wise. And while some in his Cabinet say it is much more consensual than many imagine, he can push into a minister’s ministry if he believes something is not getting done.
According to the cable, while discussing Christie’s Cabinet with Bachman, Ingraham said, “many of them harbor further political ambitions and have their own agendas,” and he shook his head at Christie’s seeming inability to control them.
“Ingraham said he ‘never would have tolerated such behavior’ in his own Cabinet, however, noting how, under the Westminster system, it is difficult to just remove a Cabinet minister or discipline him effectively, as all it may do is create a political enemy who retains his seat in Parliament.
“Ingraham acknowledged that this had never stopped him, but claimed with a mischievous gleam in his eye, that this was ‘because I was always confident — confident that I had the support of the people. Perry doesn’t have that confidence’.”
Many political observers have been left to wonder about the curious events that lead to Ingraham’s return to the FNM as leader.
It was not until the last minute that it was revealed that Ingraham would offer himself for the leadership of the FNM, directly challenging Turnquest.
On the morning of the elections, Turnquest told reporters at the party’s convention that Ingraham had called him directly and assured him that he would not be running.
Hours later Ingraham was escorted to the podium, heralded as a savior of the party. His wife Delores was nowhere to be seen.
Ingraham is famous for keeping key decisions well-guarded, but the seemingly last-minute decision to run as leader could easily be seen as a deep betrayal, even though the party appears to have moved beyond that chapter.
Another obvious contradiction is his relationship with long-time political foe, and personal friend, Progressive Liberal Party leader Perry Christie.
Ingraham and Christie will beat up on each other on certain matters, but never on personal issues.
In the same cable covering the political discussion in 2003, under the heading ‘Perry and Hubert’, according to the U.S. Embassy official Ingraham said that he and Perry Christie remained good friends and they talked by phone a couple of times a week.
“Ingraham said that they didn’t always talk politics, but didn’t avoid the topic either, and said that he offered advice to Christie regularly.
“He said that he believes Christie is a good man, and well-intentioned, but criticized his leadership style.
“Ingraham said, ‘Perry has always been indecisive, and will always be indecisive. It’s just the way he is. He can’t change’.”
POLITICAL MISCALCULATION?
Asked by the Embassy official if he had any regrets from his 10 years in office, or if he would do anything differently, if given the opportunity, Ingraham reportedly quickly responded, “Absolutely not!”
“He said he was a contented man, and that he had accomplished virtually everything he had set out to do.
“On further reflection, he admitted that he wished that the FNM leadership transition had been handled better, but he deflected blame for that, saying that it should have been done earlier and smoother, but he was delayed by FNMs who kept urging him to put it off and trying to get him to run again.”
Regarding the failed constitutional referendum, Ingraham denied that it was a factor in the FNM’s loss, according to the cable.
“In fact, he said, he had already become convinced by January of 2002 that the FNM would lose the general election, and scheduled the referendum because he was confident that it would pass and would give the FNM momentum going into the election.”
According to the cable, Ingraham refused to characterize it as a political miscalculation.
Only Hubert Ingraham knows just how genuine those words were, or if he was simply re-writing events of the past to protect his political legacy.
An election is on the horizon, and Ingraham and his FNM can ill-afford any political miscalculations in the current political environment.
5/23/2011
thenassauguardian
By ERICA WELLS
NG Managing Editor
thenassauguardian
erica@nasguard.com
As a sitting opposition member of Parliament (MP) in April 2003, more than a year after he had stepped aside as leader of the Free National Movement, former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham bragged with apparent delight to a U.S. Embassy official that he was still the FNM’s most popular politician.
That some within the country and in the FNM laid the blame of the party’s embarrassing 2002 election defeat squarely at his feet only seemed to fuel his widely perceived arrogance.
That his critics pointed to the disastrous constitutional referendum and the poor handling of the FNM’s leadership transition as major contributors to the FNM’s defeat only seemed to cement Ingraham’s conviction that “it was only after he left the leadership that the FNM lost”.
“According to Ingraham, the FNM asked him to step away from the campaign not because he was unpopular, but because his popularity left Tommy Turnquest in his shadow,” the official wrote in a confidential U.S. Embassy cable obtained exclusively by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.
“Finally, he did grudgingly admit that he might have to share some of the blame for the FNM’s loss. ‘I guess if I take credit for the victories I also have to take credit for the losses,’ Ingraham said, but added with fire in his voice, ‘And no one can deny that I was responsible for the victories in 1992 and 1997’.”
The conversation with then U.S. Embassy Political/Economics Chief Brian Bachman took place on April 8 in what was then Ingraham’s law office in Cable Beach.
The cable goes into surprising detail: “Pol/Econ chief called on Ingraham at his Cable Beach office which was relatively small but nicely appointed. Ingraham works there alone, with just a single employee, a part-time receptionist who left before the meeting concluded. He did not seem terribly busy, as the phone rang only twice during the hour-and-a-half long conversation, and neither call seemed work-related. His desk was near empty and his TV was turned to CNN to watch war news."
The conversation was characterized in the cable as a wide-ranging discussion of his tenure in office and current political developments.
It provides a unique insight into what our greatest ally — the U.S. — thought of Ingraham at the time.
It also provides insight into Hubert Ingraham’s complex political persona.
‘SELF-CONFIDENT, UNAPOLOGETIC AND ARROGANT’
In the comment section at the end of the cable, the Embassy official had this to say:
“Supremely self-confident, unapologetic and, dare we say, arrogant as ever, Ingraham still has a forceful and formidable presence.
“Currently inactive in Parliament and largely out of the public view, he obviously is still keeping a close eye on political events both inside and outside the party, and we have little doubt that he still has influence within the FNM if he chooses to use it.
“Ingraham is still a relatively young man for a politician, and seems to have little desire to return to his former trade (the law).
“If the (Perry) Christie government continues to struggle against a weak economy and the widespread perception that it is inactive, and Bahamian voters begin to feel a little nostalgia for the strong hand on the tiller, we wouldn’t be surprised if Hubert Ingraham reemerges as a potential ‘savior’ for his party and The Bahamas.”
Hubert Ingraham ended up doing just that.
At the time of the conversation, Ingraham claimed that he had no intention of defending his seat in 2007, and did not intend to take an active role in the upcoming FNM convention, but “when asked directly if he would ever consider re-entering politics, Ingraham dodged the question completely”, according to the cable.
“He did admit that various people within the FNM continued to push him to retake the leadership, however, and refused several clear opportunities to say he was definitely not interested.”
Less than three years after that conversation he was convincingly returned as leader of the FNM after running against his hand-picked successor, Tommy Turnquest.
And in 2007 he was elected prime minister for a third non-consecutive term — although the FNM won by a small margin, and it was well below the numbers that Ingraham had predicted while on the 2007 campaign trail.
CONTRADICTIONS
The contradiction between what was said and what eventually took place is an example of the contradictory and mixed character traits that are not foreign to politics, but have come to define Ingraham the politician.
Hubert Ingraham is seen by most Bahamians as extremely competent, hardworking and smart.
Throughout the U.S. cables, Ingraham is referred to as “sharply focused on issues”, “a man of action”, “pragmatic, “no-nonsense”.
Many see him as a man of integrity who means the best. But there is a clear sense that he can be ruthless when necessary. There is also a strong streak of stubbornness that in the past has gotten him into trouble — the Clifton Cay development and Constitutional Referendum.
As noted by Guardian columnist Ian Strachan recently, Ingraham can be both arrogant and exemplify simplicity at the same time.
He is usually himself and does not put on airs. He lives in a modest home, has modest tastes, and is not given to extravagance in his habits. But he can also be arrogant and highhanded, seen often in his administration’s penchant for not seeing the importance of communicating to the public why its policies are important to the country.
He can be brash and removed, yet very accessible to the average Bahamian. His home telephone is listed in the phone book and he often answers the phone himself.
The same man who can be crude at times in terms of language and brashness, can also be quite charming when necessary.
Hubert Ingraham can also let his temper get the best of him, hitting out unnecessarily and at a cost to himself and others. Yet he can show restraint in not responding to some of his regular critics.
Ingraham is genuinely democratic when it comes to national issues and his administrations have moved to implement a number of measures that have improved democracy. Opening up the airwaves, drafting revised libel laws, among them.
However, he is famously autocratic party-wise. And while some in his Cabinet say it is much more consensual than many imagine, he can push into a minister’s ministry if he believes something is not getting done.
According to the cable, while discussing Christie’s Cabinet with Bachman, Ingraham said, “many of them harbor further political ambitions and have their own agendas,” and he shook his head at Christie’s seeming inability to control them.
“Ingraham said he ‘never would have tolerated such behavior’ in his own Cabinet, however, noting how, under the Westminster system, it is difficult to just remove a Cabinet minister or discipline him effectively, as all it may do is create a political enemy who retains his seat in Parliament.
“Ingraham acknowledged that this had never stopped him, but claimed with a mischievous gleam in his eye, that this was ‘because I was always confident — confident that I had the support of the people. Perry doesn’t have that confidence’.”
Many political observers have been left to wonder about the curious events that lead to Ingraham’s return to the FNM as leader.
It was not until the last minute that it was revealed that Ingraham would offer himself for the leadership of the FNM, directly challenging Turnquest.
On the morning of the elections, Turnquest told reporters at the party’s convention that Ingraham had called him directly and assured him that he would not be running.
Hours later Ingraham was escorted to the podium, heralded as a savior of the party. His wife Delores was nowhere to be seen.
Ingraham is famous for keeping key decisions well-guarded, but the seemingly last-minute decision to run as leader could easily be seen as a deep betrayal, even though the party appears to have moved beyond that chapter.
Another obvious contradiction is his relationship with long-time political foe, and personal friend, Progressive Liberal Party leader Perry Christie.
Ingraham and Christie will beat up on each other on certain matters, but never on personal issues.
In the same cable covering the political discussion in 2003, under the heading ‘Perry and Hubert’, according to the U.S. Embassy official Ingraham said that he and Perry Christie remained good friends and they talked by phone a couple of times a week.
“Ingraham said that they didn’t always talk politics, but didn’t avoid the topic either, and said that he offered advice to Christie regularly.
“He said that he believes Christie is a good man, and well-intentioned, but criticized his leadership style.
“Ingraham said, ‘Perry has always been indecisive, and will always be indecisive. It’s just the way he is. He can’t change’.”
POLITICAL MISCALCULATION?
Asked by the Embassy official if he had any regrets from his 10 years in office, or if he would do anything differently, if given the opportunity, Ingraham reportedly quickly responded, “Absolutely not!”
“He said he was a contented man, and that he had accomplished virtually everything he had set out to do.
“On further reflection, he admitted that he wished that the FNM leadership transition had been handled better, but he deflected blame for that, saying that it should have been done earlier and smoother, but he was delayed by FNMs who kept urging him to put it off and trying to get him to run again.”
Regarding the failed constitutional referendum, Ingraham denied that it was a factor in the FNM’s loss, according to the cable.
“In fact, he said, he had already become convinced by January of 2002 that the FNM would lose the general election, and scheduled the referendum because he was confident that it would pass and would give the FNM momentum going into the election.”
According to the cable, Ingraham refused to characterize it as a political miscalculation.
Only Hubert Ingraham knows just how genuine those words were, or if he was simply re-writing events of the past to protect his political legacy.
An election is on the horizon, and Ingraham and his FNM can ill-afford any political miscalculations in the current political environment.
5/23/2011
thenassauguardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)