By ALISON LOWE
Tribune Staff Reporter
alowe@tribunemedia.net:
A FORMER FNM minister and MP has lashed out at the Government and police, accusing them of "terrorising peaceful citizens" as they continue to enforce anti-gambling laws.
Theresa Moxey-Ingraham yesterday described the use of "valuable police resources" to raid web shops where members of the public are "engaging in peaceful and personal activity within the precincts of a licensed business establishment" as a "travesty".
"In a time when crime is rampant, known criminals are on the loose and traffic violations are the order of the day, there is so much of greater value for our Police to pay attention to," said the ex-cabinet minister.
Mrs Moxey-Ingraham made her comments yesterday in a letter to The Tribune, written in her capacity as a member of the Bahamas Gaming Reform Committee. The BGRC wants to see a relaxation of the Bahamas' anti-gaming laws to allow Bahamians and Bahamas residents to gamble.
It claims the laws prohibiting them from doing so, while visitors can at will, are discriminatory and are causing The Bahamas to lose its competitive touristic standing in the region, among other things.
Referring to the enforcement of the laws, which the BGRC consider outdated, Mrs Moxey-Ingraham, who served as MP for Golden Gates from 1992 to 2002 and held numerous ministerial portfolios under the former Ingraham administration, said the "time has long come and gone for this nonsense to stop".
Her comments come in the wake of recent raids on web shops in New Providence, in which a number of customers and employees were taken into custody, and cash was seized by police.
At the time of one of those raids - that of the Collins Avenue location of the Island Luck web cafe on Tuesday March 9 - a number of officers admitted to The Tribune that they saw "no sense" in what they were doing as the numbers house would in all likelihood be open for business again in 24 hours - along with the countless others throughout the length and breadth of the country.
Mrs Moxey-Ingraham said: "Government should not be in the business of making criminals and fugitives out of its citizens, especially over matters such as gaming which can be classified as a 'victimless' activity.
"Our citizens and residents ought to enjoy the same recreational privileges as visitors to these shores, and they have shown by their quiet persistence and their determination that despite feeble attempts by government and the Police to stop them, they fully intend to take ownership of their inherent right to equal treatment within this country."
She suggested that the fact Bahamians continue to frequent numbers houses in large numbers could be taken by the Government as a sign that it is time to legalise the activity.
"Peaceful, forceful civil disobedience is often the people's way of bringing home a message to government about the need to change discriminatory laws and policies, and the continued, indeed growing presence of web cafes across our landscape should be understood as a serious message to government about the need to adopt a new policy direction as regards gaming for Bahamians," said the former minister.
March 15, 2010
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.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Election court Bahamas: Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel questioned
By NATARIO McKENZIE
Tribune Staff Reporter
nmckenzie@tribunemedia.net:
PARLIAMENTARY Commissioner Errol Bethel was questioned extensively yesterday regarding discrepancies in the protest votes cast in the Elizabeth by-election.
Mr Bethel was the first and only witness to take the stand yesterday during day two of the Elizabeth election court hearing.
Philip "Brave" Davis, lead attorney for Progressive Liberal Party candidate Leo Ryan Pinder, opened yesterday's proceedings by outlining the election court petition.
Mr Davis then read into the record the affidavit of Stafford Coakley, a licensed surveyor. According to Mr Coakley's affidavit, Mr Pinder -- the petitioner -- had asked him to mark out the residences of the protested voters on a map of the Elizabeth constituency. According to the surveyor, all but five of the protest voters resided in the Elizabeth constituency. The surveyor found that one of the voters in question lived at a home in Commonwealth Boulevard which does not fall within the boundary of the Elizabeth constituency.
When Mr Bethel took the stand, attorney David Higgins who represents him and Returning Officer Jack Thompson, read his affidavit into the court's record. Mr Davis then began his cross-examination of Mr Bethel. During the cross-examination, Mr Bethel admitted that a part of his duty was to verify whether persons whose names appeared on the register were in fact there. He said that his duties were to advise persons of the fact that they were not on the register if it came to his attention. Those notices he said could be sent to their addresses.
Letters are being used to identify the voters whose votes are being protested in the proceedings -- in order to protect their identity. Mr Davis pointed out that the issue with Voter A was over two different listed addresses.
Mr Davis noted that the voter had one address that would put the voter in the Fox Hill Constituency and another that would put the voter in the Elizabeth constituency. He noted that on the voter's card the word Elizabeth was written over Fox Hill. Mr Bethel said that Fox Hill had been stamped over Elizabeth. He said that Fox Hill had been stamped there just prior to the May 2007 general elections. Polling division 12 is now in Fox Hill he said. The other listed address for the voter was South Pine Barren Road, West Barn Close. Mr Davis pointed out that according to the voter's card, voter A was in Elizabeth polling division 4. He pointed out that the voter had voted in May 2007 and in the same constituency in February 2010. Mr Bethel said he could not confirm which was the correct address. He accepted Mr Davis' suggestion that the register had to be corrected or voter's card cancelled and a new one issued in this case.
In relation to a voter identified as voter C, the issue arose as to what appeared on the counterfoil relative to the voter's date of birth. It was revealed that the date of birth listed on the register was different than that listed on the counterfoil. Mr Bethel admitted that the error was on the counterfoil. In relation to a voter identified as voter E who appeared in polling division 8, Mr Bethel pointed out that the discrepancy over the omission of Alligator Close to the voter's address listed on the register was because the computer could only take so many characters. The voter's full address would have read South Sandilands Road, West Fox Hill Road, Alligator Close.
In relation to voter D who voted in polling division 7, Mr Davis noted that in the constituency column, the word Elizabeth had been there but was crossed out and replaced with Yamacraw. He also pointed out that in the polling division column; seven was marked out and replaced with 8. This was also reflected on the counterfoil. Mr Bethel admitted that the address West Commonwealth Boulevard, South Malaysia Way would be in the Elizabeth constituency but the S for South was marked out and N for north was placed there instead, which would place the voter out of Elizabeth. Mr Davis pointed out that the oath taken by the voter also contained corrections. In the oath the voter had sworn that they lived in Elizabeth. Mr Bethel subsequently admitted that the corrections had been made by his office. Mr Bethel contended that the error was that the voter was obviously in the wrong constituency. Mr Davis suggested to him, however, that he was wrong to direct that such corrections be made. Mr Bethel, however, did not accept this suggestion. Mr Davis concluded his cross-examination yesterday by highlighting voter F. According to Mr Davis, voter F had been a registered voter from November 23, 2005 and had been placed in the Yamacraw constituency, polling division 6. Mr Bethel, however, told the court that he had never encountered the voter.
The election court hearing is expected to resume on Monday at 10.30 am. Dr Sands' legal team is expected and attorneys for Mr Bethel and Returning Officer Jack Thompson are expected to begin their cross-examination.
March 13, 2010
tribune242
Tribune Staff Reporter
nmckenzie@tribunemedia.net:
PARLIAMENTARY Commissioner Errol Bethel was questioned extensively yesterday regarding discrepancies in the protest votes cast in the Elizabeth by-election.
Mr Bethel was the first and only witness to take the stand yesterday during day two of the Elizabeth election court hearing.
Philip "Brave" Davis, lead attorney for Progressive Liberal Party candidate Leo Ryan Pinder, opened yesterday's proceedings by outlining the election court petition.
Mr Davis then read into the record the affidavit of Stafford Coakley, a licensed surveyor. According to Mr Coakley's affidavit, Mr Pinder -- the petitioner -- had asked him to mark out the residences of the protested voters on a map of the Elizabeth constituency. According to the surveyor, all but five of the protest voters resided in the Elizabeth constituency. The surveyor found that one of the voters in question lived at a home in Commonwealth Boulevard which does not fall within the boundary of the Elizabeth constituency.
When Mr Bethel took the stand, attorney David Higgins who represents him and Returning Officer Jack Thompson, read his affidavit into the court's record. Mr Davis then began his cross-examination of Mr Bethel. During the cross-examination, Mr Bethel admitted that a part of his duty was to verify whether persons whose names appeared on the register were in fact there. He said that his duties were to advise persons of the fact that they were not on the register if it came to his attention. Those notices he said could be sent to their addresses.
Letters are being used to identify the voters whose votes are being protested in the proceedings -- in order to protect their identity. Mr Davis pointed out that the issue with Voter A was over two different listed addresses.
Mr Davis noted that the voter had one address that would put the voter in the Fox Hill Constituency and another that would put the voter in the Elizabeth constituency. He noted that on the voter's card the word Elizabeth was written over Fox Hill. Mr Bethel said that Fox Hill had been stamped over Elizabeth. He said that Fox Hill had been stamped there just prior to the May 2007 general elections. Polling division 12 is now in Fox Hill he said. The other listed address for the voter was South Pine Barren Road, West Barn Close. Mr Davis pointed out that according to the voter's card, voter A was in Elizabeth polling division 4. He pointed out that the voter had voted in May 2007 and in the same constituency in February 2010. Mr Bethel said he could not confirm which was the correct address. He accepted Mr Davis' suggestion that the register had to be corrected or voter's card cancelled and a new one issued in this case.
In relation to a voter identified as voter C, the issue arose as to what appeared on the counterfoil relative to the voter's date of birth. It was revealed that the date of birth listed on the register was different than that listed on the counterfoil. Mr Bethel admitted that the error was on the counterfoil. In relation to a voter identified as voter E who appeared in polling division 8, Mr Bethel pointed out that the discrepancy over the omission of Alligator Close to the voter's address listed on the register was because the computer could only take so many characters. The voter's full address would have read South Sandilands Road, West Fox Hill Road, Alligator Close.
In relation to voter D who voted in polling division 7, Mr Davis noted that in the constituency column, the word Elizabeth had been there but was crossed out and replaced with Yamacraw. He also pointed out that in the polling division column; seven was marked out and replaced with 8. This was also reflected on the counterfoil. Mr Bethel admitted that the address West Commonwealth Boulevard, South Malaysia Way would be in the Elizabeth constituency but the S for South was marked out and N for north was placed there instead, which would place the voter out of Elizabeth. Mr Davis pointed out that the oath taken by the voter also contained corrections. In the oath the voter had sworn that they lived in Elizabeth. Mr Bethel subsequently admitted that the corrections had been made by his office. Mr Bethel contended that the error was that the voter was obviously in the wrong constituency. Mr Davis suggested to him, however, that he was wrong to direct that such corrections be made. Mr Bethel, however, did not accept this suggestion. Mr Davis concluded his cross-examination yesterday by highlighting voter F. According to Mr Davis, voter F had been a registered voter from November 23, 2005 and had been placed in the Yamacraw constituency, polling division 6. Mr Bethel, however, told the court that he had never encountered the voter.
The election court hearing is expected to resume on Monday at 10.30 am. Dr Sands' legal team is expected and attorneys for Mr Bethel and Returning Officer Jack Thompson are expected to begin their cross-examination.
March 13, 2010
tribune242
Friday, March 12, 2010
Election Court Bahamas: Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Election Court petition will stand
By KRYSTEL ROLLE ~ Guardian Staff Reporter ~ krystel@nasguard.com:
The Election Court yesterday rejected an application filed on behalf of Free National Movement candidate Dr. Duane Sands to throw out the petition of the Progressive Liberal Party's Ryan Pinder on the basis that it is "fundamentally flawed".
Sands' lead counsel Thomas Evans, QC raised that argument yesterday as the Elizabeth challenge got underway before Senior Justices Anita Allen and Jon Isaacs.
Evans contended that Pinder's petition is deficient as it does not set out what he is hoping to gain at the end of the process and thereby places the respondents at a disadvantage.
Pinder, who was the PLP's candidate in the recent by-election in Elizabeth, wants the court to rule that five protest votes cast in his favor are valid. If at least three of those votes are approved, he would be declared the winner of the election.
The respondents in the case include Sands, Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel and Returning Officer Jack Thompson.
Evans said the basic principle of the case requires the respondents to know what the case is.
He noted that Pinder wants the court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 69 (1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
This section of the act allows a candidate to petition the court to consider the protest votes cast if the margin of victory by his opponent (in this case Sands) is less than the number of his (Pinder's) protest votes.
"A petitioner who is seeking to avail himself of the jurisdiction of the court ought to say what he is seeking," Evans said.
"In this case one would expect that he would reveal exactly what it is that he seeks to receive from the court. If he does not do that he puts the respondents in a position of not knowing what case they have to meet, not knowing what they have to respond to."
Evans said the petitioner (Pinder) must assert that the voters were properly registered and entitled to vote.
"The petition contains no prayer in his favor. There are no grounds given for finding that the voters were properly registered and entitled to vote," Evans said. "A petition has particular characteristics, one of which [is] the petitioner must set out the brief facts. Notwithstanding the discreet nature of the petition, the court must deal with it in the same manner as it deals with any other petition."
Evans argued that the defect in the petition cannot be cured by an amendment.
Attorney David Higgins, who represents Bethel and Thompson, adopted that position. Higgins said the petition ought to be able to stand on its own.
Additionally, Evans argued that it would be an abuse of the court process if the petition is allowed in court.
However, Pinder's lead counsel Philip "Brave" Davis argued that it would be an injustice to strike out the petition.
He said respondents should know exactly what the petitioner is seeking to gain.
Davis said he was surprised that the justices would even allow such submissions to be made.
"I do not know what else they want to know. I have given them our complete written submissions," Davis said.
"I think the parties have all that they require. To suggest that we should strike out the petition is an alarming proposition."
After a 10-minute break to decide whether the petition was in fact fundamentally flawed, Senior Justice Allen announced that the application to strike out the petition was denied.
Evans then sought an application to stay the case so that he could appeal the justices' decision, but Davis objected.
He said it would be a "total waste of time" and urged the justices to refuse the request.
The justices took a short break to decide if they would allow the stay. However, after about 15 minutes, Allen announced that that request was also rejected.
She said it is imperative that the will of the electorate be determined as soon as possible.
Allen also noted that costs would be awarded to the petitioner for two attorneys.
Evans then requested the court to grant him a conservatory stay until Monday so that he could approach the Court of Appeal. However, that request was also denied.
Davis noted that Evans has the option of approaching the Court of Appeal before the start of today's proceedings, which are set to begin at 10 a.m.
It is unclear whether Evans will still attempt to appeal the justices' decision.
Allen said the proceedings will continue today with Davis presenting his submissions.
The Elizabeth by-election, which took place February 16, ended with Sands receiving 1,501 regular votes and Pinder receiving 1,499 regular votes.
If the court only accepts two of the protest votes for Pinder, a re-election would be ordered.
Friday March 12, 2010
thenassauguardian
The Election Court yesterday rejected an application filed on behalf of Free National Movement candidate Dr. Duane Sands to throw out the petition of the Progressive Liberal Party's Ryan Pinder on the basis that it is "fundamentally flawed".
Sands' lead counsel Thomas Evans, QC raised that argument yesterday as the Elizabeth challenge got underway before Senior Justices Anita Allen and Jon Isaacs.
Evans contended that Pinder's petition is deficient as it does not set out what he is hoping to gain at the end of the process and thereby places the respondents at a disadvantage.
Pinder, who was the PLP's candidate in the recent by-election in Elizabeth, wants the court to rule that five protest votes cast in his favor are valid. If at least three of those votes are approved, he would be declared the winner of the election.
The respondents in the case include Sands, Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel and Returning Officer Jack Thompson.
Evans said the basic principle of the case requires the respondents to know what the case is.
He noted that Pinder wants the court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 69 (1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
This section of the act allows a candidate to petition the court to consider the protest votes cast if the margin of victory by his opponent (in this case Sands) is less than the number of his (Pinder's) protest votes.
"A petitioner who is seeking to avail himself of the jurisdiction of the court ought to say what he is seeking," Evans said.
"In this case one would expect that he would reveal exactly what it is that he seeks to receive from the court. If he does not do that he puts the respondents in a position of not knowing what case they have to meet, not knowing what they have to respond to."
Evans said the petitioner (Pinder) must assert that the voters were properly registered and entitled to vote.
"The petition contains no prayer in his favor. There are no grounds given for finding that the voters were properly registered and entitled to vote," Evans said. "A petition has particular characteristics, one of which [is] the petitioner must set out the brief facts. Notwithstanding the discreet nature of the petition, the court must deal with it in the same manner as it deals with any other petition."
Evans argued that the defect in the petition cannot be cured by an amendment.
Attorney David Higgins, who represents Bethel and Thompson, adopted that position. Higgins said the petition ought to be able to stand on its own.
Additionally, Evans argued that it would be an abuse of the court process if the petition is allowed in court.
However, Pinder's lead counsel Philip "Brave" Davis argued that it would be an injustice to strike out the petition.
He said respondents should know exactly what the petitioner is seeking to gain.
Davis said he was surprised that the justices would even allow such submissions to be made.
"I do not know what else they want to know. I have given them our complete written submissions," Davis said.
"I think the parties have all that they require. To suggest that we should strike out the petition is an alarming proposition."
After a 10-minute break to decide whether the petition was in fact fundamentally flawed, Senior Justice Allen announced that the application to strike out the petition was denied.
Evans then sought an application to stay the case so that he could appeal the justices' decision, but Davis objected.
He said it would be a "total waste of time" and urged the justices to refuse the request.
The justices took a short break to decide if they would allow the stay. However, after about 15 minutes, Allen announced that that request was also rejected.
She said it is imperative that the will of the electorate be determined as soon as possible.
Allen also noted that costs would be awarded to the petitioner for two attorneys.
Evans then requested the court to grant him a conservatory stay until Monday so that he could approach the Court of Appeal. However, that request was also denied.
Davis noted that Evans has the option of approaching the Court of Appeal before the start of today's proceedings, which are set to begin at 10 a.m.
It is unclear whether Evans will still attempt to appeal the justices' decision.
Allen said the proceedings will continue today with Davis presenting his submissions.
The Elizabeth by-election, which took place February 16, ended with Sands receiving 1,501 regular votes and Pinder receiving 1,499 regular votes.
If the court only accepts two of the protest votes for Pinder, a re-election would be ordered.
Friday March 12, 2010
thenassauguardian
Thursday, March 11, 2010
What now for Branville McCartney?
By ADRIAN GIBSON
ajbahama@hotmail.com:
FORMER Minister of State for Immigration Branville McCartney's resignation is being seen as a political rebellion in certain quarters of the FNM, as attack dogs and a number of disgruntled, diehard FNMs are having fits of hysteria and are already hurling scurrilous and cheap potshots from behind the curtain of anonymity. From this week on, Mr McCartney will be wading through a political minefield.
Throughout the Bahamas, Bran McCartney is heralded as a hard worker, a young man who understands the true purpose of parliamentary representation of his constituents. The former minister's genuine concern for the nation's youth was on display last November in a speech and subsequent question and answer session given during a class I lectured at the College of the Bahamas.
Admittedly, Mr McCartney's resignation from Cabinet, while serving as a first-term junior Cabinet Minister and parliamentarian has led to comparisons to bumbling former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin who herself resigned before serving a single, full-term. All-in-all, however, Bran McCartney is not the divisive figure and calamitous Jane that Sarah Palin has turned out to be.
Bran McCartney's resignation on his personal convictions, shows that he has the kahunas to stand up for his beliefs whatever they might be and this might, in the long run, catapult him to the top of the leadership totem pole as Prime Minister and FNM leader Hubert Ingraham's successor while--in time--potentially also earning the PM's admiration.
Mr Ingraham has not said anything disparaging about Mr McCartney and he appears to be such an astute politician that amidst all the political brouhaha, he is focused enough to direct his attention upon the PLP's election court challenge and other issues instead of being found to be in open combat with the very popular Mr McCartney.
Dr Dexter Johnson, lawyer and medical doctor, addressed Mr McCartney's resignation and potential leadership of the FNM stating:
"In a situation with two exhausted leaders, the focus must be upon a replacement. The recent by-election and debate served to heighten the profile of potentially new leaders. The pretenders in the PLP and FNM are obtaining zero mileage at this time. The system of the past is not bringing the best leaders forward.
"The change in the immigration ministry's policies had put Mr McCartney in park--indefinitely. If he crosses the floor, the Ingraham administration would fall," he asserted.
Dr Johnson went on:
"Mr McCartney would be a welcome addition to a third party. His arrival would immediately catapult a third party into the political stratosphere and could be a platform to show his uninhibited vision. His arrival would immediately make a third party a contender as it would have a credible Parliamentary voice."
It seems highly unlikely that, even after submitting his resignation, Mr McCartney would cross the floor.
The timing of the former junior minister's resignation may be of concern to some, particularly as it follows an extremely acrimonious Elizabeth by-election campaign and has led to overarching concerns about his political plans, especially how his resignation--with the FNM in a seemingly precarious state--could affect his aspirations for leadership.
Frankly, in the wake of a closely-contested, yet undeclared by-election, the FNM must be uncertain of exactly what the electorate thinks and whether public apathy is directed towards the party and its governance. While Mr McCartney's resignation has reverberated throughout the archipelago, his resignation would have been more resonant had it been submitted immediately after the Prime Minister decided to temporarily grant status to the Haitian migrants housed at the Detention Centre following the catastrophic earthquake in Port-au-Prince. At that time, the PM's decision to release the Haitians-- even with temporary status -- was met with a chorus of dissent and questions about its legality as local radio talk shows were bombarded by livid callers. Indeed, there is a paralyzing fog of disbelief and outright cynicism being expressed in some quarters about the Prime Minister's decision. It has been alleged that Mr McCartney was not consulted and felt that it was a usurping of his power and authority as Minister of State in-charge of the Department of Immigration.
It has also been alleged that Mr McCartney had a running feud with substantive minister and DPM Brent Symonette, who some contend may have sought to tie his hands on certain immigration matters.
Indeed, while questions run rife about whether the Bamboo Town MP's resignation will further cripple the FNM in terms of its support, I believe that he is a chap with the gravitas to stand against the grain. However, diehard FNM supporters, despite their belief that he possesses leadership qualities, may be more concerned about party over self--irrespective of how principled one might be. Although Mr McCartney has exhibited the attributes, abilities and intellect that are commendable traits to propel him to leadership as opposed to an aptitude to simply be a sycophant complying with political dictates, today, even the slightest misstep could lead to another man (McCartney) who would-be "king" being permanently ushered out of the throne room.
Are the voting delegates and council members willing to view an individual's abilities or, at the end of the day, will party supersede any principle that a person holds?
It is my belief that when Charles Maynard--who is not seen as the brightest spark in the Cabinet--was appointed the substantive Minister of Youth, Sports and Culture after a abysmal performance as a junior minister, Mr McCartney possibly felt snubbed.
Sources assert that the former state minister believed himself to have been overlooked and cast aside.
Furthermore, unlike certain members of the current and past Cabinets, Mr McCartney is not overly dependent upon a Cabinet job, as he has publicly admitted to being independent, financially secure and to have used his ministerial salary in the constituency.
After the dust settles in Elizabeth, it is said by certain FNM insiders that McCartney could be displaced. If Elizabeth serves as a catalyst for what 2012 holds, there will then be a strategic plan for counting seats within both of the major parties, with each party distinguishing the seats that are must-haves in its column in the instance that the election is close. These must-have seats must also be contested by diehard candidates. That said, I doubt that Mr McCartney will be punished and relocated to contest another constituency.
When former Bamboo Town MP Tennyson Wells initially broke ranks with the FNM/PM Ingraham, the constituency association continued to support him as an independent. Mr Wells was shown that they stood with him, only to later part ways upon being won over by Mr McCartney's arrival and the realization that an independent could do little for the constituency.
As it regards Mr McCartney's possible succession to PM Ingraham as FNM leader, the issue of his ability to galvanize the voters across the political spectrum to vote for the party must also be taken into account. Moreover, if history serves as precedent, future leadership challengers within the major parties may also need the blessings of previous leaders--as seems to be the norm in the Bahamas. Will Mr McCartney earn Mr Ingraham's support, particularly as Dr Duane Sands is slated to eventually become the next FNM leader?
Before the arrival of Mr Ingraham, the FNM was viewed as the elitist, Republican Party of the Bahamas. Since then, Mr Ingraham's leadership has increased support for the party across the electoral spectrum. As PM Ingraham seeks to close an illustrious political career, it remains obvious that the FNM has yet to find homegrown talent to become a true leader-Prime Minister material. Will Bran McCartney be that man?
March 11, 2010
tribune242
ajbahama@hotmail.com:
FORMER Minister of State for Immigration Branville McCartney's resignation is being seen as a political rebellion in certain quarters of the FNM, as attack dogs and a number of disgruntled, diehard FNMs are having fits of hysteria and are already hurling scurrilous and cheap potshots from behind the curtain of anonymity. From this week on, Mr McCartney will be wading through a political minefield.
Throughout the Bahamas, Bran McCartney is heralded as a hard worker, a young man who understands the true purpose of parliamentary representation of his constituents. The former minister's genuine concern for the nation's youth was on display last November in a speech and subsequent question and answer session given during a class I lectured at the College of the Bahamas.
Admittedly, Mr McCartney's resignation from Cabinet, while serving as a first-term junior Cabinet Minister and parliamentarian has led to comparisons to bumbling former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin who herself resigned before serving a single, full-term. All-in-all, however, Bran McCartney is not the divisive figure and calamitous Jane that Sarah Palin has turned out to be.
Bran McCartney's resignation on his personal convictions, shows that he has the kahunas to stand up for his beliefs whatever they might be and this might, in the long run, catapult him to the top of the leadership totem pole as Prime Minister and FNM leader Hubert Ingraham's successor while--in time--potentially also earning the PM's admiration.
Mr Ingraham has not said anything disparaging about Mr McCartney and he appears to be such an astute politician that amidst all the political brouhaha, he is focused enough to direct his attention upon the PLP's election court challenge and other issues instead of being found to be in open combat with the very popular Mr McCartney.
Dr Dexter Johnson, lawyer and medical doctor, addressed Mr McCartney's resignation and potential leadership of the FNM stating:
"In a situation with two exhausted leaders, the focus must be upon a replacement. The recent by-election and debate served to heighten the profile of potentially new leaders. The pretenders in the PLP and FNM are obtaining zero mileage at this time. The system of the past is not bringing the best leaders forward.
"The change in the immigration ministry's policies had put Mr McCartney in park--indefinitely. If he crosses the floor, the Ingraham administration would fall," he asserted.
Dr Johnson went on:
"Mr McCartney would be a welcome addition to a third party. His arrival would immediately catapult a third party into the political stratosphere and could be a platform to show his uninhibited vision. His arrival would immediately make a third party a contender as it would have a credible Parliamentary voice."
It seems highly unlikely that, even after submitting his resignation, Mr McCartney would cross the floor.
The timing of the former junior minister's resignation may be of concern to some, particularly as it follows an extremely acrimonious Elizabeth by-election campaign and has led to overarching concerns about his political plans, especially how his resignation--with the FNM in a seemingly precarious state--could affect his aspirations for leadership.
Frankly, in the wake of a closely-contested, yet undeclared by-election, the FNM must be uncertain of exactly what the electorate thinks and whether public apathy is directed towards the party and its governance. While Mr McCartney's resignation has reverberated throughout the archipelago, his resignation would have been more resonant had it been submitted immediately after the Prime Minister decided to temporarily grant status to the Haitian migrants housed at the Detention Centre following the catastrophic earthquake in Port-au-Prince. At that time, the PM's decision to release the Haitians-- even with temporary status -- was met with a chorus of dissent and questions about its legality as local radio talk shows were bombarded by livid callers. Indeed, there is a paralyzing fog of disbelief and outright cynicism being expressed in some quarters about the Prime Minister's decision. It has been alleged that Mr McCartney was not consulted and felt that it was a usurping of his power and authority as Minister of State in-charge of the Department of Immigration.
It has also been alleged that Mr McCartney had a running feud with substantive minister and DPM Brent Symonette, who some contend may have sought to tie his hands on certain immigration matters.
Indeed, while questions run rife about whether the Bamboo Town MP's resignation will further cripple the FNM in terms of its support, I believe that he is a chap with the gravitas to stand against the grain. However, diehard FNM supporters, despite their belief that he possesses leadership qualities, may be more concerned about party over self--irrespective of how principled one might be. Although Mr McCartney has exhibited the attributes, abilities and intellect that are commendable traits to propel him to leadership as opposed to an aptitude to simply be a sycophant complying with political dictates, today, even the slightest misstep could lead to another man (McCartney) who would-be "king" being permanently ushered out of the throne room.
Are the voting delegates and council members willing to view an individual's abilities or, at the end of the day, will party supersede any principle that a person holds?
It is my belief that when Charles Maynard--who is not seen as the brightest spark in the Cabinet--was appointed the substantive Minister of Youth, Sports and Culture after a abysmal performance as a junior minister, Mr McCartney possibly felt snubbed.
Sources assert that the former state minister believed himself to have been overlooked and cast aside.
Furthermore, unlike certain members of the current and past Cabinets, Mr McCartney is not overly dependent upon a Cabinet job, as he has publicly admitted to being independent, financially secure and to have used his ministerial salary in the constituency.
After the dust settles in Elizabeth, it is said by certain FNM insiders that McCartney could be displaced. If Elizabeth serves as a catalyst for what 2012 holds, there will then be a strategic plan for counting seats within both of the major parties, with each party distinguishing the seats that are must-haves in its column in the instance that the election is close. These must-have seats must also be contested by diehard candidates. That said, I doubt that Mr McCartney will be punished and relocated to contest another constituency.
When former Bamboo Town MP Tennyson Wells initially broke ranks with the FNM/PM Ingraham, the constituency association continued to support him as an independent. Mr Wells was shown that they stood with him, only to later part ways upon being won over by Mr McCartney's arrival and the realization that an independent could do little for the constituency.
As it regards Mr McCartney's possible succession to PM Ingraham as FNM leader, the issue of his ability to galvanize the voters across the political spectrum to vote for the party must also be taken into account. Moreover, if history serves as precedent, future leadership challengers within the major parties may also need the blessings of previous leaders--as seems to be the norm in the Bahamas. Will Mr McCartney earn Mr Ingraham's support, particularly as Dr Duane Sands is slated to eventually become the next FNM leader?
Before the arrival of Mr Ingraham, the FNM was viewed as the elitist, Republican Party of the Bahamas. Since then, Mr Ingraham's leadership has increased support for the party across the electoral spectrum. As PM Ingraham seeks to close an illustrious political career, it remains obvious that the FNM has yet to find homegrown talent to become a true leader-Prime Minister material. Will Bran McCartney be that man?
March 11, 2010
tribune242
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Tommy Turnquest: New voter register to start in April
By Candia Dames ~ Guardian News Editor ~ candia@nasguard.com:
The government is preparing to start a new voter register, and plans to use the latest technology to help ensure that mistakes that arose on the register used for the 2007 general election are kept at an irreducible minimum, according to Tommy Turnquest, the minister responsible for parliamentary elections.
Turnquest said the government will begin a new register in April.
"We will like to ensure that a new register of voters is compiled, one that would show that persons are where they say they live," he said.
The process for a new register will be the first since Election Court judges said two years ago that the Pinewood challenge had exposed "the most egregious failures in the parliamentary system."
That ruling was handed down by Senior Justice Anita Allen and now Senior Justice Jon Isaacs.
At the time of the controversial Pinewood matter, the judges said, "The parliamentary commissioner failed, for whatever reason, to ensure the integrity of the registration process in Pinewood."
Turnquest said the Parliamentary Registration Department will be given the time and resources it needs to do its work right.
"The reason why we want to start early is so that we have sufficient time to ensure that all those potential errors are eliminated to the maximum extent possible," he said.
Turnquest said the department will engage in intense cross checking in its efforts to cut back on mistakes on the new register. He said this attention to detail was evident in the department's work leading up to the February 16 by-election in Elizabeth.
"I think that as a result of what they did, as a result of what the political parties did, a large number of persons who no longer live in Elizabeth didn't show up," he said.
Commenting on the importance of giving the department enough time and resources to do its work, the minister said, "There's nothing more important than having free and fair elections in a democracy. It doesn't matter who you vote for, but it has to be one person, one vote, that you are supposed to vote where you live and only where you live."
As noted previously by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, Turnquest said it is the primary duty of the prime minister to ensure a clean register and to have free and fair elections.
"And he intends to do so," Turnquest said. "As his minister responsible, it is my duty to ensure that's carried out."
Ingraham said repeatedly during the lead up to and after the recent by-election that whatever is wrong with the current register is the fault of former prime minister Perry Christie.
While stressing that he does not wish to offer any public commentary on what the Election Court judges said in the Pinewood ruling, Turnquest said yesterday he thought it was unfortunate that Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel did not have an opportunity to tell his side of the story during the Pinewood case.
"I try not to comment on decisions of the court for obvious reasons, but I thought the parliamentary commissioner ought to have been given an opportunity to put his position with regard to some of the errors associated with the last general election," the minister said.
"The Parliamentary Elections Act and our constitution accords for a Boundaries Commission that is supposed to meet every five years and is supposed to present a report to Parliament, and that is supposed to be done in sufficient time to allow any changes that have to take place... Unfortunately, prior to the last general election in May 2007, the boundaries report wasn't concluded until the beginning of April, and so they had very little time to make changes and get cards back to persons and have all of that before the May elections."
Turnquest said that as a result many people found themselves registered in the wrong polling divisions and in the wrong constituency.
"And so, I thought it somewhat unfair to chastise the parliamentary commissioner without taking it further to find the root of the problem, and we're going to ensure that at least the root is taken care of this time by making sure that we do it in sufficient time and that the parliamentary commissioner and his staff will have sufficient time to ensure that the register is clean."
Wednesday 10, 2010
thenassauguardian
The government is preparing to start a new voter register, and plans to use the latest technology to help ensure that mistakes that arose on the register used for the 2007 general election are kept at an irreducible minimum, according to Tommy Turnquest, the minister responsible for parliamentary elections.
Turnquest said the government will begin a new register in April.
"We will like to ensure that a new register of voters is compiled, one that would show that persons are where they say they live," he said.
The process for a new register will be the first since Election Court judges said two years ago that the Pinewood challenge had exposed "the most egregious failures in the parliamentary system."
That ruling was handed down by Senior Justice Anita Allen and now Senior Justice Jon Isaacs.
At the time of the controversial Pinewood matter, the judges said, "The parliamentary commissioner failed, for whatever reason, to ensure the integrity of the registration process in Pinewood."
Turnquest said the Parliamentary Registration Department will be given the time and resources it needs to do its work right.
"The reason why we want to start early is so that we have sufficient time to ensure that all those potential errors are eliminated to the maximum extent possible," he said.
Turnquest said the department will engage in intense cross checking in its efforts to cut back on mistakes on the new register. He said this attention to detail was evident in the department's work leading up to the February 16 by-election in Elizabeth.
"I think that as a result of what they did, as a result of what the political parties did, a large number of persons who no longer live in Elizabeth didn't show up," he said.
Commenting on the importance of giving the department enough time and resources to do its work, the minister said, "There's nothing more important than having free and fair elections in a democracy. It doesn't matter who you vote for, but it has to be one person, one vote, that you are supposed to vote where you live and only where you live."
As noted previously by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, Turnquest said it is the primary duty of the prime minister to ensure a clean register and to have free and fair elections.
"And he intends to do so," Turnquest said. "As his minister responsible, it is my duty to ensure that's carried out."
Ingraham said repeatedly during the lead up to and after the recent by-election that whatever is wrong with the current register is the fault of former prime minister Perry Christie.
While stressing that he does not wish to offer any public commentary on what the Election Court judges said in the Pinewood ruling, Turnquest said yesterday he thought it was unfortunate that Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel did not have an opportunity to tell his side of the story during the Pinewood case.
"I try not to comment on decisions of the court for obvious reasons, but I thought the parliamentary commissioner ought to have been given an opportunity to put his position with regard to some of the errors associated with the last general election," the minister said.
"The Parliamentary Elections Act and our constitution accords for a Boundaries Commission that is supposed to meet every five years and is supposed to present a report to Parliament, and that is supposed to be done in sufficient time to allow any changes that have to take place... Unfortunately, prior to the last general election in May 2007, the boundaries report wasn't concluded until the beginning of April, and so they had very little time to make changes and get cards back to persons and have all of that before the May elections."
Turnquest said that as a result many people found themselves registered in the wrong polling divisions and in the wrong constituency.
"And so, I thought it somewhat unfair to chastise the parliamentary commissioner without taking it further to find the root of the problem, and we're going to ensure that at least the root is taken care of this time by making sure that we do it in sufficient time and that the parliamentary commissioner and his staff will have sufficient time to ensure that the register is clean."
Wednesday 10, 2010
thenassauguardian
Monday, March 8, 2010
Bahamian history repeats itself in Jamaica
Tribune242 Editorial:
"WE'RE going through very stressful times," a leading Jamaican businessman admitted yesterday as the government of Jamaica and the United States were locked in judicial debate over one of that island's well known "dons" -- "The President of Tivoli", or in real life, Christopher "Dudus" Coke.
Coke controls Tivoli, Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding's constituency. There are those who maintain that it is Coke who keeps peace in Tivoli, and if it were not for him Golding would not be where he is today.
The US's request for Dudus' extradition on a long list of gun and drug trafficking charges sent shock waves through Jamaica. For the past three weeks the Jamaican government has refused the request.
Prime Minister Golding is resisting extradition on the grounds that under Jamaican law the acquisition of the evidence against the Tivoli don, which supports the extradition request, violates the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act. And so, at present, the US request cannot go before a Jamaican court until the Attorney General signs the order. Prime Minister Golding says the attorney general has a "duty to protect the constitutional rights of Coke and not extradite him."
Many Jamaicans question the delay. Some say government should get it before the courts and let the courts make the final decision. But until the attorney general signs, nothing moves forward.
In a sharply worded exchange the State Department said the delays in the Coke case, in addition to the temporary suspension in processing of all other pending requests, raised "serious questions" about the Jamaican Government's commitment to combating transnational crime.
There is even talk in Jamaica that the US law enforcement agents could kidnap Coke and put him before a US court. Apparently, there is no clause in the existing extradition treaty between Jamaica and the US to prevent it. But there is certainly precedent for it. In 1992 US agents kidnapped Alvarez Machain, wanted for kidnapping and murder, from his Mexico home and took him to the US.
Also causing further confusion is the sudden suspension last week of the US visa of another leading Jamaican citizen -- Wayne Chen. The Jamaican government claims that his visa has nothing to do with the Coke case, which has started speculation down another path. Mr Chen is still without his visa.
Many Jamaicans worry that they have been without a US ambassador for a year and three months -- "never before in living memory has that happened," said a citizen in pained surprise.
Which takes us back to the ugly eighties in the Bahamas during Ronald Reagan's administration when this nation had no ambassador for two years. And, yes, drugs was the evil nematode at the bottom of it all.
("Nematode", a favourite word of former attorney general Paul Adderley. In one of his flights of verbal fancy on the floor of the House he called a Tribune reporter a "nematode". However, we think the word better suited to the world of crime than to a reporter trying to do an honest job of reporting during a corrupt era).
During that period the Bahamas-US relations were conducted by US Chargé d'Affaires Andrew Antippas. This situation continued for two years until an ambassador was finally appointed. The Pindling government did not approve of Antippas, nor did Antippas approve of what was happening in the Bahamas on the drug scene. On the eventual arrival of the ambassador, Mr Antippas became the Deputy Chief of Mission. However, the Pindling administration made certain that he did not hold that position for long. They made life so difficult for the Antippases that in order to patch up relations the new ambassador -- a non career diplomat -- had to dismiss Mr Antippas so that "good friends who occasionally disagree" could start to mend fences.
But in 1988, Mr Antippas had the last word. He agreed to testify in the trial of Colombian Joe Lehder who had a free pass to Norman's Cay under the Pindling administration. Norman's Cay became the headquarters of Lehder's drug empire. And Andrew Antippas told the story of how he had to advise the US property owners to abandon their properties and leave the island because the US Embassy could no longer give them protection in the Bahamas.
"I testified to all that I had tried to accomplish against Lehder and the Bahamas' unwillingness to cooperate and that really blew a fuse in Nassau," Mr Antippas told the world.
The same fuse is now being blown in Jamaica. Dudus Coke might as well go quietly, as go he will, dragging Jamaica's reputation in the mud behind him.
March 08, 2010
tribune242
"WE'RE going through very stressful times," a leading Jamaican businessman admitted yesterday as the government of Jamaica and the United States were locked in judicial debate over one of that island's well known "dons" -- "The President of Tivoli", or in real life, Christopher "Dudus" Coke.
Coke controls Tivoli, Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding's constituency. There are those who maintain that it is Coke who keeps peace in Tivoli, and if it were not for him Golding would not be where he is today.
The US's request for Dudus' extradition on a long list of gun and drug trafficking charges sent shock waves through Jamaica. For the past three weeks the Jamaican government has refused the request.
Prime Minister Golding is resisting extradition on the grounds that under Jamaican law the acquisition of the evidence against the Tivoli don, which supports the extradition request, violates the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act. And so, at present, the US request cannot go before a Jamaican court until the Attorney General signs the order. Prime Minister Golding says the attorney general has a "duty to protect the constitutional rights of Coke and not extradite him."
Many Jamaicans question the delay. Some say government should get it before the courts and let the courts make the final decision. But until the attorney general signs, nothing moves forward.
In a sharply worded exchange the State Department said the delays in the Coke case, in addition to the temporary suspension in processing of all other pending requests, raised "serious questions" about the Jamaican Government's commitment to combating transnational crime.
There is even talk in Jamaica that the US law enforcement agents could kidnap Coke and put him before a US court. Apparently, there is no clause in the existing extradition treaty between Jamaica and the US to prevent it. But there is certainly precedent for it. In 1992 US agents kidnapped Alvarez Machain, wanted for kidnapping and murder, from his Mexico home and took him to the US.
Also causing further confusion is the sudden suspension last week of the US visa of another leading Jamaican citizen -- Wayne Chen. The Jamaican government claims that his visa has nothing to do with the Coke case, which has started speculation down another path. Mr Chen is still without his visa.
Many Jamaicans worry that they have been without a US ambassador for a year and three months -- "never before in living memory has that happened," said a citizen in pained surprise.
Which takes us back to the ugly eighties in the Bahamas during Ronald Reagan's administration when this nation had no ambassador for two years. And, yes, drugs was the evil nematode at the bottom of it all.
("Nematode", a favourite word of former attorney general Paul Adderley. In one of his flights of verbal fancy on the floor of the House he called a Tribune reporter a "nematode". However, we think the word better suited to the world of crime than to a reporter trying to do an honest job of reporting during a corrupt era).
During that period the Bahamas-US relations were conducted by US Chargé d'Affaires Andrew Antippas. This situation continued for two years until an ambassador was finally appointed. The Pindling government did not approve of Antippas, nor did Antippas approve of what was happening in the Bahamas on the drug scene. On the eventual arrival of the ambassador, Mr Antippas became the Deputy Chief of Mission. However, the Pindling administration made certain that he did not hold that position for long. They made life so difficult for the Antippases that in order to patch up relations the new ambassador -- a non career diplomat -- had to dismiss Mr Antippas so that "good friends who occasionally disagree" could start to mend fences.
But in 1988, Mr Antippas had the last word. He agreed to testify in the trial of Colombian Joe Lehder who had a free pass to Norman's Cay under the Pindling administration. Norman's Cay became the headquarters of Lehder's drug empire. And Andrew Antippas told the story of how he had to advise the US property owners to abandon their properties and leave the island because the US Embassy could no longer give them protection in the Bahamas.
"I testified to all that I had tried to accomplish against Lehder and the Bahamas' unwillingness to cooperate and that really blew a fuse in Nassau," Mr Antippas told the world.
The same fuse is now being blown in Jamaica. Dudus Coke might as well go quietly, as go he will, dragging Jamaica's reputation in the mud behind him.
March 08, 2010
tribune242
Friday, March 5, 2010
Branville McCartney’s Master Political Stroke
By Dennis Dames:
The resignation of Branville McCartney as junior minister of immigration in the Ingraham cabinet has created a lot of intense political talk around the town. It was a master political stroke that the public welcomes and appreciates – in my view.
The move has shown up the political weaknesses and complacency of the likes of Zhavargo Laing, Tommy Turnquest, Carl Bethel, and other young but politically sluggish FNMs – who appear strictly comfortable with a good and prestigious job, and clearly lack the political ambition and vision necessary to keep the torch of a young generation burning with robust confidence and anticipation.
They have long forgotten one of the chief planks in the FNM propaganda campaign prior to the 1992 general election. It was term limits for a prime minister and party leader. We did not want Pindling to reign for life; nor do we want Ingraham to do the same. We demand a system that promotes political competition, and dynamic and progressive leadership. We do not believe that two Bahamian women have born one leader each that are exclusively capable of leading the affairs of our nation.
Mr. McCartney is in tuned with the status quo – that is ready for a new and prosperous brand of politics in The Bahamas. Hubert Ingraham and his PLP counterpart – Perry Christie - are expired products lingering unattractively on the Bahamian political shelf. They have become trite in the eyes of the people who long for a new era of political leadership and direction.
Brad McCartney has essentially said: Here I am, send me! He has signaled his interest in becoming leader of the FNM in short order. He has put his dull colleagues on the spot, and has told the masses that he is not interested in being a friendly neighborhood yes-man who is prepared to go with the unpopular flow of political window dressing and shameless underhandedness from the top.
Branville McCartney represents a new breed of politicians in The Bahamas - who are eager to serve the people with a progressively ambitious and productive agenda. He appears ready to tackle the vexing illegal immigration issue that has plagued The Bahamas for decades and even to this day – for example.
He looks ready to change the bureaucratically uncreative business as usual mentality in government, and replace it with an administration for and by the people. Brad McCartney is a budding leader who has challenged an old order in Bahamian politics that seems determined to enforce its detested will on an electorate longing for change that they really can believe in.
The resignation of Branville McCartney has a lasting impact on modern Bahamian politics. It signals a revolution in the making in the national political landscape.
It is hoped that Mr. McCartney would not relent in his drive for higher political office and social, economic, and political deliverance for a deserving people; as doing so will only result in a serious political backlash – like that of Algernon Allen when he turned thousands on to his one man game on the R.M Bailey Park some years back – then he bucked under heavy political pressure and returned shamelessly to his vomit. The rest is hard-to-swallow history.
Only time will reveal the genuineness of Mr. McCartney’s recent decision. The masses are watching with buoyant enthusiasm, and optimism. It is worth taking this matter sincerely Mr. McCartney, or the political exit heartlessly awaits you.
Bahamas Blog International
The resignation of Branville McCartney as junior minister of immigration in the Ingraham cabinet has created a lot of intense political talk around the town. It was a master political stroke that the public welcomes and appreciates – in my view.
The move has shown up the political weaknesses and complacency of the likes of Zhavargo Laing, Tommy Turnquest, Carl Bethel, and other young but politically sluggish FNMs – who appear strictly comfortable with a good and prestigious job, and clearly lack the political ambition and vision necessary to keep the torch of a young generation burning with robust confidence and anticipation.
They have long forgotten one of the chief planks in the FNM propaganda campaign prior to the 1992 general election. It was term limits for a prime minister and party leader. We did not want Pindling to reign for life; nor do we want Ingraham to do the same. We demand a system that promotes political competition, and dynamic and progressive leadership. We do not believe that two Bahamian women have born one leader each that are exclusively capable of leading the affairs of our nation.
Mr. McCartney is in tuned with the status quo – that is ready for a new and prosperous brand of politics in The Bahamas. Hubert Ingraham and his PLP counterpart – Perry Christie - are expired products lingering unattractively on the Bahamian political shelf. They have become trite in the eyes of the people who long for a new era of political leadership and direction.
Brad McCartney has essentially said: Here I am, send me! He has signaled his interest in becoming leader of the FNM in short order. He has put his dull colleagues on the spot, and has told the masses that he is not interested in being a friendly neighborhood yes-man who is prepared to go with the unpopular flow of political window dressing and shameless underhandedness from the top.
Branville McCartney represents a new breed of politicians in The Bahamas - who are eager to serve the people with a progressively ambitious and productive agenda. He appears ready to tackle the vexing illegal immigration issue that has plagued The Bahamas for decades and even to this day – for example.
He looks ready to change the bureaucratically uncreative business as usual mentality in government, and replace it with an administration for and by the people. Brad McCartney is a budding leader who has challenged an old order in Bahamian politics that seems determined to enforce its detested will on an electorate longing for change that they really can believe in.
The resignation of Branville McCartney has a lasting impact on modern Bahamian politics. It signals a revolution in the making in the national political landscape.
It is hoped that Mr. McCartney would not relent in his drive for higher political office and social, economic, and political deliverance for a deserving people; as doing so will only result in a serious political backlash – like that of Algernon Allen when he turned thousands on to his one man game on the R.M Bailey Park some years back – then he bucked under heavy political pressure and returned shamelessly to his vomit. The rest is hard-to-swallow history.
Only time will reveal the genuineness of Mr. McCartney’s recent decision. The masses are watching with buoyant enthusiasm, and optimism. It is worth taking this matter sincerely Mr. McCartney, or the political exit heartlessly awaits you.
Bahamas Blog International
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)