Someone Get This Man A Spine!

It seems that Ms. Cox's lack of spine as Finance Minister has spread (or perhaps jumped) to our Transport Minister Terry Liste. Despite a good portion seemingly in favour of Government standing up to the BIU they have backed down, reinstated the man who's firing caused the whole thing AND agreed to pay the drivers for the shift they missed on strike on Thursday. It is absolutely ridiculous!

The only thing more ridiculous is Mr. Lister's attempt to explain himself.

On why the legal avenue was not taken he said:

“The decision was on us. We were in the position where we would have started taking bus drivers and putting them in front of the courts. An individual was wrong but a 100 people in front of a judge? Sometimes you have to think for yourself and sometimes you have to think about other people.”

Which amounts to as much as saying that he didn't want to inconvenience the bus drivers who had just walked out on strike for no good reason. Lets be honest here, the BIU is PLP constituency and he didn't want to piss off his party's die hard voters, he might as well admit it.

On whether this sets a worrying precedent he said:

“That precedent is a risk and something Cabinet will have to make a decision on, when we go forward.”

Well ladies and gentlemen there you have it, prime 100% politrick. Talk a lot and say a little. I'll answer the question for him, yes and no. It didn't set the precedent because that was already there, he has simply added to it.

On why Government had done exactly the opposite of what the people wanted (Democracy at work right?):

“valid to ask, and a question that must be put to the Government as a whole”

Translated: We have no excuse, please don't ever ask us this question again.

And finally:

“For us to have to endure a full frontal assault and win, we would only have won against a strike. We would not have won the hearts and minds. Right now is not the time to have a disgruntled team.”

A disgruntled team? What team is that exactly? Is it perhaps the PLP base that he is talking about? It certainly seems that way to me. So what we have here is nothing more than putting shameless politics ahead of principles and what is actually good for the country. Letting the BIU have/do whatever it wants is not good for Bermuda, we need a government that will knock them down a few levels.

I'm no anti-union man, all labour has the right to organize itself and fight for its rights and better conditions, but there is such thing as a union that is too powerful. The BIU is one such union and until its deflated a bit I have a feeling that this with happen again and again.

The Right Move

While not officially confirmed by the two parties, sources from the BDA and UBP have apparently reported to the Royal Gazette that there is a merge in their future.

A number of things would be necessary if such a merge were to be successful: A new leader who is both well respected and well spoken, the new post-merge party would require such a leader to allow it to define itself and not be defined as the New-BP by the PLP as the BDA was; A new structure, somewhere in between the openness of the BDA and the traditional structure of the UBP; A clear statement (or re-statement) of the political views of the party, to avoid the disaster that was the launch of the BDA; And finally (as much as I hate to admit it) potentially a new name, I'm completely opposed in principle to a change in name, but if that's what it would take to make the new party a viable choice for future government then that's what needs to be done.

It will be very interesting to get more information as this situation develops, but I think that it is certainly a positive development.

I Just Don't Understand

How can this:

"Commodities broker Seaboard Overseas Ltd is to close its Bermuda office with loss of 12 jobs.

The Royal Gazette understands that the operation will be relocated to the Isle of Man, following the closure of the Bermuda office on April 30.

The posts to go are held by seven Bermudians and five expatriates. The company, which is based in Schroders House, on Front Street, has had a presence on the Island for some three decades... A source with knowledge of the situation said the decision to relocate was taken for a number of reasons, including the rising cost of doing business, the restrictions imposed by work permit time limits and the comparative advantages of the Isle of Man",

and this:

"The Progressive Labour Party now has more support than at any time since winning the 2007 general election, according to a new poll"

be in the newspaper on the exact same day?

I have written previously that I'm completely in favour of giving Paula Cox a chance to prove herself as Premier, but the Progressive Labour Party has been in power for over a decade now. When does Bermuda put its foot down and say they've had long enough to prove themselves?

Reform? Ha!

Straight from the horse's mouth:

"Out of a commitment to putting Teaching and Learning at the forefront of the Ministry of Education's mission, Minister Dame Jennifer Smith announced more education reform on Friday

Dame Jennifer reassigned Mrs. Wendy McDonnell, former Commissioner of Education. Mrs. McDonnell will no longer focus on day to day operations. She will now lead the transformation of the Bermuda Public School System"

Are you as underwhelmed as I am?

One day there will be meaningful education reform





I hope.

Dr. Eva Hodgson Speaks About Race

Some people really are stuck in the past.

Every community has a men and women who insist on framing the modern world in the thinking of a time now passed. In Bermuda one such a person is Dr. Eva Hodgson. I intend no criticism of her personally, but I must admit there was palm-to-face action as I read her recent two part opinion piece in the Royal Gazette.

As far I can tell her point was twofold. Firstly that more needs to be done to combat the racism that she believes still exists in Bermuda and secondly that Bermuda needs to abandon the party system. On both counts I disagree..

On the first suggestion, that not enough is being done to combat racism Dr. Hodgson has a number of arguments which she unfortunately begins with the suggestion that:

"All whites benefited from the system even if they were neither employers nor politicians."

 Which unfortunately is neither true, nor helpful in combating the racial divisions in our society.

Let us take as an example to illustrate why that statement is not true whites who have immigrated from Eastern Europe since the end of slavery, they certainly weren't benefiting from the racist system of the 60s were they? Nor were the Irish, many of whom were only just getting out of poverty themselves after centuries of subjugation under the English.

Sentiments like that, which stereotype on the basis of race (i.e. are examples of racism), simply make it easier for certain people to adopt a "whites are bad" or "whites are out to get me" kind of mentality which, in turn, make it harder to tackle the disparities between the races and stoke racial tensions. It is through no malice that Dr. Hodgson makes that statement though, that I am sure. Her intentions are undoubtedly good, the problem is that she seems unable to widen her focus from anything, but race.

Let us examine the various examples of seeming preoccupation with race in the piece:

She says of the situation following universal suffrage:

"it was logical that the black Community would now wish to ensure that they had a majority of those who would represent their majority status and their interest among the decision makers."

Which is an understandable sentiment of that time.

Dr. Hodgson further comments on the racial make up of our legislature in lamenting the split in the PLP which:

"Reduced the number of blacks in Parliament." 

In both these statements we see one suggestion that is constant: that the colour of a politician trumps all, even looking back from today.Had this been presented in a "this was what the thinking was like then" way there would be no disagreement from me, but Dr. Hodgson seems to suggest she holds that view even now. I am sure it is self evident that basing a political decision on race is a bad idea, so I will simply leave it at that as an example of her unfailing focus on race.

It doesn't stop at politicians though. Dr. Hodgson also says:

"It also meant that as well intentioned blacks set their mind on positive social goals those goals became integration with whites and not justice for all blacks.

The general idea, that justice is more important than integration, is an interesting one. On the surface it seems reasonable, but when one actually considers what integration means it becomes significantly less rational sounding. Integration means, essentially, that race is irrelevant (because everyone lives and works together regardless) and that one is judged on the content of one's character, rather than on the colour of one's skin. If that isn't justice then I don't know what is. Leading civil rights activists have dreamed of such a world throughout the struggle, how strange now that Dr. Hodgson should decide that apparently it shouldn't be our priority. Apparently wide spread racial discrimination is still possible, even when race is no longer relevant in the decision making process of the majority of people! Go figure! When we remember Dr. Hodgson's borderline obsession with race it is no surprise that this argument is made, but once again the intentions are good. The only problem is that her obsession blinds her to reality.

As I have argued before, the disparities in income between the races now have little or nothing to do with race any more. If we imagined that everyone in Bermuda woke up tomorrow and found themselves coloured purple what would change? Would the next generation of purple people porn to those on or near the poverty line (many of whom were previously black) have it any easier than their parents? Or would the poverty trap prove itself just as inescapable in Bermuda as in other countries? I would hazard a guess that the poverty trap would be just as strong and the poor would stay poor, while the rich stayed rich. I.e. it is socioeconomic status, not race that causes the continuing disparity. Of course the origin of the problem is indeed race, but that is no longer what perpetuates it. We have two options:

• Large scale re-distribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor so that everyone ends up equal
• Improving education/support for our youth so as to ensure that anyone who has the skills and the drive will succeed.

I know which one I prefer. What about Ms. Hodgson?

Neither! In fact there is only one thing that needs to be said about this topic according to Ms. Hodgson:

"Many of us have been angered by both the resistance and the dishonesty of the white community over the issue of the Equity Bill and the disparity between black and white salaries"

Ahh.. of course.. The implication that those who oppose it, oppose it because they're white, while any true black would support it.. That's constructive and, as usual, shows her inability to move beyond race.

In case we needed another example:

"even be occasions when some of those who are now white UBPers would agree with some of those who are now black PLPers"

 Goodness gracious I don't believe my eyes! A UBP supporter agreeing with a PLP supporter! Surely no!

Well firstly don't call me Surely (R.I.P.) and secondly don't overstate the level of racism in society. The UBP has been shown to have around a 50-50 black-white support base and from what I can tell the majority disagree with the PLP not because it has a lot of black people in it, but because they seriously believe it is taking the country in the wrong direction.

There was a time when race was the defining characteristic of a person and when it was necessary to take it into account when making decisions on how to better the country because that was how society worked and the only way to correct for society's obsession with race was to push back equally hard. However that time has passed, the majority of us no longer think in terms of black and white and I genuinely believe that the majority of employers in IB are no different. To continue to think in terms of black and white puts us at risk of ignoring the realities and problems of today in favour or assuming they are the same as yesterday. Dr. Hodgson correctly suggests that economic disparity and the existence of an underclass is a major problem in our society, but she illustrates my point in that the only cause she can conceive of is race. As good as her intentions are she is no better than the racists of old, both shared the same obsession with race. The legal guarantees of equality have all been won an it is now time to put race to bed. Our future, as much as even its mention causes anger in some sectors of the community, is colour blindness. I believe it's possible.

But perhaps thats just wishful thinking?

A Step Forward And More Of The Same

Our new Premier just won a a little bit more respect from me.

Ms. Cox has announced that she has terminated the bodyguards that her Predecessor insisted on through some strange mix of egotism and paranoid. She rightly points out that no other leader in the Caribbean (except that criminal Misick) had bodyguards before Dr. Brown and has not only saved us the money previously wasted on protecting something that wasn't in danger, but also removed a symbolic barrier between the Premier and the people she is supposed to represent. For both of those reasons she is to be applauded.

On a less positive note, it seems like the hope that Rolfe Commissiong would get the boot from his high paid consultancy, considering that his main achievement thus far has been to create racial tension and infuriate large portions of the population., was only wishful thinking. He has been kept on to implement the recommendations of the Mincy Report despite the fact that, as far as I can see, he has no relevant qualifications or experience.

It is completely possible that there is a legitimate reason for his continued employment, but good luck ever finding out either way. Ms. Cox's commitment to transparency apparently ends as soon as anything involving Mr. Commissiong begins since she has refused to even release what his actual responsibilities are (something that one would assume the public has a right to know). Let's hope that this is an exception to how she will conduct herself as Premier, but exception or not it is unacceptable that our money is being spent on something we are apparently not allowed to know about. When will the Government realize that the money they're spending isn't theirs? It's ours and we deserve it to be spent well and to be spent openly, I won't hold my breath though. That's nothing more than wishful thinking.

The Senate

A re-post from a topic on BIAW found here

Should the Senate be an Elected house?

The issue really comes down to 2 questions as I see it:

• What is the senate's purpose?
• How can it best fulfill that purpose?

In answer to the first question I believe its purpose should be to advise and to balance the highly political nature of the House of Assembly. If we lived in a world where the electorate made purely rational choices it is my belief that we wouldn't need two chambers and that the only reason we have two right now is to attempt to mitigate some of the failings of democracy in reality. Ideally it would retain the restrictions it has now on its ability to delay legislation and specifically those relating to money bills.

The answer to the second question is a little more complicated. To me it seems that it is obvious that it must be a non-political entity (something that we come close to achieving by giving the Government the same number of senators as everyone else) comprised of highly educated professionals like lawyers, doctors and economists (people who can truly consider the implications and rationale behind legislation). On whether it is elected or not I find myself torn between conflicting ideas. On one hand the will of the people is the primary source of power in a democracy. On the other however, the whole purpose of the senate should be to avoid politics and emotion while focusing purely on the legal, financial, rational etc. basis for legislation which would be impossible if its very composition was based on the often emotional responses of the voting public. Thus I cannot decide between two possible options for a reformed senate:

Firstly, a purely appointed body. Appointed either by the governor or by a commission which was appointed by the governor in which members would sit for long terms (7-10 years perhaps) after which they could be appointed again but, would be an equal footing in the commissions considerations as all other potential candidates selected from the pool of professionals in the country.

Secondly, a body where 50% + 1 were appointed in the same manner as the first and the rest were elected through proportional representation.

I think I lean towards the first option because we already have a chamber that is completely elected but, I think either could work as well as the other.

A Glimmer Of Sense?

We could soon see Bermuda take a step into the 21st Century when it comes to Human Rights. 

The new Youth, Families and Community Development Minister Mr. Blakeney has announced that the government hopes to be in a position to move forward on guaranteeing protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation before the end of this session. A step forward that is long overdue.


I am slightly concerned about what Mr. Blakeney meant when he said: "without compromising the integrity or the moral fibre for some who might be concerned with regard to their particular spiritual and/or religious beliefs," despite my wish to give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially now that Laverne Furbert, who on record as saying "... show me where I ever said I was against equal rights for gays. What I have said consistently is that I would have a problem renting one of my apartments to an openly gay couple." and who has argued consistently that there should be protections for those who wish to make decisions based on the sexual preferences of others when it comes to things like renting apartments, has been appointed Senator, I worry that what we will get is not a firm enshrinement of a fundamental human right within the law but, rather a wishy washy half-arsed change, watered down in an attempt to pander to the Church. Of course I might be being unnecessarily cynical but, I think there is reason for being that way.

Perhaps hoping that they will do this right isn't just wishful thinking. Only time will tell.

Some Good News?

For once it seems I can write about something positive. How refreshing.

It would seem as though we are actually going to get a Park Hyatt Hotel up in St. Georges unless planning manages to turn the developers away even at this late stage. The need to redevelop our tourism product is well recognized by all people regardless of political belief and I'm sure everyone will see this as a positive step when/if it happens. You can't blame people for people being cynical about it though. We've been disappointed quite a few times before.

It's just a shame that this is the exception to business as usual with Dr. Brown.

The Cannabis Debate

Over the past few months we've had quite the back and forth (mostly between members of the PLP) in the news over the issue of whether there should be a new debate drug control. Whatever your views on this subject I think we can all accept that debating the issue is exactly what we need to do. When everything is on the table (as it always is after a full and robust debate) we can begin to make informed decisions about the future of drug control on the island, whether it be strengthening them, weakening them or adopting a completely different approach.

More recently the leader of the BDA has come out and spoken out against having such s debate and shared a heart wrenching story about what he and his family went through because of his fathers addiction to drug but, while that may provide a reason to argue against weakening controls it is irrelevant in the immediate question: Whether a debate should be held. While his views are understandable given his past he cannot let his personal feelings or even the feelings of the members of his party prevent a wider public debate.

If Only He Had A Chance

While Kim Swan's statements regarding the PLP leadership campaign will have no real impact on the race they do provide two positives in my opinion.

Firstly they help in some small way to fight the idea that some in the PLP seem to have that this campaign should be fought completely internally without the sunlight of wider public scrutiny. It promotes discussion on the points made both within the PLP (even if it is simply to slam down the points made and insult the point maker) and within the community as a whole. Since eventually the winner is going to be the premier of the entire country it can't hurt to discuss the candidates even if we have no actual voice in the selection process.

Secondly they give us an opportunity to gauge the way the candidates would interact with political opponents as Premier. We all know how Dr. Brown dealt with criticism from the opposition in the past and I think most people agree that the kind of petty fighting that it encouraged were bad for Bermuda as a whole. While we have yet to see Lister or Cox make any break from that style I found it very interesting that Butler responded to today's reported statement in this way: "As an astute Bermudian, we will take your wide ranging views into consideration as we reflect on action that is needed after all is said and done". That's something more than the usual Shut Up response that we have gotten used to and I can't help but respect Butler more for it.

With the incredibly divisive political landscape in Bermuda perhaps a Premier that can bring people closer together and promote cooperation is exactly what we need and Butler seems to be that kind of person. Unfortunately it seems Butler is a distant third with no chance which is a shame. Perhaps he could do some good as Deputy Premier?

How Pathetic

Part of Dr. Brown's statement in the house yesterday:

"However, we must be cautious with our Parliamentary privilege — we must speak the truth, and we must be careful not to stereotype what people can or cannot do based on their ethnicity or size."

Pot, Kettle, Black.

Woops, there I go playing the race card again.

PLP Attack Dog

Seems the PLP has released Burch upon the world for another edition of "Lunatic Rants From the Hilll", this time to slam perfectly legitimate criticisms of a rather poorly thought out law as driven by greed.

It really makes me wonder why we bother playing Parliament at all on this little island when clearly our supposedly Democratic Government takes criticism more like Kim Jong-il than Barack Obama. Which leads me on to another unrelated point that falls well under this title.

It seems they've unleashed their Blog to link the UBP and BDA with the American Republican party who opposed the stimulus because they criticized the government's repeated fiscal failure, completely missing the fact that much of the waste that contributes to our deficit has absolutely no benefits as far as our economy is concerned. A good portion of it heads off to foreign consultants and minister's hotel rooms. How they can argue that is helping Bermudians is beyond me.

This country needs a change and only the electorate can give it that. The only question is what state Bermuda will be in by the time the next election is called.

Something Different

As this is a blog about Bermuda I try to avoid things that aren't really relevant to Bermuda. I'll leave it to you to decide if I've broken that rule with this post.

I first heard of this story a week ago and have been following it since (in attempt to make myself feel better about the direction Bermuda is headed):

Texas schools to get controversial syllabus

Education officials in the US state of Texas have adopted new guidelines to the school curriculum, which critics say will politicise teaching... Critics say the changes are ideological and distort history. However, proponents argue they are redressing a liberal bias in education... But during the discussions some of the most controversial ideas were dropped - including a proposal to refer to the slave trade as the "Atlantic triangular trade"... Opponents of the changes worry that textbooks sold in other states will be written to comply with the new Texas standards, meaning that the alterations could have an impact on curriculums nationwide.

The full list of originally proposed changes were as follows:

• Referring to the slave trade as the "Atlantic triangular trade".
• Diminishing the role Thomas Jefferson and the idea of the Separation of State and Church
  
• Casting the United Nations in a critical light as a threat to sovereignty
  
• Promoting American ideals as beneficial for the world
  
• Emphasizing the role of religion in America's founding
• Promoting the superiority of the capitalist system
• Toning down criticism of McCarthyism

Now can anyone think of something more ironic than the nation that is supposed to be the shining light of democracy so obviously going down the road of the conservative indoctrination of children? I can't. Sure history is up to interpretation but... there's only so far you can take it and still preserve at least a semblance of objectivity.

The rest of the world is laughing at how absolutely ridiculous this is and the hypocrisy is incredible. In any other country it would have been laughed off as a complete joke, no one would have expected it to be serious and yet... America is another world too.

I wonder who else may want to rewrite history? Surely no one in Bermuda... that would be silly.

It Hits The Fan

It seems that it's really hit the fan over this Media Council Bill (Dubbed the Media Suppression Bill by Vexed), its gotten to the point where I'm losing track of the number of international organizations that have released damning condemnations of the bill. Those of us in the online community seem united in opposition as well.

To restate the reasons for the strong opposition to this bill is by now redundant and a waste of time and I hadn't intended to post again on the subject but, when unnamed government spokesmen clutter our newspapers with the absolute drivel that they've seen fit to grace us with this time it's hard not to address their attempt at a counter-argument.

First of all I must point out (as many others have) the irony of the use of unnamed spokesmen to defend a bill that seems set to be debated on the same day as the PATI legislation. Go figure. Then of course there's the question as to why the government use an unnamed spokesman in the first place. For a government that claims to have no intention but to protect the public interest and promote a free and fair media one would think they'd take reasonable steps to avoid creating the suspicion that the choice of spokesperson create but then again... It is Dr. Brown.

Unfortunately things only get more ridiculous from that point. Step one of the Government counterattack seems to be to discredit the international organizations that have expressed their concern (Hmm.. Where have I heard of governments doing that before?). What's most interesting is their strategy. They dismiss all but one of the organizations of having an inherent American slant which makes their concerns invalid because we're not America. The one they don't paint with that brush, The International Press Institute, which isn't based in America is dismissed with a suggestion that their spokesperson may be American. Yeah that's right. He may be American. Now if you live in the same Bermuda I live in then you will remember the various battles the Government has had with the Governor and the way Dr. Brown repeatedly takes shots at our "Colonial Masters" you wouldn't have dreamed that suddenly the Government would take a U-turn and begin extolling the correctness of the Governor's views (he believes that the Council would, in fact, be independent in its current form). Such is the political times we live in though. As soon as it becomes convenient the Government drops the attempts to portray us as closer to America with the UK and their representatives as our evil masters and turns around to dismiss experienced international press freedom organizations for being too American and begins using the UK appointed Governor's statements as proof of their point. Apparently it is completely acceptable for the Government to ignore not only the skills and reputations of some of the organizations but, to mislead the public as well because two of the organizations in question are actually related to the UK and have little/no ties to America (those two being the Commonwealth Press Union and the Press Complaints Commission which is the corresponding council in the UK). Lets have a look at some of the big names:

• The IPI

60 years of defending press freedom:
The International Press Institute is a global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists. We are dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom, the protection of freedom of opinion and expression, the promotion of the free flow of news and information, and the improvement of the practices of journalism.

• Commonwealth Press Union

The CPU Media Trust has been established to defend the interests of the Commonwealth media.

The Trust is committed to a professional, ethical and effective media across the Commonwealth. Its primary concerns are supporting media freedom and media rights, the training of journalists in the skills necessary for them to enable their work and a thorough understanding of media law and the establishment and support of self-regulatory bodies throughout the Commonwealth.

Groups with a purely American slant that don't understand the way things work in Bermuda? Or dedicated press freedom organizations expressing concern at the direction a reasonably developed democracy is going? You decide.

Next we have this issue of whether or not it is right to have Government appointees sitting on the council. The spokesman attempts to justify it by pointing to the presence of "lay members" on councils in England and Ireland. Lets be clear on that point right off the bat. Government appointees are in no way lay members of the council, they are Government representatives with the forseable power to vote to suppress embarrassing stories. Were it to be 5 representatives of the Media, a Governor appointed chairman and 6 independent members of the public agreed upon by the Media and Governor then it would be a different story but, these 6 members are appointed on the advice of the Premier who shall have consulted the Opposition Leader as it currently stands and that is a risk no one should be willing to take. I previously stated that I understand the arguments for including government representatives on the council but, would rather see 6 Media reps and 5 Government reps rather than the current opposite situation because then the Government would require the support of the Governor's rep which creates a presumption to err on the side of the media as it would require the Governor's rep to actively vote against the media. That being said however, I would prefer to see no government involvement at all much like the UK council which proves that self-regulation not only works, but works well.

In defense of the independence of the Governor's appointees the spokesman points to the Public Service Commission and the Ombudsman and this is a good point but, unfortunately it's not good enough for me. In any political system there are two parties in almost constant conflict, the People and the Government. In a Democracy the weapons of choice are (theoretically) facts and the arms dealer (to both sides) is the Media. Such a basic pillar of our system cannot be put anywhere near the danger of control by the Government. As well intentioned and incorruptible as any current or future leader may be it would only take one with ambition to abuse the system and that is a risk we cannot afford to take. For the PSC and the Ombudsman we have no choice but, to deal with the imperfect system but, the same risk should not be taken with the Media. If the Government was really committed to ensuring a fair and open Media they would adopt the successful policy adopted by the UK government and let the local Media attempt to create their own self regulating council before rushing in with the big guns and taking what could be a dangerous step in the wrong direction.

Then there are the power to effectively gag the press that the council would have under the legislation., keep in mind that the UK commission acts without any statutory powers at all and yet functions perfectly well. This has created one of the biggest bones of contention regarding this act. The defense from the spokesman?...

They can only gag it for a limited time.

Clearly they missed the point. It should have no power to gag at all!

We can only hope that this will not go through on the nod under the PLP whip. It would be a travesty for local democracy. The UBP opposes it, the Alliance is almost certain to express similar views, now its time for the PLP backbenches to take action in the interests of the Bermudian people rather than following the agenda of a clearly confused cabinet which seems unable even to figure out the name of the spokesman in charge of dealing with this bill.

Wishful Thinking

More On The Media Council

Vexed has posted a copy of the proposed Media Council bill on his website here and looking through it there are a number of interesting things that caught my eye.

Section 2 lays out the purpose of the act and subsection (a) specifies that it should be an "independent" entity and yet the government will effectively appoint half of the members. That gives a party with a vested interest in keeping the media subdued (what government wouldn't want the media not to report embarrassing things?) a lot of power to control it. Granted it seems that it's not as unbalanced as I previously indicated it may have been since Chairman appointed by the Governor exercises both a normal vote and an extra casting vote in the case of a tie. This balances it up although I must still question why the choice was made to give the council a bias towards the government when international practice often allows the media to police themselves with much success. There must always be a certain level of inherent distrust of the government in a democracy, with the media supposed to be the counterbalancing force. While the council has great potential to do good I'd rather have 6 elected by the media and 5 appointed by the government and since the balance would remain the same (the governor's appointee still with the casting vote) I would hope that the government would be receptive to the worries of cynics such as myself and make this slight change so that if Dr. Brown truly does wish to do good with this council it is not hidden behind the suspicion and distrust that his actions so often evoke from many within the community (and rightly so).

The act also seems to give a lot of power to the Minister to decide who the Council has jurisdiction over and who it doesn't. I'd rather see specific definitions that all media outlets could be tested against than this power be given to a politician who could potentially have vested interests in deciding one way or the other.

Finally it is interesting that the Media Council is to be funded purely by the media. It just seems a bit wrong to me, I doubt the profit margins are high (especially considering that a newspaper was forced to close due to costs recently) and if the Government wishes to regulate the media it is only fair that the Government pays for it. If however the council is adapted to consist purely of members of the media then the case could certainly be made for them paying for it but, in its current form it is wrong.

It Gave Unto Them Spines

It would seem that the PLP parliamentary group has at last found its voice... and its spine at last. In a thus far unprecedented move an overwhelming majority of PLP MP's spoke out against a key piece of their Leader's agenda, gambling.

I have a number of theories as to why this may have happened (or more specifically why it happened NOW). Here are a few:

1. Dr. Brown is now a lame duck Premier on the way out so they aren't worried about upsetting him anymore.
2. Paula Cox's leadership early in the debate gave backbench MP's the courage to speak their minds
3. Gambling is an issue that arouses such strong opposition within the church community (traditionally a strong PLP support base) that the MP's are terrified of upsetting them by supporting it.

Theory 1 is the pessimist in me, it is what so many years of complete lack of backbench scrutiny of Dr. Brown has done to me. It seems to be a theory that is widely shared and it certainly isn't a good indication of the health of Bermudian democracy. With such a small parliament it is simply impossible for our system to function when the backbench is willing to stick their head in the sand and ignore the failures of their party leadership. This needs to change.

Theory 2 is a more moderate approach that also seems to be rather popular. Not much to say about it except that it seems clear that Paula Cox is set to become our next premier. Ms. Cog the Jellyfish hasn't had much in the way of backbone until now and its a worrying prospect that she won't have developed one in time for the serious changes that need to come under our next Premier if our Island is to continue to prosper. Better late then never though I suppose but, then again her backbone may well have only materialized due to theory 1. In which case it is no backbone at all.

Theory 3 is the hope that this incident is actually democracy in action. Whether or not you agree with the church lobby you can't deny that they represent the views of a large portion of Bermudian society and if this was really a reaction to their opposition then it just goes to show that the MP's actually listened. That would be a very positive sign and would suggest that the onus is on us to keep our politicians working for us. I have argued in the past that our system is what we made/continue to make it. If only every issue got people as interested and active as gambling did. Then we'd have the healthy, thriving democracy that we all want. But.. there I go with the wishful thinking again.

In the end I think it comes down to a mixture of all three. A little bit of positive in there, a little bit of negative, a little bit of "Yawn, Bermuda really is another world". It will be interesting to see where this new phase of politics in Bermuda will take us, if it even lasts beyond October that is.

Wishful Thinking

Media Council

The PLP is no friend of the Royal Gazette. This is more than obvious to anyone who has watched the Government kill the Mid Ocean Newspaper by withdrawing advertisiment, attempt to gag the RG on major stories and repeatedly criticize the Royal Gazette for reporting on anything negative relating to the Government. But I certainly didn't expect it to go as far as it seems to be going.

Dr. Brown has announced his draft plans for a Media Watchdog which he's been speaking about for a while now. At first glance it seems reasonable enough (although personally the thought of any government controls on a free media is worrying) but, as usual the devil is in the details. It is proposed that the council have 12 members, 6 of which are appointed on the advice of the Premier (i.e. appointed by him in non-political speak). One of the remaining 6 is to be the chairmen appointed by the Governor (presumably with only a tie-breaking vote) and the other 5 are supposed to be members of the media. If my assumption regarding the chairman is true that leaves the Premier with a majority representation on the council. As far as I'm concerned that gives a dangerous amount of power to the people who have the most to fear from a free media. Especially if our next premier is as openly hostile towards the Royal Gazette as the current one.

Unfortunately I expect this bill to go through parliament on a purely partisan vote without much in the way of public opposition, except for those who are already suspicious of or dissatisfied with the PLP. I look eagerly for when the bill itself is released, perhaps my fears are unfounded but... I doubt it. So much for..

Wishful Thinking

Budget Debacle

So I've had the opportunity to listen to the budget "debates" on Monday and Today and I must say that I'm ashamed of what this country has come to. Blatant filibustering, petty bickering and overall low standard of debate.

Both on Monday and today I have had the misfortune of hearing exceptionally long, irrelevant and quite frankly unnecessary speeches from ministers that stretch a simple analysis of budgetary figures into ridiculously long thank you speeches to departmental cleaners and in depth discussion of hospital cleaning utensils. Twice debate on important issues has been cut short, once most certainly deliberately, the other quite obviously deliberately but, I'm sure its possible to argue the other side if you try hard enough.

In case you're wondering the debates I'm referring to are the debates of the Cabinet Office and Future Care (part of the Ministry of Health debate) respectively.

I've had a number of things to say over on BIAW about the budget this year and if your interested I invite you to go and have a look Here and Here.

Anyway there I is one thing I think needs to be done to "fix" the issues with debate in the house. As of right now the Opposition chooses the schedule but, the Minister responsible always gets the chance to give an opening statement and breakdown of the figures. I think this needs to be changed to allow the Opposition to begin by highlighting their concerns (perhaps this could be done in advance of the actual debate) which would then be dealt with by the minister and the debate could move on from there. That would stop the complete waste of time that is so much of the budget debate these days.

Also, although not really something you can fix with rules or changes in system, MP's really need to get their act together and debate rather than just making speeches at each other. Too often there is so little "clash" as it is called in debating as a competitive activity and it doesn't allow them to get to the bottom of whatever issue is at hand. All we have currently is MP's repeating the party line with different words over and over again and no rebuttal of the opposing view. That's the only way to really flesh out an idea. As it is now that doesn't really happen.

Wishful Thinking

2010 Bermuda Budget

Now I'm no economist but, still the 2010 Budget raises some interesting questions in my mind.

1) Where are the spending cuts promised?

We were promised 10% cuts in departmental spending. Instead we've seen a 9% rise in total. With the Department of Education being one of the few that takes a cut.

The government blew through the good times with a spend spend spend attitude, putting very little aside for when times turned bad and now that we are in those bad times they seem completely unable to deal with it. The country's debt is going through the roof, passing this government's fiscal problems off to my generation to fix, and the Bermudian people are facing hard economic times to which the response of government is to raise taxes. That being said however we do see an increase in the amount of money being put towards financial assistance for lower income families which is commendable however how much can the government do when the very people they are trying to help are being forced out of their jobs by the taxes paying for the government's thrifty attitude.

On the point of the Department of Education's budget cuts it may not be as shocking as it may seem to be on the surface. While we do face major issues with the public educations system on the island one must take account of the fact that the number of students enrolled in the system has constantly decreased over the years (undoubtedly a symptom of the failures of the system). It will remain to be seen if the spending cuts are in line with the reduction in students and if the budgeted amount is enough to turn the failing system around but, for now I believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt.


2) Why tax employment when we already have a problem of unemployment?

Perhaps someone can explain it to me but, I always thought that the more someone has to pay for something, the less of it they will want. Since the budget includes a 1% rise in the amount of money employers will have to pay for every worker won't that actually discourage employing more workers? Or even force small businesses to lay off workers or close down? Perhaps I'm missing something, or our Government knows something about the economy that the rest of us are missing.

3) Why are they still claiming that no one saw this coming?

Again Ms. Paula "cog" C0x claims that this is something that no one saw coming, stating that it was a once in a 100 years event so they couldn't have been expected to prepare for this. As Shadow Minister of Finance Bob Richards retorted post-budget, apparently his name is No One. 3 years ago he warned that something was coming and was shouted down as a scaremonger... Oops.

As I have already mentioned there is also the question as to why the Government wasn't putting money away when the economy was booming to deal with even unexpected downturns? Save while you can, spend when you must should have been the motto of Ms. Cox's department but, then again, how can the head of the department tasked with managing the government's finances and spending do anything? It's not like it's her job or anything. She's just a cog in the wheel.

4) How much more of this kind of fiscal management can Bermuda take?

Who knows.. On this one there's not a lot of room for..

Wishful Thinking