Amit, BU has been preaching that our political leaders need to reach across the aisle for the benefit of the country at this challenging time. The question is how realistic is it and did Thompson reasonable expect that Arthur would accept the offer given his active status as an MP on the Opposition with possible pretension to take back the leadership of the party.

Domiknowsnothing, This is pretty similar to the politics of inclusion as practised by Owen Arthur other wise know as divide and conquer when you figure it out let me know.

@BT

Agree with you 100%.

Regrettably if one listens to the talk shows and even read the comments of the BLP surrogates on BU, we have to conclude that the shift required to conquer the new challenges maybe long in coming.

It takes a big man to look after himself, it takes a bigger man to look after others..so why not embrace it…we will only find faults if that is what
we look for…why be sceptical… cynical… critical…?
DT is definitely reading from the same play book Obama is using…and not only that the man is a fast learner…so it will be good to learn from the best…but it’s his time to shine. He only needs play his hand well.
Dinner anyone…???

I want to tell the Prime Minister to forget about Owen Arthur.
Invite old and young Barbadians with Economic training who have a vested interest in seeing this country maintaining its high standard of living to give ideas on how we can at least get through the roughest part of this downturn.
He will get some very creative ideas.

Barbadian politicians were always petty. I like the American system, where Obama invited John McCain to talks and he went, although he loss to him in the elections.

Politicians should stop insulting our intelligence by making stupid statements about the problems Barbados are facing. This is a worldwide problem where Bahamas which is half an hour from Miami are laying off workers in the tourism sector because millions of American and Europeans workers are losing their jobs.

What must be assessed is the level of sincerity and the motives of Thompson in his suggestion of a breakfast meeting of former finance ministers. When juxtaposed with the issue of the order of debate in parliament, Arthur’s claim of no prior notice and the adversarial nature of Westminster politics, the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that Thompson is really not interested in Arthur’s opinion and was simply seeking a PR moment hopefully at the expense of the opposition. What is also obvious is that this administration is at a lost as to how to respond to the perceived economic challenges ahead. It is a nonsense that Thompson’s puerile suggestion (worthy only of a US television reality show) should be paraded as a serious attempt at consensus building. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so absurd given that the other three participants are way pass their “sell buy dates”. Mr Arthur although still a profound thinker is really yesterday’s man, Sir Lloyd is slated for China and so may make his participation difficult (which given his past record is a blessing) and Sir Richard is unfortunately in very poor health.

What happened to Clyde Mascoll?

ha ha ha ha It was a master political move on David’s part. Very soon people will see that the Owen isn’t and has not been as politically shrewed as he has been rumoured to be. At least not as cunning as David Thompson. Arthur is a very emotional person, quick to anger, and often times reflects on this and wish that he could be much calmer. I think he drinks because it allows him to relax to a point that he likes. It allows him to interact as he would truly like to, but he has never sought to build that habit without drinking. Thompson knows that Barbadians views of the economic crisis is global and does not fault GoB for the hardship they are facing, neither do they buy into the BLP strategy which suggest they they know how to fix things. Understanding this and believing that Mia is damaged in the eyes of Barbadians as a potential opponent, and given the possibility of Owen Arthur’s return to the leadership of the BLP, thompy’s political approach is to stay ahead of all this. If Arthur is out of contention, then Mia can be easily dealt with. If Thompson can get the former PM’s to sit with him and discuss national issues, it bolsters his image, further relegates’s Mia to obsurity, and gives him some playing room, with Arthur should he be returned to the BLP leadership. But this is not as sexy as having an emotional Arthur do what he is known for and has now done. In the eyes of Barbadians he runs the risk of being seen as selfish and not willing or wanting to protect the ‘yellow blue” as BU would say. This can damage him, and it is even more likely to be the case since i believe that Barbados will pull through this, and Thompson can boldy proclaim that he did it without anyone.

At a recent Breakfast gathering at the Hilton with Thompson held to demonstrate Unity of political parties in a most worthy cause of HIV/AID prevention campaign to get Barbadians tested,….

Mia said: we all know when it’s time to cross the political divide.

Thompson said: I am just glad somebody wants to have breakfast with me, the prime Minister joked

Below is the caption of the photo showing Mia Thompy and Alison “Roll it” Hinds

[quote]
POLITICS ASIDE: Former Prime Minister Owen Arthur may not want to sit down at a breakfast meeting with Prime Minister David Thompson, but yesterday morning Leader of the Opposition Mia Mottley, did just that with Prime Minister David Thompson, at the Hilton Barbados, because we all know when it’s time to cross the political divide,said Mottley. I am just glad somebody wants to have breakfast with me, the prime Minister joked. The two were attending the media launch of the Regional (HIV) Testing Day, to be marked on June, 2007. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition exhorted Barbadians to go and get tested on the day assigned and both pledged to show bipartisan leadership and commitment for the project. Here, Prime Minister Thompson, Mottley and Live Up hero Alison Hinds (right), show that they are united in the fight against AIDS, by showing the Live Up sign at the launch. (RG) (Pictures by

Well said Get Real

So Adrian Hinds agrees that Thompson’s sole motive is gaining the political advantage; NOT finding solutions to the economic crisis. However as long Mia Mottley is put at a disadvantage Hinds is happy. What Mia do he?

Come on folks. The BLP and Arthur got outmanouvered plain and simple. OSA clearly wanted to be the last speaker before the PM wrapped up the debate, while the DLP clearly wanted David Estwick and Frenduel Stuart to rebutt Arthur before the PM wound up.

Arthur was not in his seat when all the other BLP speakers had finished and only Estwick, Freundel and the PM were left to speak on the govt side.

The DLP had a choice, disrupt their preferred order, and let OSA and the BLP get their way, and use their numerical advantage and owen’s absence to their advantage.

You caanot pick a designated time to speak. The mover of a motion has the right to wrap up the debate on the motion if there is no one in their seat ad desirous of speaking.

The DLP would have been naive to do otherwise. In some ways the speaker was generous to OSA.

Al in all it was a parliamentary embarrasmment for the BLP, especially the shouting down of mia by owne.

For me this was compounded by the fact that Mia and OSA seem to have contradictory responses to the current crisis.

The above is what Trained Economist had to say on another blog. The point missing from the argument is the convention of both sides agreeing to speaking times. Given conventions and customs practices in parliament and Thompsons desire to be embrace all views don’t we see a conflict of positions?

I am sorry, but I was really disappointed with OSA’s budget presentation. Given his training, intellect and experience, I really wanted to hear what he had to say at this time.

A major part of his speech was sought to explain away the sharp increase in barbados’s debt to gdp ratio from 50% to 80+%, that coincided with his term as PM. He quoted a famous study by Dinesh Dodhia, “The Emerging Debt Problem of Small States,” and sought to suggest that the explosion in the debt to gdp ratio is an inevitable consequence of being small.

I have read the study quoted by OSA, and it suggests that small states have unique vulnerabilities and therefore if they fail to exercise fiscal prudence their debt to gdp ratios will explode. He also emphasizes the role of natural disasters in the debt explosion. St. Kitts got hit by two major hurricanes, Grenada got hit by Ivan. What natural disasters have we had over the period coinciding with the surge in the debt to gdp ratio and OSA’s PM ship?

His suggestion for the crisis is even more debt, which according to him, you must do off budget. In local parlance, you must hide and borrow it. And by the way, according to him, the hell with the ratings agencies.
Maybe its a good thing he is not going to breakfast.

The speech to me was essentially about defending his legacy.

I believe the public is seeing this “team Barbados” talk for what it is – politics of inclusion a la DLP! I accept that Barbados has been comparatively well managed. Those responsible are still there; in the Ministries, the Central Bank and resource institutions like UWI, CDB and even CARICOM. I am not particularly interested in the political fortunes of Owen Arthur, as I have written before, he is yesterday’s man. However in response to your query as to how he should have responded to Thompson, my advice would be to ignore Thompson’s suggestion. Arthur needs to focus on exiting active politics. He should be working on first holding the St.Peter constituency for the BLP and ensuring that his successor can hold the seat for his party, help to promote young (or at least new) members of substance to the BLP and to assist the party in presenting an engaging, coherent and forward thinking political platform. Arthur needs to repudiate Thompson’s implied diminution of Parliament as the place where national debate should take place and more importantly that the official opposition and the official channels of communication should not be sidelined. Arthur needs to show discipline in his relationship with his party and tell Thompson that there is nothing stopping private consultations (which has always happened in the past) but that it is proper and fitting that the voices of all parliamentarians be heard at this time of immense national challenge.

Anonymous // May 23, 2009 at 8:00 am

Well said Get Real

So Adrian Hinds agrees that Thompson’s sole motive is gaining the political advantage; NOT finding solutions to the economic crisis. However as long Mia Mottley is put at a disadvantage Hinds is happy. What Mia do he?
==========================
SOLE????? deal with what is, not what you wish for. What it is that you seems to agree “disadvantages Mia’? You tekking issue with me for what you believe? ha ha ha ha ha

I could not possibily be happy about anything concerning Mia.

Anonymous // May 22, 2009 at 9:23 pm

What must be assessed is the level of sincerity and the motives of Thompson in his suggestion of a breakfast meeting of former finance ministers. When juxtaposed with the issue of the order of debate in parliament, Arthur’s claim of no prior notice AND THE ADVERSARIAL NATURE OF WESTMINISTER POLITICS, the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that Thompson is really not interested in Arthur’s opinion and was simply seeking a PR moment hopefully at the expense of the opposition.

————————————————–
GP in another thread said the following

Georgie Porgie // May 19, 2009 at 6:52 pm
“However, he is talking about Great Britain; a place that since 1966, Bajans hate like poison. We no longer follow the example of the “mother country.” We prefer to be mendicants to the USA, and follow their ways instead..”

————————————————-
Adrian 2004
The BLP that we all knew died when Owen Arthur became it’s leader….whether that is a good thing or not is not my point. The changing of the constitution of that party should signal once and for all that it is no longer the same. Tom’s BLP or Owens BLP or some such like naming convention will have to use to distinguish between the two eras and the differenceS of the groups calling themselves the BLP.

==========================

How many elections have we experience that saw Owen Arthur as the central campaign theme for the BLP? It is well establish, I believe, that Owen Arthur was the success of the BLP winning election and governing for the last 14 years. To my mind this tells me that Bajan have taken to voting for the party with the percieved strongest leader. Everything in recent elections point to this, be it the subject of polls, or the campaign slogans and theme. But West Minster is not about electing a leader, West Minster choose the Leader. Owen is squandering his national standing amongst Barbadians by not accepting Thompson’s invitation no matter the politics and gamesmanship Thompy may have factored into the request. It should still be of concern to the BLP, wether they can get elected without Arthur as leader, and what if Barbadians begin to see Arthur throught the lense they have always used to view the BLP?

Breakfast meetings my fanny.

But Carson
DT already had a national consultation last year and organised a group of “experts” (obviously pre-selected) to tackle the issue. The consultation was an absolute waste of time, packed with sterile speeches and ego stroking; all of the bankers and many others left just after lunch was served. There was very little time for comments from the floor. Who amonst them cared?

@Anonymous
“What must be assessed is the level of sincerity and the motives of Thompson in his suggestion of a breakfast meeting of former finance ministers.”

We know that politics is about strategy and manouvering. The motives for the breakfast offer may not be immediately clear, but the circumstances beg lots of natural questions.

In the context of the Budget presentation of “Team Barbados”, the idea of the breakfast could have been aired and would have looked and sounded to the House of Assembly like a sincere rallying call, more so for being an official open hand that stands on the record of Parliament. To make it afterwards looks at the very least odd.

The way it was presented makes it very easy for the former PM to refuse because he could have been asked privately or publicly but very directly, yet apparently was not, which in a very simple way seems dismissive.

If sincerity is at the root, then the ‘how’ is very important. Thus, we are left asking about the ‘why’.

@David

I should have written “We see certain capital projects (eg rebuilding Kensington Oval, ABC highways) but have to ask will they help to pay for themselves OR BRING CLEAR ADDITIONAL NATIONAL BENEFITS”.

I was citing some clear instances, but not all. Agree on arguments on ABC highways. For me, the jury will be out a long time on KO.

@Veritas

Accepting what you have written one still has to explain the arrangement which Jones and Mottley seem to have establish regarding how speakers are scheduled. So was there a breach of trust, should there be or should political strategy be the ultimate winner?

Veritas how come you ain’ run for office like all dem odda DLP lawyers? You don’ feel you had a good enough chance?

Anonymous

Nobody does listen to me… you need a drink…!

AAAAAAAAAAghhhhhhhhhhhhh

How is it possible for employment to be 6%. That has to be the biggest lie in the history of lying in Barbados. It use to be comfortably placed at 17% until about 10 years ago it dropped to below 10% around the same time as the RE-introduction of some term “voluntary idle” or something like that. What a hoax

Royalrumble

Submitted on 2009/05/23 at 4:25pm

Oh and by the way when I first came to this blog I really thought that it was neutral and politically independent.

Now after reading some of the comments by David it is all so clear to me. But I don’t have a problem with the fact that you support the DLP. I just don’t want you to do what the fellows over on freepress do.

Please do not stifle or refuse to post opposition comments while allowing free range. That is all I asked. Also now that you have released your hand do not be offended when you are attacked in ways you may not have imagined.

Was that a threat Royalrumble?

Despite that fact that we have asked you to ask your leader to submit articles to BU?

Despite the fact that we have uploaded your document sent to BU when you wanted to prove your case?

Despite that fact that we have not censored any of your comments to date?

Despite the fact that we have allowed you to have your fun by using multiple handles?

Why do you people feel that intimidatory tactics is the solution to everything?

Even just even if we are pro-DLP why would that be a problem as long as you had your say?

Base on the information I received from within the BLP following Thompson’s proposal of a Breakfast Meeting with Arthur, had Mr. Arthur accepted the BLP would have suffered a serious convulsion within its membership.

_________

The above (including usual grammatical errors) is a strange comment from Royal Rumble (Sylvan Greenidge) and needs to be analysed carefully (not because of his use of “Royal” that speaks to his identity).

This means that OSA is not finished with cut and thrust, partisan, leadership politics! Desipte his pledge to Ms. Mottley, Arthur cares more about how the rank and file judge him over the next few months because he is interested in being leader again.

(Notice RR seldom puts the case for Ms. Mottley! He is always defending, promoting and profiling OSA)

In 1994 who did the BLP ask to run the campaign to elect Sir George Alleyne? Branford Taitt. Did the DLP rank and file convulse? You were a Dem then Your Highness Royal Sylvan Greenidge. So what say you?

Is the DLP rank and file more mature? Do they see country first?

I have drawn my conclusions. Let me hear yours.

BTW, you sound like a very dogmatic, opinionated guy based on your threats above. Typical of the last BLP crowd. Can’t take opposition politics!

Veritas are you serious when the DLP came into power it wasn’t about putting “country first” it was DLP faithfuls/supporters/yardfowls first and to hell with the rest. Tribalism was rearing it ugly head and was seen as ok. Preachers in the pulpit saying that it should be acceptible. Hypocrisy is live and well on this board.