← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

The Obama era was suppose to bring a level of bipartisanship hitherto not experienced by politicians in the US legislature. The term ‘reaching across the isle’ was a term which was synonymous with the Obama campaign. A couple years later the Obama administration and the USA finds itself in the midst of a level of political polarization which threatens to split the country into small pieces. Obamamania was so rife that it became obvious Prime Minister David Thompson’s political strategist became an admirer and adopted bits and pieces of Obama policies and strategies during the last campaign. Prime Minister David Thompson to complete the script’ ‘reached across the isle’ by inviting former Prime Minister Owen Arthur and Sir Richard Haynes to join him and Sir Lloyd Sandiford at a breakfast meeting to discuss solutions to the nations problems brought about by the current global recession.

Despite all the talk about about bipartisanship blowing far and wide it appears the political rhetoric has coarsened the world over. In recent days the rhetoric has heightened in Antigua to a degree that if left unabated can have devastating implications for that country.  There is the wider implication of the recent court judgement handed down by Antigua High Court Judge Louise Esther Blenman in the case which challenged the electoral process in the last Antigua general election. It is now history that the Judge, to the consternation of the three government incumbents affected has declared invalid the seats of Leandro, Spencer and Maginley. The affected parties have since responded to Judge Blenman’s decision by asking the Court to issue a stay on the order which has been granted. The stay is important because it gives the Baldwin Spencer government breathing space to determine next steps.

The political temperature is likely to rise in Antigua given what is at stake. The Baldwin Spencer United Progressive Party (UPP) won 9 of the 17 seats in the last government; getting pass the poll ahead of Lester Bird’s Antigua Labour Party (ALP) who won 7 seats and the Barbuda People’s Movement 1 seat. The recent court decision to declare 3 seats, controlled by the government invalid, has thrown the proverbial cat among the pigeons. The implication for our region of the 136 page court decision is probably being studied by our regional legal eagles at this moment. A quick perusal of the document reveals some eye opening observations made by the learned Judge which obviously weighed heavily in her final declaration.  Why does it have implications for the wider region? Have a read of the judgement. We are expectant that BU family members of the legal profession would précis the issues for discussion. The decision has occurred at an opportune time for Barbados, the next Barbados general election is constitutionally due in 2013. In Barbados we have given lip service to electoral reform, maybe this decision if it stands will spur the conversation.

Of wider interest to BU is the legal recourse which Prime Minister Balwin Spencer’s UPP government is likely to exercise. Bear in mind this decision has come after nearly one year of a UPP government. Decisions have been made and have to be made daily by the Antigua government which may call into question certain legalities. What are the implications if the court decision stands? While the Spencer government has the legal avenues open to it there is the moral decision which is likely to cause him sleepless nights.  By pursuing the legal solution there is the potential to split the country in parts given the political divisions in the country. The Bird era would have served to seriously polarize Antigua. To expect dispassionate national dialogue on this matter is wishful thinking.

Finally, Antigua is NOT a member of the Caribbean Court of Justice. If this matter has to find its way to the British Privy Council there is the implication for the time it will take.  Importantly BU questions the relevance of a foreign court to deliver a decision in this matter. Therein lies the ignorance of the Caribbean people.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

26 responses to “The Antigua General Election Court Matter File ANUHCV2009/0141”

  1. mash up & buy back Avatar
    mash up & buy back

    Jeff Cumberbatch.

    We need your sage thinking on this matter.

    Put the ubiquitous hal gollop to shame.

    Tell us whether you think this is a good ruling and whether precedent will be set for the other commonwealth and moreso caribbean commonwealth countries.


  2. Credit to David Ellis on his talk show today he tied what happened in the Farm (Michael North East) last election in Barbados to this decision in Antigua. For those who have forgotten BU covered the Farm matter where surrogates were seen dispensing money in the Farm allegedly to buy votes.


  3. Is there a constitutional crisis now in Antigua? Well the government can call a by-election or appeal the ruling which it is now doing. The implication for the region is if the appeal goes all the way to the privy council and the government should loose its case. This will then set a precedents for other political parties in the region to apply the same reason ( wether genuinely or politically) if they loose an election especially a close one on frivolous grounds of voters disenfranchisement.


  4. The case in Antigua and Barbuda where High Court Judge, Ms Louise Blenman, recently annulled the electoral results in three constituency elections in the March, 2009 General Elections in that country, is one case in which many peoples within the English Speaking Caribbean, must and ought see, or for that matter ought continue to see, the matter of legal recourse to their own local High Courts, or to whatever other relevant tribunals ( in the respective legal jurisdictions ), as a fundamental axiomatic legal, constitutional, moral and equitable right of theirs as part of a wider political legitimate dispensation and process that has been established within a system of the rule of law and natural justice anywhere within the region; and furthermore as a right that is being exercised on the basis of any intention to properly settle many issues and disputes surrounding many national or bi-election electoral outcomes in the relevant Courts or tribunals in their respective countries.

    Indeed, this is one and the only set of principal arguments and vindications – out of lesser ones – that can be introjected in this legal case in Antigua and Barbuda – where the Antigua Labour Party (ALP)would have some time ago brought applications in the High Courts of Antigua and Barbuda against the United People’s Party (UPP) questioning – under S. 44 SS 1(a) and 2(a) of the Antigua and Barbuda Constitution – the then membership in the House of Representatives of Antigua and Barbuda of four members who were elected to duly serve four constitutencies in constituency elections that arose out of the 2009 General election, on the grounds that there were, et al, undue influence and non-compliant breaches in certain electoral laws in those contests.

    Well, the fact too is that in relationship to this case – the United People’s Party – which would have realized three of its members’ seats having been declared invalid – has already successfully applied for, and got, a stay of execution until the 16 of April ( BarbadosToday – 1 April, 2010).

    Well, to be clear as to why there were three invalidations when there were four court challenges, the other membership of the House that was questioned – based on the same allegations, by the ALP, and this was in Barbuda, and which has been by Mr. Trevor Walker of the Barbuda Labour Movement, was however declared valid by Madame Justice Blenman.

    Having stated those facts, though, the PDC now turn its attention to some very disturbing, grevious and irresponsible comments attributed to one Peter Wickham, so-called political scientist, in the said BarbadosToday, where Wickham was reported to have stupidly summed up this case as being a part of a trend where some courts (in the said English speaking region ) are aggressive in directly confronting governments.

    Verily, such aforegoing comments are so unwise, insensate, careless and reckless to think of that when one looks at the fact that if one were to properly read into Justice Blenman’s ruling on the case, some of those same reported comments of Wickham in relation to this case, it would be more than certainly clear that Mr. Wickham would have improperly suggested to the greatly politically unread and great politically informed throughout the region, though, that these courts and the presiding officers were the ones who would have brought these cases against the governments and NOT the particular opposition parties.

    BUT THE FACTS ARE SUCH THAT THE PARTICULAR COURTS AND THE PARTICULAR JUDICIAL OFFICERS DID NOT BRING THESE PARTICULAR APPLICATIONS AGAINST THE PARTICULAR EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENTS, AND THEREFORE FOR HIM TO HAVE POSSIBLY MADE THOSE INAPPROPRIATE HYSTERICAL COMMENTS AND TO BE REPORTED AS SAYING SUCH IS TOTALLY REPREHENSIBLE AND REPROACHABLE.

    MR WICKHAM MUST BE TOLD BY THE PDC AND THOSE WHO ARE IN THE KNOW THAT THE COURTS WOULD HAVE BEEN MERELY SEEKING TO CARRY OUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES, ADJUDICATING IN SUCH CONTENTIOUS MATTERS, OR WOULD HAVE BEEN MERELY SEEKING TO AND OR WOULD HAVE BEEN APPLYING THE PARTICULAR LOCAL LAWS TO THE FACTS – ACTS OR OMISSIONS – IN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS.

    Too, what is clear is that these courts – which are the ULTIMATE guardians of the respective national Constitutions – would have also been basing these particular rulings on the facts, and would have also been basing them in support of their adherence to rule of law and in support of their adherence to principles of natural justice. These rulings would have NOT made based on any partial political grounds as Mr. Wickham so disgustingly suggests or imputes. And in some of these cases, bi-elections have already been held. And, therefore, in these cases where bi-elections would have been held or contemplated, say in Jamaica, it would have had to be seen that the decisions of the courts would have had to accepted and upheld by the parties concerned.

    So, clearly Mr. Wickham is being unfair and unreasonable and is so in making false reckless imputations against the character and integrities of those particular judicial officers.

    To add salt to the injuries, Mr. Wickham reportedly went on to state – in the same edition of the BarbadosToday – how, in this Antigua and Barbuda case, the message that was sent by the court was one – which was reinterpreted by BarbadosToday – as challenging the legitimacy of the Balwin Spencer Administration at the national level. Said Wickham: “As far as the individual constituencies are concerned, it has created the question of.. whether or not the the Prime Minister – who derives his power from parliament – can continue to function as prime minister if his seat has been declared null and void. And i think that is really the legal question that needs to be answered”

    What ignorance of the highest order for a so-called political scientist to be reported as saying. Indeed, it could not have been any more absolutely wrong headed and inaccurate than for him to express such. And, it was very fallacious too for this regionalist to argue such bunkum. For, the facts are that the Prime Minister in Antigua and Barbuda, or any where else where the prime minister is head of government in the English Speaking Caribbean, does NOT derive his power from Parliament, but from a specific and historic legalism and constitutionalism that has been created and maintained and practiced in the countries to allow for the office of Prime Minister to function in the governments and in the wider societies. In the Antigua and Barbuda Constitution, see that such centers around and is reinforced by S. 69 SS. (1), SS 2(a), or any other the applicable provision of sub-section 2 -And in the Barbados Constitution see that it is S. 65 SS. (1) alone around which such is centered and reinforced.

    Take careful note too that the Antiguan and Barbudan Constitution clearly states in the first of three possible conditions under which a prime minister is chosen by the Governor General, that the person who becomes prime minister must be a member of the House who is the LEADER in the House of the political party that commands the support of the majority in the House, whereas the Barbados Document states in the one and only instance that it deals with such a matter that it is the person who in the Governor General’s judgement is best able to command the confidence of a majority of members of that House.

    Any how back to Wickham, in the context of regional prime ministerial politics the Prime Minister only becomes prime minister because he is the person who in the eyes of the Governor General is the person who ( through out his tenure) is best able to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Assembly ( NOT THE PARLIAMENT, and yet still does NOT do any thing ( through out his tenure ) to the extent that would lead to his prime ministership being revoked by the Governor General – or any thing that helps cause him to lose the confidence of the majority – or any thing that HELPS CAUSE HIM TO BE NOT a member of the House of Assembly, et al. What Wickham must realize too is that the House of Assembly is NOT the Parliament – which itself does include the Senate.

    So, contrary to the foolish nonsense that Wickham is suggesting that the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda must be viewed as an elected position (via the last of the above two comments), the position or office of Prime Minister has NOT been suspended, nullified or voided, NOR has it been legally constitutionally affected by the decisions of Justice Blenman, and could NEVER have been, but it is the electoral process which help caused Spencer to be elected into the House – as an elected parliamentarian – that has been successfully and rightly challenged – as proved by the rulings of Justice Blenman – and NOT the Office of Prime Minister or the Prime Minister himself.

    Too, the questioning of the membership of the Antigua and Barbuda House could NOT have gone forth to the Prime Minister nor his office nor addressed to the Prime Minister or his office, and therefore could not have possibly been subject to the rulings of the Justice Blenman, simply because Mr. Spencer – as Prime Minister – is NOT elected to the role of Prime Minister in that country. Simple as that!!

    Also, for him to be reported to be saying that because Mr. Spencer is an elected House member and Prime Minister at the same time too, and that because his seat would have been declared null and void, and that the latter created a problem for the prime minister in the context of national governance and which for him (Wickham) would have meant that there was a political problem that would have had to be answered, shows clearly that Wickham is totally confusing the person with the main roles he plays at the same time – in this regard, as a parliamentarian and prime minister, and with the political governmental significances of these two roles in relationship to party politics and party government , by his using a very narrow backward relativist approach rather than using an broader informed absolutist approach.

    Penultimately, while we have just stated such positions, and in the way how we did on this Antigua and Barbuda situation, such does NOT mean that we in the PDC do NOT realize that there is a great need for fundamental changes to the Constitutions of the countries of the English speaking Caribbeam to make them more suited to modern times and circumstances. For, we in the PDC know that in Barbados and other parts of this said sub-region, such changes for better are absolutely and direly needed more than ever before as we seek to move ahead in this 21 st Century. Hence, it is totally unacceptable and disgraceful that in Barbados, in Antigua and Barbuda and in the other English Speaking Terruitories where this is done – one still sees disgusting situations where Ministers are still Members of Parliaments/Legislatures which are themselves FAR FAR FROM BEING representative, numerically speaking, and FAR FAR FROM BEING representative politically speaking of the people, and wherefore only a few are able to debate and pass legislation in their respective countries.

    These are the kinds of issues that the majority of our peoples within this subregion ought to be seriously looking at – with a view to fundamentally reforming rebalancing – and ought to be looking at too with regard to the fact that so-called pollsters like Mr. Peter Wickham and certain sections of the media in our sub-region are whenever so-called national public opinion polls are done, findings produced, and aspects of which are published in those particular sections of the media, are so doing these things in the contexts whereby there are despicable violations in the principles of free and fair elections being held in these countries, where there is an enormous amount of undue influencing of of the way how voters vote or dont vote as a direct result of or on account of some of the so-called poll findings that are released and published in these countries.

    Surely, Mr. Wickham and the relevant other regional pollsters and some of their polling tactics must be critically looked at by the majority of peoples in this sub-region with a view to bringing them to heel for continuing to do untold damage to the voting process.

    PDC


  5. BU

    Remember Owen and Mascoll were the persons in the farm when the task force had to be called out.

    This payment for votes in the farm and other housing areas e.g. redmans,Ivy etc was a practice started by owen arthur,a lesson he learnt well under tom adams during that infamous by-election in st peter which brought him to office.

    Now those boys in the farm will not have it any other way.


  6. Here is what former Prime Minister of St. Lucia has to say about the decision.

     

    St Lucia’s Opposition Leader Kenny Anthony says last week’s High Court ruling that voided the election of Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer and two of his Cabinet ministers was a courageous judgement that should be compulsory reading for all Caribbean politicians.

    “I believe that this judgment will have to be studied and even if the judgment is upheld or it goes otherwise in the Court of Appeal that it will be a significant contribution to the law governing electoral politics in the region,” Anthony, who is a lawyer, said on a local radio.
    In declaring the March 12, 2009 election of Spencer, Tourism Minister John Maginley and Education Minister Jacqui Quinn-Leandro as invalid, Justice Louise Blenman based her ruling on polling day irregularities; particularly the long delays before voting began in the constituencies of St. John’s Rural West, St. John’s Rural North and St. George.

    “I think that in a very real way this judgment will resonate beyond the borders of Antigua and will have relevance right across the Caribbean and I think it’s a major contribution to the jurisprudence on electoral politics,” Anthony said.

    However, Justice Blenman’s ruling has not taken effect because the governing United Progressive Party (UPP) was able to get the court to grant a stay, effectively putting the brakes on the judgment and allowing the trio to continue in office and as Members of Parliament for their respective constituencies.

    Nonetheless, Anthony, who served as St Lucia’s Prime Minister from 1997 to 2006, said the judgement was also important for electoral officials across the Caribbean.

    “Historically it’s the politicians who often make the accusations and who end up having to suffer for malpractices of one kind or another.

    “This time the judgment focuses on the administrators of the elections process and I think really that is important because there is a powerful message resonating from this judgment to the election bodies across the region that they have to get their act together and to avoid the kind of errors that occurred in Antigua,” Anthony explained.

    “The third thing and this is just a little mystifying point sometimes and always an issue on political reflection. How is it that with such small societies with such limited number of electors we get it wrong from time to time? One would have thought that given the size of Antigua and the number of electors the kind of difficulties that occurred here would not have occurred,” he added.

    The former St Lucia Prime Minister said the judgment would also send a powerful message to electors, particularly in terms of what is right and what is wrong.

    “It was astounding in a certain way to read the judge’s admonishment regarding the whole issue of campaigning for election and financing projects just to win votes.

  7. ''''''FIRE'''''' Avatar
    ”””FIRE”””

    WARNING: IT CAN HAPPEN HERE (BARBADOS)

    certain operatives who operated in Antigua also operate here.

    Tell me why I talking foolishness
    Maybe I am Wishing in Vain
    How yuh Hanging
    Tell me


  8. Sometimes we have to be careful for what we wish for. I would guess that all opposition parties would welcome such ruling……. Dr Kenny Anthony etal across the region. I wonder if it was he in Government he would be saying the same thing.


  9. Zion 1971 April 5, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    This will then set a precedent[s] for other political parties in the region to apply the same reason ( wether genuinely or politically ) if they loose an election especially a close one on frivolous grounds of voters desenfranchisement.
    **********************************************************************
    Hi, Zion1971, I have a slightly different take on the situation.

    If the grounds for complaint are “frivolous” that would be reflected in the judgement made by the learned Judge/s: then there would be no reason for concern.

    On a more general observation.
    A “competent” judge/s would not allow the courts to be used for vexatious or malicious complaints; particularly in something as important as a democratically held general election.

    If voters are “genuinely” disenfranchised that is a different issue but of course financial penalties can be imposed. The election to my mind will only be re-run if the numbers disenfranchised are “enough” to significantly alter the final outcome. The learned judge/s will naturally take cognizance of that.

    I view this situation with no alarm, in a democratic society the Magistrates and Judges are the final arbiters of fairness. As I have alluded to before, many learned men/women although nice people, are not suitable to be judges.

    We should select ours with great care because ” all know the way but a few will actually walk it.”

  10. Donald Duck, Esq Avatar
    Donald Duck, Esq

    What the judgement means is that we have to train our electoral officers properly.


  11. @Donald Duck

    BU urge you to read the judgment. Much wider implications are at play.


  12. BU says:

    “The term ‘reaching across the isle’ was a term which was synonymous with the Obama campaign.”

    BU also says, in the same paragraph:

    “Prime Minister David Thompson to complete the script ‘reached across the isle’ by inviting former Prime Minister Owen Arthur and Sir Richard Haynes …”.

    Thanks, BU, for making me smile on an overcast day.

    Dear “BU family”: if your favourite pundit demonstrably and comically fails to grasp both the spelling and the concept of one of the most basic and simple political terms (that is: “reach across the aisle”), why should you trust ANY of his political thinking?

    “Reach across the isle”. Man, that’s priceless. If you’d done it once it might have been a typo. But to do it twice in a single paragraph indicates that you don’t have a clue what the phrase means. You do know what “aisle” means, right?

    Keep up the good work, BU. In my household you are a guaranteed laugh during my morning coffee.

    Tough choice for you now, though. Do you publish my message and then correct “isle” for “aisle” with appropriate acknowledgement? Do you delete my message as you’ve done so many times before, and leave “isle” as it is, a permanent signal of your incapacity to grasp basic political terms? Or do you delete my message (as, to repeat, you’ve done so many times before) and change “isle” to “aisle” anyway?

    Looking forward to your decision. Whatever you choose, rest assured that you always make the Sherman household smile a lot.

    Best wishes to you, and all best luck for the blog.

  13. Little boy who has lost his home! Avatar
    Little boy who has lost his home!

    Does anyone care what **** ******** thinks?


  14. Adam, even my parakeet let out a good belly laugh!


  15. A person so mind-bendingly witless as to call her/his self “Little boy who has lost his home!” has something to say.

    Before we get to that, we have to wonder about something. As a group, we have to ponder. We should get together and contemplate.

    Have you contemplated?

    First question: If you lost your mind completely and became a very stupid paraplegic person tomorrow, would you prefer that someone chose a name for you with an exclamation mark at the end?

    Example: “Little boy who has lost his home!” Would you immediately respect that name? Or would the witless and pointless exclamation mark at the end, that alone, alert you to the possibility that you are dealing with a poorly-read dullard?

    But more immediately, let’s take this example.

    Would you ask this question [this question has actually been posed by “Little boy who has lost his home!” ]:

    “Does anyone care what **** ******** thinks?”

    Or would you think that only someone wholly lacking in either testicles or ovaries would be so infantile?

    “Little boy”, you made me smile. You made my spouse smile. Obviously, you’re going to have an unsatisfying life involving too much daytime television. If you don’t have the balls to write actual letters, and if you have to write asterisks because you make public your lack of balls to write actual letters, then nothing you have to say is important. That’s clear, right?

    PS: How’s that prostate working out?

  16. Little boy who has lost his home! Avatar
    Little boy who has lost his home!

    A “few” well chosen words words have had an impact, have they not?


  17. The editorial in this week’s edition (Monday, April 5, 2010) of a local business newspaper states, in part: “In small economies, the pressure on governments to do everything possible is enormous but there are limits to what is possible. THE ONLY MANNER IN WHICH GOVERNMENTS EARN INCOME IS BY WAY OF TAXATION, WHICH IS NOT AN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY” (PDC’S CAPITALIZATION FOR EMPHASIS).

    Now, what this capitalized part of the above extraction does seek to do is to highlight for the benefit of many others understanding some more evidence of the type of unbridled unvarnished most contemptible brand of ignorance that could ever be imagined any where around in this land that itself parades falsely as reasoned journalism in the same editorial and on the same page that it was taken from this morning.

    How in this world could a journalist, or journalists, be writing such unstudied stupid nonsense, and yet still could remain in “the thick of things” at the company that produces the paper is beyond the PDC’s collection imagination!!

    We say it yet again that this country is in a very deep and profound political/intellectual leadership crisis, which if not helped resolved by right political educational people in the short to medium term will contribute to seeing much of this country in an inexorable irreversible state of greater than thought of social political material financial decline and ruin in the long term.

    When will many of those Barbadians who certainly have the requisite political intellectual talents aptitudes attitudes stand up and be counted in this Barbadian society, and help provide the political and intellectual leadership that is so preciously required at this very delicate stage in this country’s historial development? WHEN WILL THEY DO IT? WHEN LIKE HELL?

    Any how, let us deal a little with the brazen vulgarity that was written, and which we have CAPITALIZED, by the intellectual vagrant, or intellectual vagrants, according to this type of vernacular that is some times used by the present Attorney General of Barbados, at the particular newspaper company.

    First, this part, typewritten in capitals for emphasis again too – “THE ONLY MANNER IN WHICH GOVERNMENTS EARN INCOME IS BY TAXATION”. This is so much, so much downright nonsense. The fact of the matter is that any simple but rational analysis by many very conscious people of the government’s behaviour would show that the government hardly hardly EVER EARNS income. And that whenever it EARNS this income, IT ONLY COMES THROUGH ITS SELLING OF GOODS AND SERVICES TO THE RELEVANT PERSONS BUSINESSES AND OTHER ENTITIES FOR MONEY/VALUE IN THIS COUNTRY.

    One is left with the question therefore of how does government come by so much money/value that it would have budgeted for or not, given the immediately above assertion.

    Well, simply, the government WICKED EVILLY STEALS ROBS THE RELEVANT INDIVIDUALS, BUSINESSES AND OTHERS IN THIS COUNTRY OF COUNTLESS PORTIONS OF THEIR INCOMES ON AN ONGOING BASIS, OR IT BORROWS MONEY/ VALUE FROM LOCAL AND EXTERNAL SOURCES TO THE POINT OF INCREASING TO ALARMING LEVELS ITS OWN DEBT IN NET ANNUALIZED TERMS.

    So, it is highly non-sensical for a so-called journalist or set of journalists to write such filth for public consumption.

    And second, this part, following on from the first part, is really the question why this journalist, or these journalists, would have having foolishly stated: THE ONLY MANNER IN WHICH GOVERNMENT EARNS INCOME IS BY WAY OF TAXATION, would then go right behind and state that TAXATION IS NOT AN EONOMIC ACTIVITY.

    Now, seeing that TAXATION is the government’s wickedly evilly stealing and robbing the relevant others of countless portions of their incomes on an ongoing basis in this country, it must definitely mean that there must be involved some equally wicked evil politically coercive violent activity fundamentally underpinning and surrounding the government’s actually getting these portions of incomes – amounting to billions of dollars each year now.

    Indeed, this activity is defined by the THREAT OF USE OR USE OF FORCE – WHICH IN ONE GENERAL SENSE IS CALLED THE USE OF POLITICAL SANCTION, AND BY THE FEAR – MUCH OF IT IRRATIONAL THOUGH – BY SO MANY PEOPLE, BUSINESSES AND OTHERS IN THIS COUNTRY OF THIS SAID POLITICAL SANCTION BEING APPLIED TO THEM

    So, for this journalist, or these journalists, who wrote the above ignorance – THAT THE ONLY MANNER IN WHICH GOVERNMENTS EARN INCOME IS BY WAY OF TAXATION – then to say that TAXATION IS NOT AN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY – WHICH IS TRUE THOUGH – BUT TO NOT STATE IN THE ALTERNATIVE WHAT IT IS, REALLY SHOWS UP THE TOTAL LACK OF INTELLECTUAL ABILITY/CAPACITY TO REALLY THINK THROUGH SUCH SUBJECTS ON THE PART OF HIM/HER THEM, AND REALLY SHOWS UP TOO THE TYPE OF EFFECTS OF THIS DEEP ROOTED POLITICAL INTELECTUAL CRISIS THAT BARBADOS IS IN AT THE MOMENT AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE IN UNTIL THERE ARE MANY FUNDAMENTAL POLITICAL AND INTELLECTUAL CHANGES FOR THE BETTER IN THIS COUNTRY.

    In closing, we need therefore to properly remind many people that a future PDC Government will ABOLISH ALL TAXATION in order to liberate them and others from this evil scourge of TAXATION, and in order therefore to bring greater freedom and democracy and development to the people of this country.

    So, Down with the Damned DLP and the Blasted BLP!!!

    VOTE PDC Next Elections.

    PDC


  18. Inadvertence – third paragraph, last line – instead of the word “collection”, it should have been “collective”.

    PDC


  19. Hehehehe … PDC call somebody a “intellectual vagrant”. Priceless… Hehehe

    Hey PDC, you all order the printing press from the New Nighted States yet?


  20. BU the constitution of Antigua and Barbuda limits election maters to the high court and the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. The Privy council is not the final court of appeal for this matter.

  21. Bad Man Saying Nuttin Avatar
    Bad Man Saying Nuttin

    I really can’t see how the learned Judge could have quantitatively determined that because the poles opened late that people became disenchanted and did not vote. Was voter turnout lower than Normal? were the seats so close that this would have made a difference? How could the “learned” judge determine that even if people were disenchanted and did not vote that these people would have voted for the Birds? If the circumstances warranted overturning of the results surely the material factors were the same when the ruling was issued as it was a few days after the election. Why then the inordinate delay in rendering a ruling given the gravity of the situation and the inherent implications? The “learned” judge then left the island immediately after rendering the verdict. I just cant see how you could void an election because the electoral commission was inefficient. Surely they were impartial observers. I can’t remember them calling the election into question in any material way.

    there is a lot in this situation which does not pass the smell test. At the back of my mind a thought is floating ; all judges aren’t learned and some of them aren’t ethical . they’re only human and aren’t infallible. We will just have to wait and see how the ruling stands up to peer review.


  22. @Antiguan

    Thanks for the correction.


  23. It has come to BU’s attention that it is not unusual in recent times for governments running for reelection in the EC to buy votes with passports, jobs and other material things. A large expat segment benefited e,g, Chinese. The decision by the judge may yet proved to be a courageous one.


  24. Following the results of the latest CADRES Poll conducted a few days ago…..if a General Election were to be held in Barbados in May 2010….the DLP under the exemplary leadership of Hon. David Thompson would win 28 seats.

    Cynthia Forde would become the new Opposition Leader. ( By virtue of receiving the most votes by a BLP candidate )

    Ronald ” No Stopping ” Toppin would become her Deputy.

    Follow the crowds to St. Michael South East on Sunday 18th April 2010……to hear MP Hamilton Lashley declare his LOVE for the great DLP following the results of the latest opinion poll.


  25. Election Information
    If the Parliament itself resolves that it should be dissolved, with at least two-thirds of the Members (ie. 86 Members) voting in favour, the Presiding Officer proposes a date for an extraordinary general election and the Parliament is dissolved by the monarch by royal proclamation. In the current Parliament, elected in 2007, this can only happen if supported by the Scottish National Party as it has more than one-third of the Members (47 out of 129 Members equals 36.4%) and can therefore block a dissolution resolution unless 4 of its Members were to join with all opposition members to pass a dissolution resolution.

    However, it does not necessarily require a two-thirds majority to precipitate an extraordinary general election, because under the Scotland Act Parliament is also dissolved if it fails to nominate one of its members to be First Minister within certain time limits, irrespective of whether at the beginning or in the middle of a four year term.

    Thanks


  26. I really like your blog.. very nice colors & theme.
    Did you make this website yourself or did you hire someone to do it
    for you? Plz answer back as I’m looking to design my own blog and would like to know where u got this from. cheers

The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading