Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

,

Fireworks Go Off In The House Of Assembly

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Speaker of the Barbados House of Assembly Michael Carrington

In a stormy debate so far at today’s sitting of the House of Assembly the leader of the opposition has sought to raise a matter (emergency debate on CLICO) which was ruled against by the Speaker. While seeking to clarify the matter along with her colleague George Payne of St. Andrew, the Speaker took the unusual step for Barbados of asking the Marshalls, with the assistance of the constabulary if required to remove the two members (to be confirmed).

Interesting to note Dale Marshall is currently being allowed to narrate events which led up to the gun incident between himself and David Estwick, interesting to say the least. Estwick who offered an apology last week when the opposition boycotted was not seated.

To the BU family, the filibustering strategy of the BLP does not come as a surprise in light of the recent gun incident in parliament and the escalating events of the CLICO issue. Given the adversarial design of the Westminster System how can one blame the opposition? Time will determine how sound the strategy proves itself to be.

The display of disorder which was witnessed this morning would have saddened all who witnessed or heard it.

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

188 responses to “Fireworks Go Off In The House Of Assembly”

  1. Wishing In Vain Avatar
    Wishing In Vain

    Online readers say: Shame!

    A FAILING GRADE!

    That is what Barbadians near and far have given to parliamentarians for their behaviour in the House of Assembly in recent times.

    On NATIONNEWS.com and our Facebook page (facebook.com/NationBarbados), readers were scathing in their denunciation of MPs, particularly in light of Tuesday’s row which ended with Opposition Leader Mia Mottley and MP George Payne being ejected by Speaker Michael Carrington.

    Readers termed the behaviour of Mottley and Payne “shameful” and “total disrespect” to the Speaker. Of the 165 readers who responded to an online poll at time of writing, 84 agreed with Carrington’s actions to eject them from the House, while 69 disagreed.

    Mottley in particular, as Opposition Leader, was harshly criticised.

    “The Speaker explained his ruling with relevant Parliament rules . . . Mia had 14 years of the Speaker on her side now she [has] got to learn to operate as the Opposition and learn some manners,” commented Ryan Kellman via Facebook.

    On NATIONNEWS.com, one reader using the handle my 2 cents also knocked Mottley, saying:

    “The Leader of the Opposition has proven time and time again that she does not have the temperament necessary to lead anyone, anywhere. . . . I believe that she might wish to take heed of the question posed by the late Rt. Hon. Errol Barrow: “What kind of mirror image do you have of yourself?”

    Some readers were also critical of Carrington’s handling of the event and asserted that the Opposition Leader should have been allowed to make her point.

    “This is what the Parliament of Barbados come to? Why were the Opposition members not given an opportunity to speak? Is this democracy?” questioned John B on the NATIONNEWS.com report on the incident, while Concerned Youth queried: “How can he reject a point of privilege if he does not allow the member to speak? It makes no sense.”

    However, with Tuesday’s events coming weeks after an incident between MPs Dr David Estwick and Dale Marshall during the Estimates Debate on March 19, the mood was one of general disgust with MPs, with readers saying the standard of behaviour was not befitting of the House.

    “My opinion was that the behaviour of those parliamentarians was shameful. For a moment there I thought that I was viewing a rum shop brawl. I think those people better get their act cleaned up,” commented Charol Forde via Facebook.

    Another Facebook fan, Deborah Thompson, expressed dismay at the behaviour on both sides of the aisle, writing:

    “What is happening to [our] society and our leaders? Then to read the reaction of the Government side saying “put them out”.

    “They should have kept quiet. How do we turn back from here?”

    On NATIONNEWS.com, one reader wrote:

    “I expect this type of behavior from schoolchildren, not from the people we have elected to lead this nation into the future. Grow up and look beyond your own personal agenda and false [bravado] . . . . Go to the headmaster’s office.”

    Perhaps the most damning criticism came from the many readers who charged that MPs were not setting the right example for young Barbadians.

    “We are wondering why our youth are behaving the way they are . . . What message are we sending to the young people of this country? The message is clear- it is okay to disregard and disrespect rules and order” declared NATIONNEWS.com reader Nita.

    “They [should] be good influences and [are] failing miserably in doing that, and then they don’t want dancehall artistes in Barbados,” stated Stefan Browne.

  2. now i know Avatar
    now i know

    @ Amazed by it all // April 28, 2010 at 10:22 PM. “2. Ms. Mottley kept asking to be heard when she had no right to be once the speaker had ruled it could not go forward.”

    R U an idiot? that is precisely the point. the speaker of the House never allowed her to be heard. So what was ‘it’ that he could not allow to go forward? He chose not to give her a chance to tell him. this suggests that he knew what she was going to say and showed how partisan he was. that is why he has no right being speaker of the house. She showed total disrespect after he initiated it. all this crap tells me that the DLP will not be returned to power due to this CLICO and other money spending issues. Not that I want the BLP. I hope some new Party surely must be planning to run – hopefully

  3. Anan Avatar
    Anan

    Bajan Truth wrote on April 27, 2010

    “The protection of democracy is important for any country. If the speaker is in violation of the privileges of members it needs to be dealt with, in the interest of democracy. if he was unsure he should ask. The standing orders need to be understood and adhered to by the speaker and the members”.

    Barbados is a sitting paid-up member of the Commonwealth Association of Parliamentarians (CPA). The primary function of this body is to enhance the functioning of our Parliaments and the enlightenment of our Parliamentarians of the rules and customs of the respective Parliaments.

    The behavour of Mr. Carrington in the House on Tuesday warrants censorship and a letter needs to be sent to this body by the concern citizens of this country to alert this international body of the threat this speaker now poses to the customs and conventions of our Parliament.

    The main problem in our Parliament has to do with the fact that the chief presiding officer of Parliament is drawn from the Party former the Government of the day. It is ludicrous to think that the Speaker of the House, himself a member of the very party forming the Government, will seek to rule against his own party. His political bias will always be paramount in his ruling.

    Tuesday’s putting out of the House of Ms. Mottley and Mr. Payne and the subsequent walk out of the other Opposition members were as a direct result of the Government’s refusal to let the issue on Clico be raised. The relationship between Clico and the DLP is no secret and the large amount of money spent on their campaigns and its members has resulted in they refusal to let the truth and facts be told about Clico.

  4. Anan Avatar
    Anan

    Throughout the Speakers battling with the Opposition you can hear through the microphone the Clerk of Parliament could be heard trying to help guide the Speaker. There were times you heard the Clerk say to the speaker “no that is not procedure” but the speaker responded “no never mind”.

    It is clear to me that the Speaker was wearing his DLP hat on that day and was not prepared to act in his role as Presiding Officer of the General Assembly of Parliament and not the DLP.

    The rules of the House are clear and the Speaker was definitely out of place. He is responsible for bringing our House into disrepute.

  5. Observing Avatar
    Observing

    IMHO,

    1. The Speaker ruled that the matter (CLICO) could not be raised as a matter of urgency under Standing Order 18. Mottley sought clarification on the ruling. The Speaker correctly said he already explained his ruling.

    2. Mottley attempted to interrupt and raise a point of privilege concerning the matter under Standing Order 76-5, which speaks to the privilege of members. NB. she kept repeating that she wanted a clarification on the ruling and the right to speak.

    3. Since the speaker already ruled AND explained (which he wasn’t obligated to) why the matter was not urgent, the CLICO matter was procedurally “dead.”

    4. A point of privilege under 76-5 cannot be used to seek clarification on a ruling.

    5. Members who disagree with a ruling can follow 76-2. In essence, use your privilege to raise a matter AFTER receiving leave of the speaker and then if you feel aggrieved, follow 76-5 which speaks to dealing with matters of privilege (general or personal). The Speaker had already ruled that clarification of the matter could not be raised AT THAT TIME and hinted that any other matters needed to be brought to bear using the correct procedure.

    simply put, this was a gross, public display of contempt and disrespect by our elected officials and clearly politically motivated as opposed to motivated by principle. Any member can speak but at the correct time, using the correct procedure and adhering to the Standing Orders.

    Even after having been ruled out of order, warned multiple times, being advised to follow the correct procedure, the huff and puff about having a right to speak continued.

    To me, what can be said, when it can be said, and what you do when ruled not eligible to say it AT THAT TIME were are the key issues in the debate and in any case, the Speaker’s decision is final…like em or lump em.

    No need to waste words with George Payne.

  6. David Avatar
    David

    @Anan

    Throughout the Speakers battling with the Opposition you can hear through the microphone the Clerk of Parliament could be heard trying to help guide the Speaker. There were times you heard the Clerk say to the speaker “no that is not procedure” but the speaker responded “no never mind”.

    It is clear to me that the Speaker was wearing his DLP hat on that day and was not prepared to act in his role as Presiding Officer of the General Assembly of Parliament and not the DLP.

    The rules of the House are clear and the Speaker was definitely out of place. He is responsible for bringing our House into disrepute.

    BU could be wrong but we have the distinct feeling Mottley and the Opposition riled up the Speaker knowing that he would have been forced to remove them. That became clear from the sidebar conversations which were carried world wide. To your point, it means the opposition is complicit to the parliamentary procedures in place and seems quite comfortable exploiting to its benefit.

  7. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    Anan // April 29, 2010 at 1:32 PM

    “Throughout the Speakers battling with the Opposition you can hear through the microphone the Clerk of Parliament could be heard trying to help guide the Speaker. There were times you heard the Clerk say to the speaker “no that is not procedure” but the speaker responded “no never mind”. ”

    _____________

    Your hearing must be quite good to hear this and to clearly recognize who said what and to whom.

    However isn’t it possible that the speaker was giving more leeway to the opposition than required, and this is what the Clerk was saying? You need to give us specifics to make your point that the speaker was abusing his authority.

    You say the rules of the House are clear, but we have seen and heard reference to a number of different standing orders. Which rules are you talking about, or should we just accept it because you said it?

  8. Avatar
    Anonymous

    If Mia feels so strongly all she needs to do is bring a motion of no confidence in the Speaker. Simple.

    To go international with this matter, without first having exhausted all Parliamentary channels would be an abuse of process. Oh, but wait, she never respects process does she!

  9. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Anyway, she would be begging for Jinkins if she went international with this knowing that her gutter behaviour was captured live and direct on camera. Looka, the only thing she aint do is hol’ up she clothes!!

  10. Avatar
    Anonymous

    OK, I now recall she was wearing a pants suit… mercifully. Otherwise who knows what she would’ve done.

  11. UP YOUR A** WITH FIBRE GLASS Avatar
    UP YOUR A** WITH FIBRE GLASS

    up wunna one with fibre glass
    and see how it feels

  12. UP YOUR A** WITH FIBRE GLASS Avatar
    UP YOUR A** WITH FIBRE GLASS

    …up it and see how it feels

  13. Atman Avatar
    Atman

    @Anonymous who wrote:

    @ J // April 28, 2010 at 9:23 PM
    @ Atman // April 28, 2010 at 9:32 PM

    There is no need for the two above comments from you both, this is how we continue to discourage Bajans from giving they opinion in and open public forum.
    ===============================================================

    Listen idiot, if you are one who reads long post that is your buisness, but you are not going to tell me what comments I should make about long posts as it pertains to my preference for reading. So you could suck salt as a friend of mine would say.

  14. Amazed by it all Avatar
    Amazed by it all

    And I know………. I might be an idiot but you are a pure bred Ass.

    Didn’t you hear Ms. Mottley say that she delivered a copy of the motion to the speaker the night before and he indicate that he saw it, read it and did not feel it past any of the relevant tests.

    Now tell me Ass-tus, why would the speaker need to hear her read out to him that which he already read and studied before the House even sat.

    Stupse………..these Labour Party people so stupid then.

  15. Bajan Truth Avatar
    Bajan Truth

    @ Anonymous

    Just for clarification, the discussion on 200m. US does not allow for a discussion on CLICO. It is in the standing orders, that you must stick with the topic. The Speaker would quite correctly state that you need to come back on the topic. The illegal issue of policies would not be accepted as being connected to that loan. Some speakers let debates range far, but it is at their pleasure. He can limit debate and narrow the definition of the topic. I have heard him allow wide-ranging from his side, and when limit the same discussion with the opposition in a single sitting. That is unfair, though within his power.

    For those of you who feel that the CLICO illegal acts are not an urgent matter. Two callers on Brass Tacks outlined that if you were a policyholder and Thompson is not protecting your interest, and has not spoken to date on the illegality, you would want someone to intervene and speak up for you. One guy said, it is alright for these political partisans to talk, but they do not know the fear, that I will have the burden of my elderly relatives, if they cannot be paid.

    The illegality for them was the real issue. So it depends on who wears what shoe.

  16. ''''''FIRE'''''' Avatar
    ”””FIRE”””

    COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG ARE SICK AND ONESIDED————–

    I AM TAKING A BREAK FROM THIS SHIT

    IT IS SMELLING AND SMELLY

  17. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Well, well, well.. Fire can’t take the heat. LOL!

  18. Amazed by it all Avatar
    Amazed by it all

    Bajan Truth…………..once again you guys have it all wrong. The US 200 million loan is a matter pertaining to the local economy. Therefore any matter that impinges on the function, growth, decline, success or failure of the economy, its institutions or people is fair game to be spoken of in that type of debate. The issues with CLICO are straight economic matters which go directly to the financial system, its functioning and regulation in Barbados and the potential negative impact on investors in Barbados.

    Now tell me, how could such a discussion be disallowed by the speaker on such a resolution? He did not disallow it the budget, or the estimates debate none of which was specially about clico. Stop finding excuses. Ms. Mottley had a different plan and it was not about debating the matters pertaining to clico.

  19. Watchie. Avatar
    Watchie.

    Who are you critics and judges of the opposition trying to fool?.
    You condemn and are trying to execute The Leader of The Opposition and OPMS for disgraceful behaviour on Tuesday in Parliament. But yet still this forum allows bloggers to constantly denigrate Ms Mottley in the worst way. Double standards . What is the reason for all this? This is certainly not better behaviour.
    Educated people should be able to discuss and analyse without such foul and stinking behaviour,j which seems just for the sake of taking a side.
    The young and old can read and understand as well as hear. So when does it end? Double standards at play.
    Pot can’t tell de kettle dat it black.

  20. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Watchie. // April 30, 2010 at 8:34 AM

    Educated people should be able to discuss and analyse without such foul and stinking behaviour,j which seems just for the sake of taking a side.
    =========================================
    Does the above apply to Mia Mottley too?

  21. Sapidillo Avatar
    Sapidillo

    To think of it, what do these Parliamentarians expect from our youths when they (Parliamentarians) who should lead by example act with such deplorable behavior, especially in a place which should be respected. Is this the caliber of their behavior which we want our youths to emulate? (Pun intended)

    Should we now engrave a model over the entrance of Parliament that reads, “Do as we say, not as we do.” These Parliamentarians involved in this raucous event should be walking like Tom Dooley with their heads down – shame, shameful.

    These are some of the same people who stay on the sideline always ready to criticize our youths when they make similar alleged gestures in public.

    No wonder some of our youths ape the behaviors that they seen acted out by their seniors and leaders.

  22. Atman Avatar
    Atman

    @Pearl

    I also agree with Checkit-Out that your comments were very level-headed. There are some here (like Adrian Hinds) who always talk about having knowledge of this and having knowledge of that, but lack the ability to reason and fail to recognize the other elements that are subject to interpretation and scrutiny.

    Now this same Adrian Hinds seems sensible enough to agree that our system of government is outdated and needs revamping, but his personal feelings about Mia overshadows his commonsense with regards to what took place in parliament last Tuesday. What a paradox.

    It is sometimes absolutely necessary to break some rules and appear to be defiant and disobedient. Remember, I am not a fan of Mia nor am I bound to any party, but objectivity and commonsense should rule.

  23. Anan Avatar
    Anan

    Yes I have a copy of the tape recording of the Clerk urgings to the Speaker. He was blatantly ignoring the advice.

    But who expects the Speakers to be fair to the BLP members, after-all this is the same man who prior to the last election was up and down the country cussing the BLP on platforms. I don’t think he could have changed his political cloak overnight. He is bias and will always be.

    The Opposition simply has to fight for their rights in defense of our people. Mia her team were right to stand up for the policy holders at Clico in the face of this lavish ponzi scheme in which Parris and Thompson continues to abuse the laws of this country.

    How is that both Parris and Thompson can get out their money but ordinary Barbadians will have to lose theirs in the collapse? How come Parris and Thompson can still be flying about in the private jet while the policyholders suffer?

    There are ordinary people out here who can’t even get as little as $5,000.00 as the mature value on their Endowment policies. This is bad.

    When the BLP wins the next election somebody must answer for this high-class theft of poor people money.

  24. Avatar
    Anonymous

    When the BLP wins the next election …
    __________________________________________

    When? Getting a bit ahead of your self there, dreamer.

  25. Albert Avatar
    Albert

    I wonder if Owen Arthur really wants the story on Narsham to resurface? Talk about writig policies without SOI sanction … the Directors of the company included SIR DAVID SIMMONS and DELISLE BRADSHAW. Let us get some facts.

    How many poor people had to accept less than their full settement with the Transport Board becaise of Narsham’s collapse? And how much did Rommel Marshall get from the broker for giving the transport board insurance contract to Narsham? And then CGI?

  26. David Avatar
    David

    @Albert

    Looks like we have come full circle because CGI has been the company to come to the rescue.

  27. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Anan // April 30, 2010 at 2:48 PM

    Yes I have a copy of the tape recording of the Clerk urgings to the Speaker. He was blatantly ignoring the advice
    ==========================================
    ….from this tape are you able to tell us what exactly is this advice?

  28. JC Avatar
    JC

    We were not the persons who deliberately ignored the speaker’s ruling!

    I have a boss whom I cannot stand! However, when she says something I am respectful even if I don’t like it!

  29. Bonny Peppa Avatar
    Bonny Peppa

    Anan
    And speaking about ‘high class theft of poor people money’, were you hibernating for the 14yrs of governance by ‘your’ people? Get real Starboy. Not even bears doan hibernate dat long.

    Watchie
    How can you compare persons writing on a blog to persons misbehaving in Parliament? If you see Bonny Peppa walking down Broad Street tomorrow would you know me? Oh Lord mannnnnnnnnnnnnn.
    If the politicians can’t take the heat, they should keep out de kitchen. Ok?

  30. Watchie. Avatar
    Watchie.

    Good enough, nothing said in parliament on Tuesday compares with the written word in some of these blogs.

  31. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Watchie. // May 1, 2010 at 7:22 AM

    Good enough, nothing said in parliament on Tuesday compares with the written word in some of these blogs.
    __________________________________________

    Well, duh! Dis blog governed by standing orders and ancient parliamentary rules and customs?

    Try as they might, Mia and her gang can’t wriggle out of this one. She must learn that her actions have consequences. Who does she think she is?

  32. Chuckles Avatar
    Chuckles

    @ David

    Miss Mottley is a lawyer and over the years she would have had decisions made
    by a judge/judges which were not correct in her opinion. Has she ever disrespected the
    judges at any time? Didn’t she appeal the judge’s/judges’ rulings in the appeal
    courts? In the case of Mottley vs the Speaker, yes, she has appealed to the court of public opinion (press conference ).
    As far as the media (radio/print/tv) indicate, she has lost her appeal. Just
    heard on radio that she is appealing to a another court i.e BLP supporters
    tomorrow night at a political meeting. I suppose she will win her case there but
    I didn’t hear Owen Arthur’s name mentioned as one of the witnesses (speakers) to
    address the audience. Are all BLP supporters on board with this appeal?

  33. David Avatar
    David

    @Chuckles

    Mia is fighting to maintain the position she currently holds as opposition leader.

    This might best explain why every political battle which manifest itself since her take-over is being fought by Mia and some of her team with such might.

    To some extent there is some opposition fatigue which maybe negatively affecting her image/popularity in our opinion.

    The other side however is that the many Clico policy holder because of their vest interest may still go with her and there is the conservative element in Barbados who want to go with her but maybe struggling because of some other factors. BU will expand on this last point on another blog.

    The bottomline, Mia has not been tested yet in the court of public opinion but it will happen soon and in the meantime the centipede remains hidden in her sheets!

  34. Bajan Truth Avatar
    Bajan Truth

    @ Amazed by it all

    Read the Standing orders and follow parliamentary debate before you pronounce on what the speaker can and cannot do. You cannot stray from the topic, the speaker cna ask you to confine your comments to the topic. it is at his pleasure. if he did not allow a fifteen minute debate on the Clico issu how will he allow a half-hour debate under a loan. A loan and discussion on the economy does not allow a discussion on illegal acts in writing 800 or as we know now 2400 policies. The speaker can and does limit what can be included, ask anyone who is in parliament.

    As per sunday’s review on the matter in the nation the speaker was wrong, he should hear what is the point of privilege and then rule it as not allowable. End of story. He erred in judgment and in interpetation of the Standing orders. Ask other officers who preside in parliament, and see what they say.

    The DLP did not look good either, if bloggers are interested in what is on the ground. BLP looked bad behaved to some; and the DLP looked like they have something to hide and protecting Clico at the expense of barbadians to othrs. The nation poll had majority disagreed wtih speakers ruling, not sure what it is now.

  35. UP YOUR A** WITH FIBRE GLASS Avatar
    UP YOUR A** WITH FIBRE GLASS

    Well well well, will willing wilting hammy lal wilt in opposition anytime soon.

    What will happen when wilting hammy la realises that the DLP will lose the next election. Will wilting hammy la wish that he had waited with the BLP a wait that will be not too long .

  36. Bonny Peppa Avatar
    Bonny Peppa

    Up your a with fibre glass

    You crystal ball got in a crack. change it. will, will, will will will ya?

  37. The Politics Of Spin |

    […] the way, has the gun incident which involved Estwick and Dale Marshall reported to be resting with the Committee of Privileges in our parliament been […]

  38. Who Needs Integrity Legislation Anyway |

    […] is more than one year Barbadians have waited for a ruling on the David Estwick/Dale Marshall gun issue. Subject to correction the matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges by Speaker Michael […]

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

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

Continue reading