Mia Mottley MP

The current standard of debate displayed in The Estimates 2011-2012 in parliament can be described as disappointing. Given the economic storm which Barbados continues to navigate, one might have reasonably expected our policymakers to have used the opportunity to engage in a debate to convince Barbadians they are attuned to the challenges which current realities dictate.  Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler delivered a presentation littered with statistical jargon, Opposition Leader Owen Arthur sought to create fear by stressing on government’s running of a  current account deficit which is 8% of GDP. He also found the time to reminisce about his tenure as an assistant economist in Jamaica in 1974. His suggestions of a way forward seem to be dependent on the tired model which has gotten us thus far.

Neither presentations inspired the BU household into believing our policymakers have fully grasped that adversity breeds opportunity. In contrast BU gives kudos to Mia Motley’s presentation. It should be plain to see that Mottley since being sacked  as leader of the opposition is transforming her public profile and it has resulted in her ‘upping her game’. She is speaking to issues which resonate with the PEOPLE. She has not been afraid to disagree with her colleagues in house debates. She was the first to offer any creative ideas to the government on how to reposition Barbados in a fiercely competitive global market.  Frankly it was refreshing to listen to her contribution. Her suggestion  how government can easily enable a Wi-Fi space as a means to generate revenue is a top drawer suggestion given the demand for that technology across socioeconomic strata. To believe that our democracy demands we had to listen to the drivel delivered by other members of parliament, on both sides, and Mottley  restricted to the same time limit smacks of some kind of injustice. Such are the vicissitudes of life!

The rebuttal from DLP supporters and others will be swift to ask why she did not operate at this level when she was leader of the opposition. BU cannot answer and frankly does not care. The point is, she is where we would like to see her now.  It would be disingenuous of BU  not to advise Mottley to curb that rambunctious lifestyle for which she has developed a reputation. As she prepares herself for the mantle of leadership she should take comfort that Barbadians are an easy going lot and will readily embrace the repentant.

The time has come for Fruendel Stuart – Mottley alluded to it in her contribution to the Estimates Debate – to understand that we are at a moment in our existence where he can define the history of Barbados like some before him. To operate in a business as usual mode is to cheat on the fact he is known to be a philosopher, and therefore should be able to reflect with passion at the prospect such an outlook affords at this time.


  1. David,

    I agree.


  2. @Prodigal
    Did you hear Mia rebuttal to the proposed amendment. She spoke on behalf on the people those whom would agree with her point of view Mia seems to demands respect from those who might have thrown her overboard. Her rebuttal tonight even though I disagree with her had delivered a sense of integrity into the debate more often having the ability to engaged the viewing public. Another stellar performance!


  3. @ac
    I am sure, none was more please by Mia’s new found civility in parliament than the Speaker of the house.
    Mia the latter day statesman was thrown out of house for conduct unbecoming of a female let alone a Statesman. How soon we forget. LOL!


  4. @AdrianHinds

    “Mia the latter day statesman was thrown out of the house for conduct unbecoming of a FEMALE let alone a Statesman”

    in part she was thrown out because she was a FEMAle who had the guts to take no nonsense from those who wanted her out . Nevertheless not to forget that the men of Parliament had fist fights and gun fights in parliament and still are members of the club. Being a FEMALE gave her not such priviliges. However With all the pitfalls and innuendos she has endured Mia is standing head and shoulders above those who did her wrong like the Owen Arthurs and his loyal court the Gang of Five


  5. @AC
    What is the point of attempting to rewrite recent history, when everyone here was a witness to the same events? While not being the only female in parliament she was the only one subject to the Speakers authority that day.


  6. @Adrian Hinds

    She isn’t the first and she won’t be the last. Even so in the face of admonition she has moved to another level one that even those who would have done her arm would agree with.


  7. @Prodigal,
    You are being hypocritical! Did Owen go to parliamentary group meetings when Mia was the opposition leader? He did not!
    Did he respond to the calls made to him by her?

    You cite Hillary and Obama, but Obama held out the olive branch to Hillary recognizing that there were stronger together than apart, and so the fences were mended between them. We are not seeing that between Owen and Mia, what we are seeing is Owen behind the scenes stoking the fires of contention, and then saying he had nothing to do with it.

    @Daivid,
    David I agree with you Politicians must learn that there are certain behaviours that are not acceptable if one wants to lead a people.

    In any leadership position and in particular politics, one must understand that you cannot divest one’s character from one’s intellect, (irrespective of how brilliant one might be) the two should and must go together.

    Now, having said that one would hope that we would hold up that bar for both male and female politicians, or any in leadership positions.

    If you want to be a foot soldier, you can do as you like but not if you desire to lead.

    @Adrian Hinds,
    Why you don’t crawl back under the dinosaurs with your chauvinistic foolishness. There is no particular behaviour for females and males, all should behave with civility.

    When guns were drawn in same Parliament, did you speak out against it. Where is your integrity?


  8. It is obvious Mottley has made a conscious effort to ensure sure all of her public contributions reach for the highest level of value add she can muster.

    In her contribution last night she was obviously struggling with where she wants to go while battling with an obvious conflict of toeing party line.

    In a nutshell, it appears she is trying to save her ‘individuality’ and not become submerged in the BLP agenda of Arthur/Payne.

    It was instructive to see Payne making the noise he did immediately after Mottley’s thought provoking contribution, as if to detract?

    It will be interesting to see how she battles the monster.


  9. For those who cite Obama/Hillary as an example of political collegiality, you are missing one important ingredient… Obama won and could offer Hillary the cabinet plum of Secretary of State…… only the second woman to hold that position. If Obama had offered her a Cabinet position e.g .Secretary of Labour or Secretary of the Interior etc. she would have walked. As Secretary of State she wields much clout , of course she could have remained in the Senate as the junior Senator from New York but limited as many leadership positions are determined by length of tenure.

    Arthur didn’t even offer Mottley the position of Deputy Leader (not that she would have accepted) but what can he offer her that she didn’t already have?

    A better analogy of the Bajan experience would be the differences between Thompson/Mascoll where Mascoll ultimately left the DLP.


  10. Sargeant incorrectly wrote “Obama won and could offer Hillary the cabinet plum of Secretary of State…… only the second woman to hold that position.”

    Ms Clinton is the THIRD woman to hold that position. Madeline Albright and Condoleezza Rice preceded her. On a related note, it is curious that Ms Rice’s mentor was Josef Korbel, a Czech diplomat and academic. Mr Korbel was also the father of Ms Albright! That Ms Albright was appointed by Bill Clinton (Democrat) and Ms Rice was appointed by George W. Bush (Republican) makes this all even more curious.


  11. ac | March 19, 2011 at 7:40 AM | @Adrian Hinds
    [Mia has moved to another level one that even those who would have done her arm would agree with.]

    and the motivations for this “move” is purely political; are we this gullible, and willing to be mere believers?

    Hi Fran:
    LOL!


  12. despite the innuendo and ingratuitous remarks by detractors, mia’s day is bound to come as sure as night followeth day. young, bright and articulate, the electorate would eventually warm to her especially if she continues in this statesmanlike vein. all she has to do is wait for the demise of he gang of five after the next elections when she would be able to assume the mantle of opposition leader in her own right. unlees, the dlp unearths new talent in their second term which they will win by default; mis mottley would be the shining star in the political arena provided she has no skeletons in her closet. she would have grown more in stature and the garrolous sinckler all bark and no substance would be no match for her.i suppose that mr estwick would be prime minister by then for soon the party would have to acknowledge that he is the brightest and most knowledgeable of a poor bunch. miss mottley also has to be careful of some of the praise she is garnering on the blog and recognise it for what it is worth. i suspect that some of the praise deservedly earned might be from dlp operatives seeking to keep the fire between her and mr arthur burning.


  13. But Ruth, what do you mean by “demise.” You do realize that the gang of five represents the majority of the BLP parliamentary team. If Bree St.John’s dictum “No man is bigger than party” still holds, then it seems like the demise of the BLP as we know it today is necessary for Mia to rise from its ashes, as leader of a renewed party. Such aint likely to happen soon.

    BTW: 40 nuff in todays Bimshire aint young nuh more. People in that age bracket dying from all manner cancers, and lifestyle deceases. Arthur is of that generation of Barbadians that are out living us younger ones.


  14. yes Adrian, no man is bigger than the party and the sooner miss mottley realises that, the better but in the same vein the gang of five does not constitute the party either; if they lose their seats, the party would still survive and mis mottley will lead the party unchallenged and unfettered without the damocles sword of the gang of five hanging over her head.


  15. @Ruth
    Well it is certainly possible for Toppin, Payne, and Marshall to lose their seats; they won by very small margins last time around. However, it is also likely that they will increase their margins of victory against this DLP government. But you seem to agree with me that Mia’s rise can only come about by some cleansing of the BLP. I further contend that such will not occur anytime soon.

Leave a Reply to RaymondCancel reply

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

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

Continue reading