The Business Of The Political Campaign And Its Financing

Submitted by Eli Davis

Peter Wickham recently sacked from the CBC TV8 has been at the forefront of calling for political campaign reform in Barbados

Every so often I get the urge to contribute (?) a comment to this forum that I believe merits attention. This time around it is that of The Business of the Political Campaign and its Financing. It is an issue that is basic in determining the relevance of our electoral process and, as a result of the moneyed interests involved, is the most difficult of topics to have discussed in public.

Few people would know that a study on this topic was commissioned by the OAS back in 2003 and resulted in a report that was published about three years later. My concern with the entire topic has to do with whether or not it is an appropriate topic for consideration in our current political environment that has demonstrated little in the furtherance of the long term viability of our peoples and nation states.

Basically, in my view anyway, a political party is simply an (legal?) entity that seeks to gain administrative control over the funds in the Treasury, and that’s it. How these are spent and on whom form the essence of the business of the party. The business requires that the populace be deceived into supporting the party campaign and once successful, that control over the funds be maintained for as long as possible.

Of course this necessitates that at the very least, the barest minimum be done by the incumbent to demonstrate that the concerns of the civilian population are being looked after. In fact today all that is really required is for there to be a “recognition” of the concerns, without the matching desire to make good on addressing them (through designing and implementing workable solutions). So the issue of how these (legal?) entities are funded will most certainly expose the nuts and bolts of the business of the political campaign.

Recently a popular public personality lost his pick at the CBC without an accompanying explanation. It is believed however that his involvement in a partial expose on the source of campaign financing in Barbados may have been one of the roots causes. If this is in fact the case, it is an action that needs to be highlighted as part of a deeper sinister whole, and an action that should heap shame on the present administration.

0 thoughts on “The Business Of The Political Campaign And Its Financing

  1. An interesting submission and one that strikes to the heart of how political institutions manage are forced to manage their affairs. It is no secret that CLICO funded the DLP through the years which, some may say, has affected its policy relating to the CLICO/BAICO sagas. To remove suspicion of manipulation by corporate White and Black shadows the idea that political campaigns should be funded by the public purse may not be so farfetched after all.

  2. I am not surprised that Peter Wickham’s chickens have come home to roost. I was in Antigua in 2004 when Cadres did a poll prior to the General Election there.

    I invite Peter Wickham to come back to this forum and tell Barbadians what Lester Bird asked him to do to influence the vote against Baldwin Spencer (then Opposition leader) and for how much money ?

    Thank goodness Baldwin Spencer won.

    And to think that Peter Wickham’s cronies like Mr. Stig Merritt are employed in the Barbados Public Service ( interfacing with critical Ministries) I wonder what sensitive information is being leaked ?

    Wake up Freundel Stuart, more persons needs to be fired.

  3. My my,

    Mr Wickham certainly has formed a few enemies in his short life. I such an in perfect world, anyone who has demonstrated worth deserves better than Anon’s sentiments …

  4. BAFBFP | September 4, 2011 at 2:53 PM | Are the Barbados Labour Party and the Democratic Labour Party legal entities? Can either one be sued in a court of Law?


    Good question!!

    I can’t find either registered as a trademark, business name or incorporation on the Corporate Affairs website.

    Don’t know the answer.

  5. In what has transpired, and has been revealed, is it now time for legislation to be put in place so those who are *investing* above a certain threshold in a party during a campaign, be made known to the public?

    If such will influence some of the decisions of a party, then one should know to whom one is really casting a vote, which is sometimes for the kinds of things manifestos are not made of.

    Since the cable said who financed the election campaign of this government, should this government be bailing-out CLICO with the money of the average man in the street? Would this be morally wrong considering that it might be considered a case of quid pro quo?

    The Judicial Managers are unable to find assets belonging to this company. It seems someone has left with important docs in their back pocket. Is anyone other than the taxpayer going to pay the price for what might be determined to be a Ponzi Scheme?

    Are persons in Barbados still incarcerated for going into a supermarket and stealing a tin of corn beef, because they are hungry? Surely not.

    One now wonders at this present moment what the US Embassy might be writing in cables on this matter. LOL

    • UWI Lecturer annoyed at Barbadian Blog, seeks legal counsel for recourse, says Leaked Cable of US Embassy is falsified

      Journalist and political analyst Peter Wickham, Sunday nights on Channel 8 will be more boring once again without Wickham’s daring assessments
      It has come to my attention that a “wikileaks” Cable which is currently being circulated and quoted in different electronic media has identified me (Peter W. Wickham) as the source of information which formed the basis of several improper allegations that were made regarding two current and one former Caribbean Prime Minister. I consider this a most disturbing turn of events which presents me, along with these gentlemen in a negative light and appears to be based largely on information that I have no knowledge of and never conveyed to the Ambassador Kramer.
      Specifically, I can state categorically, that I have NEVER met privately with former US Ambassador Mary Kramer, who is alleged to be the author of this cable. I do recall her entertaining about ten journalists, along with myself in 2006 and at this meeting I made reference to an OAS Document that I co-authored entitled “From Grassroots to the Airwaves” which is in the public domain and makes general remarks about Caribbean political party financing concerns that I am well-known to have.
      I however did not, at that meeting or at any other time, discuss the intimate details of any specific campaign or concerns about any leader with Ambassador Kramer as is being suggested in the commentary on the cable, because I am not privy to such information.
      It would also be misleading to suggest that I was a campaign advisor to either PM’s Skeritt {DOMINICA}, Gonsalves {SVG} or Anthony {SLU} and that I knew of “backroom deals” sources of financing or any quid pro quo which is also being suggested. These are aspects of the campaign that I neither have nor ever had any knowledge of and therefore could not possibly have spoken to. I have therefore sought legal advice on my options regarding these allegations which can impact negatively on my professional reputation.
      I have already contacted a representative at the US Embassy and discussed my concerns extensively with her and she has advised that they cannot discuss the contents of these documents since there is no certainty that the documents are authentic.

  6. Something seems odd here. Surely the US Embassy must recognize that there are certain professions that are super sensitive to reputation (perceived or otherwise). Here is a classic home grown example as to why one should not in any way expect support from these people even if you have something in return to offer.

    What is also odd is that the Barbados Free Press is NOT a legal entity … (still waiting for an answer on the legal status of the BLP and DLP … thnx John for the effort)

  7. To BAFBFP:
    Your question about the legal status of the BLP and DLP is interesting. Both have had to take out loans over the years to fund elections or to improve their headquarters. Their senior members were sureties for those loans. Both have constitutions. you may have to get some legal eagle to unravel this mystery, but I believe both would merit the status of NGO.

  8. To BAFBFP:
    The NGO status gives them the non for profit status. if they get in to money making schemes they may have to open separate entities to deal with that. With the not for profit status they keep out of the tax man off their backs even though millions pass through their coffers.i am not an expert; I just have some knowledge.

  9. doesn’t the question of the legailty of political parties not show that politicians are not that important in themselves ?
    Dont it emphasize that the Civil Servants/Ordinary persons are the ones with real power ?
    Why then have we as citizens devolve power to loud mouthed persons who call themselves politicians and whose main focus is self aggrandizement ?

  10. lemuel | September 4, 2011 at 10:19 PM |

    To BAFBFP:
    You have to register an NGO, so it can be carried to court. It should have a board of directors. I think the exercise of electing officers each year gives the DLP and the BLP their board of directors. I know that each party has property, but the searching question is whether those assets are vested in the organs called BLP and DLP. But you know in these things the boys just dissolve the entity and move on if the law suit can be detrimental. Sorry about the BAF thing. I concur with you in that as believers we are too often too defensive of our beliefs.

    Gotcha … still does not give me any comfort…

    Just Asking

    I wid you …!

  11. Poor Peter, felt he was on top of the world when invited by the US to observe the US elections. My mantra, never trust these people.

  12. Just asking asked at 12:20 a.m. on September 5 “Why then have we as citizens devolve power to loud mouthed persons who call themselves politicians and whose main focus is self aggrandizement ?”

    Maybe because we like most people in most democracies are a bunch of lazy idiots.

    Just saying ya know.

  13. If we all believe the comments that are attributed to Wickham are indeed true as we know them to be — regardless to the truth of his candor with Mary Kramer —, we must embrace him and not allow North Americans, and our own corrupt fifedom rulers to win the day, and continue with business as usual. These revelations are exactly what we want exposed and stymied with FOI and ITAL.

  14. Peter is reported in the media today seeking legal counsel on the matter. Who does he intend to sue, the US government? Agree with Adrian, we need FOI and I’ll. If this government does not deliver these pieces of legislation history will not record it kindly.

  15. @Adrian

    US Ambassadors routinely send reports to the State Dept. of conversations and observations which they may have through interactions with Govt representatives or citizens of countries. This is true in both “friendly” and “unfriendly” countries, some of the observations they have made of Canadian politicians are not very flattering either (Canada is supposed to be the US closest ally and they always talk about the longest undefended border).

    The US is not to blame for the revelations; they were supposed to be confidential so it is not a question of us against them. The only entity that has thrown Peter to the wolves is the CBC.

  16. @David

    Talk of a law suit is just talk which will eventually peter out (pardon the pun), some enterprising lawyer could attempt to sue The US or Wikileaks but it would be a case of throwing good money to the wind.

    Perhaps he will sue the CBC for wrongful dismissal.

  17. I am sure I have previously read the things that Mary Kramer has attributed to Wickham, and I don’ think I am alone. The comments on BFP does not strike me as being surprise at the revelations but seem excited at the possibility that Peter may have been meeting “secretly with the Americans” no one thus far as sought to defend the various governments and fiefdom rulers from the comments in the document.

    Wickham is one of us now, his current problem is one of perception; he may be in shock at having to face the inevitable fall of his livelihood as he knows it, and therefore thinks a legal response is the right approach. Peter Wickham shouldn’t fight it; at some point his convictions about governance and things Caribbean will conflict with the source of his livelihood; he should let this be it, and start to remake himself financially, thereby gaining the freedom to pontificate, opinionate, and work for change in our Caribbean unhinged from the very people and class that are holding us back.

  18. The Leaks may have exposed information that was delivered by many many people from this part of the world. I believe that Peter Wickham is guilty of being the ONLY named source. He has said clearly the extent of his involvement with the US Ambassador.

    Wait Sarge like he getting sensible again. Of course the CBC is the most likely subject of the law suit, and if Peter wins, again the tax payers will be asked to foot the bill for the wrong doings of a Political Party ..!

  19. @Sargeant
    Ditto; it is time for smart/educated Bajans to look beyond government and its institutions for their daily bread. I have no idea why people like Peter continually put themselves in positions to be embarrassed by the politicos of the day. I would not work or seek to work with any politician in Barbados in any capacity. As long as government owns your place of work you can expect these malicious and unprofessional actions to continue.
    However, I still believe that it is in the interest of small players like Peter to be careful in there relations with the Americans and others. The US ambassador will still have the usual access to the highest reaches of our government and Peter may have to suck salt. My lack of trust of “such” people stems from “my view” -iconoclastic though it maybe- that Ambassadors are the “known spies” of a foreign state in a host country. Having this view, then I would be circumspect in my dealings with them, least I become a pawn in their dealings such as Peter Wickham may have now become. No one else is likely to suffer from this but Peter, therefore given your place in the grand scheme of things one should seek to protect themselves at all cost. Mary Kramer and the US government will not. These people cannot even find work for 14+ million of Americans, you think they will care about Peter’s grievance? chupse

  20. Feel a little sorry for Peter in this matter whose only crime is his naiveté when he was invited to drink ‘big mout’ drinks at the US Embassy and elsewhere.

    It is also interesting the Wikileaks cables place regional politicians in a very poor light and explains why CSME will not happen in our life time.

  21. @ David

    I think the fit and proper this is for BU to host a poll about the pollster Peter Wickham. A good question might be:-

    Do you believe the US Embassy cables about Mr. Wickham being an informant of the USA government or do you think he had nothing to do with imformation elledgely provided?

  22. It all depends on what contractual agreement Peter had with his former employer CBC. I think he might have to eat crow on this one. Some of his words mention in the leaks can have devastating effects on other government and in the long run would be determential to other journalist who are trying to getting informationand facing an unwillignessfrom those who are hesitant to divulge any kind of information that might be newsworthy in the public’s interest

  23. @Ultimate Insider

    BU has had our disagreements with Peter about his stance on immigration,CSME and other issues but we see nothing in the Wikileaks cable which supports any action on our part to attack his reputation in the way others are doing.

  24. Ultimate Insider

    What kind of a idiot you is, a foolish idiot or a real idiot?. How do you poll people on what they THINK or BELIEVE on a matter that they have absolutely no way of KNOWING or being SURE about? What will this prove?

  25. @Ultimate folly
    What would be the purpose of such a poll? What would it gain, and for whom? Does anyone really think that what Mary Kramer stated is new? Did not Owen Arthur publically state his misgivings about Alan Stanford? Did not the BLP accuse the DLP of going against Barbados “One China policy” to curry election funding from Taiwan? Were they not accusations in Dominica against Skerret and property etc, and in St.Vincent about outside influence in an election? What is new about the revelations other than that Mary says Wickham is the author? Here is the proof as to why Caribbean fiefdom rulers are not taken seriously on the world stage and why they are reaching out to Diaspora to form cohesive and reliable voting blogs in their respective adopted homeland so that they can persuade and pressure larger foreign government on their behalf. Something that I will fight against until there is significant governance reform at home.

  26. @ BAFBFP

    You need some anger management classes.

    This is the beauty of WikiLeaks, it has disinfected the secret and duplicious world with sunlight, the all-natural disinfectant. You seem to want to make it a non-issue but notwithstanding your non-sense, this will NOT go away and if and when it does, what will become of the players involved?

  27. @Ultimate folly
    WikiLeaks has not disinfected the secret dealings amongst Barbados politicos, that is up to those of us not on goverment payroll, or affiliated with either political party. This is were the disease that stunts Barbados growth is centered. It is not Peter Wickham.

  28. What kind of a idiot you is, a foolish idiot or a real idiot?

    Dear BAFBFP

    Ultimate Insider is a real, real idiot.

  29. Correct me if I am wrong, but was not Mr. Wickham dismissed from CBC under the last administration? Then, if I am, here is more evidence of another similarity between the DLP and BLP.

  30. @David

    The average citizen doesn’t get to see the inside of these receptions or to have tête-à-tête conversations with the US Ambassador. Those that do think their status is elevated and the Wining & Dining (or seduction) begins; the Hors d’doeuvres, canapés, and according to you the “big mout drinks”.

    No rum & coke for the guests but fancy multilayered cocktails, expensive Scotch, single malt whisky and Expensive wine.

    Which loosens the tongue and seemingly Peter’s loose lips has sunk his ship.

  31. Peter Wickham seems to be in denial by saying “Not Me” why throw fuel on a raging fire. Who else name isentioned as the source of the information given to the ambassador.? It would be interesting to see how much more was said by him and how damaging it might be politically to our government.

  32. David i remeber when the wikileaks stry broke not thinking it to be a good thing because as i said it can have devastating results and some on BU welcoming such information as having light at the end of the tunnel. Now it seems that since some of this light has involved one of our one as a mole we are seizing to dismiss the story as maybe not”TRUE” BTW why would his name be mentioned? i don.t think it was happenstance or was picked by luck of the draw.not to mention where there is smoke there is fire.

  33. @AC
    cool it fella, like yuh aint working. Look at this issue in its total and its core. The comments made are not new. We have heard them before. I doubt very much that Wickham is the “true” author of them – he may have been to Mary Kramer – but certainly these comments have been out there for a while. However Peter has benefitted from his relationship with US government and it is going to be very difficult for him to untangle himself from that document.

  34. Enuff
    I believe that Mr. Wickham was on board as a retained consultant with CBC. I might add that he earned foreign exchange for Barbados by his activities through out the reason. This might now be in jeopardy.

    Wikileaks as the reason for the firing is speculation, and you know why … singalong with me now …

    “Freudel ain’ saying nuttin’…”

    Look the information that could be gleaned from these communications as AH is saying is nothing new and most certainly was received from A NUMBER OF SOURCES. Mr Wickham has stated in his defense how the communication between himself and the Ambassador was made

  35. Mr. Wickkham should have been aware that he was a small fish swimmimg in a big Pond and the USA government getting information from whatever source it deems necessary doesn.t mean that one has to bephysical present at any of there meetings or venues.

  36. @CCC

    You have no credibility on the issue of transparency. Are you mentioning the CBC which has had a blackout on news about CLICO for the last months?

    If only we can have this same energy about implementing IL and FOI in Barbados. Here is the irony of CBC allegedly using access to confidential info (unverified) to inform a decision.

    Oh the irony.

  37. @ BAFBFP

    I disagree!! Freundel is in fact talking, he is getting rid of the Sincklerites–Wickham gone and Derek Alleyne gone. Not a thing to do with Wikileaks. All yuh really buying that story? Stupse

    As for Consultants, I thought the late ‘great’ PM said that consultancies were a thing of the past?

  38. Enuff

    “getting rid of the Sincklerites–Wickham gone and Derek Alleyne gone…All yuh really buying that story?”

    You on the other hand are saying a whole lot ..! Keep going Padre, don’t stop now

  39. Wickham could only be suing for wrongful dismissal.

    He does not have pockets deep enough to sue the US government.

    There are Lawyers in Barbados who will gladly take his money in a losing cause but he is smart enough to read BU so he would know to run from the Lawyers.

    As long as Wickham did not lie about anybody he has nothing to worry about.

    Do any of you still believe that the CIA does not have a dossier on Caribbean politicians and there “allocation of personal assets?

  40. @ BAFBFP

    I am just trying to try to make sense. Firing Wickham for what was in the Wikileaks cable simply makes no sense to me.

  41. But the irony of it all is that Peter Wickham has been astaunch supporter of theFOI act . However he failed to reveal what inside information he knew publicly but was not hesitant to give such information to the USA government who has strung him out to dry.

  42. @Enuff

    I am just trying to try to make sense. Firing Wickham for what was in the Wikileaks cable simply makes no sense to me.

    I am in agreement with those sentiments, perhaps many of us have been barking up the wrong tree and the Gov’t operative (CCC) has been conveniently stoking the story to make it appear that it was the Wikileaks story that caused the dismissal.
    The dismissal was almost coincidental with Wikileaks story and if my knowledge of Bajan politicians is sound, I don’t think that any of them makes these moves with any alacrity.
    There must be other reasons.

    Time to put on your Sherlock Holmes hat

  43. Oh shoite….Lawd I hope dat my past conversations wid Americans bout hey doan come back tah haunt muh. I now gottsa go and check my memory bank tah see wha I did say. Bonny yuh might be next two. It seem dem gots nuff wikki wikkers bout hey. I wunder what I gine lose from dese leaks? Pee?

  44. The problem for Mr. Wickham is that as a political pollster he should not be espousing his opinions to anyone. As a pollster his political neutrality is paramount as is confidentiality and these WikiLeaks cables (whether accurate or not) can only harm his career and his business, CADRES.

    I think one only has to use one of the WikiLeaks search programs to realise the entent of cables in which is name is mentioned, which as we say in Bim is PLENTY. All of them mek up?

  45. Enuff

    Seriously, keep talking … There is obviously a real reason for firing the only true talent that works in that station… No no, dah ain’ mekkin nah sense, not in Ba’bados … Islanchick you still got me dizzy …

  46. @Ultimate Insider

    What you have just said makes absolutely no sense, political posters shouldn’t have personal opinions? Based on that he shouldn’t be on the CBC or Nation or anywhere, Wickham was and is very opinionated on many subjects.

    What you should have said is that he should not let his personal opinions get in the way of any polling assignments that he should undertake.

    Ultimate Insider, take a seat at the back of the class.

  47. There is a move to bring BU into this fracas. Our position is clear, we are not prepared to attack Peter’s reputation on the basis of a Wikileak cable. It appears Wikileaks maybe a blind for what has happened.

    Perhaps one of Peter’s recent interviews?

  48. DAVID

    Didn’t Wickham conduct some poll or the other a while back concerning the most popular members of a Party? That seems to be the thinking in my neck of the woods.

  49. Peter Wickham should model himself after Scott Rasmussen and continue to build out Cadres as the Gallup brand has been done. Indeed I think he has, but in the caribbean, politics and its actors are not very mature.

  50. @ Sargeant

    You are knucklehead. Are you aware that Mr. Wickham is a self confessed political analyst and public opinion pollster?

    Ultimate Insider never said Mr. Wickham should not have opinions, what he said is that he should not have espoused them. I would add that he should not have have been providing information or opinions to the USA government. He has played with fire and got burnt.

  51. Nonsense that a pollster should not make known his opinions on politics or any sector on which they conduct polling. Such is universal. Cadres has a record of integrity and accuratcy in its polling methods and results. Many pollsters also have consultancies, and give speeches and opinonate in the media as well.

    Peter’s problem is the perception base on the written style of document —plenty attributes and an entire paragraph dedicated to his academic and professional bonafides— that he did indeed meet/converse regularly with embassey officials. There is an obvious concern about what else he might have said. Our Politicos do have a lot to hide.

  52. Cuhdear:
    Wickham speaks openly, with his deeply held, genuine analysis at say a pleasant Champers all expenses paid evening with his US hosts.
    To judge the man for that would be to condemn every commentator upon this blog ( OK CCC excepted) as hypocrites,

    Peter: your credibility and that of CADRES in the caribbean is fucked.

    Being a regular conduit to a foreign state, whilst supposing scientific aloofness may have seemed attractive at the time,
    But those dinners, however pleasant, you may now regret as your ill advised words caused the death of our beloved CADRES.

    Such a shame that a man with the inside track on so much political corruption in this region preferred to tittle-tattle it to foreign agents rather than use his priviliged position
    to enlighten the poor suckers who are forced to vote for these creeps.

  53. Trick Bike

    Peter Wickham gifted nothing to the United States of America. Plse refer to his earlier comment. I am leaning towards a more sinister reason for his dismissal … I feel somebody get horn …!

  54. Check out and search against Peter Wickham and see how many time his is referred to in embassy cables, from Barbados to St.Kitts to Grenda to SVG to Dominca.

    Bajan politicians are hyper sensitive and naturally weary of the potential pitfalls, some real but alot perceived where none exist.

  55. Trick Bike

    I did what you said but instead I used the name David Thompson … oh shoot, allot a stuff came up. You mean to tell me that David Thompson was spying for the US as well?

  56. @ Straight Talk

    You are so diplomatic.

    I especially liked “Peter: your credibility and that of CADRES in the caribbean is fucked.”
    Dinners….thats all, he spilled his guts for food. Thats rather queer, there must be more.

    • Seems the Nation is getting in on the act, there is newspapers to be sold:

      Is it not strange how the US has been forced to apologize in the past as a result of cables leaked?

      Will Phillip Goddard make a public statement?

      Will other blogs currently making a stink about Peter make a similar stink about Goddard providing feedback to the US Embassy?

      Will he get a pass because he is White?

  57. Senator Phillip Goddard, a White Barbadian, is a spy. Now my attention will turn to John and Duppy Lizard, Rosemary Parkinson and Trick Bike, Zack and de hood and the rest ah de BFP crew (including Ian “Fat Arse” Bourne).

  58. Intelligent agent inform that Comrade Wickham will talk with Barbados Today newspaper today. Now maybe you find out weather comrade be spy no?

    … Intelligent agent not very happy with Comrade Goddard, he very major asset, maybe whole thing with comrade blow over no?

  59. @David

    You would have to know that the Peter Wickham’s leak was only the tip of the iceberg. I look forward to more revelations and some people are going to be very embarrassed. Can the leaks about money laundering and corruption be far off?

    Let the denials start now.

  60. I will listen to and probably engage anyone who sees governance in Barbados for what it is-weak, inadequate, and in need of reform. Peter Wickham has a long history of seeing and speaking about this weakness, Mia Mottley more recently has done the same; although the circumstances under which she had undergone this transformation is suspicious, yet none other in parliament seems to understand that the Barbados economy cannot be reform and put on a growth path without reforms to governance.

    In addition, Barbadians that the Americans and members of the minority White Bajans tribe seemingly want to destroy I am more likely to support. Mia Mottley equip herself well in her meeting with Ambassador Ourisman yet the Ambassador –in typical North American fashion- attempted to diminish Miss Mottley by relying on the opinions of former US Army warrant officer Phillip Goddard to tear her down.

    Ambassador Ourisman as well as Mary Kramer has sought to diminish Mia Mottley in their cable submissions. What is it that they really fear about her? In Ourisman meeting with Mottley the concern of the Americans centered on access and issues American Business were experiencing in the Barbados market, noting that Mottley was not committing to any approach to address the US concerns since her ministry had no jurisdiction.

    Mary Kramer seem not to like Government intervention in commerce –I don’t either- and this led to her negative comments on Mia for her speech she gave to the BIDC which Kramer titled MOTTLEYNOMICS – THE RETURN OF THE STATE? Undermining Mia seems not to be contained to the Arthur faction of the BLP, it seems like there is assistance if only in commentary, from the US. But doesn’t Mia BIDC speech not seems and sounds similar to Obamanomics? And what pray tell, is his reception in the US? Arthur once accused Thompson of benefiting from US help in an election, could he be attempting the same against Mottley?

  61. Peter seemed to have been a jolly good friend to these Yanks. I can’t believe how many cables contain information purportedly supplied by Mr. Wickham.

    It is interesting to see how frank the cable are in describing the attitudes of Barbadians politicians. In one the Ambassador says ” the only thing that matches her ignorance is her arrogance”.

  62. Yes yes my Intelligent agent also confirm Comrade Wickham speak with Barbados Today. My Intelligent never use Political Analyst as spy, bu use Political Analyst as Political Analyst no?

  63. @ Adrian Hinds

    Both Kramer and Ourisman were Republican Ambassadors wtf do you expect but pro-market and homophoic/anti-gay rhetoric?

  64. Mary Kramer was clearly being petty and emotional -typical of North American politico’s towards opposing opinions and ideiologies. I saw her pettiness as an attacked against government capitalist intervention more so than against Mia Mottley. She would have probably said the same about others with similar views.

    The facts are that in cable after cable where Mottley’s opinoins are mentioned Mottley demonstrates an incredible breath of knowledge and understanding of the issues. Mary Kramer can be dismiss as demonstrating typical feminine bias towards someone that she feels is more intelligent than she is.

  65. CEDAR FALLS, Iowa — Mary Kramer has opinions about everything, and she is happy to share them with anyone who asks.

    But when Kramer is discussing politics or moral perspectives there is one thing she won’t include in the conversation — personal attacks against those with opposing viewpoints.

    New Members Of Mitt Romney’s Iowa Leadership Team:

    Former Ambassador to Barbados and Eastern Caribbean and Former Iowa Senate President, Mary Kramer, Clive
    Former State Representative and Former Chief of Staff to Governor Terry Branstad, Bob Rafferty, West Des Moines

    “We used to be able to debate issues without demonizing,” Kramer said. “We used data, wit and wisdom to make our point. Now we begin the discussion with attacks.”

    Kramer, a former president of the Iowa Senate and former U.S. ambassador to Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean, was on the University of Northern Iowa campus Tuesday to discuss the polarization of American politics. She said the slide to “rude, hateful dialogue” has been fast and steep since she ran for office in the ’90s.

    Read More:

  66. I will advise Peter Wickham to press on with his work. He is one of the finest young citizens we have. There are always stumbling blocks and we should not be so critical of him simply because of this issue. Now they are leaking that Phillip Goddard a fomer candidate of the B.L.P and a consultant to former Prime Minister , Mr.Owen Arthur, has been a reliable contact for the US embassy.
    We need to grow up a bit, it’s a new day and information of this nature will now become the norm. I find no evidence that Wickham, in any way has tried to destabilise our country.
    Businesses and business persons have financed both parties from the very earliest days when the merchants used to send their trucks with corned beef , buscuits and rum to certain areas to buy votes.

  67. @ David
    It is time we de-stress on this Wikileaks Cablegate. Unfortunately for Mr. Wickham, his credibility is in tatters. Going to the press for further clarification on what was said isn’t going to help the situation. Governments and Opposition Parties throughout Europe are silent on the revelations. The GOP and the Democratic Party in US are silent. However the founder of the Tea Party would like Assange to be executed.

    Newspaper Quote -…… A prominent Tea Party group issued a statement Tuesday apparently calling for the execution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for the recent release of confidential U.S. documents.

    Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, claims that WikiLeaks has done incalculable damage to American security by releasing the documents, noting that some of the leaked documents identify people in Iraq and Afghanistan that have helped the U.S.”If none of these people have been killed yet, it is only a matter of time,” Phillips wrote. “And now, it is time to tell Assange that we expect him to die.”
    End Quote

    The most hilarious response to the leaks so far, is from is from the Chief Minister of India’s Uttar Pradesh State. She said that the founder of the Wikileaks should be in a mental asylum. Read the entire comment at It is so so funny. lol

  68. Dear Eli Davis you wrote “an action that should heap shame on the present administration.”

    But politicians and the present administration in particular have no shame.Didn’t the Prime Minister tell us that Leroy Parris is his friend (with the implication that he will not throw Leroy Leroy to the wolves (sorry I mean policy holders) even if Leroy deserves such a fate?

    There is no difference between the PM’s “he is my friend” statement and the statements of those parents who stand in the courtyard and say of their sons “he is my son, and he is a god boy”

  69. David

    you would not want to know the BIG money people behind Roy … believe me …! But my friend’s intelligent agent might know a lot of people, after all he claims to work in the intelligent office …!

  70. David

    My friend’s intelligent agent is my contact too … I can’ betray his confidence man. Maybe if you mek Sarge apologize to me instead I might be able to do swing something 🙂

  71. Now I hope that this is sufficient to clear Peter’s name of all this tripe …

    Please, can we not focus on the issue of Campaign Funding in Barbados? Or if you must, focus on Phillip Goddard, ex-comrade in arms, as a potential spy for the Government of the United States of America.

  72. BAFBFP

    Wuh Sarge do you?

    David I also heard that Bizzy was one of the principals behind Barbados Today.

    Gotta check with my source again.

  73. Anyone see the Nation Newspaper today and the less count non-sense for Johan Bjerkham?

    Dat boy gine get a lighter sentance than a fella who scale a fence and pick a few limes from a tree. SHAMEFUL.

  74. Come on Bike

    Johan Bjerkham ain’ nah friend ah mine, but I find it hard to convict or even drag before the public, a man who has to come terms with the fact that he has caused the lost of life of his own son … shite man that is punishment enough, you don’t think?

  75. @ BAFBFP | September 6, 2011 at 10:03 PM |
    “Please, can we not focus on the issue of Campaign Funding in Barbados?”
    This is one of the parts of the issue that holds my attention. There is no doubt in my mind that somebody wishes to bury the facts related to the strongly suspected large amounts of money given as campaign funds to the DLP.

    When Sinckler says, “We continue to work assiduously without a lot of noise and fanfare to bring a structured solution to this matter,”
    I would better describe that style as “Silence.” it suits their purposes to work that way. They were even more silent as the policy holders’ money was being quietly poured into the coffers of the DLP.

    Truthman Burton | September 6, 2011 at 8:28 PM |
    ” The government has been mouthing the right utterances, but time will tell.”
    “MOUTHING” is right David. I Just watched a performance by Minister of Finance, CHRIS UN-CLEAR on DLP CBC TV, that is worthy of an Oscar plus a star on the Side Walk of Fame on Hollywood Boulevard and Vine Beverley Hills. I would even go a little further and award UN-CLEAR a wax likeness in the.The Hollywood Wax Museum ….. that performance tonight deserves it all!

    Employing a large variety of facial expressions starting with a FAKE SMILE, used to feign an air of nonchalance regarding the serious matter of CLICO, Unclear, as smooth as BILLIE DEE WILLIAMS, converted his demeanour from FAKE SMILE to numerous other looks that said variously : SCOWL, SMIRK, CUT EYE, SERIOUS-AS-A-JUDGE, ANGRY, POUT MOUT, GIRLISH SIDEGLANCE, INTELLECTUAL BRILLIANCE and STUPIDLY BLANK.

    All of this to convey the impression to DLP CBC TV viewers, that some substantial arrangement is being organised to satisfy the demands of June Fowler and her BIPA colleagues. NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL AT ALL ……. JUST MEANINGLESS MOUTHINGS.

    Mr. Minister, we have grown tired of this “all form and no substance” stuff from you. But we need a forensic audit into all the dealings of CLICO. Specifically, we need to know about what the Judicial Managers described as (1) missing assets worth $350 MILLIONS, (2) the amount of money transferred from CLICO to THE COFFERS OF THE DLP over the years, (3) the authenticity or fakeness of that $10 MILLION BONUS ARRANGEMENT for the “Man at the Hellum”

    We need your assurance that the Policy Holders, the BARP Pensioners and other already suffering taxpayers will not be asked to bear the burdens of incompetence and greed, while the perpetrators, the plunderers relax in luxury.

Leave a comment, join the discussion.