Yuh know, if Mia could say something that we could judge, the ‘five’ could be looking for seating at general elections. If it was that she took a decision on integrity to benefit the island she would hardly be scoffed. She can give an insight as to her activities during the time – as she does so eloquently – and then let the public decide where Owen and his team can step off or stay on. She remains silent and so we await Owen to state his reason other than personal views on lifestyle. A lifestyle issue in Barbados can be brought to the public and we will deal with it accordingly. Barbadians uphold integrity even if not by legislation.

To be provocative Mia has a vested interested to clarify the matter in the public eyes given her political aspiration. The St. Joseph Hospital Inquiry and Sir Branford comes to mind.

Mia Mottley does not need advice from the likes of me, but she should not speak on this matter. I say this without any self interest but only to be reasonable.

It is for her accusers to bring the charge with evidence to substantiate the charge, and then she can defend herself. She cannot be expected to lay a charge against herself for others to say oh no! it was not that,it was something else.

I am not taking sides here, but trying to have a balanced view in the interest of fairness to all parties.

Wasn’t Mia invited to a meeting at their Roebuck Street Headquarters the day before she was to be removed as leader to make her case and defend herself and she bluntly refused to do so citing that the invitation was shared with the media? She is a lawyer and one wonders why she did not want to defend herself as commonsense would tell you that something had to happen to cause her removal.

As far as I can see, the BLP does not have to even invite her to the party if she thinks she is so damn important. Without the BLP, she would not be that important, do you really think the Dems want her? She needs the BLP!

WHY cant I find Questions to ask on this particular thread ????

IF Owen Arthur was so Bad, Howcum I did not hear that before ???
WHY should I believe people talking nonsense about Owen Arthur ????
WHA’ Owen do some o wunna ????
YOU dont know that some people does mek yuh laugh with the mek -up stories about our public figures ????

Home you bring christian understanding to the BLP yardfowls who make it seem like Owen will win elections on a canter after the trailer load of lashes he hold less than a year ago in St. John. What utter crap. The DLP is trying its utmost in the worst prolonged recession in modern times. They cant deliver on a few of their promises because there is no finance to do so and the reason this is so is because USA, Britain and the Euopean countries are catching their royal asses economically. They are our major trading partners for Gods sake. Owen can talk all the drunken economics he wants he dont have the magic bullet Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy etc cant find. He too will have to scrunt in power so bring him back to do what take cruel revenge on the people who he believe voted his ass out. No way I say the Dems are fighting the good fight for the people and society of Barbados.

The educated and deep thinker who is Bdos’ PM is in no one’s pocket and thats a good yet rare thing. Cant say the same about Owen and his Prior Park rustlers who ambushed poor Mia. Their Waterloo is on its way dont fret what goes around comes around. No brief for Mia but on the ground the support and admiration for her surpasses that for the APM gang. My own survey reveals the Dems will retain the government to continue their honest hard work to earn foreign exchange for citizens and to house and progress the people of this great island state. Owen is the past . It is important we make him stay there.

Parliamentarians have the right to choose a leader, and to change their mind if they want. I been in town too long. I did not know that Arthur or Ms. Mottley could make themselves leader.I was in town when Branford and Barrow fall out; when Adams and Bree fall out. It ain’ do a thing to the election chances. Fail to see why the unseemly removal of Mascoll did not affect DLP chances, and the removal of Ms. Mottley will make a diference to BLP chances. Politicians used to gather in my father shop talk, quarrel and cuss one another. Some get some good blows, but took it in good part. And mind you I never see any of them carry on to endanger the party or country, but it might be a woman ting. To me Bajans right now concerned about the crisis in their pocket and want somebody to do something about it. While some feel for her I do not know that they will saddle themselves with this inept incompetent government for five more years because she is not leader. The Bajan public do not have confidence in her to deal with this situation, I think they would consider her down the road, but certainly not now. So what is the problem? For Bajans to put in the dems because Ms. Mottley get tek down, dey head would want examining. I still feel that she can lead. Some like her, just wait her chance, others will get past the lifestyle.

David, but if memory serves, there was discontent in a small section of DLP over the matter, as is the case in the BLP. After his dismissal Mascoll did not seek to exploit it and manipulate national emotions to play out an agenda. He left and went the other side. All the polls to date demonstrate that Arthur is more popular than Ms. Mottley, Stuart, or Sinkler. This is depsite the fact that Peter W. has tried to revise the published numbers of a poll to suggest ms. Mottley was two point sbehind Arthur. never published such a thing in 2010. Arthur is the most popular. So what is your point, David?

the manner in which both mr mascoll and miss mottley was taken down was and is despicable in both cases. the situations are similar. mr thompson noting mr mascolls somewhat success in obtaining more seats under mr mascoll’s leadership and observing a growing discontent by the electorate and with his trump card clico cheque in hand sensed victory and aided and abetted by the black elite negrocrats masquerading as grassroots in the party clandestinely plotted to remove their only grassroots politician whom he undermined in parliament by his silence. the evidence is there for all to see. i see such satirical rubbish in the paper suggesting that had mr mascoll play loopy dog like mr kellman and mr estwick by now he and not mr stuart would have profited from mr thompson’s demise. utter rubbish. we might not like his decision which i considered hasty but in the overerall scheme of things i do no know how he could have remained in a party which progresses to be grassroots and treated him like that. now in miss mottley’s case, bajan truth, mr arthur too sensed victory realising the deficiencies in the party without mr thompson’s leadership and plotted to to regain the reins of power but again bajan truth it is the manner in which her removal was done and the vile comments made by mr arthur against a colleague whom he elevated. mr arthur needs to explain his actions as well as the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the cheque from clico. i understand that both parties receive campaign contributions but i want to know if the cheque remained in mr arthur’s personal bank account or was transferred to the account of the party. if not, no matter how well in my estimation he has managed the economy, he has been found to be a thief and is not fit to hold office.

@balance

By deliberate leaving the St. Joseph matter unresolved rumour was allowed to ferment which was a political death knell for Sir Brandford.

Not that in the cases of Mascoll and Mottley is the right of the parliamentary group to support the leader of their choice. This is not the argument here.

The Mascoll and Mottley cases are different Mascoll was democratically voted out as leader of the DLP by the full party even as he abruptly left the leadership of the party and crossed the floor in one of the most disgraceful acts in local political history. Mascoll was plotting with Arthur long before that making his cross over much more distasteful.

Mottley was double crossed and backstabbed in secrecy. Two completely different scenarios.

Passing thru – you was dey because no such info came out. What was back stabbing,tell us more because the papers only stated they had a meeting to discuss voting again for a new leader, what is wrong, they called a meeting and invited her, what was wrong, They met and did the vote what is wrong. When they voted for her the first time were they backstabbing Arthur, when she called for a second vote when there was unrest and Arthur was making his move, they voted for her and decided to make it unanimous, did they back stab Arthur. When they voted next time they voted for Arthur, did they back stab her. That is politics, voting and democracy get over it. Making ten mountains out of a loss at a poll,like it is the last chance. Wheel she can still win their vote.

@Bajan Truth

It is not that he may not win again more that his legacy has been forever tainted as a politician. Does not mean he can find a way to deliver some modicum of contribution.

Hell bent on the destruction of the Democratic Labour Party Owen Seymour Arthur engaged in a campaign of torture, torment and intimidation against anyone that dared to make known their support for the Dems.That tactic was quickly followed by the dangling of enticements,a move that caught only the fickle and the opportunistic,of which one Clyde Mascoll heads the cast of characters.Prayer tell us all BAJAN TRUTH, how does one spend one’s entire life preaching from the old testament and at the drop of a hat comes denouncement of that very doctrine.Mind you this is not just a lay person of which we speak,this is the voice that wills the flock.Do you not see where integrity,loyalty and trust will certainly be questioned? Let me not get side tracked with the lack of political acumen of this Stepney( and i get dat from owen) lets focus on the root of the problem that now haunts the Labour party.Owen Arthur has to deliver on the promises that came in the package of enticement,and to do such he has to be the leader.We were told of his choice for the position of Co-Leader.Dare I say that this prospect is as fictional as The Republic Of Barbados,a thought that just happened to coincide with the campaign to destroy the Dems. Discount or discredit the female vote all you want Mr.Bajan Truth,”de women in bim”may well have a voice that some will not very soon forget.In the still of the night Mia Mottley fell victim to “de old boys club” all because Owen Arthur has to find a way to pay the piper.Karma suggests that the song the Piper played was entitled The Last Post.As Bajans can we be so lucky?As always time holds the answer.

those headlines are misleading. in all it is only18% which gives a poor grade. The Barbadian people are not all that dumb anybody can read numbers that are skewed for sentimentalism. The real story is 82% of people gives a favourable grade to government .

WHY is Freundel Stuart still Prime Minister of Barbados ????
WHY is Chris Sinckler not taken over like how Holiness has taken over in Jamaica ??

WHY has -Chris Sinckler not taken over the Prime Minister ??
IF Chris becomes PM , will Kellman still hold a ministry ??
Will Arni Walters regain his prominence ?
Will the DEMS win the next election even though they want to lose it ???
WILL we get an election in 2012 May ???

@ JUST ASKING:
“DO we want Chris -YES or NO ?????”
YES!! BUT ONLY AS MINISTER OF FINANCE & ECONOMIC AFFAIRS FOR THE DURATION OF THIS SESSION OF PARLIAMENT!!
If the Dems were to be re-elected with FS as PM,CS will not be in charge of Finance. FS would be emboldened by his electoral victory and with this mandate appoint his deceased friend’s brother to the position of exchequer as promised in the “time longer than twine’ compromise.

ac you are bang on target the survey’s real story is only 18% Bajans voted government doing a poor job .Owen huffing and puffing still no traction for him and the co-leader. BarbadosToday like The Nation always on the look out to make governmentt look bad. Trinidad government is rated worse than Barbados according to the survey.

Now we all know that the management of our public affairs by this Government has been less than stellar, but the attempt to canonize Owen Arthur by BLP operatives is nothing short of a sick joke. Yes he was successful, but he also failed to restructure and retool our economy when he had the chance. In fact, we would not now be in such a poor rakey condition had he done so. There is absolutely no doubt about this.

To all those who feel that Miss Mottley has no support and refuse to accept that the public needs to be assured that the Party in Government is settled and united you have to look no further than the 14 years the BLP was in office and the Dems were in Opposition. It don’t take an Einstein to see that as soon as the Dems finally settled down and chose their most popular leader, coupled with the unanswered questions about corruption by Arthur that the electorate was prepared to give them a chance.

What many people here overlook is the part that George Payne has played in the overthrow of Miss Mottley. Where was the meeting held? At his house. What we should be asking is what is the deal that was struck between him and Owen Arthur and who will outfox whom if they regain the seat of power. Bajans would be well advised to keep these two men as far away from any position of power as they can.

I have heard enough stories from his victims to know that Owen Arthur is the most vindictive PM ever to rule this country. People used to say that Tom Adams was vindictive, but Arthur makes him look like Mother Teresa.

The fact remains that the public feels that these men un-faired Mia Mottley. WIll it influence how they vote? It is a possibility among some BLP supporters who I have heard say they will not be voting next election. The fact that there is disunity in the party is likely to have far greater resonance among the wider public.

As far as the Government’s performance goes, does anybody remember how Bajans marched against Sandiford and then gave him another chance. Has anything changed to make them act any differently this time around? I doubt it, since unemployment at even 12% does not compare to the 24% percent that decimated so many families back in 1994 when they finally had enough of Sandiford. Not to say that our economy is not precariously perched, but it seems that the public does not yet realize this.

So we will see who going be dancing come the morning after elections.

BAJAN TRUTH DO NOT GET HOT. I AGREE ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU SAY SHOULD BE ASKED SHOULD BE ASKED AND I ASK ABOUT WHAT IS IN THE NEWS.MR THOMPSON ACCUSED MR ARTHUR OF RECEIVING A PERSONAL CHEQUE FROM CLICO WHICH MR ARTHUR PLACED IN HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT AND MR THOMPSON SUPPORTED THE ACCUSATION BY EXPOSING THE EVIDENCE FOR ALL TO SEE..MR ARTHUR HAS NEVER TO MY SATISFACTION AND OTHERS EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE RECEIPT OF THE CHEQUE. ALL I ASK BAJAN TRUTH IS IF THE CHEQUE WAS TO HELP THE PARTY WITH CAMPAIGN FUNDING, DID IT FIND IT’S WAY INTO THE PARTY,S COFFERS, IF NOT WHY NOT? PURE AND SIMPLE. SINCE THE EXPOSITION, MR ARTHUR WAS NEVR HIS FORMER SELF AND ONLY REGAINED A LITTLE STING SINCE THE SICKNESS AND DEATH OF HIS NEMESIS; AFTER MR THOMPSON EXPOSED THE INFELICITY, HIS BITE LEFT HIM AND THE USUAL BITING REPLY TO THE OPPOSITION LEADER’S REPLY WAS NOT TO BE. ON THE OTHER HAND, MR ARTHUR HAS NOT SO ASED OR EXPOSED MR THOMPSON NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE COMMENT THAT HE OR THE PARTY RECEIVED 300MILLION OR WHATEVER YOU SAY IT IS FROM CLICO. I HAVE NO BRIEF FOR MR ARTHUR. I AM ON RECORD ON THIS FORUM OF PRISING MR ARTHUR FOR HIS ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT OVER THE LAST 14 FOR MANAGING TWO BIT ECONOMIES LIKE BARBADOS WHERE FREENESSES ABOUND IS NO EASY TASK AS THE DLP IS NOW FINDING OUT , BUT LEADERS MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE MORESO THAN OTHERS AND MR THOMPSON MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS IN RELATION TO CLICO.

The BLP annual conference to be held this weekend none of the post will be contested.

Jerome Walcott – Chairman
Dale Marshall – 1st VP
Maria Agard – 2nd VP
Treasurer – Doug Skeete

@ac
82% favourability? Well Freundel should call elections.

If Stuart did not call elections one year ago after Thompson’s death when he would have been a shooin, why would he now?

Stuart has no choice but to go the tern now.

@ David:
“Stuart has no choice but to go the tern now”
Stuart has more chances of winning the elections if called within the 1st half of 2012 than later. If things continue as they are, the economy will be in such a bind Stuart will be forced to call elections because of the unpopular measures that must be taken. The sooner the better.