Owen said no to a private request for a meeting from Mia to discuss the Rawle Eastmond matter, Mia went public with the request and Owen said no publicly. Political pundits can draw some easy conclusions from what has played out so far. Mia felt obligated to intervene on behalf of sitting Member of Parliament Rawle Eastmond who is a known sympathizer. Mia wants to align herself with the concern by Eastmond that there is ‘padding’ of the membership in St. James North. Mottley has been on the frontline pushing for constitutional reform of the Barbados Labour Party (BLP). Her act was also symbolic, to let Arthur and cohorts know that as a senior member of the party she will not be treated or ignored like a Johnny come lately.
The simplistic interpretation of events as they are being played out in St. James North: it is an internal party matter which should be left to the branch executive to apply the by laws of the BLP. A deeper understanding must be viewed through a political lens, that is, a public display of the widening fracture in the relationship between Mia and Arthur.
It should be obvious that Mia Mottley and Owen Arthur are not singing from the same hymn book. With a general election on the horizon this cannot be good news for BLPites and the electorate at large. The question being asked by interested observers is what caused the fracture. More importantly, what is preventing the fracture from healing?
There is the memorable UWI press conference when Arthur critiqued then leader of the opposition Mia Mottley. Many interpreted what he said ‘publicly’ as chastising Mottley about he alleged lifestyle. Political pundits know – despite Arthur’s denials – he left the door open to return to lead the party. It was always a matter of when he would return.
When Mottley was deselected – a borrowed term from Albert Branford -there was another press conference which highlighted concern how BLP funds were spent under Mottley’s tenure as party leader. Tennyson Barker was selected to investigate and prosecute we all recall. Since casting the slur on how Mottley managed party funds all has gone quiet. BU does not recall Mia Mottley’s response to Barker’s claim.
Finally there is a view that The Mottleys have a since of entitlement that Mia Mottley should be Prime Minister of Barbados. Many blogs have been featured on BU on the subject of Mottleyism. Despite all the reasons given why Mottley has become a Black sheep, general public is none the wiser why a lack of confidence developed in Mottley as leader which resulted in parliamentary colleagues redirecting their support to Arthur.
BU does not get it. There is something missing from the debate. What is it?
125 responses to “Mottley And Arthur At It Again”
Well Said David…. I think the entitlement factor is all about Owen Arthur, Mia is not a favorite of mine, but I think she has been dealt a really nasty political blow, and worse yet by those who are suppose to be on her side. Owen Arthur seems to believe that he is entitled to hold the leadership position whenever he feels like it. When he lost the Government instead of staying the course with the surviving colleagues he fades to black, hands over leadership to Mia, wrapped in full praise, lets her fight the fight, and then decides at which point he is coming back to TAKE it from her. You tell me who thinks their are entitled.
It is said that politics make strange bedfellows. That could sum up the public bad behaviour of the Barbados Labour Party. Unfortunately for Rawle Eastmond, he finds himself in the wrong bed.
For whatever reason Eastmond has lost the favour of Owen Arthur. That has forced him to hold his nose and join the Mottley camp. He knows that he would never sit in a cabinet again in an Arthur Administration. So even though there is no love or even like between him and Mottley over the years, he threw his support behind her in the hope or with the assurance that he would sit in a Mottley cabinet if that ever happens.
By throwing his support behind Mottley, he has incurred the wrath of Arthur and Eastmond knows only too well how people who cross Arthur suffered. Eastmond was around when Johnny Cheltenham, George Payne and Louis Tull did not support Arthur when he took over the leadership of the BLP when Henry Forde demitted office. When the BLP won the election in 1994, all three won their seats and Arthur could not appear petty so he had to offer them seats in the Cabinet. Tull had the good sense to refuse. The other two took their places in the Cabinet but not for long. The first opportunity that presented itself, first Cheltenham and then Payne were forced out of the Cabinet. Tull remained on the backbench but could not even get a pothole fixed in his constituency, St. George South, that is the reason why that constituency is now represented by Dr. Byer-Suckoo. Rawle is well aware of the fate of those who cross Arthur.
Even though it is the practice that sitting MPs are not opposed in the nomination process, there is nothing in the BLP constitution that says that incumbents are not opposed. However, that being the case, Rawle would have no difficulty defeating any challenger in a fair fight. But this contest is anything but fair. In normal times St James North Branch of the BLP could not muster 40 members, but in an effort to remove Rawle, hundreds of people were added to the Branch Membership List in many cases without their knowledge. Rawle would not have a snowball’s chance in hell in a rigged contest. Lots of these people did not knowingly join the BLP and their fees were also paid on their behalf. Rawle should know better than to oppose Arthur. Arthur’s minions are at work doing his bidding, but giving him the distance so that he could claim that he had no part in the mess.
I will deal with the Mottley’s role in another comment because this one is getting long. Stay tuned!
Nonsense. Arthur was recalled because Mia lost the confidence of the Parliamentary group. It reflects on her not Arthurjasonbatesjr@live.com
For Miss Mottley, it appears to be miscalculation one after the other. Either that she lacks a strategic eye or she is blinded to the fact that in any team sport, when the most skilled does not want to play by the rules, those who may admire that individual’s talent will be the more to disassociate or withdraw support for that individual especially if the ramifications are negative for them. So that not only is Mia destroying her political support by continuing to gripe, she is suggesting to the younger candidates(politically speaking) that she really has no interest in them and hence will not play by the rules. It is unfortunate and sad that Mia allows herself to falter in that way. No individual is indispensable and the party is bigger than the individual personalities. Perhaps Rawle Eastmond comes about smarter because he has now thrown all of the blame at the feet of the DLP’s infiltration team rather than lay culpability at the feet at his competitors. Rather than invite Rawle to cross, the DEMS should invite Mia since her leadership chances are fast diminishing through her own actions and miscalculations.
Mia is behaving like a spoilt child or rather like the spoilt child she is. She privately enquiried from Owen about the situation with Rawle and goit a negative response, did she expect that going public would force Owen to change his mind? mia is either working on behalf of the DLP (mainly because of her interest in Four Seasons) or trying to destroy the BLP because she was removed by the party from being the leader. That position is neither vowed to Mia nor Owen, so if she, for what ever reason was removed, she must “wheel and come again.”
@David
Thompson’s death pushed the hands of the Gang of Five who feared that the general public were/are not ready to accept Mottley as national leader yet. Having done so, and having not reconciled, nor extended an olive branch, Arthur et. al. can only respond to her public utterances in the way they did. Slap it down hard, and move on, she’ll have to get over it. For Mia to “get back in good graces” she has to play the puppy dog role. A role which we all know she can’t. Arthur is betting on national discontent with government, highlighting of ministerial inefficiencies (read ineffectiveness), broken promise, economic fears and a full internal BLP rally around the red flag….rather than personality for the next election. None of these things need Mia nor do they need a reconciliation. Her seat is a sure BLP seat. St. James North will also remain B, and even if it doesn’t, the national picture is close enough to gamble it away rather than show weakness and deference. There’re no real personalities that can win this coming election and carry a coat tail for others to ride on. Strength of leadership and individual message is what will count. My margin of victory? + or – 2 seats on either side.
Methinks should the three disaffected B’s join the DLP their political lives will be prolonged and Owen’s will be shortened no pardon for the pun.
Go for it Mia, go for it rawle, you too Cynthia.
Owen Arthur is a cunning political tactician.
Firstly he cast aspersions on the character of Mia Mottley. Then assembled a group of political assasins to remove her as opposition leader.
Now it was reported “Arthur also said he would not be meeting with Mottley regarding any other issues.”
That is a clear insult to the former leader of the BLP.
Mia has a decision to make. Take the fight to Arthur or resign.
@caribbean man
Not everyone (hardly anyone) is made of the Skin of Clyde.
Cynthia would resign first, Mia would form another party first, and Rawle would go home first.
None of these apart from Mia is looking for extended political life. Arthur knows he has the political upper hand and the internal high ground even if he gave way a little bit to some of the nominees. The troops have to fall in line or be left out of the do…. simple as that.
What is alleged to have happened in the St. James North constituency i.e the ‘buying’ of votes is the same reason people oppose the one man, one vote for party leader…just saying.
@The Scout,
Nonsense. Mia is a member of parliament. She is the former leader of the BLP. She has every right to request a meeting with Arthur.
This is a democracy. She has the right to speak freely to the public of Barbados just as it is reported that Owen has said to a newspaper that he will not discuss anything with her.
Barbados is not a Dictatorship even though they are some who would like to make it one,
http://www.nationnews.com/articles/view/mottley-i-tried/
there is the article just in case the Nation is told to remove it later.
@ Hants
Don’t they meet every week as a parliamentary group?
Mia lost the political leadership of the BLP and hence the leadership of the Opposition because she had more ambition than common sense. She had the support of George Payne which decided the contest for the leadership. She was Opposition Leader and George Payne was Chairman of the party, but that clown challenged George for the Chairmanship, effectively cutting of the limb that she was standing on. George took her out for what he could only perceive as betrayal.
@Hants
You often speak on things in a fairly lucid manner. May I ask why is it that your are drowning in your vomit? Are you not aware that Owen Arthur does not have the ‘say so’ on the matters that Mia seeks to have discussion on? Are you aware that her audience ought to be with the Chairman and the executive of the party? Are you aware that the leader of the opposition is technically only the overseer to the members of parliament? On that note, are you aware that the parliamentary group has a secretary, formal procedures for getting an ear, and that they often meet as a parliamentary group (and one must ascertain whether Mia has been in attendance)? Are you aware that should Arthur attempt to usurp the authority that the BLP’s constitution gives to its internal organs and executive members, then your claim of a dictatorship would surely be correct? Hants, you need to chastise Mia for attempting to make herself appear bigger than the party. Is she not at this time bringing the party into disrepute? Is her appeal for dialogue in the interest of self-preservation now that she has surely reasoned that she may have overplayed her hand and support for her is dwindling at a rapid rate? Hants are you in touch with the reality of the situation or are you mischief making?
David; Congrats on an excellent chapeau for this discussion.
I think that Owen Arthur is continuing the series of mistakes and miscalculations he made in his third term that allowed David Thompson to win the last elections. By underestimating a resurgent Freundal Stuart and overestimating his own charisma, proven ability to win elections, the length of his political coat tails and the disillusionment of the electorate with the non-performance of the DLP, it seems likely that he may well lose another election that he should have won, all other things being equal.
Mia Mottley, on the other hand, is acting like a spoilt child or a woman scorned and reverting to a scorched earth type of politics, imho. With the sort of intellect she possesses, it seems a no brainer to think that her current strategy is geared to promoting Owen Arthur’s defeat in the next elections and hopefully picking up the pieces the next time around. She may have made the calculation also that this coming election is a good one to lose and her star should be in its ascendancy in 2017 or 2018.
All in all a great pity. With the BLP in continuing disarray, the gang who can’t shoot straight seems to be set on securing an undeserved second term to continue their mayhem on the society and the economy of Barbados. If perchance the BLP surmounts the odds and wins the upcoming election the portents do not seem any better for the country.
Again, all in all a great pity.
Hants
All that you’ve said about Mia is true but having been turned down by Owen for a meeting, going public was just trying to cause more disruption in the party. Did you expect Owen to say YES to a meeting because Mia went public with the request? Mia is a spolit child, she’s looking for sympathy.Let her grow up, this is typical Mottley behavior down the line.
@Check-it-out
You made two grave errors in your post.
Firstly, how can Freundel Stuart be resurgent, when did he ever surge?
Secondly, Who will support Mia in the BLP for any leadership positions given her prevailing attitude and actions suggestive she would rather bring down the party than be a team player?
We may admire Mia based on her previous record, but given her continuous attempts at derailment and cry of sour grapes, methinks the ayes will bypass her much sooner than later.
Owen Arthur has once again publicly slapped down Mia Mottley – He and Mascoll are probably somewhere laughing at Mottley.
He has no intention of reconcilliation and wishes to see the back of Mottley or force her to come begging back. It is amazing that Eastmond and Mia are treated this way while Clyde Mascoll who spent most of the last 15 years criticising the BLP and calling Arthur incompetent as an economist is now put ahead of people who laboured for the BLP. Those who support Mia should pray that Arthur loses this election. That is her fastest way back to leadership.Arthur no ! Mia – Yes!
It is so sad to know that our politics has turned from development issues to power issues. Does this mean we have truly arrived? When I look out and see what is taking place in ghettos of Barbados, my heart cries out. Where is the leadership? Football is one thing. Returning home to limited means is hardly to be compensated for by sweating out one’s pains. I do get the point though. It makes good sense to kick a political football or two.
For all that, Mia Mottley has been set among stinging ants. She is the only Barbados political figure I know to have had a truly international standing before her deselection. Thanks Albert. She was featured in international journals as a leading black woman, along with many other black political figures, writers and leaders around the world.
It is so sad to see what we are doing to her political career. Some would claim she is responsible. It is funny how all kinds of rumours spread about male politicians in this country and they were not literally taken out like Mia Mottley. I know she has a strong back. I just hope she does not make the mistake of becoming a bedfellow of Sinckler, who has been discredited
regionally even before he could command a national standing.
Politics is a career that spans many generations of same families. Look at the Bushes and the Clintons and the Kennedys. Let’s not even mention the Kennedys.. I do not see that that is a crime. It is another career. How many families of doctors and lawyers are there in this country?
Too many perhaps at a time when entrepreneurship should be growing. And many of them span long generations – including the Mottleys. They should not be condemned for that. But I am concerned at the state of politics. Yet I know that Mia Mottley has better understanding about what this country needs to carry it forward. I may think she is kicking football, playing politics, but no harm done. All to the contrary. She has regained her footing. Now they are trying to kick her bout again?
The people are watching. Barbados is the only country I know of where people cannot make mistakes. They are hung and crucified on a cross because you see, perfection exists only here. We are God’s country and let no one forget it. Yet those who would choose to use their moral compasses, do so conveniently. And because we are a people who love to forget to remember, especially when the powerful are seen to be rising, we hang on to the band wagon. As the current prime minister recently said – Barbadians must learn to take a stand. My stand would not have been his – given the context he was describing – but please leave Mia Mottley alone.
She has a great contribution to make to this country, if only people would allow her to do whatr she came on this earth to do. She is not false, she is not hypocritical. She does not forget where she came from. And that is all of Barbados. She cares. Which politician does not spend more money than they earn? I fear that the present crop are just about that and hardly anything more. It is really a crass irony that one of the best we have is alleged to be earning dollars from an illicit international trade. That is unspeakable. But we don’t hear of any efforts to get rid of him by his party – not a whimper about it by Arthur.
This country is so full of double standards and growing day by night. hang in there Mia. The battle has yet to be won. The fight is not yet over.
@David and All BU Readers
Off Topic and my apologies, but this is very important!
If Andrew Bynoe, as Barbados Today is indicating, has called for a 10 % wage cut for both the private and public sectors, then Barbadians need to give his supermarkets a 90 % cut.
For a businessman who has reaped sufficient profits to reinvest in the manner he has done and still to be reaping profits wherein he could extend his ventures, is it really feasible that he could come to the public and ask for wage cuts? The inflation rate has systematically eroded the buying power of consumers to such a point that there is a broadening group of persons known as the working poor. This man has to be mad or he simply wants to kick away the ladder that he used to climb upon.
Don’t you all realise that the best that could happen for the BLP is if both Arthur and Mottley step aside. Arthur thinks that he has to protect the country from Mottley and he is trying to find a place for Clyde Mascoll so that he can hand over to Mascoll. That is source of the present set of problems in the BLP.
mia would NEVER become Prime Minister of Barbados, to have the political ability is not all that’s needed, she must have a good character too.
Relax Mia. Owen cannot win the next election and no one in their right mind can see Dale Marshall being being leader of the Opposition
@ Baje
And all the while they are persons emerging that will not even fart on Mia farther-less support her for any more leadership roles in the BLP. If she has a fight with Owen, that is where you take your fight. But if you intend to bring down the team as some respite to get at one man, sorry Baje. But anyone besides her.
Quoting Bajeun “When he lost the Government instead of staying the course with the surviving colleagues he fades to black, hands over leadership to Mia, wrapped in full praise, lets her fight the fight, and then decides at which point he is coming back to TAKE it from her. You tell me who thinks their are entitled.”
Exactlly what David Thompson did to Clive Mascoll.
And isn’t David in a cold, cold, cold grave all like now
Quoting David “chastising Mottley about he alleged lifestyle”
So which politician can talk about lifestyles?
In what way are there lifestyles different from Mia’s?
Stupsee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quoting Observing “the Gang of Five … feared that the general public were/are not ready to accept Mottley as national leader yet.”
The Gang of Five are a bunch of old, old men who are out of touch with the younger voters.
Believe me the younger electorate have no problem with Mottley’s alledged lifestyle as we have no problem with Arthur’s alledged lifestyle.
In truth we don’t care what lifestyles politicians live behind closed door as long as they leave the unconsenting, children, beasts and corpses out of it. And as long as they keep the door closed while they do their lifestyle thing.
We don’t care.
We don’t care.
We don’t care.
Is she capable of keeping it behind closed doors?
man this man OSAa real egotistical bombastic demagogue. imagine one of his members MIA requesting that they meet to discuss concern”padding”in the membership!What kind of a leader would not want to clear the air on such a volatile issue but who rather toss into the arena of public speculation this should make one think twice about OAS calculation of the public’s intellect and his miscalculation of what he thinks the public opinion is of Mia after the many numerable times he has shown disrespect for her. Again she is right for bringing this unethical practice of “padding” to the table and again OSA corrupt OSA seen fit to ignore it and for what reason .barbadians are always talking about corruption in politics but when issues such as these arise the messenger is always be the one to be thrown to the wolves .no wonder our state of affairs are in such a mess, it is time to clean house and we need politicians who have the guts to do so and not “POWER HUNGRY” ones like OSA who only interest is self
@random thoughts
The younger electorate is an uncertain vote. Arthur knows this.
@quick draw
Yes, bynoe is indeed “mad”
The BLP know how to “surpass” disagreements for the greater goal. Its up to individuals to toe the line or sink. Freundel has made it clear of late he’s going to assume a national leadership role, don’t know if his coattails can save some though. I’ve said it before, this election will be a dog fight in the trenches. The economy and perceived leadership will guide the national thinking.
Quoting Scout “mia would NEVER become Prime Minister of Barbados… she must have a good character too.”
So!!! What’s wrong with Mia’s character?
You misogynist you.
Rawle should resign as promised. I like Rawle, but still the time has come for him to go as promised.
A lot of politicians male politicians hate Mia because she is a woman.
The women of Barbados know this. We will remember it when we go to the polling booth.
A lot of the male politicians hate Mia because she is alledged to be gay.
All of us who have gay relatives and friends (and that is ALL of us) will remember this when we go to the polling booth.
A lot of them hate her because she has not knocked about her body with every Tom, Dick and Harry. The Toms, Dicks and Harrys hate her because they wrongly believe that she has robbed them of their entitlements.
Those of us who have also chosen not to knock about our bodies with every Tom, Dick and Harry will remember that the BLP hates women who will not knock about their bodies with every Tom, Dick and Harry. We will remember this when we go to the polling booth.
To summarize a lot of male politicians hate women who have no use for the 3 inches of sausage in their pants.
If you reject the 3 inch sausage all hell breaks lose.
If Mia was a women who sexed with and did sexual favours for the male politicians in Barbados NONE of them would have any problem with her. Not a single one of them. This is what we have to deal with in 21st century Barbados.
Misogyny.
Homophobia.
It is time to cal a spade a spade and more than enough time that we cease to elevating misogyny and homophobia.
In 21st century Barbados the hatred of women and homosexuals, or homosexual women has no place in forming political or public policy.
BOTH parties should be ashamed of themselves.
WHO DOES MIA MOTTLEY THINK SHE IS ???
ME ???
JUST ASKING
I think that Rawle must bring the evidence of voter padding to the public. I hear Rawle say that Dems have infiltrated the list. A person can change can he? A list can only be padded if the members are from outside the riding. I have not heard Rawle make this point. Mia is part of the parliamentary group and so does not have to seek an audience with anyone. She can raise any matter which suits her but does she come to group meetings.? I think if she wants to lead a party she would have to form one now/ . Win ,lose or draw Mia Mottley can no longer expect to lead the BLP. She cannot lead the Dems or she should try and see where it puts her. Mia is spoilt and is showing it. I blame Rawle completely for his present predicament, He said he was leaving and the other members decided to contest in the expectation that he would not be in the race. The BLP decided to have the nomination and Rawle decided in the end that he wanted to contest so he thought the others in the race should just back off. That is patent nonsense. He brings the talk of padding of DLP supporters. I find the point unworthy of any real substance because I dont know you can determine if a man has a DLP in good standing or not. Rawle clearly does not believe he can win with the new list because he was not canvassing the new people on tht list . Think on these things
Misogyny and Homophobia. Misogyny and Homophobia. Misogyny and Homophobia. Misogyny and Homophobia. Misogyny and Homophobia. Misogyny and Homophobia. Misogyny and Homophobia. Misogyny and Homophobia. Misogyny and Homophobia. Misogyny and Homophobia.Misogyny and Homophobia. Misogyny and Homophobia. Misogyny and Homophobia. Misogyny and Homophobia.
That’s all it is people. Ain’t nutting hifaluting.
How difficult is it for Eastmond to vet the membership list to prove his case of padding?
@David
He would have to have access to the records of those persons, for example, who recommended and seconded them for membership of the party. When they joined up? If u see a high number of people joined after the dispute with mottley and owen, one can conclude that the motives of joining up people are sepcificaly aimed to get rid of eastmond. Didnt owen authur try to impose jessica odle on constituency that duigid represents?
What an uncanny coincidence! First the DLP had their issues over a letter which was addressed to the PM and now the BLP’s dirty linen is being exposed again over a text. These politicians don’t have a leadership problem it is a communications problem, what it is about meetings and getting whatever is on your mind off your chest?
A text? Something tells me that Arthur is not a texting man, perhaps he got his young daughter (after he bused somebody about giving Mia his cell number) to respond to Mia’s request and the little girl wrote “Daddy said NO” :-).
As an observer who is some distance away it is clear or if I can remember my high school Latin “Inter omnes constat” (it is agreed among all) that Arthur wants to marginalize Mia and he wouldn’t grieve one little bit if she said adieu to the Party, however he has one big obstacle in his way and that is his chosen successor doesn’t have a seat in Parliament or is not likely to get one in the near future so Arthur can only bide his time and hope that Mia will get disillusioned and quit.
Mia on the other hand is putting her faith in the old Bajan proverb “Time longer than twine”.
@Blogger2012
Thanks, then Eastmond needs to mobilize his team to identify a few of those members who have been recruited to pad the list and expose to the public. The concern here if it is true, the same people making these decisions maybe elevated to high office.
@ Sargeant
Your illusions, delusions, and excitable mind is wandering far away from the facts and truth.
Owen Arthur cannot endorse his successor unless that person can get enough support from others. In any event, if the DLP functions in that way (as is the clear evidence of death-bed pronouncements), the BLP does not function in that way.
It is not about Mia quitting (although that is her right); it is about her playing team sports according to the constitution of the party and by the conventions therein. If she prefers to knock down the stables to get at the horse, she will come to realise that the race track has moved, the finishing line has been extended, and she does not have another chance; she will be merely listed as ‘also ran’. Now Sargeant, you go back to your stables and eat the hay that the DEMS have put for you.
I understand that Mia awoke this morning and said: “Lord what have I gone and done? I listened to and followed Owen for 14 years and things went well; I knocked him for 2 years and now my childhood fantasy is all but at death’s door, O Lord what have I done?”
Quick Draw you is Owen?
What is voter padding? Are the persons on the list members of the St. James North riding? Rawle Eastmond was NOT in the contest when the members were recruited. It was because he was not in the contest that the prospective candidates went out and recruited members. If Eastmond had not said he was leaving then the combatants would not have gone out and joined members . People are saying that Eastmond was challenged. This is not so. Eastmond decided not to contest and then decided he wanted to get back in . The BLP had decided on a nomination and quite unfortunately the excutive og St. James North decided that they would not support the incumbent. And they made this point to the NEC of the BLP. This is a committee of Rawle Eastmond and it is therefore unfortunate that they have forsaken their man . The talk about the list is only an excuse.. The real point is should a candidate who said he is not running be expected to be challenged when he changes his mind. Mottley knows she has no standing in this mattter,. She cannot represent Rawle in this , Rawle was in parliament before her . Rawle is a lawyer like her. Rawle is older than she is and Rawle can speak as well as she can. She is not a leader now and besides this she has every opportunity in parliamentary group meetings to raise this issue any time. Think of these things
Firstly Eastmond given his record of winning St. James North represents one of the best chances of winning. Out of all the MPs he has garnered respect from both sides.
Secondly, Mia is not a Johnny come lately. She is a former leader of the party and a senior member of the party. Any request by her cannot be dismissed frivolously. Also she is one of two persons in the parliamentary group with a national appeal/following.
However we all know what is playing out is not the technicality of Eastmonds right to change his mind to run and a reasonable expectation to garner the support of the party, it is more about executing political strategy by factional elements in the BLP.
@David
Should you know and follow the constitution of the party, you would come to the conclusion that Mia’s request for a meeting is targeted at the wrong person. A definite miscalculation on her part, and though different, brings back memories of her miscalculation in 2009 when she herself could not and did not have the power to discipline anyone. The power resides in the executive organs of the BLP and not with the Leader of the Opposition unless he or she is also Party Chairperson.
@Quick Draw
Let us agree to disagree. Some of are fully aware of other factors which influence decisions within political parties and further afield. Political pundits are fully aware what is being played out here. We are also aware that Arthur, Payne et al will get their man party constitution or not.
@DAvid 5:22 am
That’s all he needs to do. AS MP he has access to the list, as a citizen he has access to the community. Proving padding should be pretty easy.
David wrote “Secondly, Mia is not a Johnny come lately. She is a former leader of the party and a senior member of the party.”
That is the reason why it is ridiculous for Owen to dismiss her request for a meeting and more importantly any other meeting.
BLP constitutions has nothing to do with civility between a Leader and a former leader of a political party both of whom are current oppositon members of the House.
Owen has shown utter contempt for Mia and the kind of viscious nastiness that I thought he reserved for members and supporters of the DLP.
Forget the sugar coated bs. All he had to do was invite Mia to a private audience,tell her why his position on the matter.
Then if she chose to pursue it in any other forum it would be her decision and she would have to deal with the consequences. Owen is a former Prime Minister of Barbados and he should behave like one difficult though that may be for him.
@David
I think your are concentrating on the wrong things. Mottley or anybody cannot determine whether or not there is a nomination. The problem is not the nomination. the problem is whether or not a sitting member who did not want to run change his mind and then can expect every else to stand back. Eastmond is not a a level playing field because he has allowed others to come in and solicit members. Mottley has nothing to do with this. Eastmond announced when Mottley was the leader he would not be running again and some of the members were recruited when she was the leader.. Blame Eastmond for his dilly dallying . Mottley was off the radar too long and she is using this issue to become relevant . Bad move . Mottley has drawn a bad card Think on these things