The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – General Election 2018: A Postscript II

In the first part of this essay last week, we sought to isolate some of the factors contributory to the unprecedented result of the recent general election. While we advanced the thesis that it was owed to a multiplicity of factors, including a loss of national pride that would have irked more than a few; the dire economic circumstances irritated by the ostentatious lifestyles of some officials; and the woeful failure of the government to engage in dialogue with the citizenry, thereby inducing a lack of, the necessary trust and confidence between the governed and the governors, the electoral obliteration of the governing Democratic Labour Party [DLP] administration may also be attributed to those elements of classic Greek tragedy that appears to befall all political parties after a decade or so in authority.

Administrations, over time, tend to become hubristic in spite of themselves and this is inevitably followed by Nemesis or retribution. According to one writer, “Hubris encompasses words and phrases like the following —overweening pride; self-glorification; arrogance, overconfidence in one’s ability and right to do whatever one wants, to the point of disdaining the cardinal virtues of life; ignoring other people’s feelings; overstepping boundaries; and impiously defying all who stand in the way. The term Nemesis denotes the ancient Greek goddess of retribution and the retributions attributed to her. The term nemesis is used to refer to the dynamics of retribution in general…Acts of hubris aroused envy among the gods on Mt. Olympus and angered them to restore justice and equilibrium. Nemesis, the goddess of divine vengeance and retribution, might then descend to destroy the vainglorious pretender, to cut man down to size and restore equilibrium”.

This Hellenic worldview of retribution, so brilliantly expounded in their works by dramatists such as Sophocles and Aeschylus, might explain the phenomenon of periodic administration change by the popular vote, although I have also read of a less lofty, more earthy ascription of this changing to the eerie comparison between politicians in general and dirty diapers.

Today, I should wish to focus less on the reasons for the electoral rout and more on the sequelae to its occurrence. Indeed, it might not be incorrect to assert that the past eight or nine days since May 25 have been the most politically and constitutionally intriguing in this nation since Independence and probably in my lifetime.

The result of the election would have meant that there was no readily apparent Leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly, a reality that also impacted the constitution of the Upper House since it was not made clear by the unhappily drafted section 75 of our constitution whether the remit of appointing Opposition senator fell, as averred by some, to the Governor General, or whether the matter required constitutional amendment in light of the provision’s lack of clarity. The latter is a view that I espoused last week in a column entitled An unforeseen event and was one seemingly shared by the government, even if only ex abundanti cautela (out of an abundance of caution).

The proposal to amend the Constitution has now been overtaken by another unforeseen event, the Thursday late-night announcement that His Grace Bishop Joseph Atherley, the elected member for St Michael West [BLP], had resigned from the BLP parliamentary group and would no longer support the government in Parliament. While he did not state this in so many words, this is precisely the legal consequence of his move, hence he became the lone member in opposition to the government in the Lower House and thus entitled to be Leader of the Opposition. He was duly sworn in on Friday.

Wags and political commentators will have a field day hereafter analyzing the rationale for this development, but it could possibly mean that for the first time since Independence, the DLP will be bereft of a parliamentary voice, unless Bishop Atherley who has the unfettered discretion of selecting the two Senators allotted to the parliamentary Opposition chooses one such.

Even before that, however, a less politically engaging, though much more constitutionally intriguing, event occurred. It was discovered that of the twelve Senators nominated to that Chamber by the Government, two could not be sworn in as scheduled, because they had failed to satisfy the criterion mandated in section 37 that requires as being qualified to be a Senator, “any person who has been ordinarily resident in Barbados for the immediately preceding twelve months…” provided he or she is not otherwise disqualified by section 38.

The governing Mottley administration has naturally proposed a constitutional amendment to treat this hiccup and while there would be few who would seek to deny the government this facility, it is not as simple as it would appear at first blush.

It so happens that this section has been entrenched in the Constitution and, by section 49 (2)(d), “a Bill for an Act of Parliament under this section that alters that section…shall not be passed in either House unless at the final voting thereon in the House it is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the House. [Emphasis added]

What this entails is that both Houses must be fully constituted and there will therefore be the need to replace the two outliers, Ms Mc Conney and Mr Adams, with two other Senators pro tempore [for the time being] in order to ensure a full Senate. I do not imagine that volunteers for this purpose would be few in number, however.

I am not aware of the draftsman’s purpose for imposing the residency requirement in our Constitution, but the other Constitution to which I frequently refer for comparative purposes, The Trinidad & Tobago Constitution 1976, imposes no such restriction. According to section 41-

Subject to section 42, a person shall be qualified to be appointed as a Senator if, and shall not be qualified to be so appointed unless, he is a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago of the age of twenty-five years or upwards.

I imagine that our amendment will be in similar, though not identical form.

76 comments

  • Jeff

    There shall be a leader of the opposition.

    That makes 30-0 null and void.

    Fresh elections are necessary.

    Like

  • I have been saying that Mia Mottley should have gone to the GG and fresh elections called as she was sworn in as PM.

    But if the 30-0 result is null and void then Mia Mottley could not have been sworn in as PM!!

    … nor could a cabinet.

    We have a mock PM, a mock cabinet, and a mock leader of the opposition

    We have a raft of mock Government senators with two more waiting in the wings to become also mock.

    We are about to get a mock opposition senator.

    If O$A engaged in the politics of inclusion then this lot are practicing the politics of illusion!!

    Like

  • Apart from the bad drafting of the original legislation, we are where we are. The key point is that the requirements of the constitution regarding an Opposition contradict the principle of first-past-the-the-post electoral system which could (and has) returned a complete clean sweep of MPs for a single party.
    As I have said before, for these two provisions not to conflict, a back-stop must be built in to the constitution. Similarly, if the prime minister (or Cabinet) wants to appoint a senator for his/her skills and knowledge, but that person is barred for any reason, including a residential qualification, then the simple answer is to move on and appoint someone else.
    If the prime minister chooses, however, to persist with that appointment, then one can reasonably assume that that would-be appointee has special qualities. Otherwise, it would be fair to say, any constitutional change would be an abuse of power.
    One does not change a constitution for such simplicities – look at any constitutional change in the UK, US or Australia. I am yet to be convinced that either of the two proposed senators bring any unique talent to our public policy-making or discourse.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Are-we-there-yet

    One more test for Mia. She aced the previous ones. Let’s see how she handles this one.

    Jeff has indicated a reasonable way out of this circumstance. Hope she recognizes the message it will send to thinking barbadian people if she refuses to take that measured advice or fails to come up with an equally reasonable solution that does not suggest a dictatorship as the eventual docking place of this administration.

    Liked by 1 person

  • That “there shall be a leader of the opposition” simply SAYS that one of the thirty persons elected to the House SHALL be designated ‘Leader of the Opposition”.

    …presumably just as one must be designated ‘Speaker’, one ‘Prime Minister’, and one ‘Leader of Government Business’.

    To go on and on with this nonsense makes a mockery of the Barbados scholarship designation.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Well Well & Cut N' Paste At Your Service

    More the reason for every aspiring political candidate for MP, senator, PS etc, everyone who falls into the parameters and guidelines of the Constitution….since the constitution does not recognize political parties……should ALL have knowledge of the contents of the Constitution. …

    ….even if they have to take classes on Constitutional law…a requirement when doing any law course, but should be made mandatory for ALL politicians and those who fall under the control of the GG.

    Like

  • “It was discovered that of the twelve Senators nominated to that Chamber by the Government, two could not be sworn in as scheduled, because they had failed to satisfy the criterion mandated in section 37 that requires as being qualified to be a Senator, “any person who has been ordinarily resident in Barbados for the immediately preceding twelve months…” provided he or she is not otherwise disqualified by section 38.

    The governing Mottley administration has naturally proposed a constitutional amendment to treat this hiccup”..

    Was it a hiccup or the star of diarrhea?
    What does it say about the vetting process if any?
    If they could not get that minimum criterion right, how will they fare with more complicated matters?
    We have the first instance of “who iz you?” of “who iz yuh family”” trumping the law.

    Over 250,00 voters and they found the only two who could not meet the criterion
    Murdah
    Mih belly
    Yuh gun kill ma
    Wuhloss

    Liked by 1 person

  • *start

    Like

  • A ‘Leader of the Opposition’ as stated in the Constitution is NOT the same thing as a “leader FROM the opposition party”.

    Just like in any school debate, where someone can be selected as the ‘proponent’ and another person as the ‘opponent’ for the purposes of the debate, .(..and where such persons can even have these roles REVERSED from time to time, ) so too in the HOA there are ROLES to be performed – which the constitution CLEARLY outlines.

    It is overly SIMPLISTIC to see the adversarial tradition as the only possible interpretation of this arrangement.
    The existing constitution seems to be much more ADVANCED than is the instincts of our current ‘bright sparks’…..

    Artherley is in fact a good choice.

    It is already amazing how much more intelligent Mia has shown herself to be, when compared to the apparently endemic idiocy of the DLP that has pervaded this BB place in recent years.

    Liked by 1 person

  • The NUTS are in control of the NUT HOUSE.

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    Jeff

    There shall be a leader of the opposition.

    That makes 30-0 null and void.

    Fresh elections are necessary.

    @ John, A 39-0 result is eminently possible according to our Constitutionally valid electoral law. In any case, there is now a Leader of the Opposition (Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition) so the matter is moot! Would you be satisfied with “there MAY be a leader of the Opposition…?

    Liked by 1 person

  • Well Well & Cut N' Paste At Your Service

    Exactly Bushman…had they been able to interpret the constitution as it was intended, the island would be 50 years ahead instead of behind…

    ,…thankfully the electorate elevated and propelled themselves 50 years ahead and left the dummie ex government. ..50 years behind….in the past right where they belong….

    That is the meaning to true progress…all in one night.

    Like

  • PM, I will support your efforts to bring Barbados under control but I do not support special considerations for specific individuals, where the services to be secured may be equally secured elsewhere without special considerations.

    Similarly, I understand that, as with past administrations, there will be political appointments. The Barbados Government should get value for money from such political appointments, if nothing else. The political benefit to such appointees should be limited to the appointment, not the Country’s resources.

    Liked by 1 person

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @BushTea, I too held that view on this blogger many blogs previously and suggested that his verbiage here had shredded the ‘mystique’ of our scholarship winners as really special thinkers or as you said “makes a mockery of the Barbados scholarship designation.”

    But since my many moons ago verbiage I have simply come to realize that as ‘big a brain’ as an eighteen or seventeen year old may have to gain our academic holy grail that it does not mean she or he is enlightened or need they be otherwise grounded in ability for rational discourse.

    In fact to the contrary, very intellectual gifted people can often be social boors.

    So I chose to accord our top scholarship and any scholarship award with the mystique it deserves…those so honoured not so: they earned and can lose the respect accordingly.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @TheoGazerts June 3, 2018 8:23 AM ““It was discovered that of the twelve Senators nominated to that Chamber by the Government, two could not be sworn in as scheduled, because they had failed to satisfy the criterion mandated in section 37 that requires as being qualified to be a Senator, “any person who has been ordinarily resident in Barbados for the immediately preceding twelve months…” provided he or she is not otherwise disqualified by section 38.”

    I was really surprised at this too, especially as so many lawmakers are members of political parties. Somebody should have had a copy of the Constitution in front of them at all times, and should have been going through the document with a multiple coloured markers to ensure that all people proposed for high office were Constitutionally qualified to do so.

    I am not too keen on Adams as a Senator, that is the truth. And I have never heard of the McConney person, but all concerned, included those two mentioned should also have THEMSELVES been checking the Constitution to ensure that they qualified before permitting their names to be mentioned in public. This is embarrassing. I don’t want to see a Constitutional change to permit their entry to the Senate, just as I did not like the Constitutional change which permitted Marston Gibson to become our Chief Justice. I said so at the time and the late “Amused” gave me a hard time.

    I was right then.

    I am right now.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Jeff
    There shall be a leader of the opposition.
    That makes 30-0 null and void.
    Fresh elections are necessary.
    @ John, A 39-0 result is eminently possible according to our Constitutionally valid electoral law. In any case, there is now a Leader of the Opposition (Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition) so the matter is moot! Would you be satisfied with “there MAY be a leader of the Opposition…?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    39-0 is impossible, but I agree 30-0 is also possible.

    0-0 is possible too

    So are 10-0 and 29-0.

    … and 15-0 and 20-0

    All people can easily refuse to vote.

    Parties may not run a full slate of candidates.

    None can work because they are all nullities and can’t satisfy “There SHALL be a Leader of the opposition”

    Find me the phrase “First Past the Post” in the constitution and define it to me in the language of the constitution.

    If it isn’t in the constitution tell me what part allows everyone, including myself, to instinctively know this!!
    .

    Like

  • @Hal Austin June 3, 2018 7:09 AM “if the prime minister (or Cabinet) wants to appoint a senator for his/her skills and knowledge, but that person is barred for any reason, including a residential qualification, then the simple answer is to move on and appoint someone else.”

    Agreed.

    If the BLP changes the Constitution to accommodate these two, I am unlikely to vote for the BLP next time. What the PM can do is for the time being appoint 2 “fill-in” Senators, perhaps a couple of party elders who are willing to work in the Senate for the months necessary until these two meet the Constitutionally required residence qualifications.

    Simple [like me] and requires no Constitutional change, and won’t annoy electors like me.

    Please Mia/ BLP do NOT annoy the electorate.

    If you do, they will in the fullness of time bite you in the @ss.

    Liked by 1 person

  • A ‘Leader of the Opposition’ as stated in the Constitution is NOT the same thing as a “leader FROM the opposition party”.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The only qualification for the Leader of the Opposition is that he/she has to oppose the Government in the House of Assembly.

    It is as simple as that.

    Appointing willy nilly is a collifox.

    Like

  • Simple Simon,

    You are brilliant This is 2018, not 1918. How can ordinarily intelligent people accept this apparent abuse of office. But it says something about the mindset of the influencers in Barbados.

    Liked by 1 person

  • I must say that the Americans don’t treat their Constitution as though it is some high faluting document, only to be seen by the eyes of constitutional scholars.

    They treat it as the commonplace document of government by the people, for the people, of the people that it really is. I am sure that anybody eve a school child can go to the U.S. Embassy any work day and receive a free paper copy of the Constitution. It is also freely available at every elementary, secondary, community college, university and public library in the United States. It is also freely available all over the internet:

    https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

    The U.S. Constitution is also nice and short (although admittedly, the interpretation keeps armies of lawyers happy, busy and well paid, LOL!!!)

    The Barbados constitution is 121 pages of fine print, written by lawyers, for lawyers. Surprise then that even lawyers, and those from legal families are caught with their pants down on some of its provisions.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Simple Simon

    A big issue we have in Barbados is the lack of meaningful participation by civil society in our democracy. This may explain why there is a reluctance in the minds of many to change or tinker with the Constitution. How does one make the Constitution relevant that the only thing constant is change?

    Like

  • He said the results of the elections on Tuesday mean “it is now left in the hands of the governor general to have some semblance of opposition in the Parliament”.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The words of Keith Mitchell in Grenada on 18th March 2018 after his party had won 15-0.

    http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/keith-mitchell-sworn-in-as-pm-of_128087?profile=1470

    Like

  • Would you be satisfied with “there MAY be a leader of the Opposition…
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    It would conflict with the requirement of the Leader of the Opposition to advise the GG on the appointment of 2 senators..

    Defies logic.

    Like

  • Ms Mc Conney and Mr Adams could decline the appointment to the senate and allow the PM to appoint two persons who meet the requirements.

    I am sure there are many other outstanding BLP members who do not have residency issues.

    Liked by 1 person

  • I agree with Jeff that this period is “the most politically and constitutionally intriguing in this nation since Independence”. It may be too late for Crop Over songs but it will provide fodder for BU, Historians, ample conversations in offices, Rum shops, beaches, church yards and wherever people congregate.

    And the new Parliament hasn’t even met yet…….

    Liked by 1 person

  • Bernard Codrington

    @ David at 9:25 AM

    What are you making the Constitution relevant to in the cases under discussion?

    Are you making it easier for persons, saddled with the task of upholding the constitution, not reading and understanding it?

    Or is this a prime example of ” If the mountain does not come to Mohammad , Mohammad must go to the mountain”? Or better still” the bed of Procrustes”?

    The sanctity of an object diminishes if it is tampered with too often to rectify small inconsequential matters.

    Like

  • @Bernard

    How many times have we ‘tampered’ with the Constitution in the last 10 years for example? Should we be amending the Constitution based on a need and not watching a number perhaps?

    Like

  • @Hal A
    How can ordinarily intelligent people accept this apparent abuse of office.
    +++++++++++++++
    What abuse of office? Its bringing Barbados into the 21st century, our Gov’ts are always encouraging those in the diaspora to make their contribution and Barbadians have always migrated to other shores to seek employment, upgrade their education or make better use of their talent. You can’t ask them to contribute and then erect artificial barriers. You display a particular animosity towards Adams and at this point he is just another Gov’t proposed Senator; save your criticism if or when he is given additional responsibilities. As for “Simple Simon” or “J” in another nom de plume, she was always negative towards Bajans in the diaspora writing among other things that they will return to use the resources of the QEH when they haven’t contributed to building Barbados, anything she writes here is just continuation in that same vein.

    Like

  • My problem with both governments over the last 52 years, they not only kept the Constitution well away from the public…not many people knew they could obtain a copy from the government printery on Bay Street if they were not part of the cabal…..but both governments maliciously lulled the population from the night of 1966 into a false sense of hope in thinking that they had their own constitution and total autonomy and sovereignty …that deceit is unforgiveable, because they all knew better..and because of their selfish and tiny mentalities, did not share the info with the population.

    The people should have known the deal from 1966…should have had a copy of the constitution in every home, in every school, college and university and each school child should have been able to also recite the constitution chapter and verse right into adulthood and not only just the anthem.

    Ah can’t even cuss buckingham palace or the privy council for that lack of intelligence on the part of these politically diseased minds over the decades, whose sole intent was to gather their yardfowl brigades so they could selfishly be elected….there is a much better way than that antiquated and uselessly overused and tired system of using political parties as a magnet to draw supporters to get the opportunity to enter the doors of parliament….as long as the constitution does not provide for political parties, that narrow agenda has run its course.

    Like

  • Bernard Codrington

    @ David

    You are avoiding the question.

    What/ whom are you making the Constitution relevant to?

    You implied that it is not relevant. Make me understand why and where it is not relevant.
    Who decides its relevance? It is suppose to serve the freedom and justice needs of the population.

    Where is the evidence that the present arrangements hamper these basic rights?

    Like

  • Bernard Codrington

    I am prepared to wait.

    Like

  • @Bernard

    We have discussed several matters that have relevance to the need to align the Constitution to everyday realities. One example is the power of recall, just one example. Have we not agonized about our system of government being hijacked by the political class despite the concerns of the citizenry?

    Like

  • Bernard Codrington

    @ David at 11:22 AM

    (I think your clock needs adjustment. It says 7 :22 PM. Very Interesting)

    Thanks for the response.

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @Bernard, re your time awareness…and that startingly makes the very point of many here that the domicile requirement for Senate sppointment is past time to be reformed. Ironic that a most vocal and profound source of Bajan appeal is not challenged by or limited to any single time zone but rather an everywhere Bajan.

    More power to the Blogmaster.

    And to the Blogmaster, this matter of electoral recall is a sharp two-edged sword which must be handled carefully to avoid painful wounds to those who think it’s to their benefit.

    It has supposed merit to keep politicians ‘honest’ but the other edge can cut deep into proper management of government by very vocal well heeled minorities who can abuse the effort.

    A brief examination of Barbados shows that we have effectively used our voice for recall very well over the years culminating with this latest loud cry of ‘no more’. I really don’t see what special benefit would accrue to our governance process to offer another opportunity to force early elections by a citizens’ write in campaign.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Dee Word

    You used the word ‘effectively’ as it relates to Barbados. Comparative to what?

    There is downside risk to any measure, have you considered the risk reward?

    Like

  • Another voice of reason…the narrow minded can never see the positive in anything..

    https://barbadostoday.bb/2018/06/03/agard-calls-on-opposition-leader-to-ignore-the-naysayers/

    “Dr Maria Agard has described Bishop Joseph Atherley’s recent decision to cross the floor of Parliament as “the greatest sacrifice and the greatest exercise of democracy” while urging him to “ignore the naysayers”.

    In a post of her Facebook page, Agard who was down to contest the May 24 poll on a United Progressive Party (UPP) ticket after she was given the boot by the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) in November 2015, but pulled out at the last minute, said there was a vacancy of Leader of Opposition and Atherley filled it.”

    Liked by 1 person

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    Mr Blogmaster, comparative to what we get with a recall option. I started to give an example of a recall effort re a US Gov in the state of Wisconsin but then deferred and omitted any such.

    External references are many but I don’t think their circumstances are the true test; its about what do Bajans gain compared to we have now.

    So on that point seen against what we have done to decimate both parties and turn out truly ‘malfeasant’ MPs when given the opportunity I cannot foresee any special additional benefit (reward) to a recall referendum constitutional change.

    A recall is premised always by the govt elected official doing something that goes against the grain of popular appeal. By its nature it must be a political issue as anything else (criminal rules broken) can be adequately addressed.

    So for us why is that grave political misstep not manageable within current guidelines which has as a final arbiter the next election!

    Incidentally, that US Gov facing the recall … lo and behold despite all that angst he still WON reelection. Isn’t politics grand!

    Liked by 1 person

  • This is what a sovereign constitution looks like…just an excerpt…it is pretty recent, I believe 1990..

    “Whereas the said rights are most effectively maintained and protected in a democratic society, where the government is responsible to freely elected representatives of the people, operating under a sovereign constitution and a free and independent judiciary;

    Whereas these rights have for so long been denied to the people of Namibia by colonialism, racism and apartheid;

    Whereas we the people of Namibia -have finally emerged victorious in our struggle against colonialism, racism
    and apartheid;

    are determined to adopt a Constitution which expresses for ourselves and our children our resolve to cherish and to protect the gains of our long struggle;

    desire to promote amongst all of us the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Namibian nation among and in association with the nations of the world;

    will strive to achieve national reconciliation and to foster peace, unity and a common loyalty to a single state;

    committed to these principles, have resolved to constitute the Republic of Namibia as a sovereign, secular, democratic and unitary State securing to all our citizens justice, liberty, equality and fraternity,

    Now therefore, we the people of Namibia accept and adopt this Constitution as the fundamental law of our Sovereign and Independent Republic.”

    Like

  • I never thought I would say this..but

    My intentions here are merely to show that a free and clear judiciary constitutes the ability to self determination and sovereignty…in my opinion, the politicians currently found on the island are not mature enough to handle such a responsibility and have not been for 52 years…and until they do, it is best things remain as is for the short term…until they:

    Fix the judiciary;

    Have respect for the majority population who elect them;

    Change their system of yardfowlism to intelligent election of individual candidates to the parliament based on their job performance and success in working for the people….

    End the out of control decades of corruption;

    End the …we trick them….mentality after each election cycle which is directed at the population..

    Cause if they were under a monarchy and a crown for 52 years and did so much shit and cockups and managed to disenfranchise the same population they were supposed to protect and enrich…they are not ready yet, just imagine if the two political parties had no one watching them, the horror that would have ensued and been perpetrated on the people, by those whom they elected to take care of them and their business..

    Politicians, elected ministers etc need to start showing some maturity and responsibility….and very soon..

    Like

  • I wonder if Mia would be as intent on this amendment if an Adams wasn’t the beneficiary.

    Like

  • “Barbados has become an effluent society”!!

    … not original but so so perfectly apt.

    Like

  • Bernard…that is also directed to the local arm of the privy council…they have been equally immature and ineffective from conception.

    ..time to upgrade…which will of course take a while…let’s just say it is all now in transition..a work in progress, thanks to the electorate.

    Like

  • Here is Reverend Joe at his garrulous best tearing the opposition to shreds ….

    He now represents them in the House of Assembly!!

    Compare it with the faltering, cat got muh tongue performance at Government House.

    The difference is amazing … well not really ….

    Like

  • He looks like an old, old man now, a week in politics is a long, long time!!!

    Like

  • Caswell boy, I hope you taking note of the change.

    Like

  • “KafkasCastle June 3, 2018 9:43 PM I wonder if Mia would be as intent on this amendment if an Adams wasn’t the beneficiary.”

    Succession planning – Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_planning
    Succession planning is a process for identifying and developing new leaders who can replace old leaders when they leave, retire or die. Succession planning increases the availability of experienced and capable employees that are prepared to assume these roles as they become available.

    Like

  • A Consideration Surely?

    Like

  • pieceuhderockyeahright

    @ the Luminary Jeff Cumberbatch

    It doth appear to de ole man that there seems to be a synchronicity of actions that follow your legal advice and the actions of the Prime Minister

    To the ole man such represents a pattern that is to be noted since it means one of two things.

    The first is embedded in your brilliance and her commensurate reliance on what you have posted here to guide her August self

    But the second is ammmmmm more interesting and relates to the pattern of a metronome

    De ole man will explain

    How much time elapsed as it relates to the constitutional Crisis and commentary arising from the Heather Cole article?

    At what time was this Constitutional Crisis in full bloom? so to speak?

    Then at what point did you proffer your opinion?

    And then, at what point did the new power that is implement the constitutional workaround?

    Do forgive de ole man these inconsewuential mullings but such is an offshoot of and fixation on watching patterns and predicting potential outomes

    Liked by 1 person

  • It is Desirable to have someone like Mr. Adams as a Senator. He is the CEO of the Upcoming and Fastest Growing Tec Company in Barbados with the Potential of becoming a Dominant Player in the Financial Transactions market. His knowledge of the Tec Sector would be an Asset because he can reach other Tec Companies to help them set-up in Barbados.

    We have a Pool of Tec Savvy people who are underemployed. Tec Companies generally pay above average wages. Does the Constitution say that the Senate has to be filled immediately? It cannot be many more months that Mr. Adams has been here in Barbados already that he can Qualify.

    Do not Change the Constitution for something as small as this. Do Not Touch it. The Constitution is supposed to be an Enduring Document not one meant to be Changed at the Slightest Whim.

    Like

  • This sacrosanct stance in relation to amending the Constitution is a nonsense and reeks of hypocrisy. Many here constantly bawl for constitutional reform, now the plan to start change by allowing Barbadians to serve in the Senate who are/were resident abroad is being deemed to be dictatorial, even though the 2/3 majority is intact. I can never understand Barbadians, pretend to be progressive but conservative as RH. We have Bajan talent all across the globe in many spheres and we need to use it how and wherever we can, especially in these harsh economic conditions. If the PM feels Rihanna would be an asset to foreign investment and appointed her to the Senate to be a Minister in Foreign Affairs we would expect her to come back to Bdos and live for 12 months before taking up the post? Lmao, look wunna waan go heaven but aint waan die yuh. Stupse!

    Like

  • @enuff

    Bajans living in the diaspora serve a purpose to solicit remittances, this is what they are good for, not their real world experience. If we want to transform to a digital economy wouldn’t Rawdon add to the effort?

    Like

  • Let me show you how absolutely fantastically well the Constitution is written.

    Here we are arguing over two parties and seeking to change the constitution to deal with the two parties in the event that one of them received 0 members!!!

    Suppose instead of two there were three parties!!!

    Suppose new elections were called and say the Bees got 10 the Dees got 10 and the S’s got 10.

    We would not blink in accepting that there has to be a coalition government and if that were impossible, then elections would have to be called again..

    Say both the Bees and the S’s could not countenance coalescing with the Dees, then Dees would form the opposition IFF the Bees were able to attract 6 S’s to its side.

    However, the S’s might hang tight and say no, we want to provide the PM so if they could get 6 Bees then there would be a coalition government between Bees and S’s.

    That would mean 4 S’s would end up as a group within Parliament.

    Who provides the Leader of the opposition?

    Got to be the Dees because they would have 10 seats to the S’s 4.

    So, life would go on, once agreement could be reached.

    Don’t tinker with the constitution.

    Call elections and lets move on.

    The constitution works for any number of Parties up to a maximum of 30!!!

    If these geniuses can’t figure out how it should work for two, they can only do real significant damage if let loose to change it!!

    Like

  • I really feel sorry for Reverend Joe, he is in way over his head.

    But, he made the choice.

    God allows U turns.

    Like

  • @ David who wrote “Bajans living in the diaspora serve a purpose to solicit remittances, this is what they are good for, not their real world experience.”

    No comment. lol

    Liked by 1 person

  • David

    Thank you!! We all know B’dos (with its 100 strong population) can’t provide work for all its people, and as such many go overseas to make a living. If McConney and Adams were investing their foreign money, there wouldn’t be one word of dissent. I get the impression that, as usual, the argument is more about personality than the value the individual will bring. We need people with valuable international experience to help transform Barbados!! A wannabe finance and economic expert, who ironically is part of the diaspora and is often beating his chest about his prescriptions for the B’dos economy, is busy trying to question Adams’ talent/experience, while at the same time promoting Natalee to the Senate on the basis that she has lived it. Has Adams not lived the “it” that is his area of value?

    Like

  • Just before the elections, they were BaJans who were upset that folks were coming in from overseas to vote. They felt that those outside of Barbados were not familiar with the suffering the locals were experiencing. Now today we want to change the constitution to allows expatriates to join the senate.

    Speaking out of both sides of their mouths seem to be a local custom. How do you know they are lying? When their mouth start moving..

    Like

  • Don’t worry about Natalee, Bizzy’s wife gave her a pick on one of her shops. Natalee in the Senate would have been a disgrace after watching a few of her IG vids before experiencing her epiphany moment.

    Like

  • “A wannabe finance and economic expert, who ironically is part of the diaspora and is often beating his chest about his prescriptions for the B’dos economy…….”

    Enuff

    I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Like

  • Further we have commonwealth citizens allowed to vote under our laws. Yet some will say it is a nonsense to amend the Constitution to relax a 12 month residency rule to allow bright Bajans in the Diaspora from serving that has its origins in a copy paste clause by the Mother Country- see Tee White’s submission below.

    Like

  • Enuff
    David
    You have stated exactly my position on this matter.We have thousands in the diaspora and where some of them are willing to lend of their expertise for the good of the country it should be encouraged.Once your name is Adams and your great grand father was a school teacher that is enough to send the newspaperman in the wilderness of London Town to Jenkinsville.Similarly for John once your name is Mottley,call new elections.

    Like

  • lol…time to just watch and not let oneself be worn out with the bajan philosophy of going nowhere fast.

    Some relatives of mine, pretty out there and in demand in the tech world were approached by the same Bitt Inc recruiters …but because of the history of those on the island to forever shoot themselves in their foot and in their own heads when there is no space left, the request was declined, too much drama and there is absolutely no sense leaving opportunities from countries they have had very good relationships with and even bigger, better salaries for so many years to end up being dragged down to the level of the bajan experience..

    That is why the island will always lose out.

    Like

  • @Hants
    Yours @4.47 pm

    I believe David was being sarcastic, David?

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ John June 3, 2018 4:25 PM
    “Don’t tinker with the constitution.
    Call elections and lets move on.
    The constitution works for any number of Parties up to a maximum of 30!!!”

    Sir John, why don’t you stop spewing forth your vitriol of political bullshit which you ought to take back with you to the South coast sewerage?

    The Bajan Constitution DOES NOT recognize “Parties”; only a maximum of 30 individuals to represent 30 constituencies.

    How can you tinker with the Constitution when Parliament has not been convened?

    Who are you expecting to call elections? Certainly not the Prime Minister?

    It is you alone who need to move on!

    There is an appointed Leader of the Opposition who would be taking his seat along with the Speaker when a new sitting of Parliament occurs this coming Tuesday, Deus Volente (or should that be “Inshallah”?).

    Liked by 1 person

  • Georgie Porgie

    RE Natalee in the Senate would have been a disgrace after watching a few of her IG vids before experiencing her epiphany moment.

    NATALEE CAN NEVER BE AS GRAVE A SINNER AS EITHER 1- PAUL BEFORE DAMASCUS,
    OR 2- KING DAVID WHO MURDERED ONE OF HIS BEST SOLDIERS TO GET HIS WIFE
    OR 3 MOSES, WHO MURDERED AN EGYPTIAN

    IT AMAZES ME THAT THE CREATOR GOD IN HEAVEN SENT HIS SON TO DIE ON THE CROSS OF SHAME FOR ALL OF US SINNERS , BUT WE HAVE A SET OF SNOBBISH SINNERS HERE PUN BU WHO CAN DECIDE WHO IS AN AWFUL SINNER, WHEN THE WORD OF GOD CLEARLY TEACHES……THAT……ALL HAVE SINNED (I.E MISSED THE MARK)…..AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.

    IT AMAZES ME THAT THE CREATOR GOD IN HEAVEN HAS REVEALED THE CONDITIONS WHEREBY SINNERS MAY BE FORGIVEN BUT THAT THERE ARE SOME IN BIM WHO THINK THAT THEY ARE GREATER THAN GOD WITH RESPECT TO SALVATION OR FORGIVENESS.

    Like

  • Guest @ June 3, 2018 10:35 PM

    Succession planning or Dynastic?

    Like

  • Theogazerts

    Well said @ 4:51 p.m.

    That’s it right there in a nutshell.

    Like

  • I am amazed that someone who is lucky that he is able to count to ten without making a mistake, got a qualification as a talented book keeper, fortunate enough to own an apartment apart from the one he lives in, travels down the islands regularly, will see the appointment of Natalee, a former sex worker, as a disgrace.
    No forgiveness in their hearts, no idea of redemption, but a pompous idea of their self-importance. Barbados is a very unforgiving society, something to do with crabs in a small barrel, but Natalee has climbed out and got herself a regular job – by the way, apparently employed by an expat Brit.
    I have extended my support to her and continue to do so. She is worth an army of the small-minded, near-do-wells who pollute BU.

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    @ the Luminary Jeff Cumberbatch

    It doth appear to de ole man that there seems to be a synchronicity of actions that follow your legal advice and the actions of the Prime Minister

    @ Piece, Pure coincidence, although i do know that she reads my column…or used to…

    Liked by 1 person

  • A citizen just offered herself as a candidate in a General Election and got 54 votes out of a total of 3777 cast.Hal thinks she deserves a seat in the Senate because she had a chequered career and Roddy Adams of known lineage.scholar,financial expert had none.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Sargeant June 3, 2018 7:04 PM “As for “Simple Simon” or “J” in another nom de plume, she was always negative towards Bajans in the diaspora writing among other things that they will return to use the resources of the QEH when they haven’t contributed to building Barbados, anything she writes here is just continuation in that same vein.

    I don’t know why you think that I am or have been negative towards Bajans in the diaspora. I love Bajans. Those at home and those abroad.

    My father has been a Bajan in the diaspora
    Some of my uncles and aunts have been Bajans in the diaspora
    My great aunt has been a Bajan in the diaspora. She went to Brazil
    My great uncle has been a Bajan in the diaspora. He went to New Jersey.
    My step grandfather was a Bajan in the diaspora. He went to Panama
    My brothers and sisters have been, some still are Bajans in the diaspora
    I myself have been a Bajan in the diaspora
    Some of my children have been Bajans in the diaspora. Some of them are still there
    So nany of my nieces and nephews are Bajans in the diaspora, that i can scarecely count the number.

    In other words so many of my relatives have lived away from Barbados, some for a few years, some for 60 or more years, and that makes me just an ordinary Bajan, just like you, just like most of us on Barbados Underground.

    As for my comments about resources and the QEH, isn’t it true that every government in the world worries about the cost of caring for the elderly? Doesn’t your government? Doesn’t mine? And ideally won’t governments work together to ensure that health care plans/health insurance money and resources, staff etc. whether public or private follows the contributor, the person who paid for it where ever he or she should go? If you paid money into a system when your were young and strong and working, should not that money be available for your care when you become old and sick and unable to work?

    That was my point. Nothing in it about being negative to my own kith and kin.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @David June 3, 2018 5:11 PM “Further we have commonwealth citizens allowed to vote under our laws.”

    Dear David: Do not be disingenuous. It does not sit you. Those Commonwealth citizens allowed to vote must have LIVED IN BARBADOS for a minimum of three years immediately before the calling of the election.

    Liked by 1 person

  • I object to changing the Constitution to allow Bajans who have not been resident here for the past year, just as I objected to the Constitutional change that permitted Marston Gobson to become Chief Justice. And Marston’s sister was my mother’s lifetime friend. Still I objected then. Just as I object now. My objections have nothing to do with party, gender, friendship, etc.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @David June 3, 2018 4:52 PM

    Don’t worry about Natalee, Bizzy’s wife gave her a pick on one of her shops. Natalee in the Senate would have been a disgrace after watching a few of her IG vids before experiencing her epiphany moment.
    ………………………………………………
    Word around town was that it allegedly the same Bizzy’s wife who was the financier of Natalee’s campaign.

    Like

  • The point you are not grasping is that that Commonwealth citizens, read not born in Barbados, are allowed to vote not withstanding the qualifying period. Why should a bona fide Barbadian living in the diaspora not be allowed to serve his or her country unconditionally?

    Like

  • “I am amazed that someone who is lucky that he is able to count to ten without making a mistake, got a qualification as a talented book keeper, fortunate enough to own an apartment apart from the one he lives in, travels down the islands regularly, will see the appointment of Natalee, a former sex worker, as a disgrace.”

    Hal Austin

    I know your snide remarks were directed at me….I’m accustomed to your insults…..

    ………….perhaps that’s your reaction because you’re INTIMIDATED by an “appalling ignorant” individual such as me.

    In your HASTE to RIDICULE, you often ATTRIBUTE to me comments I NEVER wrote.

    David BU wrote the following comment:

    “David: June 3, 2018 4:52 PM: Don’t worry about Natalee, Bizzy’s wife gave her a pick on one of her shops. NATALEE IN THE SENATE WOULD HAVE BEEN A DISGRACE after watching a few of her IG vids before experiencing her epiphany moment.”

    Could you PLEASE indicate to BU where in ANY of my contributions I MENTIONED “the appointment of Natalee, a former sex worker, as a disgrace?”

    Hal Austin, I’m not going to follow you into the gutter by trading insults with you. But I’ll leave you with this reminder……….

    …………..growing up in the Ivy and subsequently living in the UK, acting pompously, you exemplify the saying “A pig wearing a suit….….is still a pig.”

    The fact that I, an “appallingly ignorant” individual, is able to successfully identify and highlight certain characteristics that QUESTIONS your ability as a journalist……and then fact that you are a HABITUAL LIAR…….

    ……………provides me with more than enough satisfaction than insulting you.

    Liked by 1 person

  • bushie now cone across this nonsense you posted on June 3
    because raising the isuue does not suit your level of brassbowlery does not mean that an appointment which by all accounts appear to make a mockery ( your word ) of our Supreme law should be just ignored
    Stewpseeee

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s