Mottley Don’t be a Moe!
During the Barbados Labour Party’s (BLP) 81st Annual Conference in Queen’s Park on Saturday, Mottley described Opposition Leader Bishop Joseph Atherley, De Peiza and Solutions Barbados’ leader Grenville Phillips as “Eenie, Meenie and Miney” who were poor alternatives to the BLP Government.
[Nation Newspaper 27 October 2019]
The political barbs Prime Minister Mia Mottley lobbed at the three visible faces who represent the dissenting voice of political parties in our democratic system has evoked some public comment. Mottley in an address at the 81st Annual Conference of her political party used the occasion to rev up her political base – throw some reed meat at the loyal subjects. To intuitive political observers this is standard fare.
Have we forgotten not too long ago in order to avert a constitutional crisis serious consideration was given to creating Senate seats for the Democratic Labour Party (DLP)? That idea was scrapped presumably because our system of government is derived from a first past the post and not propositional representation. Bishop Joseph Atherley conveniently defected to the Opposition side and as they say the rest is history.
Leaders of organizations anchor positions taken based on values and purpose partially influenced by management philosophers of the past like Elton Mayo, Peter Drucker, Henry Gantt, Edward Deming et al. Political leaders will cite Machiavelli, Madison et al for the same reasons. Unlike Verla De Peiza, Grenville Phillips II, Joseph Atherley et al Mia Mottley – the political animal that she is – will not ignore the opportunity to stoke her popularity within the party. Imprinted on her mind are the faces of Dale Marshall, Ronald Toppin, Gline Clarke and George Payne who were instrumental in ousting her as leader of the BLP to make way for the return of Owen Arthur in 2010. So far she has adhered to Sun Tzu’s advice to “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”. Mottley wears the scares of her confrontations within the BLP to give currency to the position by many that politics is as a blood sport.
To cut a log story short, Mia Mottley is Prime Minister of Barbados AND leader of the Barbados Labour Party. This blogmaster anticipated her message to the annual party conference would have been laced with the usual political rhetoric and hyperbole. What Phillips, Da Peiza and Atherley must do is to exercise political gravitas in the counter to be seen as relevant in the minds of the electorate. Make no mistake, the average Joe will entertain a political actor who is not averse to riposte.
The Prime Minister at the Conference threatened to withhold a subvention Owen Arthur approved (Cabinet decision) for all political parties represented in the House of Assembly. Richie Hayne’s of the National Democratic Party (NDP) received the subvention of $150,000 when he displaced the BLP as the official Opposition. The subvention is allocated in the Estimates to Parliament under the authority of the Clerk of Parliament to disburse to the Leader of the Opposition to assist with administrative expenses. Arthur was sensible enough to appreciate a democracy is as strong as a quality opposition.
Prime Minister Mia Mottley should immediately suppress the temptation to rescind the practice of giving the subvention to political parties sitting in parliament. Given the overwhelming majority of the BLP sitting in the Lower House why has she made this an issue?
A word to the wise should be sufficient.
Amazing Caswell, Reverend Joe and Ms Drakes could coddle together a few politicians who could claim to th have been voted for by voters who oppose the BLP.
Absolutely amazing.
A lot of credit due Grenville for not getting caught in this nest of vipers!!
LikeLike
@John
Parliament consists of Her Majesty [rep by the GG], the Senate and the House of Assembly. Members of the House of Assembly are ELECTED. Under the constitution they are PERSONS, who may/may not have offered themselves as representing a party. If you choose to vote for a PERSON because of their party affiliation, that is your business. But you are voting to elect a PERSON. So 30-0 means nothing, for 30 PERSONS have been elected. Their lawful assembly thereafter, and once none of the constitutional requirements have been breached, is legitimate.
If one of more decide to sit as not representing the party under which they were associated, at the time of their election, so be it. Ms.Agard sat independently because the party booted her out, Bishop Joe chose to leave, the result is the same.
“Whenever the Governor-General has occasion to appoint a Leader of the Opposition he shall appoint the member of the
House of Assembly who, in his judgment, is best able to command the support of a majority of those members who do not
support the Government, or if there is no such person, the member of that House who, in his judgment, commands the
support of the largest single group of such members who are prepared to support one leader” [Bdos Constitution 74(2)]
There is no mention of anything but an elected person.
Now should two other currently elected members of the House of Assembly decide to leave the party with which they were affiliated at the time of their election, and together form a Party, then one of them will likely become Leader of the Opposition. [being able to command a majority of those members who do not support the government]
Why do you persist that 30-0 is relevant to legitimacy.
As I have written before, the term in Canada, another Westminster offshoot, is “official party status”. To qualify, political parties must command the support of a certain minimum number of elected persons. In Barbados, it seems it is one person, and that person must identify with a party.
LikeLike
Ms.Agard sat independently because the party booted her out, Bishop Joe chose to leave, the result is the same
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is where your thesis collapses!!
Ms. Agard sat independently in an existing Parliament which was then prorogued (love dat word) and ceased to exist.
She was already a member of Parliament.
Reverend Joe then had no Parliament in which to sit.
It had to be formed with an opposition which did not exist.
One can’t form an opposition because it can’t elect a leader … proposer and seconder needed.
Even two is dicey!!
Three definitely can work.
LikeLike
The concoction of the PDP reinforces my point.
Reverend Joe, Caswell Franklin and Crystal Drakes are straw men set up to concoct a Parliament.
The candidates who won a few votes from people who voted against the DLP are being drawn in an attempt to legitimize the three straw men.
All it does is to delegitimize those candidates as their votes are being used effectively to support the party against which they were cast.
So I say again, credit is due Grenville for remaining above the fray … sprats if you like!!
The DLP is also due credit as well.
LikeLike
Bishop Joe simple represents an absence of a presence on the opposition benches.
His own words!!
LikeLike
simply
LikeLike
He is a straw man and his two appointments as opposition senators are straw too.
LikeLike
@John
How many do you intend to repeat yourself?
LikeLike
A word to the wise you say
You assume wisdom is prevailing and present
LikeLike
Never talked about PDP until now … it never existed!!
LikeLike
@ John at 12 :37n AM
Please do not try to mislead the BU Household so early in the morning. We expect better of a No. 1 like you. GP the No.2 does much better. LoL!!
Caswell, Ms. Drakes nor the Rev made the claims that you have attributed to them. This is another figment of your very creative mind.
LikeLike
Mottley and her Press Secretary Roy Morris visted a friend in the QEH in his last dying days and Roy Morris spilled all the freinds dirty laundry referncing his last days on this earth on social media
The story is heart wrentching and no friend would go to any extent to reveal such gawdawful moments about a friend on social media
Furthermore no one would want to be remembered by those moments
LikeLike
Roy Morris you are a real dirt bag
LikeLike
Caswell, Ms. Drakes nor the Rev made the claims that you have attributed to them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What claims have I attributed to them?
LikeLike
@ John
Please re read your referenced submissions at 12:37 AM and at 7 :20 AM.
LikeLike
John
November 4, 2019 7:04 AM
“One can’t form an opposition because it can’t elect a leader … proposer and seconder needed.”
John,
Are you 100% certain that the leader of the opposition must have a proposer and seconder?
I ask that question because BU readers will undoubtedly remember the DLP winning only 2 seats in 1999 (David Thompson, St. John and Denis Kellman, St. Lucy) and both MPs refused to support each other.
Back then, we therefore had two opposition factions, from the same party, made up of 1 member each. David Thompson was named the Leader of the opposition and nobody kicked up a fuss about the constitution not being adhered to. No one mentioned the need for a proposer or seconder.
Why is this situation different?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Because of the 30-nil drubbing it received in the May 24 General Election, the party can no longer benefit from the $150 000 it received annually from Parliament for the last 21 years.
That money, which is paid quarterly, is part of the $300 000 subvention set aside for political parties which have elected members of Parliament. The sum is intended to assist these organisations with their daily administration costs”
Laughable indeed because depending what is suitable to our agenda we tend to sweep certain issues under the carpet. As a member of the BLP at the time; Mr Atherley’s appointment as opposition leader was unconstitutional and the Government had the numbers to correct the situation but the legal luminaries chose not to speak out .
Laughable because if it is indeed accepted that the Constitution does not recognize political parties then subsidizing political parties from the public purse must be surely unconstitutional as well.
LikeLike
@ Walter Blackman
I agree with you. The appointment is at the discretion of the GG. The person who appears to be leader of the Party. Mr. Thompson was political leader of the DLP.
LikeLike
There is a difference between a convention and a constitutional principle. Under our system, we elect individuals, not parties. The convention is to have a leader of the Opposition, but it is not a constitutional position.
Member of parliament are not there as members of parties, but as representatives of constituencies, that is what is meant by representative democracy.
Some of us may be familiar with the clash between direct democracy (referendums) and representative democracy (parliament); that is why the Dutch have banned referendums.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John
November 3, 2019 11:31 PM
“One thing is sure, it (the PdP) ‘ent getting my vote if it exists when the roll is called over yonder!”
John,
BU is a microcosm of the wider Barbadian society. If we were to take a snapshot of the percentage of voters on BU who said that they would vote for the PdP, the current percentage is 0%. Approximately the same percentage might apply to the general voting population.
Therefore, there is absolutely no basis right now on which anyone can project the PdP winning at least 18 seats in 2023.
Piece Uh De Cock spends a lot of time trying to convince the PdP that he could serve them as a political
strategist and advisor, but so far they have completely ignored him. He, in turn, has refused to come out and say that he would definitely vote for the PdP.
Of course, these are early days yet and things can change drastically with the passage of time.
LikeLike
I have been critical of Mr. Atherley and considered his alacrity in grasping the role of Opposition “leader” to be no more than a self- serving stunt on his way to a more lucrative retirement. However, I will admit that some of his criticism of the Gov’t has stung and this is why the subvention is now in the news cycle.
The PM was very happy to have Mr. Atherley save her from a Constitutional dilemma and welcomed his new found acuity and no one raised an eyebrow about the “subvention” until the BLP most recent gala.
As in KJV “the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away……
LikeLike
@ Charles Skeete at 9 :35 AM
To assist you at arriving at a meaningful and useful conclusion may I ask some questions ?
Is Rev. Atherly now a member of a political party?
Is he not an elected member of the House of Assembly?
Surely these facts qualify the PDP as a party with an elected member in Parliament?
Is the “subvention” to political parties, with the additional caveats,illegal?
LikeLike
Vincent Codrington
November 4, 2019 9:41 AM
“@ Walter Blackman
I agree with you. The appointment is at the discretion of the GG. The person who appears to be leader of the Party. Mr. Thompson was political leader of the DLP.”
Vincent Codrington,
I agree with your main point that the GG has the discretion to make the appointment.
However, there is a slight detail that you might have forgotten.
David Thompson’s mind appears to have been frazzled by the humiliating and unprecedented electoral defeat of 1999. So much so, that he fled from the leadership of the DLP like a political vampire fleeing from a voter’s silver crucifix. It is precisely for that reason that Denis Kellman withdrew his parliamentary support of David Thompson.
Clyde Mascoll became leader of the DLP.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Sergeant at 9 :53 AM
You must add “Blessed is the name of the Lord”, if not some man/ woman is going to claim that he/ she can give and she/he can take. But I agree with you. Most political positions can change within a twinkling of the eye. A word to the wise.
LikeLike
Putting all the yardfowlism aside as a Barbadian my concern here is will we have a valid opposition to face the next elections?
So many opportunities for debate have slipped by those claiming to be opposition over the last few months, from the so called ” debt savings” to open and frank discussion on the lack of a growth plan just to name a few. As a result I am genuinely concerned how those wishing to oppose expect the public to view them as worthwhile.
If we follow this to the obvious conclusion can we expect another 30 to 0 victory for the Bs at the next elections? Also more worrying is will issues that the public need making aware of continue to go unchallenged between now and then?
Unlike many here who bicker over the grain thrown to them by their masters, my concerns run way deeper. With the lack of an informed opposition who will make sure the public understands the intricacies of what is discussed in our hallowed halls?
LikeLike
@ John A
Our media will act as an opposition.
LikeLike
@ the Honourable Blogmaster your assistance please with an item here thank you
LikeLike
@ John A at 10:17 AM
Behave yourself. What make you think that with a literacy rate of over 90% and a numeracy rate of over 60 % that the electorate need politicians to lead their thinking and decision making? As Hal points out the press and BU will need to put all the relevant data in the public domain. The age of the Superior Intellect is over.
LikeLike
@ Mariposa
Roy Morris you are a real dirt bag
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Can you cut an paste what this formerly alleged Pedophile Rapist had posted on Facebook for those of us who have not seen?
LikeLike
@ Vincent
@Hal
As for the press and BU I only putting my money on one of them and it ain t the press!
Vincent as for the the numeracy rate at 60% I not sure there. So you telling me to work for the press one of the qualifications is that you must fall outside the 60% then?LOL
I say so cause I see alot of nonesence numbers recently went unchallenged! Wait I wonder if you got to be outside the 60% to be in opposition now too? 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Vincent
Don’t forget we was begging the leaders for certain critical data recently that we ain’t get yet either. So regrettably we still need debate and disclosure. As far as the leaders concern we is only a few noisy ass bloggers that ain t got nothing to do when the day come!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Roy Morris discussion was had on the QEH blog below. No need to rehash it here.
LikeLike
@David. Nice article.
@Donna. Behind all our level of civilisation and sophistication, fundamentally, human beings are still animals to the core .The two main reasons we are not tearing each other apart are because of religious pacification for some and the law enforcement arm of the state for others. Without these two forces to balance the primordial animal instinct inside of us, life would be brutal .
LikeLiked by 1 person
John
November 4, 2019 9:21 AM
Caswell, Ms. Drakes nor the Rev made the claims that you have attributed to them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What claims have I attributed to them?
+++++++++++++++++++++
VC
I haven’t attributed any claims to any of them!!
I have only let Reverend Joe make his claims in the Youtube clip.
LikeLike
fortyacres,
I have only recently come to that understanding since watching more of the international news. All the world is a jungle, some of it a concrete jungle and humankind seems to still live by jungle law, survival of the “fittest”.
Scratch the surface veneer of civilization and sophistication and the animal core is exposed.
But I believe in creation AND evolution.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
Are you 100% certain that the leader of the opposition must have a proposer and seconder?
I ask that question because BU readers will undoubtedly remember the DLP winning only 2 seats in 1999 (David Thompson, St. John and Denis Kellman, St. Lucy) and both MPs refused to support each other.
Back then, we therefore had two opposition factions, from the same party, made up of 1 member each. David Thompson was named the Leader of the opposition and nobody kicked up a fuss about the constitution not being adhered to. No one mentioned the need for a proposer or seconder.
Why is this situation different?
++++++++++++++
Robert’s Rules!!!
2 >0!!
The point to realise is that whether or not 27-3 is taken as the threshold below which a nullity exists, we will get a crappy “Government”.
In that respect it could be said a nullity does not matter!!
The only way it will matter is if at a later date someone tests the legitimacy of the Government in court and calls into question all of its agreements and appointments.
But, it doesn’t matter at all whether there is a nullity or not in the normal run of things.
We will still get crap … a nullity if you like!!
So 28-2, 27-3, 26-4 etc will produce a nullity of a Government …. only thing is it’s validity can’t be questioned at a later date.
LikeLike
John,
BU is a microcosm of the wider Barbadian society. If we were to take a snapshot of the percentage of voters on BU who said that they would vote for the PdP, the current percentage is 0%. Approximately the same percentage might apply to the general voting population.
Therefore, there is absolutely no basis right now on which anyone can project the PdP winning at least 18 seats in 2023.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I haven’t made any predictions.
The only projection I am making is that if the PDP happen to be around and actually runs candidates in 2023 or whenever, I won’t be voting for any!!
IT started bad and can only end bad.
LikeLike
@ John
There is no constitutional position of Leader of the Opposition. It is convention. If you are not sure stop bluffing.
LikeLike
Section 74: The Constitution of Barbados.
(1) There shall be a Leader of the Opposition, who shall
be appointed by the Governor-General by instrument under
the Public Seal.
(2) Whenever the Governor-General has occasion to appoint
a Leader of the Opposition he shall appoint the member of the
House of Assembly who, in his judgment, is best able to command
the support of a majority of those members who do not
support the Government, or if there is no such person, the
member of that House who, in his judgment, commands the
support of the largest single group of such members who are
prepared to support one leader:
Provided that this subsection shall have effect in relation to
any period between a dissolution of Parliament and the day
appointed by the Governor-General by instrument under
the Public Seal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“There is no constitutional position of Leader of the Opposition. It is convention. If you are not sure stop bluffing.”
For a man whose intellectual acumen is held in awe i cannot believe you do not know that there is provision for a Leader of the Opposition under Section 74(1) of the Constitution.
Surely you must be aware that the Prime Minister must consult with the Leader of the Opposition on certain recommendations to the Governor General.
You have to be bluffing
LikeLiked by 1 person
@HA
“74. (1) There shall be a Leader of the Opposition, who shall
be appointed by the Governor-General by instrument under the Public Seal.” [Barbados Constitution]
How can you state there is no constitutional position Leader of the Opposition? (p63 onwards above)
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Northern Observer
Apologies. I was talking about the Westminster model. I should have made that clear. I know nothing about the Barbados constitution.
LikeLike
@John
what about Robert’s Rules…they are AMERICAN….they have not a flying flamingo to do with anywhere else?
Here you are back at some fictional measure of 30-0, 27-3, 20-10 etc etc, and then claiming that has some relevance to validity of Parliament. The people (electorate), elect 30 persons to serve. Their party affiliation is of NO concern to the constitution.
READ the Constitution!!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Is Rev. Atherly now a member of a political party?”
If suitably registered yes he must be but that is not my point my point is that the constitution does not recognize political parties and thus why should political parties benefit from the public and if by someone’s ingenuity they do benefit then all parties should benefit right or wrong
LikeLike
Owen Arthur in his wisdom – say what else you will – realized that protecting a fledgling political party has a close association with also protecting the democracy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Charles Skeete
“As a member of the BLP at the time; Mr Atherley’s appointment as opposition leader was unconstitutional”
Where does the Constitution say anything about the party association of any of the elected members of the HoA. It is about commanding the support of elected members. The Constitution does not even mention the word Party, as it relates to a political umbrella organization.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If suitably registered yes he must be but that is not my point my point is that the constitution does not recognize political parties and thus why should political parties …(Quote)
Plse explain, if the constitution does not recognise political parties, how then does it recognise a Leader of the Opposition? Is the Leader of the Opposition the leader of the senior minority party?
LikeLike
Everybody on BUnow has accreditation as a Constitutional lawyer
The bone of contention that revolves is the is problem points a stern finger at Mottleys intention to use law to fight her political battles and enemies in the most vicious and undemocratic way
How can any one pick teet to defend these actions.
Wrong is wrong
LikeLike
@charles skeete November 4, 2019 1:39 PM
Your argument is well put and, dare we say, ‘balanced’.
There is no Constitutional backing for such a subvention.
Could as well give the money to the Salvation Army or any other NGO who is providing a more worthwhile service to the Bajan society.
However, MAM is standing on shaky legal grounds if the intention is to disregard ‘Precedence’ where the Atherley-led PPDD is concerned.
He is the HM LoO and, de facto speaking, should have the backing of some political party machinery to enable him to convince the electorate that his party of ‘committed’ individuals are capable of forming the government in waiting and able to perform a better job and not just to oppose the government in Parliament.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“if the constitution does not recognise political parties, how then does it recognise a Leader of the Opposition?”
The constitution makes PROVISIONS for OPPOSITION PARTIES…as it relates to yardfowlism, corruption, using the political system as a WEAPON against the people to destroy the judiciary etc…….keeping the people in a vicious 60 year old cycle of B vs D….nowhere is it written in the consitutuion that any of this is legal…but DBLP clowns never hesitate to violate even the constitution…to misuse it..
LikeLike
So in essence the way Caribbean governments misuse their constitutions with their petty, trifling small island nonsense to stay in power, using the people as pawns, demeaning and degrading them to mere voters and nothing else, get angry when they do not vote for them and once elected use spite and terror as punishment……..none of that is constitutional or legal…and the people should STOP THEM from doing it..
LikeLike
“The constitution makes PROVISIONS for OPPOSITION PARTIES”
you too are advised to read the Constitution. Use ctrl F with party and see how many times and in what context the word PARTY/PARTIES are used? The Constitution makes no such provision.
In fact, I cannot recall if the candidate on a ballot is identified by personal name only, or by name and party? But that is a matter for the Elections Act, not the Constitution.
LikeLike
@Northern Observer
We have had this discussion many times on BU, especially on Jeff;s submissions. There seems to be a ‘perverse pleasure’ to stay hitched to a point even if it is wrong wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My apologies, I’m still a newbie. While I read several of the Dean’s articles, they were usually above my pay grade.
LikeLike
Do not allow some here to waste your time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Barbados is a de facto para socialist dictatorship lead by a de facto President.
If the BLP wins the next election by 30 to 0 we will become the Republic of Barbados.
LikeLike
“Plse explain, if the constitution does not recognise political parties, how then does it recognise a Leader of the Opposition? Is the Leader of the Opposition the leader of the senior minority party?”
(2) Whenever the Governor-General has occasion to appoint
a Leader of the Opposition he shall appoint the member of the
House of Assembly who, in his judgment, is best able to command
the support of a majority of those members who do not
support the Government, or if there is no such person, the
member of that House who, in his judgment, commands the
support of the largest single group of such members who are
prepared to support one leader:
“IS BEST ABLE TO COMMAND THE THE SUPPORT OF A MAJORITY OF THOSE MEMBERS WHO DO NOT SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT” OR COMMANDS THE SUPPORT OF THE LARGEST SINGLE GROUP OF SUCH MEMBERS WHO ARE PREPARED TO SUPPORT ONE LEADER.
You worked at the prestigious BBC and so should be able to easily read, mark, lean and inwardly digest that the operative words in one instance are ” SINGLE GROUP”
and that is why Mr Atherly’s appointment remains Ultra Vires because he does not command the support of any members in the House of Assembly who do not support the Government and does not command the support of any largest single group of members who are prepared to support him BECAUSE NONE EXISTS.
and a simple constitutional amendment given the numbers of the Government could have corrected this and rendered validity to this critical appointment in our system of governance as easily as it was done to facilitate the appointments of Senators McConney and Adams to the Senate and the appointment of the Chief Justice.
and while you are musing read the Barbados Independence Bill moved by Secretary of State for the Colonies(Mr Frederick Lee) 28th October, 1966 and you will,discover that the representatives of all three parties in the Barbados Legislature all agreed on the aim of separate Independence.
LikeLike
@Northern Observer
Have a read:
LikeLike
does Mr.Atherly not command himself, and is one of the 30 persons elected in the last election. And in the judgement of the GG represents a majority. Is majority not “the greater number”, where 1 is a number, and since 1>0 represents a majority. I am unsure the constitution required amending. It gives the GG great latitude…”in his judgement”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I find agreement with the learned Dean, though he is far more thorough.
LikeLike
does Mr.Atherly not command himself, and is one of the 30 persons elected in the last election.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sho’ ’nuff
LikeLike
(2) Whenever the Governor-General has occasion to appoint a Leader of the Opposition he shall appoint the member of the House of Assembly who, in his judgment, is best able to command the support of a majority of those members who do not support the Government,
or
if there is no such person, the member of that House who, in his judgment, commands the support of the largest single group of such members who are prepared to support one leader:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
… and the group was?
… and the members are??
LikeLike
For heavens sake, the BLP won 30-0.
There is only one group inside the House and all of its members support a single group!!
If all of its members support one group then it is impossible to find any member in opposition to the single group!!
So there can be no leader of the opposition …..
… no opposition senators
… no Parliament
… and no Government!!
If by some magic there appears a leader of the opposition and two senators, then they must be straw men!!
LikeLike
QED
LikeLike
I ask that question because BU readers will undoubtedly remember the DLP winning only 2 seats in 1999 (David Thompson, St. John and Denis Kellman, St. Lucy) and both MPs refused to support each other.
Back then, we therefore had two opposition factions, from the same party, made up of 1 member each. David Thompson was named the Leader of the opposition and nobody kicked up a fuss about the constitution not being adhered to. No one mentioned the need for a proposer or seconder.
Why is this situation different?
+++++++++++++++++++
It actually isn’t different!!
2 can’t work either and here is why!!
It is also a nullity as is 1 and 0!!
This is what applies in the case of 2.
“if there is no such person, the member of that House who, in his judgment, commands the support of the largest single group of such members who are prepared to support one leader:”
You call them factions, I call them groups, like the Constitution.
Do you see why 2 can’t work?
Because if there are only 2 members of the opposition and they can’t agree then each member constitutes a group.
But the GG has to choose from the largest single group which does not and cannot exist!!
So the least number of members which the Constitution comprehends is 3!!
Because no one kicked up a fuss does not mean we had no Government!!
O$A presided over a nullity from 1999 onwards until the election when the number in opposition rose to 3 or more!!
So Ms. Mockley has been there and done that already!!
LikeLike
An interesting question would be, do the years MPs sits in a mock Parliament count towards their pensions?
LikeLike
I see no QED.
You admit “each member constitutes a group”. And that it is “in his [GG’s] judgment, is best able”.
You keep returning to a 30-0 number, which is baseless. PEOPLE are elected, NOT PARTIES. Yes, 30 citizens of Barbados were elected. End of election.
The group was Atherly. The member was Atherly.
The issue is not mathematical. The GG is asked to exercise her judgement, which may include whatever she deems relevant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Piece:
You would know when Atherley made the promise if you were paying attention. You are at Atherley’s right hand, so how could you have missed it?
When you are have sold your soul to the dark side, and become consumed with hatred, you tend to see only what your master wants you to see – which is nothing good. You and your handmaiden can now continue with the hate.
LikeLike
@ Bedroom Policeman
A pleasant good night to you
I don hope that your consultancy job ar the Barbados Water Authority DOES NOT KEEP YOU OUT SO LATE ALL THE TIME!
N o wonder you are posting so late at night!
I am lost about the selling my soul to the PdP but in time you will explain that cryptic remark for the benefit of BU FAMILY & HOUSEHOLD (which definition has been incorrectly inverted because family is decided by sanguinity while “household” is predicated on by venue and loose adoption as Moses was of the household of Pharaoh BUT NOT BLOODLINE)
A question Bedroom policeman
Do you mean “sold your soul” or “sold your services” as your consultancy to the government of Mia Mottley presents?
How can you be decrying Mugabe Mottley as such an evil leader YET YOU WUKKING FOR SHE?
You not only is a megalomaniac but you Stoopid as a Mountain Goat!
Who is my “handmaiden”? Freedom Crier? My man, I does cuss she regular too so doan go there!
Who you mean?
I
LikeLike
@ the Honourable Blogmaster your assistance please with an item here for Bedroom Policeman aka Grenville Phillips thank you
LikeLike
Because if there are only 2 members of the opposition and they can’t agree then each member constitutes a group.
But the GG has to choose from the largest single group which does not and cannot exist!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
The simple conclusion I make from this logic is that a group cannot be one member!!
A single member is called an independent!!
Suppose there were 3 or more independents.
Suppose none of them could agree.
Then there would be 3 or more equal “groups” if 1 independent constituted a “group” and the GG had to make a choice.
The GG could not make a choice because there is no largest “group”.
Now, if 2 or more independents in such a situation could coalesce and become a group, the GG could make a choice but there would always be the possibility that the 2 would disagree.
With all the discretion in the world the GG might exercise he/she has to choose the leader of the largest single group if all “groups” consisted of 1 independent!!
To make a decision in such a situation he/she would have to rate one member as more important than another.
Constitution does not countenance that, all are supposedly equal except the PM who is “First among Equals”!!
This is not rocket science!!
It is simple math.
LikeLike
Primus inter pares (Ancient Greek: Πρῶτος μεταξὺ ἴσων, prōtos metaxỳ ísōn) is a Latin phrase meaning first among equals. It is typically used as an honorary title for someone who is formally equal to other members of their group, but is accorded unofficial respect, traditionally owing to their seniority in office.
There are no seconds or thirds!!
LikeLike
BarbadosToday page 20
Gaston Browne warns CIBC .
LikeLike
Well……..at least we know they cannot rest comfortably because…….the people GOT THIS..
LikeLike
@Hants
Brown is a very busy man, he also wrote to Harvard reminding them that reparations are owed to Antigua for the use of profits emanating from Antiguan slave labour that helped to build Harvard Law school.
About CIBC, he wants Antiguan entities to have the right of first refusal to CIBC’s assets in that locality, which is what he also demanded from Scotia seems to be a lot of money floating around in Antigua these days.
https://268today.com/local-news/antigua-renews-calls-to-harvard-university-for-reparations/
LikeLike
“idNovember 4, 2019 1:45 PM
Owen Arthur in his wisdom – say what else you will – realized that protecting a fledgling political party has a close association with also protecting the democracy.”
Say what you will it could only be ignorance of or contempt for our system of governance for Owen Arthur to unconstitutionally allocate funds to political organizations not recognized as valid entities in the Constitution. These organizations like the church should be funded by members and supporters.
LikeLike
“and so long as she was satisfied in her mind that Bishop Atherley was “best able to command the support of a majority of those members who do not support the Government”, or that he commanded the “support of the largest single group of such members who are prepared to support one leader” then the matter was put beyond pale”.
I always regarded this as a cop out.
Long before Professor Welch’s opposition to Mr Atherly’s appointment; i was firm in my view that the appointment was unconstitutional in that the provisions of Section 74(1) were clear and concise and in need of no interpretation. Matter of Fact, Mr Cumberbatch in response to my early submission was moved to remark ” you have a point Mr Skeete albeit inchoate”
The Governor General cannot turn night into day.
The question is – Was Mr Atherly “best able to command the support of a majority of those members who do not support the Government”, or that he commanded the “support of the largest single group of such members who are prepared to support one leader”
If the answer is ‘No’ then the Governor General should not have appointed him.
“satisfied in her mind” does not stand alone.
LikeLike
How does the Constitution determine how a government allocates subventions?
LikeLike
“Because if there are only 2 members of the opposition and they can’t agree then each member constitutes a group.
But the GG has to choose from the largest single group which does not and cannot exist!!”
Although the dissension between Mr Thompson and Mr Kellman and particularly by Mr Kellman himself was well publicised : there is no evidence to indicate that an approach was made to the Governor General by Mr Kellman withdrawing his support for Mr Thompson so in effect he Mr Kellman remained “the majority”commanded by Mr Thompson
LikeLike
DavidNovember 6, 2019 11:28 AM
‘How does the Constitution determine how a government allocates subventions?”
This is the domain of Parliament validated by the Constitution but theConstitution does not recognize POLITICAL PARTIES PER SE but a group of elected members- so fledgling parties with unelected members do not qualify as a group and even so it would not be in Mr Arthur’s prerogative to give unless provided for in some piece of legislation approved by Parliament which is a creature of the Constitution.
LikeLike
A government can give a subvention to any group it wished.
LikeLike
“One matter that has seemingly not gained popular currency but that still concerns me however is whether a House of Parliament that is inadequately constituted is competent to pass any legislation. This is in reference to the Senate that passed the recent Constitution (Amendment) Act even though it did not comprise the number of members required by the Constitution to be regarded as the Upper Chamber in section 36(1).”
Jeff Cumberbatch
In the midst of this ongoing debate, I have been reflecting on Jeff’s concern. As a result, I have also become concerned.
Has our constitution been amended in an unconstitutional manner?
If so, are those amendments legal?
If they are illegal, how do we make them legal?
If they are illegal, should we allow their provisions to have effect?
Does their illegality taint and poison (i.e. have a cascading effect on) laws passed subsequently?
LikeLike
.. and of course is the Dean still a Deane and not a Judge?
LikeLike
Dean!!
Freudian slip or autocorrect??!!
LikeLike
“DavidNovember 6, 2019 2:10 PM
A government can give a subvention to any group it wished.”
Maybe so in the literal sense but not in practice.
Expenditure of monies from the Consolidated fund must be governed by /incorporated in/ or related to some Statute.Banana republic some might think we be they are rules governing the expenditure of public funds. The Financial Administration and Audit Act provides that :
Accounting officers must promptly account for money which he is accountable under the appropriate Heads of Expenditure, programmes, sub-programmes and Estimates.
Accounting officers are responsible for sums of the department voted on by the House of Assembly and must spend sums in accordance with the purpose that Parliament intends.
Certain organizations receive subventions from Government but such subventions are provided for in the Estmates under -GRANTS TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
A MInister under whose portfolio a Statutory Board falls might have more flexibility in the disbursement of funds/grant voted by Parliament under his charge since he is so authorised..
LikeLike