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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

185 responses to “Mottley Don’t be a Moe!”


  1. 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..

  2. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    “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.


  3. @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.

  4. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    My apologies, I’m still a newbie. While I read several of the Dean’s articles, they were usually above my pay grade.


  5. Do not allow some here to waste your time.


  6. 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.


  7. “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.


  8. @Northern Observer

    Have a read:

    The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – A Semblance of Opposition
    Posted on June 24, 2018 by David 124 comments

    So great was the degree of disgust felt with the governance of the outgone Democratic Labour Party administration that the vox populi determined at the recent general election that it should not even be permitted to constitute Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the next Parliament. Nor did the electorate consider that any other group of individuals should do so.

    This was an eventuality never contemplated by the framers of our Constitution either expressly or at all. The effect was to create a minor constitutional crisis. History will record that for reasons that up to now remain a matter of pure conjecture, His Grace the Bishop Joseph Atherley, who had campaigned as a candidate for, and as a member of the Barbados Labour Party, decided to break ranks with the governing administration in Parliament and to have himself appointed as Leader of the Opposition.

    Though perfectly constitutional in my considered view, this has proven to be a most unpopular development. Some, including Professor Emeritus of History, Pedro Welch and others, have doubted its conformity with the constitutional text, arguing that a literal interpretation of the relevant provision contemplates a plurality of members in order for a parliamentary opposition and hence its leader to be lawfully constituted. Unless the literal interpretation leads to a manifest absurdity, the argument continues, then the words of the provision should be given their natural and ordinary meaning.

    While I understand and respect the force of this view, the literal meaning of a legal provision must be enabled by the accepted canons of interpretation, including the one that the plural includes the singular as provided by section 4 of the Interpretation Act, Cap 1. Otherwise, as I have pointed out before, the Constitution would have effected the unlikely and patently absurd requirement that the Prime Minister and Governor General must always be male. The canon that “he includes she” is of the same genus as that of “the plural includes the singular” and the former is not to be treated as self-evident while the latter is reduced to the level of “quirkdom”. In any event, as I have also argued, the Governor General is obligated to act in this mater on her own judgment 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.

    However, the appointment has also proven to be unpopular on both sides of the local political divide. The Chairman of the Barbados Labour Party, the political party under whose aegis the Bishop contested the parliamentary seat in the recent general election, has publicly rebuked Bishop Atherley for his conduct in “crossing the floor”, and has called on the goodly MP to declare whether he has left the party or intended to do so, accusing him of dishonourable conduct. According to one report, Mr Payne is quoted as saying, “I was hurt and I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Every night during the election campaign . . . nobody articulated these policies any better than the Honourable Member for St Michael West . . . and [he comes] to this House and asks questions like: If Mia’s plan is home-grown or facilitated by the IMF; if we sent signals to the electorate of the path ahead; will the Dems be investigated for malfeasance?”

    The stridency of this reproach should have served to allay the suspicions of all but the most cynical, not a few in number, that regard the Atherley defection as nothing but a plot hatched by his party to ensure the absence of a parliamentary voice for the Democratic Labour Party for the duration of the current Parliament.

    Some disfavour for the appointment has also come, quite naturally, from the DLP, which perceives itself as the rightful heir to the legitimate voice of parliamentary opposition once it does not possess the reins of government.

    In my opinion, the Atherley appointment, though necessitated by the Constitution, is an inadequate and unsatisfactory replacement for an organized Opposition party that is backed by competent research and technical know-how so as to be instinctive presenters of alternative policy initiatives and critical assessors of official dogma. The electorate clearly thought otherwise.

    In spite of his best efforts in this regard, Bishop Atherley will always be perceived to be either overly accommodating or traitorously hypocritical in his analyses of government policy in Parliament. This is but another instance where constitutional theory does not accord with practical political reality.

    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). I commented on this earlier and wondered whether I was not caviling on the ninth part of a hair, but a discussion with a senior counsel last week confirmed to my mind that much might have been effected in the name of constitutional governance in recent weeks that required deeper and more careful thought.

    PS I extend sincere condolence to the family and friends of Sir Fred Gollop who passed last week. I became acquainted with Sir Fred relatively recently when he joined me as the only Barbadians serving on the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission [RJLSC], the body charged with the management of the Caribbean Court of Justice. I found him to be, in Chaucer’s words, “a verray parfait gentilknight” and am not at all surprised at the multiple stated descriptions of him as “dignified”, “quiet”, “genial”, “humble” and “wise”. May he rest in peace.

    I extend my sincere condolences too to the relatives and friends of another reader (!) of this column, the late Professor Emeritus of Education, Earl Newton, who recently shuffled off this mortal coil. Unfailingly polite, Earl was fiercely proud of his alma mater, Combermere. I recall that he and Professor Andrew Downes took me to task in the Senior Common Room one day when I dared to compare that school unfavourably with another. Rest in peace, Sir.

  9. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    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”

  10. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    I find agreement with the learned Dean, though he is far more thorough.


  11. does Mr.Atherly not command himself, and is one of the 30 persons elected in the last election.

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

    Sho’ ’nuff


  12. (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??


  13. 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!!


  14. QED


  15. 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!!


  16. An interesting question would be, do the years MPs sits in a mock Parliament count towards their pensions?

  17. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    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.


  18. 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.

  19. Piece the Legend Avatar

    @ 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

  20. Piece the Legend Avatar

    @ the Honourable Blogmaster your assistance please with an item here for Bedroom Policeman aka Grenville Phillips thank you


  21. 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.


  22. 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!!


  23. BarbadosToday page 20

    Gaston Browne warns CIBC .


  24. Well……..at least we know they cannot rest comfortably because…….the people GOT THIS..

    https://www.facebook.com/jackie.stewart.965/videos/1157410147801856/?t=0


  25. @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/


  26. “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.


  27. “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.


  28. How does the Constitution determine how a government allocates subventions?


  29. “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


  30. 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.


  31. A government can give a subvention to any group it wished.

  32. Walter Blackman Avatar

    “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?


  33. .. and of course is the Dean still a Deane and not a Judge?


  34. Dean!!

    Freudian slip or autocorrect??!!


  35. “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..

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading