Prime Minister Mia Mottley Changes Cabinet

The Government has determined that it is necessary that we take fresh guard. The Parliament of Barbados will be prorogued on the 8th of August, 2020, with us resuming in a new session on the 15th of September with a new Throne Speech and with a new direction as to where we must go in order to meet these extraordinarily different circumstances from the original Throne Speech of two years ago – Prime Minister Mottley

Two years into assuming the government of Barbados Prime Minister Mottley tweaked her Cabinet by making changes to her team. The standout changes – Lisa Cummins  and Ian Gooding-Edghill take over at Tourism and Transport respectively. Removed from the Cabinet are George Payne, Trevor Prescod, Lucille Moe, Neil Rowe and Edmund Hinkson.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Here is the new Cabinet:

    • Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley – Minister of Finance, Economic Affairs and Investment
    • Dale Marshall – Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, with responsibility for the Police
    • Santia Bradshaw – Minister of Education, Technological and Vocational Training
    • Senator Dr. Jerome Walcott – Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade
    • Lt. Col. Jeffrey Bostic – Minister of Health and Wellness
    • Dr. William Duguid – Minister of Housing, Lands and Maintenance
    • Ronald Toppin –  Minister of Industry and International Business
    • Kerrie Symmonds – Minister of Energy, Small Business and Entrepreneurship
    • Cynthia Forde – Minister of People Empowerment and Elder Affairs
    • Senator Lisa Cummins – Minister of Tourism and International Transport
    • Ian Gooding-Edghill – Minister of Transport, Works and Water Resources
    • Adrian Forde – Minister of the Environment and National Beautification
    • Wilfred Abrahams – Minister of Home Affairs, Information and Public Affairs
    • Ryan Straughn – Minister in the Ministry of Finance
    • Marsha Caddle – Minister in the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Investment
    • Sandra Husbands – Minister in the Ministry of Foreign Trade
    • Colin Jordan – Minister of Labour and Social Partnership Relations
    • Charles Griffith – Minister in the Ministry of Water Resources
    • Dwight Sutherland – Minister of Youth, Sports and Community Empowerment
    • Kirk Humphrey – Minister of Maritime Affairs and the Blue Economy
    • Indar Weir – Minister of Agriculture and Food Security
    • Peter Phillips – Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security
    • John King – Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office with responsibility for Culture and Rural Development Commission and eventually the National Development Commission
    • Senator Dr. Romel Springer – Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Education, Technological and Vocational Training
    • Senator Kay McConney – Minister of Innovation, Science and Smart Technology

 

Related Link:

GIS Release – Prime Minister Makes Changes To Cabinet

154 comments

  • So everybody hiding out somewhere, no one wants to touch this steaming hot potato publicly, but it’s okay, will catch yall in the swing, just waiting for the blowback, that one should be even better…

    Like

  • Q: How do you determine a good and bad country Children?

    A: By their Leaders

    Like

  • Piece the Prophet

    De ole man has prophesied this long ago but de resident poochlickers was saying dat I, now Piece the Prophet, WAS WRONG!

    More is to happen but, if I Prophet say all dat I been shown, men enough gine run screaming from de building to toss themselves headlong from the mount to their respective deaths.

    And, in addition to being a Prophet, de ole man would be a murderer which is not de same as a killer.

    Heheheheh

    I guess the Rented Jackasses who we shall beat mercilessly because dem is rented and one Koochie Koo gine rush into de fray and spew den faeces now

    Heheheheh

    Like

  • @David

    what happened to the blog from yesterday which has commentary on this topic

    Like

  • Piece the Prophet

    Yesterday’s blog, if we are speaking of the same item, is a 2019 item with 321 responses.

    It has nothing to do with this topic Mr Greene nothing!

    And to use that blog will “kill” this new subject matter!

    But now you mention it that is what a good Minister of Disinformation would do wouldn’t he?

    Heheheheh

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Piece the Prophet,

    The PM and her party may get lucky if Gonzalo becomes the minister of destruction and distribution.

    There could be a lot of storm rations to distribute generously.

    buh doan mine me.I watched about 10 G G videos yesterday so I just writing foolishness cause I confused by

    de masterclass in the tiefosity of PLT idea unless they plan to appoint him to the senate.lol

    Then there is this LGBTQS hypocrisy but since I live in Canada I will stfu about that subject.

    I will wait to see if those who just got kicked will defend their record or slide quietly into some consultancies.

    David should thank me for the white rice I contributed today.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ Hants at 8:42 AM
    I hoped David BU had on his green shades yesterday. My father used to send me to fetch his when white rice was the main dish on the lunch menu. LoL!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  • What did Neil Rowe do? Can’t remember him for anything except a dispute with a constituent about rent. Notwithstanding the PM’s words about utilizing the ousted members in other capacities Neil will be the quintessential back bencher, keeping a seat warm and applauding like a trained seal when someone makes a point.

    I applauded the PM when she engineered a Constitutional change to allow talented bajans who lived abroad and fell short of the residency requirements to serve in the Gov’t in some capacity but did she bring back young Adams to just warm a seat in the Senate?

    In a recent debate the Bishop got off a good line when he called Sutherland the Minister of Big Business because of his stance in support of the new car importers vs the used car importers. Sutherland was in high dander and let it be known that he was the Minister of Small Business until such time as the PM made a change little did he know that he would soon get his wish.

    Like

  • Well, David has been asking for this for a long time. However, as is often said, in the local political jargon, amounts to a mere rearrangement of the chairs on the Titanic.

    This prime ministerial action signals that all the political culture is based on is not currently working and can NEVER be made to work again.

    Secondly, the history of politics is replete with instances where prime ministers fired people, and in an attempt to make sure the ship does not sink due to mutiny or seems unstable, try to make publics believe that there is some higher purpose, when in truth and in fact the endpoint could have be seen years before.

    That truism is that it has always been impossible for any government of Barbados to assemble a cabinet, or a list of candidates, with more than a few able persons, regardless of whether B, D or N.

    Indeed, we would wager that based on the metrics used to taper this cabinet that tonnes of fat still remains.

    Even more profound, for this PM to try to convince us that this was a mere administrative action, given the trust levels with some senior figures included in the ‘reshuffle’ beggars belief.

    Maybe, the leader of the opposition, saw this coming and would now appear to some as a doyen, To us all he really did was to box-in this larger multitude now seeking political life jackets, at least for a while.

    ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive’ (sic)

    Liked by 2 people

  • @Sargeant

    Rowe bucked the strong trend last election and rode into parliament on the big swing against the DLP government. He is a light weight and obviously expendable in Mia’s quest to change optics.

    >

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ Piece the Prophet.
    It is customary for those, attempting to apply the Westminster form of Governance to shake up the Cabinet in mid- term. For most of us ,political observers ,the tremor was not surprising . A larger reduction in Cabinet ministers and of consultants would have been more impactful.
    I agree that fresh guard needs to be taken in the light of the emerging International Economic landscape and unclear geopolitics.

    Like

  • quote] Chairman of the Port, Senator Lisa Cummins, will serve as Minister of Tourism and International Transport, while chairman of the Transport Board, Ian Gooding-Edghill, will become Minister of Transport, Works and Water Resources.

    Cummins takes up the portfolio formerly held by Kerrie Symmonds who will become Minister of Energy, Small Business and Entrepreneurship, while Gooding-Edghill’s post combines two of those formerly held by Wilfred Abrahams and Dr William Duguid.

    Mottley said the pair “distinguished themselves as competent hard workers, with a capacity and resolve to a get the job done” and “I have been impressed with them and their stewardship as a chairman of the respective entities over the course of the last two years. They have done well”.

    At the same time, elder statesman George Payne (Housing) will no longer hold a ministerial portfolio, nor will Edmund Hinkson (Home Affairs), Trevor Prescod (Environment) or Senator Lucille Moe (Broadcasting). Neil Rowe is also no longer a parliamentary secretary.

    “This is not a case of dismissing anyone. I want to make it clear I am committed to ensuring that each former member of the Cabinet is utilised in this country in a manner or in the furtherance of the work of this Government and of this nation,” Mottley said. [unquote

    so Cummins and Edghill were praised and promoted and whilst Pyane, Prescod Moe and Rowe are not being dismissed they are being demoted so to speak. man, piss in my pocket and call it snow. MAM really has the gift of flab

    Like

  • @Greene

    What would you rather her say? Prime Ministers will shift ministers from time to time for reasons political, competence etc. Do prime ministers of the UK do it from t8me to time?

    >

    Liked by 1 person

  • William Skinner

    Curious as to what happened to Comrade Prescod. Really hope he asked to be cut.
    How can the AG remain in the cabinet. Total failure. Why Cummings as Min. Of Tourism before Gooding-Edghil a successful tourism executive.
    The PM should have reduced cabinet by at least ten.
    Nice to see Gooding Edghill, whose talent was spotted as a Young National in the NDP reach such a zenith.

    Like

  • Ian Gooding-Edghill is a HR manager.

    Like

  • just announce a cabinet shuffle and shuffle. no need for long-winded nonsense explanations. she takes too much. a lot of it pure bollocks

    Like

  • @ William

    Now the president has admitted that her government has spent two years to accept its failure, will the apologists plse come forward and explain? We awe going to see the back of the consultants? What about White Oak? What about BERT, BEST and BOSS? Why is Marshall still in his position?
    So, it now appears, Black Lives Matter and the Nelson statue are the Achilles heels of the Mottley government. We now know in whose interest she rules.

    Like

  • @ Hal
    was there ever a doubt. our white brothers and sisters did not come out of the wood work because of COVID 19. just like black bajans they are celebrating the demise of the DLP or rather the ascendancy of the BLP and MAM. that union march was not for nothing. well only where the workers are concerned.

    MAM knows v well for whom she serves and she is doing a v good job

    Like

  • @Greene – Well said

    Like

  • @Greene -”Well said” refers to your 09:43 comment

    Like

  • @Greene

    You have the argument ass backwards. The DLP self destructed. History will record the Stuart government as the worst in out history. Surpassed Sandiford.

    >

    Like

  • @ Greene

    It is painful to say it, but it was clear from the default that this government had lost its way. Arrogance and stubbornness stood in the way of progress.
    It will take a brave white Bajan to step forward and reject Mottleyism and out the nation first. But that will be a brave man or woman. Mottley has shown she is incapable of doing the job she was raised to do. She has failed – and so go her global ambitions.

    Like

  • NorthernObserver

    @9.28
    Good observation. Who now chairs the NIS? You cannot have one Minister in charge, and another as the Chair? Not that we are ‘more aware’ of anything under IGE, than we were before.

    Like

  • “This prime ministerial action signals that all the political culture is based on is not currently working and can NEVER be made to work again.”

    it’s an obsolete colonial system whose time has been up for the last 50 years, it was refined to continue into this era….it’s NOT suitable for the 21st century and should be abolished just like the slave system was…..am actually writing a paper on that now…it was not designed nor created by black people, it was designed to hurt and harm those whom it’s still aimed at…

    problem is ya don’t have any people currently in the parliament with the intellect nor abilities necessary to design a brand new system, they can’t even get the transition from the colonial designed 11 plus right and are still trying their best to stubbornly hold on to the mis-education system…none of them created….still believe they have somehow excelled …

    but i am confident that there are Bajans quite capable of ushering in a new education system, a new system of governance, but the capable are NOT TO BE FOUND in the parliament, bar association nor the judiciary…those are the the human colonial designs who got positions they never thought they would, a system that has rendered them all useless from the 1950s to this generation, achieving the bare minimum once elected and never ever being able to do more than we have seen which is all on this side of lacking, all that went wrong since the faux independence THEY can all take credit for, most of which ARE FAILURES, Barrow apparently understood too late some of what unfolded….which is …they are the colonial properties of the UK crown and not fit for purpose…..and never will be….it’s not black people’s system and never will be…develop and design your own system, if you want to survive this dying one, and try not to model it on this cursed one that is on it’s way out..

    If we look at that reality….it’s clear why we will always say nothing will work, nothing will get better, as designed …now ya know why…

    Like

  • Mia Mottley has to abolish and rename departments (and ministerial posts) and to reassign responsibilities among departments. This will reflect new priorities or for reasons of efficiency of those yard fowls who weren’t productive in our administration. Shadow ministers, please take a bow in respect of our Prime Minister and the excellent job she is doing.

    Like

  • As I have already said, our government is doing many things right in transforming the socialist plantation called Barbados into a modern, liberal society. For example, the restructuring of the SOEs, the downsizing of the cabinet and the salary cuts for the lazy bureaucracy. All highly laudable measures to emancipate the indigenous population and free them from their mental slavery.

    However, one important point of reform is still missing: our Marxist government advisers. People like “comrade” Greendidge obviously hate entrepreneurs and tourists and are doing everything to bully them with ever new taxes. I would just mention the totally insane taxes on airline tickets, which have contributed significantly to LIAT’s bankruptcy. The next madness is the annual visa for top performers, which costs far too much and is far too bureaucratic. Only a Marxist could come up with such a thing. The reason given is that hurricanes are a regular occurrence in Bermuda, not here. What nonsense. Aren’t we looking at a hurricane this weekend?

    Our beloved leader Mia Mottley should dismiss Greendidge and other advisers and finally get some reasonable advice.

    Like

  • Pacha…the system was not created BY black people, it was created FOR black people, a replacement for chattel slavery, a brilliant replacement for the slave trade, that is why it seemed to be working so well from the 60s when Barbados was so admired, until around the 90s, it had a short shelf life and no one understood the design, because it still kept on going… …when it started to bend and buckle people eventually FELT before they saw that it was not designed to benefit them…all the bragging and boasting could never have stopped it’s collapse..

    don’t worry though, they immediately put another brilliant social engineering plan in place but that went cockup when they got exposed with Windrush…..and this is the fallout.

    when ya hear me admiring those masterfully refined colonial plans to use and later destroy Black people……it’s always UNDER duress….just in case anyone gets ideas..

    Like

  • @ Tron

    Credos to shadow minister Tron, your words speak volumes.

    Like

  • Pacha…as some of us know something is very wrong with the political system in Barbados….even the constitution the UK also designed that has been amended a handful of times by DBLP since the 80s, sounds all wrong…if ya happened to read any of it….it’s all meant to continue colonial rule, the black faces in the various parliaments do not have what it takes to dismantle this colonial creepiness….so they will all continue to look like fools and the colonial properties that they really are….

    .note that Barbados still does not have it’s own created and designed constitution over 50 years after an independence ceremony, it’s still under colonial rule, don’t mind the little negros running around pretending they are in charge, they are only in charge of destroying their own people and doing as they are told with regards to what others want and not what the people need and are entitled to…

    don’t try to explain any of that to the fowl slaves, they got lost a month ago…

    http://www.afrikanheritage.com/saving-constitutional-rights-from-judicial-scrutiny-the-savings-clause-in-the-law-of-the-commonwealth-caribbean

    “Since the constitutions of the Commonwealth Caribbean states were first adopted in the 1960’s, courts have been confounded by the savings clauses in these instruments. These clauses place a “no go” sign over the fundamental rights grants of the charters by grandfathering pre-existing (colonial) law into the constitutional regime. Meant initially as a shortcut method of marrying common law rights and constitutional protections, the clauses have presented particularly vexing problems of construction as appellate tribunals have attempted to reconcile international human rights norms with municipal law.’

    “Because the Commonwealth Caribbean constitutions are not uniform in their use of the savings clause, there are complex practical problems of interpretation. For example, some of the constitutions have no savings clauses at all, while others have more than one. Some constitutions provide that existing laws should be construed to bring them into conformity with the constitution; others are silent on the question of how to construe conflicting,
    existing laws.

    The constitutional text does not always reveal whether existing statutory law alone is continued or whether common law is also saved. The savings clause in the Barbados and Guyana constitutions applies only to written law.

    The savings clause in the Constitution of Belize was limited to five years after
    independence, and hence, it has expired.”

    Like

  • WURA,

    It does indeed take a special mind to imagine and design a new system of government. It will take a mind exposed to much that most of us have never even explored. We have been in a European box for a long time. We have been brainwashed so effectively that we will have to make a conscious and sustained effort to reverse that state of mind. It is not easy. Even my rebellious mind would need some serious work because I’m sure there is still a vestige of Eurocentric bias hiding somewhere in the corners of my mind.

    Like

  • Yawn…it is a good thing the government never listened to the experts and clairvoyants on BU. 🤣🤣

    Like

  • “Even my rebellious mind would need some serious work because I’m sure there is still a vestige of Eurocentric bias hiding somewhere in the corners of my mind.”

    and therein lies the trap, identifying with the colonial system in any form, believing it somehow protects you or cares about you and your current and future generations, or that it was designed to promote and enrich you as the African descended, the trap, luckily for me the day i was born they lost me because from i was able to independently, from an early age, form coherent thought i had discerned that it was all fanciful bullshit designed to destroy, not to uplift nor enrich and i told them that straight up, that i wanted no part of it…..still don’t….check out who your sell out leaders promote, uplift and enrich at your expense..

    check out the psyches of those embedded in that system, they always seem incoherent and devoid of rational thought let alone the skills necessary to abolish that colonial blight……check out the miserable fowl slaves who bend over backward to be part of it, check out the levels of demeaning degradation they are subjected to…they reduce themselves just to be part of an ugly colonial system…cant remember if you were on here some years back when there were more fowls around….it was quite the experience…they are all mostly gone now, probably died from their own diseased minds….there are only a few left, but the minds are still diseased, so don’t be surprised if you don’t see nor here them in about 2 years 10 months and 1 week..

    Like

  • @enuff

    Feedback from talk shows and social media appear to be positive about the changes to Cabinet?

    Liked by 1 person

  • William Skinner

    @ Hal
    My major concern is to hear from Comrade Prescod. Apparently he is supposed to speak within the next twenty four hours. If he was fired it means his philosophy/ ideology has clashed with the BLP. If he requested to be relieved, it’s all good.
    As for the other theatrics , with 29 out of 30 seats, the PM can do almost whatever she likes.

    Like

  • @ William

    There must be a clear the air statement. What we do know is that for the last two years the president has been misleading the people. It was a period of failure.
    What triggered this much rumoured reshuffle? Was it Black Lives Matter? Was it pressure from the Social Partnership? Was it a late-night meeting in Cattlewash? The nation has a right to know.

    Like

  • It is the prime ministers prerogative to invite or dismiss anybody from the Cabinet. Ministers serve at the pleasure of the prime minister.

    Liked by 1 person

  • What clear the air statement? Is there some controversy? Are Ministers to quote Barrow like asbestos (fireproof). Whether one likes it or not the PM can make cabinet changes at her whim, it is part of Parliamentary life in most democratic countries.

    Liked by 2 people

  • Yes David! The PM is the dictator!
    Your reality is truly, democratic.

    Like

  • @David,

    whilst that is true, why did she go to the length of explaining and BSing? why all the long talk? just announce the changes and be done with it. quite frankly i am tired of hearing her talk and talk and talk about every every every thing and accomplish little little little

    Like

  • PS – Mugabe’s numerical age now belies her biological decline.
    Powah is corrupting healthy aging

    Like

  • @ Sargeant

    You are clearly an expert on the democratic process or in Canada it is very different. Reshuffles do not happen because the leader fancies having one. There must be a reason and in our democracy the ultimate power is with the people.
    It seems in your little world a reshuffle and the sacking of ministers is not controversial. Those ministers constituencies, at least, want to know what has taken place, what did their representative did wrong. Is that not Canadian democracy or can leaders make changes at a whim, as you suggest?
    In our system, the rime minister if first among equals. Under the system we have now in Barbados, we have a presidency, who can act at a whim.

    Like

  • @ professor shadow minister WURA-WAR-ON-U July 23, 2020 2:06pm

    Your rubric eliminates most of us 😡. You’re a definite (poet).

    Like

  • @Greene

    Do you agree it was a reshuffle with a twist with the prorogation of parliament? And this signals a shift in the approach of government for last half of the term.

    Liked by 1 person

  • What Mugabe and Barbados cannot confront is the W-recovery which is the most likely scenario in source markets.

    We say W not V-shaped as the party loyalists would like to think. And this is the best case scenario.

    Even with, let’s say a 40% of GDP stimulus spending as historically be needed, a bumpy W-shaped recovery is the best we can hope for.

    And for AmonRa’s sake don’t expect any help from the IMF. .

    Like

  • William Skinner

    @ Hal
    I have never heard a Prime Minister fire ministers and then say that it is not about dismissals.
    “This is not a case of dismissing anyone“ ( Quote-The PM)

    “Things get curiouser and curiouser“
    (Alice in Wonderland)

    Like

  • A surprise to read someone as long in the tooth buying in to platitudes and rhetoric. To repeat, most prime ministers make changes st midterm.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ William

    The optics are important. It is an act of deflection, an excuse for two years’ of failure. I am also interested in the long prorogation – five weeks. Why? The government is in a predictable mess.

    Like

  • @David July 23, 2020 4:59 PM,

    yes i so believe but i also believe in the Tooth Fairy

    Like

  • @Hal A

    Forget the snide comment about being an expert on democracy in Canada (BTW you have a bee in your bonnet about Canada) but you have placed me in the uncomfortable position of defending the Mottley Gov’t. Once again, I ask “what clear the air statement?”. Cabinet reshuffles happen in most countries and Barbados is no different the PM did what is part of her job description, the changes weren’t announced via GIS, she didn’t have to give a reason or embarrass a parliamentary colleague by announcing why he/she was not retained in a particular position. The only time a PM should publicly announce a reason why a Cabinet Minister was if they were accused of corruption, abused the public trust, broke the law of the land or voted against a Gov’t program (that last should be obvious to the public).

    Like

  • But all yuh say the Cabinet too big, now the same all yuh talking about firings. Somebody tell me how yuh can achieve the repeatedly called for reduction without removals? Shiiite imagine if it did cut to 12 as some are suggesting? All because a “Comrade” is in the cut. Then the serial “end in tears” specialist still striving to be proved right. I ask BU has anything this multi-expert predicted come to pass? All now we were suppose to be in Court battling the foreign debtors according to him. This blog too sweet eh. #pickanoisettes

    Like

  • Non issue.

    Like

  • Our leader Mia Mottley is demonstrating strength and determination with the cabinet reshuffle. She has realised that a small island needs a small cabinet. I’ve calculated that in 15 years we will have five ministers if she makes the same reshuffle every two years. What a great future!

    Now that our honourable ministers have to cut back, it is also time for the local population to tighten their belts. The Nelson riots have shown that many natives have too much free time instead of thinking about hard work. We therefore need a wage ceiling to ensure that our economy flourishes again.

    In this context, I am launching an attack against the opposition. Surely there are good reasons to criticize the new 1-year visa, because the fee is far too high and because our foreign top performers have to pay taxes. But it is beyond good and evil that the outspoken senator and other opposition members are starting a crusade against same-sex couples and calling foreign top performers criminals. Clearly, the oppostion is running out of ideas.

    Barbados needs fresh blood, as the islanders have become increasingly work-averse. Our government should massively expand the programme and give the new citizens the right to vote. This would permanently weaken the trade unions and crush the opposition.

    Like

  • Reasonable analysis:

    Reshuffle ‘insight into PM’s vision’

    Dr George Belle

    By Colville Mounsey Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley’s Cabinet reshuffle and reduction mid-way into her first political term, provides great insight into her vision for the direction of the administration.

    So says veteran political scientist Dr George Belle, who noted that while some may have gone willingly to the sacrificial altar, others may likely be feeling hard done by some of the changes.

    He also agreed with his academic counterpart, Peter Wickham that it is highly unlikely that Mottley will face any major political backlash from the shakeup, mainly because of the powerful mandate she received at the May 2018 polls.

    “It is indeed a significant reshuffle and it could be used to get some insight into the character of the present leadership of the regime and of the Barbados Labour Party (BLP). What I notice first was that there was a certain core of the Cabinet that was maintained, which is important to the stability of PM Mottley’s leadership in the party,” said Belle, as he pointed to seasoned BLP members, Dale Marshall, Santia Bradshaw, Cynthia Forde, Ronald Toppin and Jerome Walcott.

    “If you move further out there are persons that she rewarded which reinforces the core group such as Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Bostic, for his work in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. I would also include Kirk Humphrey, Marsha Caddle, Ryan Straughn and Sandra Husbands, for the work they have done in their ministries. Indar Weir

    would have also been rewarded for carrying out certain policies in agriculture while [Parliamentary Secretary] Dr Rommel Springer is an investment in the future,” Belle added.

    He argued that the removal of Trevor Prescod as Minister of the Environment as well as George Payne from heading the Ministry of Housing, was likely done to appease the calls for a trimming of the Cabinet size, which has now moved from 27 to 24 ministers.

    He also contended that both Prescod and Payne are already on their way out of politics. However, he noted that the removal of Edmund Hinkson as Minister of Home Affairs would not be viewed in that light.

    Silver lining

    “Hinkson is not seen as somebody who is on their way out and yet he was removed from the Cabinet. So I believe that he might not be fully comfortable with that decision because it is clearly a demotion and perhaps even more than that. There is a silver lining for him because he can always be brought back into the Cabinet at a future date.

    “So therefore, his political future is not negated absolutely. Senator Lucille Moe would more or less be seen as accommodating the demand for reductionof the Cabinet, because from what I know she is pretty close to Mottley. Neil Rowe would not be seen as someone of muchpolitical cost and would need to concentrate on retaining his seat in

    the next election,” he said.

    Belle is also of the view that similar discontentment could be anticipated among some of the ministers who were shifted to other portfolios. He explained that one such person could be Kerrie Symmonds, who was shifted from the prestigious portfolio of tourism to head the Ministry of Small Business and Energy.

    “I cannot see energy and small business being as prestigious as the Ministry of Tourism. So therefore I could see Mr Symmonds seeing the move as some type of reprimand in relation to his stewardship at tourism. On the other side, the promotion of [Senator] Lisa Cummins from outside of the Cabinet to replace him is further mark in that direction, indicating that there was something wrong with tourism. So that has potential for some tension down the road,” Belle stressed.

    Source: Nation Newspaper

    Like

  • @ Northern Observer,

    I have no bee in my bonnet about Canada, as you constantly say. In our form of democratic politics (it may be different in Canada, I suggested, because I do not know anything about Canada), Cabinet reshuffles are carried out to refresh the Cabinet, to promote good performers and remove or sideline the ordinary or underperformer.
    They are not just carried out on a ‘whim’, there must be a reason. All I am doing is asking for the reason for the reshuffle. None has been given. Not to give a logical reason is to suggest the prime minister, first among equals, threw a dart at a board and names came up. Even thinking about it will show how silly such a suggestion is.
    The clear the air statement is just that, and explanation for the changes. In the political system with which I am familiar, such an explanation would have accompanied the changes. I am told that Barbados operates on the Westminster/Whitehall model, if so it is not too much to ask for the reasoning behind her decisions.
    You make a bold claim that the only time a prime minister ‘should’ publicly announce the reason for change is under certain circumstances. Wow! Where did that absolutist theory come from? A reshuffle is high-risk, especially if it involves sending rivals back to the backbenches. You must also remember that parliament is sovereign, not the Cabinet or prime minister.
    I think you are confusing the removal of a minister for corruption, criminality, resignation, etc with a reshuffle. Replacing a departing minister is not the same as a reshuffle.
    An explanation for a reshuffle has nothing to do with embarrassing colleagues, it is about the government’s future programme, its new direction, it is political, not about politeness. And she has hinted at that by bringing in a prorogation, and after a five week break, a new Queen’s Speech.
    To remind you, a Queen’s Speech is the government’s new programme for the rest of this parliament. So, some of us can wait and read the runes when the speech is made on September 15. In the meantime, constituents are left to fluff about in rumour and gossip on BU and the printed media about why changes were made.
    Here are some conventional reasons for a reshuffle: so the prime minister can demonstrate his/her power over colleagues; poor performance; to indicate a shift in direction (ie a new Queen’s Speech); to refresh and remove tired and old ministers; to regain control of events. There are numerous studies on this subject.
    A reshuffle on a ‘whim’ is not progressive politics, it is the politics of viciousness.
    By the way, stop with the Canada nonsense. I have visited Canada once and have been invited back on numerous occasions and have not taken up those offers. I do not enjoy travelling.
    In fact, as I have said on BU on a number of occasions, I live in London (not Britain), and dislike having to travel outside or even across London.
    I do not enjoy travelling – not even to Barbados. I enjoy when I have arrived, but not the journey. Nonsense about having a beef about Canada is boring. You seem to equate yourself with Canada the state.

    Like

  • Pingback: The Spectre of Mottley | Barbados Underground

  • On George Belle

    There is a meally-mouthed sameness about the Bajan ‘intelligencia” which transcends time and space.

    In the case of the one Belle, we could recall similar comments made by him on many occasions in the past.

    That we now live in times of tectonic shifts and Belle could only rest on muscle memory is an indictment to his ilk.

    How could his kind, in one lifetime so seemlessly navigate Marxism, Kemetic philosophy for a moment, and now live out his later years on the steps of a dying neoliberalism with contentment is a question which will bother anthropologists millennia hence.

    Like

  • that Belle piece isnt worth what Paddy shot at

    Like

  • @Greene

    We are talking about rotating mediocrity. Every day on every issue the media in Barbados go to the same people who regurgitate the same nonsense they have been vomiting for the last two or three decades. The Bajans are like intellectuals mice, they love it and think it is filling.
    The problem is technology has given us a global reach, but the media bosses do not like that. Too many overseas voices in our affairs may expose the weaknesses in our politics.

    Like

  • Significance of reshuffle
    PRIME MINISTER MIA AMOR MOTTLEY’s first Cabinet reshuffle has come at a time when every democratic government faces unprecedented economic and social challenges to its domestic landscape, complicated by similar challenges in the global economy.
    Cabinet shuffles are par for the course at the halfway stage of the usual five-year term of office. The turbulent change of economic conditions at the global and domestic levels caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have prompted genuine paradigm shifts for all countries, and generated the need for governments to change their priorities.
    Mottley has chosen to prorogue Parliament, thereby creating the need for a new Throne Speech which should contain the new policy initiatives to meet the different challenges now facing the country. They are qualitatively different from those which confronted the new Government two years ago and she has seized the moment to shake up her Cabinet.
    The removal of George Payne, Edmund Hinkson, Trevor Prescod and Lucille Moe from ministerial portfolios suggests a clear element of adjusting for the future. This is supported by the promotion of Senator Lisa Cummins and Government backbencher Ian Gooding-Edghill to Cabinet positions. We wish them well. Both were praised by the Prime Minister and these assignments may be regarded as merited on the basis of their competence. On the other hand, the removal of Hinkson, as well as Neil Rowe, a Parliamentary Secretary (though not a Cabinet position), both of whom may be said to come from the younger wing of the Barbados Labour Party, speaks to other aspects of necessary prime ministerial judgement.
    But this reshuffle is of even greater significance. With the reassignment of eight ministries, and four ministers and one parliamentary secretary having been relieved of their posts, the Prime Minister’s justification for the changes suggests she is not only making an assessment of the political talent at her disposal, but also rearranging the portfolios with an
    eye to the immediate politics of the changes as well as having new hands on the tiller of some key ministries.
    With the shifting of the energy portfolio to Kerrie Symmonds and home affairs to Wilfred Abrahams, they now have a chance to bring their energies to bear on what will be two key ministries related directly to the economy.
    One result of the changes is that the Cabinet is smaller, and because perceptions matter in politics, that may be an important factor. The inescapable truth, however, is that COVID-19 has forced governments to change policies, and this inevitably means reshuffling cabinets to deal with new realities.
    Whatever the changes, in a post-COVID-19 world, ministers have their work cut out, the stakes are high and performance matters.
    Whatever the changes, in a post-COVID-19 world, ministers have their work cut out, the stakes are high and performance matters.

    Liked by 1 person

  • NorthernObserver

    @HA
    Note…the prior exchanges were between yourself and @Sargeant. Not I.

    Like

  • William Skinner

    @ Hal
    @ Northern Observer
    Once the PM said ; “ This is not a case of dismissing anyone”, she displayed remarkable weakness., Then she said that she will be depending on them in the future. Imagine you just fired somebody and then you tell them that you would be depending on them in the future. It shows that she wants to make an omelette without breaking the egg. Of course she can use some artificial substitute/ powder.
    @ Pacha
    Comrade Belle has made a dramatic change. It’s a far cry from the last conference of the Workers Party that I attended at Combermere school hall a million year ago. It’s Sir Hilary and Mutual all over again. We simply have no Walter Rodneys around.

    Like

  • Greene

    What did Paddy shoot at? LOL

    Like

  • @Pacha

    Belle’s is an opinion, that is all. Only Mottley knows what informed the changes. Who can speak definitively on matters like this unless clairvoyant?

    Liked by 1 person

  • David, David, David

    Your slip is showing.

    Like

  • Sir William.

    Well it goes beyond Belle. It seems to us that all Caribbean radicals end up being some of the most reactionaries known to man, mammon.

    George Lamming is a notable exception to that general rule of course.

    Our own disposition has been and will be that true radicals get more radical with age. Not the Caribbean types though

    Like

  • @Pacha

    Which slip, a leftist, socialist, communist?

    Like

  • David

    Consistency demands that we say your “nationalist” slip.

    Others have rendered that nationalism is the last vestige of tyrants (sic)

    Like

  • Refuge

    Like

  • @ Northern

    My sincere apologies. My mistake. I must admit you are usually on the ball, especially on financial matters. I thought this was so much unlike you I should have double checked. Shows I am not perfect.

    Like

  • @Pacha

    This blogmaster is comfortable with the label nationalist (not extreme) tempered with being pragmatic.

    Like

  • Yes, ‘pragmatic nationalist’ is more precise descriptor

    Like

  • lol

    Like

  • David
    The BU gang needs to be more attentive and read more. This lack of up to date info, coupled with their dislike for the “President” and government, leads to regular misreading and weak analysis of the government’s or PM’s actions. In one breath one is calling the shuffle a recycling of mediocrity, then through another side demanding explanation. One who is attuned would see clearly what is happening. For example, what was recently debated in Parliament?

    Liked by 1 person

  • @enuff

    The blogmaster has tried his level best to get some here who are long in the tooth to understand old narratives will not cut it in this world.

    Liked by 1 person

  • One who is attuned would see clearly what is happening. For example, what was recently debated in Parliament?
    +++++++++++++++++++
    The above makes one go HMMMNNN, recent debate centred around “Integrity in Public Life”, could it be that some person is reluctant to declare their assets and the shuffle is a prelude to exiting Parliamentary life?

    Clearly this is just a wild guess, if I was on the ball I would ask the PM to “clear the air”

    Like

  • @Sargeant

    Where would be the political astuteness in doing as you suggested?

    Like

  • @David
    I bit on Enuff’s bait but it is an intriguing suggestion, we know that despite publicly supporting this measure it was not universally accepted by some politicians especially those with long service. The “clear the air” comment was just for laughs.

    Like

  • There is a clear philosophy adopted by the PM that 2 heads better than one.
    eg.
    Minister and Minister in the Ministry.

    Hence the Commissioner ( in facto ) and the consulting Comissioner.

    Then there is the Deputy Comissioner and since ( according to Penguin, “a deputy essential ” ) it is obviously better to have two.

    Buh doan mine me. I jus writing foolishness an listening to Softman by Penguin.

    Like

  • in the coming weeks MAM will come with a crime plan and a lot of long talk. she will be hailed as astute, a political animal and caring but nothing will result. talk talk talk bout every every everything but achieve very little

    Like

  • Greene at least dhe is communicating with bajans which is more thsn can be said for ex PM Mr Stuart.If she comes with a crime plan it will be better than anything the previous AG csme up with as he seemed morre concerned with the rights of criminals than those of law abidding citizens in my view.I remember you were one on here being critical of the strategy set out by this government with covid 19 talking about going straight from stsge 1 to stage 3 and what was the outcome government was able yo sucessfully contain the the virus.This tells me either you don, t know whart the hell you talking about or you arr eishing the worst for the country under this government. Either way you will not succeed as we will rebound.

    Like

  • @ David July 24, 2020 9:26 PM

    This ad is downright perverse. The DLP as the party of righteousness? Don’t make me laugh. Didn’t our US-Japanese judge just reject the request to let a serious criminal from the Deep South walk free? The said person obviously miscalculated when he pleaded not guilty.

    I believe that all DLP members, including those in the public service, should now come out in the open to distance themselves from money laundering, corruption and other dirty crimes. However, since our DLP members are silent, the public can assume that these individuals want to bring down this peaceful society.

    Like

  • Disgusting Lies & Propaganda TV

    @ David re the DLP’s “press release” LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

    Someone need to tell Miss Depeeler that Easter has gone and to stop flying RH kites with nuff bull(s) on it mekking a whole lot of unnecessary noise!!!!!!..She is struggling with important issues to discuss so let me help her. Let us start with the 2010 – 2018 Auditor General report. There is a whole lot to talk about there but I will start with a part of it
    On page 17 CHAPTER 3 titled PROCUREMENT OF LEGAL FEES BY STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES. Help us Ms Depeeler, for want of people accusing that administration of cahing way taxpayers money( and all of a sudden you seem so concerned with the paying out of unnecessary monies in harsh economic times). Why was it a common trend that the services of legal counsel was “procured” and the nature of there services were not properly authorized, verified or even identified? Also the Auditor General and his department cannot seem to find a basis for which those attorneys charged fees for such questionable services? Why are there so many questionable invoices for legal services???? why does sound so similar to a questionable payout of $3.3m from a certain company via another questionable invoice? Miss Depeeler you and the island the DLP is standing on is shrinking…. please help us understand and MAYBE you and the DLP may be thrown a lifeline before wunna drown!!!!!!!

    Like

  • Exercising the power of Prime Minister

    By Ezra Alleyne

    The recent Cabinet reshuffle of Prime Minister Mia Mottley and the prorogation of Parliament are good examples of the awesome power attaching to the Office of Prime Minister.

    To fully understand the exquisite nature of this particular exercise of power, one must first recognise that the star of the Westminster system of government is the prime minister.

    He or she is not a hereditary king or queen, but rather is, a politically elected monarch who can appoint to high political office, or dismiss anyone he or she chooses to.

    Almost every vestige of autocratic power that formerly adhered to the status of monarch has been bequeathed to the person chosen as prime minister under the constitutional compromise thrashed out in revolutionary battles between kings and the people many moons ago.

    The use of these powers can abort a Cabinet minister’s developing political career; and, on the other hand, these powers may be used to catapult a promising aspirant into the Cabinet, thereby opening the avenues to status, privilege, and prestige and responsibility of public office. The Office of Prime Minister is a storehouse of political power.

    Our Independence Constitution reflects this reality of awesome prime ministerial power, and since 1966, there are many examples of the exercise of prime ministerial power, that should teach intelligent ministers and other politicians that such power is to be respected.

    Immediately, the question posed by Machiavelli rushes to mind: Is it better for a leader to be loved or feared rushes to my mind. Consider these two examples: When former Democratic Labour PartyPrime Minister Errol Barrow told Speaker Neville Maxwell on the floor of the Housethat: “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh, blessed be the name of the Lord”that reflected the same

    aspect of prime ministerial power as much as when Barbados Labour Party Prime Minister Tom Adams adamantly insisted that Mr Burton Hinds would never become a minister in his 1976-1981 Cabinet.

    The Prime Minister clearly knows how to chop her onions!

    In this situation, the Prime Minister chose her moment brilliantly. She looked into the constitutional toolbox to reset her economic and social programme and requested a prorogation of Parliament. By requesting the Governor General to prorogue Parliament, the 2018 to 2020 session of Parliament comes to an end only.

    Collateral benefit

    Parliament will not be dissolved.

    A new session of the 2018 to 2023 Parliament will begin on September 15 in the full televised glare of our ceremonial democracy. A collateral benefit of a new parliamentary session means that a Throne Speech, to be delivered by the Governor General, will be necessary.

    Notice, I said that the Prime Minister advises the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. The power to prorogue, like the power to dissolve, is specifically reserved to the king, to be normally exercised by the king at the request of the prime minister.

    Throne speeches are nothing more than statements of the policy the Cabinet will propose to Parliament. It is appropriate to use this technique to inform the Parliament how the Executive (that is, the Cabinet) will alter its tack to deal with the new economic turbulence.

    Necessary exercise

    The doctrine of the separation of powers means that the third major power in theState, the Judiciary, has nothing to do with this exercise, except to be present at the televised ceremonial opening of the new session of Parliament

    in the Senate Chamber on September 15.

    The interesting aspect of this reshuffle is that it was and is a necessary exercise of prime ministerial power, at this juncture. Two years ago, everyone had a chance to succeed or fail. The report cards are in and the Prime Minister’s judgement has been delivered.

    Having consolidated herself in the office of Prime Minister, which every incoming sensible Prime Minister should do; she has promoted Wilfred Abrahams to the Ministry of Home Affairs, and she is signalling that Culture and the Creative Economy in the new paradigm is part of the economic household.

    To expert eyes, the Prime Minister is a leader who thinks 24/7 about the challenges the country faces, while assessing the performance of her Cabinet colleagues in their designated posts, even as she tackles those challenges.

    Ezra Alleyne is an attorney and a former Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly.

    Source: Nation Newspaper

    Like

  • The blogmaster has been around long enough to appreciate changes to a management team may not always be motivated by task performance, there are those nettlesome relationships that sometimes form and work to undermine.

    Like

  • I think Ezra Alleyne has to return to his constitutional law books, if the above is his understanding of the Westminster model of government. The star of the Westminster model of government is PARLIAMENT, not the prime minister. The prime minister, in a system of Cabinet government, is first among equals. One cannot be equal and still have awesome power.
    It is a half-truth to say the prime minister can appoint or dismiss whoever s/he chooses; however, the key is that the prime minister must be able to command a majority in PARLIAMENT to get his or her legislative programme through.
    If, s/he has lost the confidence of colleagues, then the majority party has a constitutional right to go to the governor general (the Monarch?) and ask for another leader to be sworn in. In simple words, the Cabinet can sack the prime minister. What does tht say about awesome power?
    To suggest that the prime minister is in effective an autocrat is ridiculous. That may be the reality with the current government in Barbados, but it is not constitutionally so. Even under a system of prime ministerial (as opposed to Cabinet) government, that power is still limited.
    I think the author has misunderstood the historic battle between the monarchy and parliament. The settlement was not one in which the prime minister got a transfer of power from the monarchy, but PARLIAMENT got that power. That is the Westminster model. This matter was recently settled by the Supreme Court in the battle over Brexit (Gina Miller).
    The Tony Blair government was the first of what we call prime ministerial governments, yet Blair still had to give way to Brown because he had lost the confidence of the Cabinet.
    The Westminster model is simple: power lies with the people who exercise that power at general elections when they elect a majority in parliament; that party then elects/appoints a leader and goes to the monarchy or his/her representative and ask to be appointed as the government; in other words, parliament temporarily passes the power to make law on to the majority party, who then delegates it to a small committee, a Cabinet, headed by a leader or prime minister.
    But at any time parliament has a right to recall that power from the government (a vote of no confidence) and the nation has a right to reject that majority party at a future general election. With a minority government the legislative programme goes through issues by issue.
    As we saw in the Gina Miler court battle, prime ministers, Cabinets, courts do not have the power to over-rule parliament. PARLIAMENT is supreme. That is why it is called PARLIAMENTARY sovereignty.
    As to the causes of the recent Mottley reshuffle, that is a matter of opinion, but the constitutionality of the powers of the prime minister and where power lies in our parliamentary democracy must not be misunderstood.

    Like

  • And how do you think the prime minister in a Westminster system maintains the confidence of the parliamentary group?

    Like

  • Still digesting, but excellent post Hal.
    Your comments are consistent with the little I know.
    You have deboned that fluff piece.
    I cannot understand why some bloggers do not stick to facts instead of wishful thinking.

    Like

  • @Hal,

    Ezra seems to be singing for his supper here. reminds me of how the Repubs in the US bend the knee for Trump, whatever he does or say -lol.

    Ezra is a real disappointment. he should either declare his column as propaganda for the BLP or stop writing.

    i know some will say that everyone knows that Ezra is aligned with the BLP but legal matters and matters of government systems are hardly partisan. he has not exercised due impartiality in this piece or in the advice re the legality of 2nd DCoP

    Like

  • Had to reread Alleyne’s article again. Clearly the nuance of his view was missed. The Eager 11 affair is an illustration of his point that a crafty prime minister holds the trump card in our system of government. An unpopular Stuart with no backbench/coattail did it.

    Like

  • @Greene

    Confession. Ezra taught me law briefly in London. I greatly admired him, as an old Combermerian, and for his thinking but I think he got confused on this point. Or, it explains why I am not a lawyer. I will stick to what I know.
    @Theo, thanks.

    Like

  • and clearly you misunderstood what Hal posited. from a government system stand point that works where interests and political survival intertwine but the position of PM constitutionally is unlike that of President of the US. the PM is an animal of the PM’s parliamentary colleagues and exists at their pleasure. Wasnt MAM ousted as political leader prior to a general election?

    Ezra failed to point out how it should work constitutionally and how it works in practice, Hal did a better job

    Like

  • @ Piece the Prophet,

    It appears to me you could learn from this blog. The first five paragraphs use words that confuse me.

    I can’t write what I really think because I do not want to cause trouble but will take the liberty to quote without context.

    ” politically elected monarch who can appoint to high political office, or dismiss anyone he or she chooses to.”

    ” awesome power ” ” the star …is the prime minister.” autocratic power has been bequeathed to the prime minister.”

    ” The Office of Prime Minister is a storehouse of political power. “

    Like

  • @David
    Yours @7.15am
    Of course you are correct, just a week ago I wrote the following, “during an interview Gonsalves remarked on how much power Prime Ministers wielded in these islands, for Gonsalves it was a moment of candour”, I also said that PM’s have more proportionate power than the President of the US.

    The critique of Ezra’s article reads more of how it should work in theory or according to some text, but not how it works in reality. From my vantage point it seems like some folks like to engage in quixotic quests battling windmills, not surprisingly they have lured a few Sancho Panzas along the way.

    Like

  • Listen… No big talk. No B or D talk. Would prefer one individual not comment (run out with a piffle statement – he gets very sensitive when fingers point in the direction of some)
    Was it a sham a scam or a “wham, bam thank you man. ” Yah money gone.
    https://barbadostoday.bb/2020/04/11/upp-expresses-concerns-over-covid-19-charity/
    Update

    Like

  • The TheOG CoVID-19 Charity asks you to donate generously.

    We make you just one promise – Every penny of your donations will be spent.

    Unlike other charities we do not have administrative fees – Every penny goes directly to the Charity Fund and then to the recipient(s).

    Like

  • @Sargeant

    Why bother, you may recall our bastardized Westminster system prompted Caswell to write this article.

    https://barbadosunderground.net/2011/12/28/barbados-imitation-democracy/

    Like

  • that was a v practical piece by Caswell to highlight the defects in our system of govt and the reluctance to fix.

    it doesnt take away from what Hal wrote and what i endorsed however. as far as i am aware no one is denying that in practice a PM who is strong and popular has unlimited power in our system. yes, our system has built in defects, for example and these are but a few, the PM is almost always minister of finance even without any discernible background in the field. the PM is also always president of his/her political party and subject to little or no oversight as party leader or PM.

    our system doesnt farm out certain decisions to independent sub / committees: all if not most decisions are routed thru the party in power of which the PM is first among equals.

    in parliament the senate has no real power and in function is an extension of the party in power.

    we all know this.

    nevertheless i contend it is incumbent upon former or eminent lawyers like Ezra to point out theory and then what occurs in practice to make his point. that is all.

    we somehow always argue the fine points that are already agreed and obfuscate the larger ones

    Like

  • What Caswell’s article clearly points out is that we do not operate a Westminster system. Pointing out the theory of the system is therefore irrelevant to Barbados. For example the working committees of our parliament do not function because of limited numbers on the backbench.

    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