est. 2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

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…

, ,

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 responses to “Prime Minister Mia Mottley Changes Cabinet”

  1. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

    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

  2. Donna Avatar
    Donna

    Non issue.

  3. Tron Avatar
    Tron

    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.

  4. David Avatar
    David

    Reasonable analysis:

    Reshuffle ‘insight into PM’s vision’

    [caption id="" align="alignleft" width="245"] Dr George Belle [/caption]

    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

  5. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    @ 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.

  6. The Spectre of Mottley | Barbados Underground

    […] It is mid term and the political temperature just went up after Prime Minister Mia Mottley executed  a shake up to her management team – see Prime Minister Mia Mottley Changes Cabinet. […]

  7. Pachamama Avatar
    Pachamama

    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.

  8. Greene Avatar
    Greene

    that Belle piece isnt worth what Paddy shot at

  9. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    @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.

  10. David Avatar
    David

    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.

  11. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

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

  12. William Skinner Avatar
    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.

  13. Pachamama Avatar
    Pachamama

    Greene

    What did Paddy shoot at? LOL

  14. David Avatar
    David

    @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?

  15. Pachamama Avatar
    Pachamama

    David, David, David

    Your slip is showing.

  16. Pachamama Avatar
    Pachamama

    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

  17. David Avatar
    David

    @Pacha

    Which slip, a leftist, socialist, communist?

  18. Pachamama Avatar
    Pachamama

    David

    Consistency demands that we say your “nationalist” slip.

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

  19. Pachamama Avatar
    Pachamama

    Refuge

  20. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    @ 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.

  21. David Avatar
    David

    @Pacha

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

  22. Pachamama Avatar
    Pachamama

    Yes, ‘pragmatic nationalist’ is more precise descriptor

  23. WURA-WAR-on-U Avatar
    WURA-WAR-on-U

    lol

    https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-0/p280x280/112453662_416161735968280_5101263937424329013_n.jpg

  24. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

    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?

  25. David Avatar
    David

    @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.

  26. Sargeant Avatar
    Sargeant

    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”

  27. David Avatar
    David

    @Sargeant

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

  28. Sargeant Avatar
    Sargeant

    @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.

  29. David Avatar
    David

    https://barbadosunderground.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/dlp.png

  30. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    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.

  31. Greene Avatar
    Greene

    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

  32. Lorenzo Avatar
    Lorenzo

    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.

  33. Tron Avatar
    Tron

    @ 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.

  34. Disgusting Lies & Propaganda TV Avatar
    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!!!!!!!

  35. David Avatar
    David

    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

  36. David Avatar
    David

    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.

  37. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    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.

  38. David Avatar
    David

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

  39. TheOGazerts Avatar
    TheOGazerts

    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.

  40. Greene Avatar
    Greene

    @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

  41. David Avatar
    David

    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.

  42. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    @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.

  43. Greene Avatar
    Greene

    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

  44. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    @ 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. “

  45. Sargeant Avatar
    Sargeant

    @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.

  46. TheOGazerts Avatar
    TheOGazerts

    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

  47. TheOgazerts Avatar
    TheOgazerts

    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).

  48. David Avatar
    David

    @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/

  49. Greene Avatar
    Greene

    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

  50. David Avatar
    David

    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.

Older Comments
1 2 3 4
Newer Comments

Leave a Reply to CrusoeCancel reply

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

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

Continue reading