Former Prime Minister Owen Arthur is Dead

On behalf of the blogmaster and BU household our heartfelt sympathy is extended to the family and friends of the late former prime minister Owen Seymour Arthur.

Former Prime Minister of Barbados, The Right Honourable Owen Arthur, passed away earlier today at 12.26 a.m.
Starting today, Monday, July 27, due to the passing of the former Prime Minister, there will be a period of national mourning for three days. In addition, all flags will be flown at half mast.
Minister of Labour and Social Partnership Relations, Colin Jordan, will be the coordinating Minister for the funeral arrangements.
The Government of Barbados extends sincerest condolences to his wife, Julie, his daughters, Leah and Sabrina and his extended family.
Image may contain: 1 person, close-up

113 comments

  • Owen was a good person.

    Mrs. Gibson probably reminded him of his mother who was a very, very good cook. For a little fellow (although he was kinda muscular), he had a good appetite. We met him when he was about 16 and studying for exams…Latin to be exact. He and my sister remained friends all those years and every year when she went home he would take her out for brunch …..at the Hilton. We also met Tom Adams who was a regular at out house in summer when he vacationed at Grand View, and before him his father Grantley, who always stopped by our house to see what was on the fire. In those days we actually cooked with a wood fire. That fire made the food too sweet.

    Personally, I don’t like eulogies. This is after listening to epistles and private things that should not be spoken of by anyone. I told my son no eulogy. People who know me, know me and those who don’t, don’t need to know anything after I am dead. I told him he can have his party with fish cakes, pone, coconut bread,,,,the whole works. However, since I will not be there to enjoy it, to use his own money.

    Like

  • MariposaJuly 29, 2020 12:16 PM

    Yuh cud tell when some people had bad brougtupsy
    They have no time to compromise no matter time of day our place
    All i say is cuhdear to them

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

    The art of compromise has nothing to do with broughtupsy.

    Churchill would not compromise with Hitler.

    It was referred to as appeasement.

    Broughtupsy teaches principle and principle and compromise often do not mix!!

    Like

  • John new found historical utterances mouthed by Churchill might also reflects the manner or method of broughtupsy he was taught in his household
    Anyhow i gone no time for rehashing

    Like

  • Cuhdear Bajan,

    You have said those things before therefore you are consistent.

    Don’t recall you ever referring to anyone as “a devil in white” either.

    MRS MULTIPLE MOUTS

    Disagreeing with someone’s politics is not the same as calling him corrupt.

    PS. What some people call broughtupsy, I call brainwashing.

    When my mother chastized me with “Honour thy mother” I countered with “Parents, provoke not thy children to wrath!”(adjusted for gender)

    Incidentally…… I have never been a “lady” either.

    Fact remains one cannot be a corrupt patriot. Those who said one should not be now be saying the other. Which is true?

    These “compromises” enable the so-called corrupt system bemoaned here every day to continue as though we like it.

    I guess you guys like it.

    No need for change!

    Like

  • Reshuffle: A blow to Pan Africanists

    THUS FAR, there has been significant discussion around the decision by the Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Amor Mottley, to reshuffle her Cabinet, a little over two years since its initial formation. However, the main issue which will be discussed presently, is the Prime Minister’s rationale for removing Trevor Prescod from the Cabinet and its possible meanings and implications. Other issues will await a subsequent article.
    It can be boldly asserted that Prescod’s removal from the Cabinet is a slight and a blow to the constituency broadly associated with a Pan African and black-empowerment agenda. As part of a collective associated with a body of ideas, associated with an agenda which includes, inter alia, republicanism, black economic empowerment, black racial and cultural pride and dignity, the pursuit of links with African states and overtly socialist and social-democratic nations, Trevor Prescod was the only member of the cabinet who could be relied on to speak with clarity and consistency on matters relevant to the advancement of the outlined agenda.
    It is for this reason, that his firing from the Cabinet was the only genuine shock and surprise, coming as it did in a moment when the demands for the reversal of racist historical and contemporary practices are now occupying centre-stage.
    Coming so shortly after Prescod placed his body where his mouth has always been in demanding the removal of the Nelson Statue from Bridgetown, and where he put his more vacillating colleagues in the shade, his firing from the Cabinet can be seen as pouring cold water and putting a brake on his enthusiasm.
    Welcome firing
    The enemies of the project of black empowerment will no doubt welcome his firing. The promise of the Prime Minister to utilise him in other capacities can be of little comfort, since there is nothing that he can do to promote black empowerment outside of Cabinet that we cannot do from within with greater authority.
    Finally, the other significant dimension of Prescod’s removal from the Cabinet, is what it suggests about the Prime Minister’s own sense of comfort of her solidity

    in the chair. It would be recalled that during the darkest days of her climb to the Prime Minister’s chair, when she was deposed as political leader by Owen Arthur, Trevor Prescod was amongst the existing members of the parliamentary group who had stood most firmly by Mottley’s side. Today, with the 30-0 electoral victory, it appears that the currency of trusted loyalists has been devalued. A door has been opened for opportunists to thrive.
    All in all, the removal of Prescod represents a perpetuation of the gradual distancing of the Mottley administration from the Pan Africanist constituency.
    First they came for the Pan African Commission, and we stayed silent. Then they came for Trevor Prescod, and we stayed silent. Who or what will be next?

    Tennyson Joseph is a political scientist at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, specialising in regional affairs. Email tjoe2008@live.com.
    Source: Nation Newspaper

    Like

  • interesting but i wonder if the writer isnt reading too much into the removal of Prescod?

    i must admit, tho, that, i found it very instructive that MAM who love to ran her mouth on any topic, steered far away from the Nelson discussion when the protests started. instead, it would seem, she sent Johnny to trial-balloon his private thoughts on the matter. Prescod was up front at some of the protests. when Johnny’s private thoughts encountered backlash there was talk of a referendum. when that did not gain momentum, the private sector gave cover by saying Nelson should be moved. Cabinet shuffle, and either just after or prior, Johnny comes out and say no need for a referendum as the public had expressed its view 20 or so years ago.

    the things that make you go ummmmm

    Like

  • @David
    How soon we forget, why didn’t you place Joseph’s article under “Mia reshuffles her cabinet”?

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Sargeant

    Thanks, that was an error.

    Liked by 1 person

  • This is the first real attempt in any Barbados publication to assess the real reasons for the removal of Trevor Prescod from the government.
    As usual, the president does not see the need to explain or apologise for her actions, so those of us who are concerned must draw our own conclusions.
    It is clear that Prescod was sacrificed on the altar of the Social Partnership. The author mentions the showdown between Mottley and Arthur for control of the BLP.
    Some of us may remember when Arthur was scheduled to give a speech at the UWI and Prescod and a number of his associates walked in and sat in the front row, putting Arthur off.
    Prescod gave Mottley undying support while in opposition, and many of his neighbours talk about her visits to his home at all hours of the day and night to discuss matters with him.
    That does not mean anything if he was underperforming in his job. But, was he? Many young members of the Cabinet saw Prescod as someone they could turn to for advice and this was encouraged by the president; he was a reliable elder statesman. I understand on the |Monday night before his dismissal at the Cabinet meeting she could barely contain her anger and when challenged about her behaviour garbled some nonsense..
    Further, that the president was in tears when she sacked him, according to some of his supporters, tells us that the decision was not hers. She was clearly under pressure and I believe that that pressure came from the Social Partnership and its supporters.
    In the build up, over the last few months, the president made it clear, at every opportunity, that Mr Prescod did not have her full confidence. Why not? If it was a matter of a difference of style or conviction, as the author suggests, then why not give him the opportunity to resign and walk away with dignity? It is called management.
    However, that was never the intention. After years of service, to dismiss a senior minister within fifteen minutes is unforgiveable. Then to add insult to injury, as the author suggests, to offer him other positions such as, according to rumour, an ambassadorship to Africa, working from her office as a bag man with a title, is meant to be humiliating. He is not John King.
    What is also significant is the part played by some of the so-called Pan-Africanists and radicals in and out of the Cabinet. Not a single one has expressed public support for Prescod, or even more principled, walked out in support.
    When I talk about the bullying and autocracy of the president I am often condemned. The removal of Mr Prescod in a symbolic execution says a lot about the style of the Mottley government.
    The curious and concerned should look more closely at some of the policies and incidents that Mr Prescod was involved in as a minister, but with local business people and with other state bodies.

    Like

  • I guess we are now to be excused from being disrespectful on this blog of inane tributes.

    So… before we move on I have a few more nuggets.

    One, it is not my responsibility to abstain from speaking the truth about a dead person out of respect for his family’s feelings. It was the responsibility of the deceased to have lived the life that allows me to speak the truth without hurting HIS family’s feelings

    Two, contrary to what DPD said, it is not at all practical to attempt to bury any wrongs done by a person at his death because “the evil that men do lives after them”.

    Three, a gangster with a gun usually kills a few people and affects a few families. A corrupt politician with a pen can indirectly cause the deaths of many more people and many more families by creating the circumstances that lead to premature death.

    White collar office criminals often pave the way for street criminals, stealing the resources that were meant to create opportunities for the masses. Yet somehow you guys see their crimes as forgivable and forgetable. You lambast the street criminal and pay tribute to the other kind.

    PS. This is meant to be thought provoking. I have no evidence, unlike some of you if your pre-death comments are to be believed, that the deceased was a criminal. I did not like him and I did not agree with most of his policies nor politics but I did not call them or him corrupt. THAT is what I call being decent and respectful and that was my takeaway from my broughtupsy.

    Not damn twist mout hypocrisy!

    Like

  • This seems to us to be a misguided criticism of the government.

    Of course we cannot be convinced that Trevor Prescod is any worse than most other Cabinet members but to associate this level of political seniority to him, to us, appears undeserved. Seniority beyond mere years.

    To believe that there could have been a conspiracy to remove him, one would first have to concede that Prescod was a political heavyweight and threatening to the corporate class. This seems hardly likely given the unprecedented power of the government, known proclivities and the lipservice which is expected to place on African issues. Issues, it is alleged, Prescod supposedly has some interest.

    That such approaches could threaten local corporate interests would first require a cold day in hell given the predominant political mindset

    We are unsatisfied that the removal of Nelson, in and of itself, could have created, or could ever create, such a perceived fissure within the ruling one-party regime.

    More fundamentally, this Prescod must have had some sort of Damascus road conversion from those material charateristics longed associated with and has become some sort of a local polical doyen. We possess no such evidence.

    Of course, theere is also a fair possibility this writer is misreading events, but we think not.

    Like

  • We are hearing the state funeral for the late PM will be next Friday, 14 Aug 2020.

    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