Ode to Lack of Transparency @NIS

The BU Intelligentsia is a talented crew. If there is doubt the following Ode was posted to the Walter Blackman’s Political Insights blog by the man from the Great White North.

“The time has come”, the Walter said,
‘to talk of many things’
Of NIS, and severance and quivering rears
Of politics and of stings
And why the ? LP’s always rule
And whether touts can sing.

“But hold your horse” the rum shop cried
Before we shoot the breeze
For some of us party hacks,
And most are retirees
“No hurry” said the Blogmaster,
And they thanked him for the ease.

“Analysis by colour” the rum shop cried
Is chiefly what we require
Pepper and Salt otherwise
Fulfill much of our desire
Whatever the intended topic
Let skin tone fuel our fire.

The winds today are rather cold
And snow covers the town.
To add to all this Covid mess.
the city’s once again in lock down.
So with little else to do
I sit and watch the discussion on hue.


237 thoughts on “Ode to Lack of Transparency @NIS

  1. “another located me at a meeting when I was miles away at the point he was talking about. He was told I was there by a friend.”

    I hope the know-it-all is not referring to the townhall meeting in London.🤣🤣

  2. @ Walter

    I am not sure if you are asking me to comment on Mr Thompson’s alleged wealth. You are taking the discussion off on a tangent. I was not his accountant nor a politician nor was he a personal friend.
    I believe probate is now complete and the records are there. Can some interested person tell us what his probate records say? Will it all come out during Mr Parris’ trial?

  3. David
    November 28, 2020 8:20 AM

    SMNW has always been one of those marginal constituencies to be fair to your fellow combermerian.”

    All of the St. Michael seats are competitive, so I mean “safe” relatively speaking.

    Lawson Weekes won the SMNW seat for the first time in 1981 and went on to establish a firm grip there until retiring after winning the 1994 election.

    Don’t get me wrong. When I connect the dots, I know you can make the very powerful argument that Clyde had the misfortune of losing his seat every time that there was a swing against his Party (1999 against the DLP, and 2008 against the BLP). My equally powerful argument is that if you want to be PM, you have to demonstrate the ability to withstand a swing.

    Philip Greaves put his stamp on St. Michael North, and Ronald Toppin has done the same thing since 1994. Branford Taiit, Erskine Sandiford, Mia Mottley, and Hamilton Lashley all established firm grips on their respective St. Michael constituencies and withstood swings against their Party.

    They did something that Clyde Mascoll was unable to do. They secured the support of the majority of their constituents through good and bad times. Clyde had the opportunity, just like they had, but he did not grasp it like they did.

  4. WURA
    “someone should tell Fowl Enuff that PROMISING to pay AGAIN and ATUALLY PAYING are two completely different things, they could be buying time to sell the business and FLEE THE ISLAND….ignorant Fowl…”

    Not according to today’s Barbados Today. Once again you’re not even on the podium.

  5. Enuff do not pay Waru aka Mrs Mitchell no mind she like the missing madman Piece like dealing in conspiracy theories and shite talk.No matyer whay the topic is she finfs a way to talk about sell out negroes , crooked lawyers , cow , bizzy and on and on with the same old tired script.As one of her supporters say time for a new script.I have lost count the many times she has been proven wrong after which she changes to a new story whe challenged to present evidence because she has none.In my view she is a madwoman to be punished with laughter as one PM said.By the way where is the other conspiracy theorist Piece ?Have not heard a peep outta him since the mock Party candidate get lick up in the by election failing to even get 100 votes.

  6. @ Lorenzo
    I respect Mottley for remaining in her party after she was kicked to the curb by the Arthur faction. She was called a despot by Arthur- she never left; she was accused of financial chicanery by Arthur- she never left; she was told by Arthur that she would never be accepted as PM by Barbadians- she never left.
    The only reason you are defending the coward Mascoll is because he joined your BLP. All the DLP told Mascoll is that the party preferred Thompson. All the BLP told Mottley is that the party preferred Arthur.
    Mascoll in any language is a weak political prostitute. He brought the highest form of parliamentary censure – A No Confidence motion against the BLP and then went and sat in the same party’s cabinet. You would have to search very wide and far to discover such gross opportunism in any part of the Commonwealth.
    @ Walter
    @ Hal is right about Thompson reaching out to people , I know of that personally.
    I can also say that I know personally that Mottley has similar characteristics. One of Mottley’s strengths is her ability to interact with all and sundry. Quite frankly it’s in her DNA.

  7. @ William

    You are right about Mottley. I admired her and was glad she won the May 2018 general election until she defaulted on our foreign and domestic debt and, since then, started to rule like a despot, along with an obsession about being world class.
    I think she gets bad advice from Persaud et al, or she gets good advice and ignores it. The outcome is that the nation’s finances are in a mess.
    I think part of her problem is that she is too loyal to friends.

  8. @ Walter
    Politics is not for the faint hearted. Sandiford “fired “Haynes as Minister of Finance by appointing Winston Cox as Central Bank Governor without even discussing it with Haynes. Haynes was not financially hungry; he actually left his office at Bay Street through the backdoor and resigned as MOF.
    A high powered delegation , went to Haynes and told him to “ hang out on the backbench “ and that they would work on Sandiford. They completely underestimated Sandiford whom Tom Adams once called a “ desert fox”.To put it briefly Haynes said to hell with that; formed the NDP and people like you and I ended up in the party.

  9. Skinner i knew you would jump in to defend Mr Thompson and redicule Mr Mascoll.As i stated i knew bothAND I AGREED WITH THE STSNCE TAKEN BY MR MASCOLL.Mr Thompso ran away to save his career to be PM from a third straight defeat by Mr Arthur.Mr Mascoll took up the mantle and placed the party in a better position.Then hrre comes Mr Thompson looking not to support Mr Mascoll as he should have but to undermine him.How would you feel about that?you stated Mr Mascoll was a poor leader , then what does that make Mr Thompson?Tell us Mr Skinmer as Ms Mottley has nothing to do with this.As for CCC keep harping on black and white see how far you get.

  10. @ Lorenzo
    I have always been and will remain critical of Mascoll. Long before you were on BU.
    2., I did not even attempt to rate Thompson as a leader. Please read what I said:I agreed with @ Hal that Thompson had people’s skills . I then said Mottley has similar skills. I said that was personally known to me. I have had personal dealings with both.
    Politics is not the only focus of my existence.You know nothing about me and my personal dealings and I know nothing about yours. We just exchange positions on BU.
    I complimented Mottley for taking the licks when you all joined with Arthur and kicked her ass to the political curb. She did not put her tail between her legs and run to the DLP These are hard facts.
    Mascoll is a political prostitute in my book. How on earth can you (Mascoll)bring a Vote of No Confidence against a political party and then end up in its cabinet?
    I dun wid dat!

  11. “Other guy.. I begging you. Ignore…”


    If you’re referring to me, just in case you haven’t noticed, I’m already in ‘IGNORE MODE.’

    As I ‘told’ Enuff recently, I’ve decided not to read the contributions of certain contributors. Especially those who’re suffering from the ‘Peter Pan Syndrome’ who, rather than remaining silent when they don’t have anything of importance to contribute to BU, prefer to be guided by their emotional immaturity into hosting juvenile ‘pity parties’ to childishly remind us, with monotonous regularity, about who called them what.

    It’s working for me.

  12. Skinner just to make it clear to you i am not a member of any party and had nothing to do with Ms Mottley being sidelined in favour of Mr Arthur.Mr Arthur was a heavyweight and former sucessful leader of that party Mr Thompson was neithe heavyweight or sucessful leader of the Dems.Therefore there is no comparison of the two situations.Mr Thompson could not even get along with Mr Kellman as the two mp, s in parliament as Kellman refused to support several items Thompson brought to the house which had to be seconded by a member on the other side.Why would Mascoll step aside for Thompson who up to that point as leader was a failure.It makes no sense to me and still does not even now.

  13. @ Lorenzo
    I genuinely respect your tenacity however, you really want me to discuss leadership skills. That’s not my focus. I merely attempted to show how Mottley responded to being pushed aside and how Mascoll responded to being pushed aside. Mottley survived and Mascoll didn’t . I repeat that both Mottley and Thompson had / have good people skills.
    My view of Mascoll will not change.
    So, I honestly think that we are looking at two different things.
    We will have to let it rest there.

Leave a comment, join the discussion.