← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

The decision by Prime Minister Mia Mottley to reverse the controversial appointment of 18 year old Khaleel Kothdiwala is unfortunate. It was evident from exchanges in the last session of the Upper House the amendment to the Constitution to allow Khaleel’s sitting would not have garnered support from independent senators.

Immediately after the January 19, 2022 general election Prime Minister Mottley announced Kothdiwala’s as a BLP nominee for the Senate with the justification she was fulfilling an election promise to bring the youth into “the centre of governance and national determination…if you are old enough to vote then you must be old enough to serve”. All who have followed politics in Barbados are patently aware Khaleel’s politics is heavily influenced from Roebuck Street – and it is right to practice the politics of his choice.

The prime minister became swell headed by a second 30 to zero victory in the last general election and took for granted Khaleel’s appointment would have been rubber stamped by the Senate. Lest we forget, the Senate is currently involved indirectly in a fight for its legitimacy. Although the constitutional motion brought by former Attorney General Adriel Brathwaite was tossed out by Justice Cicely Chase, legal counsel Garth Patterson signaled appeal documents will be filed this week to challenge the Upper Chamber doing business with 18 appointed Senators instead of 21.

From comments posted to BU and aired in other fora, those opposed to the appointment of Khaleel took umbrage to the lack of national consultation about the unprecedented decision to add an 18 year old BLP supporter to the Senate to represent youth matters. Bear in mind Mottley- also in controversial and contentious circumstances- transitioned Barbados to a Republic in November 2021. The dissenting cry then was – why not complete an exercise of national consensus to determine a new constitution to make the process to a republic comprehensive.

At the root of the uncertainty muddying the governance process is an election result that rejected opposition candidates AND the unwillingness of elected members of parliament to cross the floor to manufacture an opposition. This is interesting against the rumour Mottley called a snap general election to quell a political mutiny.  

There is also the contention that President Sandra Mason is partly responsible by her refusal to appoint two apposition Senators given the outcome of the general election. Had she appointed two Opposition Senators and Mottley a standin for Kothdiwala there would possibly have been no legal challenge brought and Mottley would have avoided the political embarrassment of having to withdraw Khaleel’s appointment.

It is what it is as the popular saying goes. We wait to endure the Court Appeal process and possible request for leave to appeal to the CCJ. In the meantime there is the potential lawmaking in parliament will be disrupted if Justice Chase decision is overturned.

At a time the country is battling to manage economic challenges acerbated by the pandemic we have become mired in process because of off flippant decision making. It is ironic the Upper House that is currently under challenge in the Barbados courts is responsible for Mottley’s decision to remove Kothdiwala. 

We are living in interesting times.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

485 responses to “Mottley’s Decision Rejected”


  1. Robinson: Pandemic Levy not necessary

    By Colville Mounsey colvillemounsey@nationnnews.com

    Professor of finance at the University of the West Indies, Dr Justin Robinson, says Government has failed to justify the need for the implementation of a one-off 15 per cent Pandemic Contribution Levy on selected businesses.
    He said that the pandemic-related expenditures have already been undertaken and funded by concessionary multilateral borrowing, which is repaid from general taxation. He added that the Estimates for 2022-2023 do not show any noticeable increase in foreign debt service.
    However, senior economic advisor to the Government, Dr Kevin Greenidge, differed, saying the pandemic was not over and that Government must continue to pay for the mitigation measures.
    Robinson said it was the Government that made the choice to continue with the programmes designed to respond to the pandemic and natural disasters in the 2022/2023 financial year. He noted that 3 590 people employed in this programme cost taxpayers $76 609 992 in the 2021/2022 financial year.
    Slightly puzzling
    “The need for an explicit “pandemic levy” is slightly puzzling to me . . . . It appears that the Government is seeking to fund programmes that commenced in response to the pandemic and natural disasters of 2021 that the Government has made a conscious choice to continue in the 2022/2023 financial year.
    “The Minister of Finance indicated during the Budget that the following programmes would be continued until persons could be transitioned into the private economy with the new capital works programme,” Robinson said.
    The Budget also proposed a one per cent Pandemic Contribution Levy on the income of people earning $6 250 or more for one year.
    The finance professor said while citizens and residents were aware of their need to share the burden, policymakers should spare a thought for the financial vulnerability of some in this group, which already bears the brunt of income tax and national insurance contributions.
    “A person in this income bracket does not qualify for public housing projects and must access housing on the private market. The nature of their jobs may make it unwise to rely on public transportation, and retaining their jobs may create pressures to own and operate a private vehicle.
    Rapidly disappears
    “At current costs in Barbados, loan repayments on a modest home and car will cost at least $3 000 per month, hence the income advantage of some in this income group rapidly disappears. Policymakers should be aware that further tax burdens can push some into uncomfortable financial territory,” he said.
    In response, Greenidge said: “No one can say that the pandemic is over – the pandemic is not over. Sometimes people only see one side of the equation. Yes, spending for the pandemic continues and we have some of that in the Budget, but it still has to be financed. Those funds that we got from the international institutions at concessionary rates have to be paid back. The cost for recovery is very clearly shown in the Budget and Government must find a way in order to finance that. This is good because it is a specific tax, it is for a specific period,” Greenidge told the Sunday Sun.
    He also argued that the levy was indeed equitable as it placed a greater share of the burden upon those who prospered during the pandemic.
    “These companies that we have asked to take a greater share of the burden made what we would term in economics as supranormal profits. This is particularly so for banks and telecommunication companies. All of us are sharing in the recovery and some of us are in a better position to carry more weight than others. The thing about the Budget is that it is broad-based, it is equitable, but it is not perfect,” he said.
    In her Budget speech last week, Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley stated that where a company with a net income above $5 million in 2020 and 2021 is carrying on domestic business in the telecommunications, retail sale of petroleum products by dealers, commercial banking (deposit taking and finance houses, excluding credit unions) and general and life insurance, then such companies shall be subject to a Pandemic Contribution Levy of 15 per cent of the taxable income per the company’s financial statements for the fiscal years ended March 2021 and 2022.
    This levy, for each fiscal year, is payable in addition to the company’s corporate tax obligation and is not deductible for tax purposes.
    Robinson contended that the levy “smacks of an arbitrary use of the awesome power of the state to tax”. He also said that the use of a historical base and the seemingly arbitrary selection of which businesses to place the levy on seem to violate many basic tax principles and notions of equity. He added that, in the interest of fairness, the levy, if needed, should be on all firms that meet the threshold.


    Source: Nation


  2. Mottley: It’s unfortunate
    Teenager Khaleel Kothdiwala will not be a senator after all.
    Well, at least not for the next three years. That’s because Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley has opted not to pursue her bid to have the 18-yearold appointed as a senator, in light of the clear indication by Independent senators that they would not have supported the measure.
    At last Friday’s sitting of the Senate, leader of Government Business Senator Lisa Cummins adjourned debate on the constitutional motion when it became evident that the required twothirds majority vote would not have been achieved.
    The bill before the chamber sought to not only enable an 18-year-old to serve in the chamber, but also to provide for the appointment of two senators nominated by the party securing the second highest number of votes in the preceding election.
    Mottley met yesterday with Kothdiwala and said “disappointing him was one of the most difficult acts of my tenure to date as Prime Minister of Barbados”.
    “It is unfortunate that in the midst of global turmoil with respect to youth in crisis, Barbados finds itself at a point where embracing young people and youthful leadership is clearly still beyond its imagination,” Mottley lamented.
    Pressed for a comment, a reflective Kothdiwala said, “Even though not having climbed the historic stairs of Parliament in my intended capacity, I am nonetheless humbled that a Government would go to such lengths to create the opportunity for the voices of 18 to 20-year-olds who can vote to be heard in the ultimate chamber of decision-making.”
    Kothdiwala maintained that he “will continue to pursue his academic studies but shall remain a keen student of governance and the management of public life in Barbados”.
    Mottley said, “This is one of the most painful days in my tenure so far”.
    “Why it is so painful
    as a Barbadian that this is happening, is that in countries around us, when the moment of truth came they rose to the occasion. Two recent examples that come to mind was the election to Parliament in St Lucia of a 21-year-old female and her subsequent appointment 18 months later as minister in charge of the vital tourism industry.”
    Historic moment
    Reflecting on events in Dominica a couple years later, she noted, “You had a then 27-yearold, following the tragic deaths of two successive prime ministers in office, being asked to assume the mantle of leadership at so young an age. Many said then he was way too young, but today, 23 years later he is still the prime minister of that country and everyone would agree that he will go down in the annals of history as one of the best leaders this region ever had”.
    In summing up the development, Mottley said, “Historians will have the last say on this matter”.
    In the interim, she announced that Kothdiwala has been invited to be an honorary member of the Barbados Labour Party’s parliamentary party, noting that “he has a perspective that needs to be shared and that we need to hear as we shape a post COVID Barbados”.
    Turning to Kothdiwala, she said: “The genius of our people cannot be contained by age. Khaleel, do not be deterred – your turn will come.”
    (BA/PR)


    Source: Nation


  3. Think about it.

    The squatters in the House of Assembly curtailed the business operations causing immense loss of revenue to some businesses.

    Other businesses were allowed to remain open as “essential services”.

    Nothing they did had any had any effect on the progress of the pandemic.

    Lockdowns did not work.

    Mask protocols die not work.

    Sanitization did not work.

    Whatever they tried did not work but only took freedoms from the populace.

    The squatters in the House of Assembly continued to be paid handsomely.

    Ms. Mockley now wants the businesses to pay!!

    This is crazy.

    Clearly it is the squatters in the House who first need to contribute.

    They are a complete nuisance.


  4. Mottley: It’s unfortunate
    Teenager Khaleel Kothdiwala will not be a senator after all.
    Well, at least not for the next three years. That’s because Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley has opted not to pursue her bid to have the 18-yearold appointed as a senator, in light of the clear indication by Independent senators that they would not have supported the measure.
    At last Friday’s sitting of the Senate, leader of Government Business Senator Lisa Cummins adjourned debate on the constitutional motion when it became evident that the required twothirds majority vote would not have been achieved.

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

    What will happen if the Court of Appeal or CCJ declares Parliament to be unconstitutional?

    All these maguffies are going to look like absolute wastes of time.

    The correct procedure is for all to resign and go back to the polls.

    … from the GG/President back down.

    The court procedure is exposing the judiciary to ridicule.


  5. Surprise Surprise one worth the wait
    More than Khaleeh being rejected
    I felt the sweet sound of victory as Justice Chase ruling was overuled by the Senators
    OAS words continue to come true about Mottley
    Words to the effect which describes Mottley egotistical strategy and love for gimmicky policies
    The longest day has an end


  6. Putting the cart before the horse

    https://youtu.be/DQ6qUmsYZMc


  7. Hopefully Khaleel now understands the meaning of being used as a political pawn
    Only if he had read the Constitution with meaning and understanding
    His name would not be assigned or applied to such irritable goals as political posturing or a little well known blp foot soldier
    In all reality and possibilities and within all rationality whereby to find a place for his sole protection he would have kindly said to the PM No
    I rather take a stand with the Constitution on this issue
    Thanks MAM but no Thanks
    My name and reputation is at risk
    Three years later seems plausible and acceptable for Me


  8. @David
    No dissension with this article at all. Took Owen three terms to become swell headed. Took the current PM only three years.

    Most persons know the “real” her (and no I am not talking about lifestyle). Let’s see if more persons will stand up to the “do as I say and shut up no matter what” style of leadership

    Just observing

  9. Magnificent a.k.a Magno – Yu Heard Formula: C₂₁H₃₀O₂ IUPAC ID: (−)-(6aR,10aR)-6,6,9-trimethyl- 3-pentyl-6a,7,8,10a-tetrahydro- 6H-benzo[c]chromen-1-ol Avatar
    Magnificent a.k.a Magno – Yu Heard Formula: C₂₁H₃₀O₂ IUPAC ID: (−)-(6aR,10aR)-6,6,9-trimethyl- 3-pentyl-6a,7,8,10a-tetrahydro- 6H-benzo[c]chromen-1-ol

    Politics of Barbados is a dirty business where the youth can clean it up

    Elections in Barbados
    The eligibility requirements of contesting in the elections are the following : A citizen of Barbados, who is 18 years of age or older, and who has resided in Barbados for a period of at least seven years prior to the Qualifying Date.

    “Youth Man” + Version
    Number One Sounds + South Man

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddejtYyY83s


  10. What Barbados needs is an intelligent and strident dissenting voice. What we have now is too much froth and braying. An opposing voice does not and will not resonate with the public simply because it is a dissenting voice- it must be crafted to resonate with the public. If a general election were to held in 3 months time would we get the same results from 19 January?


  11. DavidMarch 20, 2022 7:42 AM

    What Barbados needs is an intelligent and strident dissenting voice. What we have now is too much froth and braying. An opposing voice does not and will not resonate with the public simply because it is a dissenting voice- it must be crafted to resonate with the public. If a general election were to held in 3 months time would we get the same results from 19 January?

    Xxxxxxx

    We’re not the Senators voices of opposition not sufficient and enough which took control of a situation which could further lead to more confusion in the future mired in self interest politics
    Xxcx
    On the issue of election result
    Hopefully the electorate would look past politics as they see the many problems which can result from elections of selfishness and not country
    Needless to say immaturity at all political levels gave way to an election victory which resulted in confusion


  12. When you look ‘past’ politics we will have hope that such is possible.


  13. Vote 4 Me
    Burnhard Spliffington


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW2ElqIf2Pg


  14. Vote 4 The Rasta Party
    Rastaman
    Clear and Obvious
    Rulers of Evil Divide and Rule


  15. DavidMarch 20, 2022 8:13 AM

    When you look ‘past’ politics we will have hope that such is possible.

    Xxxxx
    Start by looking at yourself if u please
    Any one that opposes this govt u lashes out towards their position with insane name calling
    The facts are the facts
    One can all but say this election was rigged in a fashion that inclusion of all was denied except for a few who dared braved the effect of COVID or had the ability to do so


  16. David March 20, 2022 7:42 PM #: “What Barbados needs is an intelligent and strident dissenting voice. What we have now is too much froth and braying.”

    @David

    Before making my comments, I must thank you for offering your condolences.

    I agree with your above comment. I’m sure you would’ve noticed “much froth and braying” is exhibited on a daily by certain ‘political characters’ in this forum, as well as some ‘regular callers’ to the various ‘call-in-programmes.’

    They criticise for the sake of being critical, mainly because it is politically expedient to do so.

    Their new ‘hobby horse’ is the Constitution. But, their comments clearly indicate they haven’t read the document and are using the comments of people from social media platforms as the basis to construct their contributions to the topic.

    In my opinion, there should be an intelligent assessment and analysis of the issues, presenting alternative policy initiatives, while thoroughly explaining how they would be implemented to solve the problems and benefits to be derived as a result.


  17. David March 20, 2022 7:42 PM #: “What Barbados needs is an intelligent and strident dissenting voice. What we have now is too much froth and braying.”

    @David

    Before making my comments, I must thank you for offering your condolences.

    I agree with your above comment. I’m sure you would’ve noticed “much froth and braying” is exhibited on a daily by certain ‘political characters’ in this forum, as well as some ‘regular callers’ to the various ‘call-in-programmes.’

    They criticise for the sake of being critical, mainly because it is politically expedient to do so.

    Their new ‘hobby horse’ is the Constitution. But, their comments clearly indicate they haven’t read the document and are using the comments of people from social media platforms as the basis to construct their contributions to the topic.

    In my opinion, there should be an intelligent assessment and analysis of the issues, presenting alternative policy initiatives, while thoroughly explaining how they would be implemented to solve the problems and benefits to be derived as a result.

  18. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @The Blogmaster, your 7:42 remarks take us back into, dare I say, “much froth and braying” of the campaigning nature of the political battle. Surely (as the blogger @AC noted) the voices of the independent senators are “intelligent and strident[ly] dissenting”, not so!

    Let’s be clear (and repetitive) that lacking an ‘official’ opposition in the House does NOT preclude strong and purposely (and intelligent and strident) voices which will resonate with the Bajan public… what you appear to be saying is that you want a dynamic, charismatic voice … DESPITE your also repetitive comments about the problems of the charismatic, strongwoman political persona! WHY??

    Since the elections we have had a strident voice in the person of attorney Patterson, any number of UE dons have weighed in with intelligent analysis and here now these ‘independent senators’ have added their voices.

    Why then, in your view, are we still lacking intelligently, strident voices! Do you need the voice (I notice you used the singular- was that your Freudian strong(wo)man desire slip of finger😎) to be a dynamic Mottley/Thompson type … what bro! — — Re the post itself: Hooray for independence or maybe republicanism! 🥳🥳

    Ms Mottley’s quoted responses were at the same time risible and too very well argued for the involvement of youth (although of course I see a whataboutism charge lurking 🤦‍♂️😒somewhere ahead).

    It was risible to read that she said: “disappointing him was one of the most difficult acts of my tenure to date as Prime Minister of Barbados”. She gotta be joking, right! Particularly when she also then said “The genius of our people cannot be contained by age. Khaleel, do not be deterred – your turn will come.” SMH!

    But she was impressive in making her point about the value of bright young minds with the St. Lucia and Dominica examples … she could have spoken about others who shone politically at very young ages … BUT truthfully NOT a single Bajan misunderstood that value of youth as across many generations we have seen it here ourselves! The issue has ALWAYS been how she went about placing him in the Senate. Thus for all the impressive speechifying, overall this episode is quite ridiculously laughable!

    I gone.


  19. So, on the positive side, Mia faced opposition from independent senators and did not get it all her way.

    What should we take from that?

    This is still not a dictatorship.

  20. Verona Michael Avatar

    Aside from the politics and constitutional drama, we have rejected Khaleel, a bright young Bajan to be a Senator but embraced Rhianna as a national hero? i know the basis of appointments are like chalk and cheese but sometimes I wonder where our sense of reasoning has gone.


  21. KING ARTAZERXES
    I TRUST THAT YOU ARE COPING WELL IN THE SITUATION YOU HAVE FOUND YOURSELF AS A RESULT OF FATE’S CRUEL BLOW.
    RE I agree with your above comment. I’m sure you would’ve noticed “much froth and braying” is exhibited on a daily by certain ‘political characters’ in this forum, as well as some ‘regular callers’ to the various ‘call-in-programmes.’

    THIS SEEMS TO BE A BAJAN CONDITION, AS IT IS THE DAILY NORM ON BU, AND HAS BEEN SO FOR YEARS
    OUR PEOPLE SEEM TO HAVE A PENCHANT FOR EFFLUXING BOVINE EXCREMENT DESPITE NOT KNOWING THE FACTS
    EVERY ONE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THEIR OPINION,
    IT IS MOST HILARIOUS TO READ THE RUBBISH ON EITHER BIBLICAL AND MEDICAL MATTER, WHICH CLEARLY EVINCES THAT THE EFFLUXERS HAVE NOT STUDIED THE WORD OF GOD, OR EVEN HAVE A WHIFF OF THE BASIC MEDICAL SCIENCES TO BE EMPLOYED TO GUIDE THEM

    IT IS NOT DIFFICULT THEREFORE TO EXPECT THAT THE SAME STUPID APPROACH WILL BE EMPLOYED WHEN DEALING WITH CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
    LET THE BRIMBLERS BRAY SIR AND THEREBY SUPPLY LOADS OF MIRTH


  22. ““The genius of our people cannot be contained by age. Khaleel, do not be deterred – your turn will come.””

    Barbadian politics is in the BLP Bag

    Next political issue is
    Who will be next political leader

    Step up the Youthman they call Khaleel

    Check For You / Fight For Your Right


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb8RYezaYys


  23. MS MICHAEL
    YOU CONTINUE TO SHINE BRIGHTLY IN THE FIRMAMENT OF THE COMMON AND BETZPAENIC BU BRIMBLERS AND WANNABEES
    I DO NOT LIKE MIS MUTTLEY BECAUSE SHE IS DEFINITELY A DICTATOR AFTER THE ORDER OF ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES IV, BUT I AGREE WITH HER DESIRE TO PROMOTE THE YOUNGSTER AND APPOINTING HIM TO THE SENATE.

    I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY MANY IN THE SENATE WOULD NOT WANT HIM AROUND, BECAUSE AT HIS EARLY AGE HE SHINES FAR ABOVE THEM IN EVERY RESPECT. HE IS CLEARLY A BUDDING TWO EYE MAN IN THE LAND OF THE BLIND.


  24. @ Dr. GP

    Thank you, sir.

    Yes I’m coping, because the reality is, I HAVE to cope. Life must go on, but, at least the memories will remain with me, until ‘my number is called.’

  25. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @Verona Michael, I am caught but your fallacy re : “Aside from the politics and constitutional drama, we have rejected Khaleel, a bright young Bajan to be a Senator but embraced Rhianna as a national hero?”

    I don’t suspect you really intended to be rational atall 😎🤣but for what it’s worth … That is a COMPLETELY FALSE comparison.

    Khaleel was ‘rejected’ on a CONSTITUTIONAL legal issue. His ‘rejection’ was based completely and totally on the fact that our constitution said that he needs to be 21 to be appointed to the senate. A 2/3 majority of the senate did not agree that an amendment was needed at this time to facilitate him.

    Rhianna’s appointment as a National Hero was NOT affected by ANY such fundamental legal issue, constitutional change or opinions of any MPs or Senators (although we think it should, for latter group) !

    Thus, these two things ain’t the same and have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with each other .. other that being ruthlessly authored by the PM, of course

    Anyhow, I gone.


  26. DPD
    YOU MAY SPLIT HAIRS AS YOU ALWAYS DO, BUT MS MICHAEL’S COMMENT IS REASONABLE.
    IF RIHANNA CAN BE A NATIONAL HERO, THEN THE YOUNG MAN COULD BE A SENATOR ON MERIT.
    THE CONSTITUTION CAN EASILY BE AMENDED
    UNFORTUNATELY, HOWEVER, THE ABILITY TO CEREBRATE AND THE QUALITY OF FUNCTION OF THE BETZPAENIC BU BRIMBLER’S BRAIN CAN NOT SIMILARLY BE EASILY ADJUSTED.


  27. @Dee Word

    You always get mired in the inconsequential. Ask yourself what brought us here. Why do we have a court matter. Why was Kothdiwala presented at an 18 year old candidate and had name had to be withdrawn. Why no comprehensive amended constitution to rollout at November 30 last year. Are you so out of step with local affairs to lack comprehension how these issues conflate?


  28. Although Rhianna appointment was not Constitutionally grounded to meet any legal challenges
    It bodes well to say that measures in old law which would have dismissed Rhianna appointment were removed during Parliament debate and voted upon making way for new law activated for her to become a National Hero
    Now looking down the road the questions swirling is for the asking was the decision the Correct and moral one


  29. The decision to appoint Rihanna was an arbitrary one. The process to appoint Khaleel required a constitutional amendment and therefore consensus in parliament.


  30. @Artax

    Sadness always accompany the death of love ones, the memories don’t leave like people do. Try to stay active by doing things to uplift yourself and people around you. As time passes your coping measures will improve.

    Wishing you and yours well.


  31. Rihanna is a living billboard advertising Barbados for free.

    Kahleel is an unwavering supporter of Mia Amore Mottley and the BLP.

    doan have to read an spell fuh wunna. Too besides today is F1 race day and I need to focus on what is important to me.

    New black female Sky Sports reporter interviewing Lewis right now.


  32. Oh dear! Who has Artax lost?

  33. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    @ac
    KK did NOT know of his appointment, prior to the PMs announcement, or so he said. Hence we cannot blame him?
    Rookie MP Lane made a similar comment about the election call. He didn’t know.
    The PM appoints one Senator.
    The President appoints two.
    The legal action ceases.
    And Judge Chase takes early retirement.
    Matter done. (for all but John)


  34. Where the independent senators part of the decision to make Rihanna a national hero?

    Can they then be accused of inconsistency?

    The same Mia who made Rihanna a national hero proposed Khaleel to be a senator. So… no inconsistency there.

    I would probably not have made either of those decisions but have no serious objections. My only issue was with the process, rather than the people involved but I am not sufficiently concerned to dwell on it

    Where are the inconsistencies? Who is being inconsistent?


  35. @John March 20, 2022 5:02 AM “The correct procedure is for all to resign and go back to the polls.”

    I’ve asked you before John, and I am asking you again. What if a trip back to the polls yields the same result?

    How often should we go back to the polls?
    Annually?
    Quarterly?
    Monthly?
    Fortnightly
    Weekly?
    Daily?
    Hourly?


  36. Kahleel may well be an unwavering supporter of Mia Amore Mottley and the BLP.
    There is nothing wrong with that.
    All that would be expected of him would be to be fair and balanced in his thought and action, and to what is fair and right, when his time comes to lead and govern,.and not be derailed and discouraged and discomfited by the morons in our decadent and decaying diabolical society, as many budding youngsters in our society have been forced to do.

    I can list a number of young luminaries in medicine, who returned to Bim to serve, but were forced to flee, just as the youngster who was bold enough to stand up to PM Adams with respect to his idea of a NHS like that in the UK.

    It is noteworthy that the proposal that was eventually accepted and followed (though not fully) was subjected by a young man who had studied systems in several countries, and was able to use his divinely given wisdom to come up with a solution that could be adapted specifically to our needs.

    Was this youngster not also run off?
    Kahleel reminds me of the young David Thompson and Sandra Husbands in thier debates on national tv in the 70’s.

    One would hope that he will develop and achieve considerably more than they were able to do.


  37. @Observing March 20, 2022 7:27 AM “Took Owen three terms to become swell headed.”

    Clearly, unlike some of us you did not know Owen from the time he was a l’il boy in short pants.

    ALL political leaders are egotistical. Their egos drive them to enter politics and encourages their drive to reach the top.


  38. AC

    What was the judge ruling hat was over turned by the senate?


  39. @John2

    Did you take the time to read the press release yesterday?


  40. @Donna March 20, 2022 10:11 AM “Oh dear! Who has Artax lost?”

    Sadly, his wife. He mentioned it on BU about 2 weeks ago.


  41. Losers in life get their rocks off saying “NO” to block for the sake of it
    But, it is a hollow victory when the Republic’s Constitution will be amended and the rules for the Senate make up will be revisited and redesigned. Those over 18 have reached the age of majority with full legal capacity and can vote and run to be in office. As adults they can have sex with other adults etc.
    Under 21 Over 31

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvc0ChFOltI


  42. The decision by Prime Minister Mia Mottley to reverse the controversial appointment of 18 year old Khaleel Kothdiwala is unfortunate
    ++++++++
    What is unfortunate? The decision to appoint him or the reversal of said appointment? I have said before that the PM in her haste to meet a self-imposed deadline put the “Republic horse in front of the Constitutional cart” and the chickens have come home to roost.

    I am also troubled by this “In the interim, she announced that Kothdiwala has been invited to be an honorary member of the Barbados Labour Party’s parliamentary party” What does that mean? Does that mean that he will be able to partake in private meetings of the BLP’s parliamentary group? If members of parliament take an oath of office with respect to their activities and deliberations can an outsider who is not party to the oath join them in any meetings relating to the activities of the H of A?

    Just a few questions that come to mind in this “act in haste repent at leisure” scenario, however the PM is a lawyer and a QC and is leader of a Party with other QC’s including the AG; who am I to question their judgement.

  43. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @David, I am longer here than intended … but you really got me kerfuffled with your 9:49 remark… I get mired in the inconsequential, fah trute! Pray tell, what did I say above that was INCONSEQUENTIAL???

    I reread both my posts and I am truly confused, brother. But anyhow a quick response to your comments vis… “Ask yourself what brought us here. Why do we have a court matter. Why was Kothdiwala presented at an 18 year old candidate and had name had to be withdrawn.” …. Either you are reading conveniently or being very careless … I have REPEATEDLY spoken to the absurdity of both the PM AND the Presidents missteps that got us here. And no way above am I being INCONSEQUENTIAL (either at 9:01 or 9:32) to stress that the PM was right to push the benefits of youth but WRONG to do attempt to appoint the young man as she did!

    re “Why no comprehensive amended constitution to rollout at November 30 last year.” This has always, in my view, been a red herring. On the one hand commentators cite this and then on the other conveniently lament that no plebiscite was called to validate the Republicanism. The two are at the core contradictory. We didn’t have national input so we COULDN”T have a properly revised constitution but the PM wanted to MOVE the Republican action forward. Perfectly practical.

    And more important the nation continues apace with NO Constitutional ISSUES (well beside the contrived one) and we will get a revised constitution and with complete ventilation with broad based national input soonest possible. Perfectly practical. So this issue remains an irrelevance, plain and simple.

    And NO I am NOT “so out of step with local affairs to lack comprehension how these issues conflate“. I suggest to you that seeing them from a distance often adds MORE perspective that seeing them up close… that trees for the forest thingy!

    Lata.

    Oh @Doc… methinks we say the same thing so not sure why you are ‘attacking’ my point. The blogger statement was simply fallacious, that’s all I said. And that’s NOT splitting hairs. Alas, I don’t remember Ms Husbands from back then … DT, Liz and a few others (former Dean’s daughter for ex) but her not so much. Anyhow….Lata.


  44. Artax

    My condolences


  45. David

    Yes
    Why/Whats your point?

  46. William Skinner Avatar

    @ Artax
    My sincere condolences to you and family.


  47. @Sargeant

    Didn’t the blog explain? It is unfortunate because of how it has muddied the management of governance affairs in Barbados at a time we should be focused on more pressing matters.


  48. Cuhdear BajanMarch 20, 2022 10:34 AM

    @John March 20, 2022 5:02 AM “The correct procedure is for all to resign and go back to the polls.”

    I’ve asked you before John, and I am asking you again. What if a trip back to the polls yields the same result?

    How often should we go back to the polls?
    Annually?
    Quarterly?
    Monthly?
    Fortnightly
    Weekly?
    Daily?
    Hourly?

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

    I’ve told all repeatedly, until a constitutional parliament can be convened.!!!

    You don’t do well with comprehension, do you?


  49. Artax,

    I am truly sorry for your loss. Hard break indeed.


  50. @ GP March 20, 2022 9:45 AM
    (Quote):
    DPD
    YOU MAY SPLIT HAIRS AS YOU ALWAYS DO, BUT MS MICHAEL’S COMMENT IS REASONABLE.
    IF RIHANNA CAN BE A NATIONAL HERO, THEN THE YOUNG MAN COULD BE A SENATOR ON MERIT.
    THE CONSTITUTION CAN EASILY BE AMENDED
    (Unquote).
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    How the ‘hell’ you can compare the selection of Rihanna as a national hero to the Unconstitutional recommendation of the “young man” to represent the National interests of the YOUTH of Barbados!

    The Excellent Robyn Fenty has demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt Her unswerving commitment to and love of Barbados. Not to any partisan political organization or individual.

    Had he been duly appointed as a senator K K would have been representing the partisan interests of the PM and her Cabinet; and quite rightly so as the former Senator Moe was nominated to do under the previous session of the same Senate.

    But certainly not those of the young people of the wider Barbados; especially those who are neither Bee nor Dem!

    Why not leave such an appointment to the purview of the President who represents not only the Voice of the People (both old and young) but also the moral conscience of the Nation?

    Since the Senate has been deemed, legally speaking, duly Constituted and fit for purpose to conduct the People’s business without the presence of both KK and the two other senators to sit in “Opposition” to the government, why tamper with the Supreme Law merely to satisfy some egotistical hunger and meet some narrow political agenda?

    Why not wait until the revised Constitution promised for the New Republic is debated and agreed upon to incorporate such ‘welcome’ changes including the right to use marijuana and to enter into a legal sexual relationship (aka marry) their own gender?

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

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

Continue reading