Schoolyard Politics

For a supposed master of spin, sometimes the Premier has a funny way of putting things.

Consider the comment he made at a press conference on Friday while talking about independence:

"If I’m the Premier and I become Prime Minister, you won’t be able to wipe the smile off my face."

His statement immediately put me in mind of a naughty schoolboy, caught red-handed in an act of wrongdoing. Nervous for the consequences but exhilarated by his act of defiance, he can't stop smirking. "Scott! Wipe that smile off your face!" bellows the irate headmaster.

And he wonders why so many people question his motives?

Comments

[ruby tuesday on 25.10.04 at 14:28]

At business functions over the last year I have met Scott and a number of his colleagues and several things stand out. Firstly, Scott is a deeply unimpressive individual even by comparison to the medicrities that plot against him in the PLP. His grasp of English is poor, his attention span is limited and self regard is huge considering he is just a minor public functionary. Did he complete formal education at all? The insularity that clouds what passes for thinking on planet Scott is the most damaging aspect of his persona as far as Bermudians are concerned. He genuinely thinks Bermudians are self sufficient and that the march to independence can be achieved irrespective of what foreign enterprises want. As an owner of one such enterprise I ask is this consensus thinking or just some halfwit playing to his crowd?

[ace on 25.10.04 at 14:57]

I found it incredibly interesting that Mr. Scott is sure that the title of "Prime Minister" would be granted to whomever holds the top office in an independent Bermuda.

All of these efforts to be independent from those horrible colonial masters in Great Britain and the best these guys can do is copy-cat the name of the leader of Great Britain?

Maybe there is a Constitutional requirement for the leader to be called the Prime Minister that I don't know about...but why, I have no idea. Surely once we are indpendent we can do whatever we want and call the leader whatever we want.

Shouldn't he be the Grand-Poobah or His Lordship the Most Excellant Worshipful Master, or something of the sort?

[ruby tuesday on 25.10.04 at 15:15]

I asked Mr Scott about his cabinet and whether as Premier he believed in the principal of Primus Inter Pares for his cabinet. One could almost hear the tumbleweed blowing across the empty recesses of his mind - after what seemed like an eternity he said "possibly". An utter moron.

[Graeme Outerbridge on 25.10.04 at 15:36]

Ruby what does that Latin mean....First among equals or something like that..Thanks Barbarian Wolf ^..^

[Mr. Oxford on 25.10.04 at 16:41]

"An utter moron."

Are you calling him a moron for not knowing the meaning of the phrase, or for not asking what it meant before replying?

Just wondering

[Tiger Bay on 25.10.04 at 17:09]

"If I’m the Premier and I become Prime Minister, you won’t be able to wipe the smile off my face."

Until Renee slaps him silly ... I'm beginning to miss the ole battleax!

[The Limey on 25.10.04 at 19:54]

Ruby - Have to say, I had to look that term up myself (my old Latin teacher would be appalled). Hopefully the Premier did the same - he's a fan of Google, after all.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

[jake on 25.10.04 at 21:36]

How wise and...profound.

[Milo on 26.10.04 at 09:46]

Ruby,
I have a thought...maybe Mr Scott was unimpressed with your attempt to make him look silly by quoting a latin phrase that most people would not be able to understand, and he thought for a moment, "is it worth entertaining this nonsense," decided it wasn't and ended the conversation. What was he supposed to do? Say something like "I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the term." Then you would translate and he would be involved in a conversation he might not want to be involved in. Perhaps you are unimpressive enough to not be worth the time of our highest elected official, especially when you want to use that time to play puerile word games.

-- Milo strikes again

[ace on 26.10.04 at 10:04]

"highest elected official"

Elected? Not by the "people" of this island. Remember?

[jake on 26.10.04 at 10:20]

What do you mean?

He is an elected member of Parliament, and the most senior member of Cabinet. If not him, who? If the people did not elect him, who did? Who elected the last UBP Premier?

But to keep to topic, Alex is too much. As a former Cabinet Minsiter he should be well familiar with that term, and the concept underneath it. The problem is that his style of leaership does not embrace it. That was why Renee Webb resigned. She was not treated as an equal. He, in his famous phase, was 'the Man'.

I agree with Ruby Tuesday on this. We need better from the PLP who have been fielding the old bench for far too long. It discourages the newer better candidates from coming forward, because in many cases they do not want to be led by a leadership so clearly bent on self promotion.

But know this Ruby, first opportunity that comes, there are members in the PLP who are ready to remove Alex and this sideshow, and get a leader that can be comfortable on a world stage. I hope you and other international businesses can be a little patient while we go through this transition phase. We should have just stuck with Jennifer Smith and the Colonel. At least we knew where we were with them.

Jake, the Jennifer supporter

[ace on 26.10.04 at 10:29]

He was not "elected" to the position of the highest office of this country. He was an elected member of parliament, granted, but became the premier after the bloodless coup right after the election.

I hardly need to remind you of this. Do you just want to argue semantics?

Lawyers...sheesh.

[Mr. Oxford on 26.10.04 at 10:49]

Under our system, one might technically say that every government MP has potentially been elected to Premier. If you didn't want politician X to be leader of the country, then you should have voted for the other blockheads.

[ace on 26.10.04 at 11:08]

Riiiiight Mr. Oxford,

So, if I voted PLP in the last election because I supported Jennifer Smith then I should be unconcerned that I had been "mislead" (direct quote from Dr. Brown)and that all is well because any vote for the PLP would have been a defacto vote for any PLP parliamentarians?

Is this what you are saying?

[hurricane alex on 26.10.04 at 11:23]

Ace, Way to take the discussion away from Alex Scott's incompetence and into Westminster system minutiae!

Jake's right. Alex Scott is totally unsuited to be leader of the PLP let alone the country. I'm not sure I'm with him on Jennifer Smith and Burch though, they had their own ego problems.

Alex's ego is so out of control, and he is so enamored with himself for being Premier, that he isn't interested in those around him.

He's deluded himself into thinking that he became Premier because he was such a compelling choice. His selection was solely as a compromise candidate, a decision that the PLP membership probably rue at this point.

The vultures are circling over Alex's head, the question is does anyone think the head vulture - Dr. Brown would be a desirable leader.

It's a choice between a do-nothing windbag of a Premier or an ego-maniac saddled with ethical problems and a track record of condescension and heavy-handedness.

Frankly that prospect scares me more. Alex is too useless to carry anything forward, either a social agenda or independence.

[loki on 26.10.04 at 11:45]

Having dealt with Dr. Brown in a business environment, I can't say that I'm particularly enamoured with him personally. And, yes, he does come across a being just a little too slick and PR-centric. But, this doesn't detract from the fact that he is a successful, self-made businessman with a good head on his shoulders and the ability to hold his own on the public stage. Leaving aside the taxi-drivers' debacle (and we may never know how much of that arose as a result of Cabinet's insistence, as opposed to Dr. Brown's) he has been very good in the various Ministeries that have been handed to him. Alex Scott is an appalling embarrassment of a leader, if one can even attach the label of 'leader' to him at all. I would much prefer Dr. Brown as Premier than the mediocre wind-bag that we have at present.

[jake on 26.10.04 at 12:16]

That was a point lost on most of you who routinely criticized Jennifer. She may have been aloof, but she had clear plans to revoke the nonsense of term limits, a good relationship with international business, no allegations of fraud or dishonesty, no plans on independence without the people's support, a balanced approach to the many ego's in her Cabinet (promoting Dr. Brown and Renee Webb, but sacking the divisive Arthur Hodgson - that is good leadership in my book).

And we sacked her over Champagne (good Champagne at that) and a lack of smiles and kisses. Leadership should be less about that, and more about the job you do - the integrity you have.

I like Alex personally, but as leader of the Country he is still fighting the battles the (former) Opposition lost years ago. The Governor? A non issue to people without housing. Meeting him at the airport with a car? Please. Get Derrick Burgess under control and we will see you as special. This is not what represents a significant majority of the party's thinking members. It is embarrassing. I look for more from my Politicians, and right now it is not there. I would almost prefer a Brown - who I opposed at the Jennifer contest time, to a compromise. At least he engineered a proper Party Coup. That they did not have the ability to follow it though shows he is not the one, however. No prize for "almost". and we are stuck now. I hope Paula Cox reconsiders her position and makes a play. She would have both my vote and my support.

[hurricane alex on 26.10.04 at 12:18]

When faced with the choice of a successful unethical ego-maniac or a do-nothing windbag, that's an easy choice.

Do-nothing windbag wins every time.

[Graeme Outerbridge on 26.10.04 at 14:01]

Well does anyone know what that Latin means? Or are you all just a bunch of wind bags? Quo fata Wolf ^..^

[hurricane alex on 26.10.04 at 14:04]

Ask Renee, she'll translate it for you:

"First Among Equals"

[ace on 26.10.04 at 14:42]

"And we sacked her over Champagne (good Champagne at that) and a lack of smiles and kisses."

We?

Sorry to nit-pick...but who is we?

You do make very valid points though. I was very happy to see the back of Jennifer Smith at the time, over exactly the issues you mention.

Now I miss her.

[Mr. Oxford on 26.10.04 at 15:26]

"So, if I voted PLP in the last election because I supported Jennifer Smith then I should be unconcerned"

ACE- Who said that you should be unconcerned? Where did you get unconcerned from? Exactly where is unconcerned implied?

Just like in the US you are voting for Bush and Kerry as President, but you are also voting with the knowledge that either Cheny or Edwards could end up being President. This is despite the fact that they were technically voted in as Vice President. The means by which they become President are irrelevant. That is the system, and in our system it is 100% possible that any Government member could be Premier. So technically, all of them were elected to the post - that's the reality. Sucks, but that's reality.

[hurricane alex on 26.10.04 at 15:36]

We digress but ....

The converse is also true - that none of them are elected to the post.

[Tiger Bay on 26.10.04 at 15:39]

That example is a bit off kilter. The VP takes over if the president is incapacitated. Not if they stage a coup!

[Mr. Oxford on 26.10.04 at 16:20]

"That example is a bit off kilter. The VP takes over if the president is incapacitated. Not if they stage a coup!"

Semantics if you ask me. You had John Swan, David Saul and Pam Gordon as Premiers within a span of like three years. 1995-1998. Whether it be a coup, or shufflin de deck, the PLP has not set any significant precedents. Anyone with locked in leadership expectations has a very selective memory or is plain old disingenuous.

[hurricane alex on 26.10.04 at 16:53]

I'd say two hours after an election victory is a precedent.

But yes, I agree, leaders come and go between elections - that's the way our system operates.

[ace on 26.10.04 at 17:33]

ACE- Who said that you should be unconcerned? Where did you get unconcerned from? Exactly where is unconcerned implied?

Unconcerned is possibly overstated, but this is where I got it from:

"If you didn't want politician X to be leader of the country, then you should have voted for the other blockheads."

Sort of a "politics is a bitch" kind of statement. Strange, because I've heard that somewhere before.

[graeme Outerbridge on 26.10.04 at 18:01]

Yeah Baby I just love that Primus thing...Look if I asked Renee, she would just slap me around. Hurricane thanks for the help- "how you doing!' Amas Wolf ^..^

[Mr. Oxford on 26.10.04 at 18:18]

ACE,

Exactly how does the above statement(or "politics is a bitch") mean that one shouldn't be concerned? Don't try something evasive, either. I don't speak a lick of Latin, but in plain english it appears to me that the only way that one could arrive at your conclusion is if one was to shift and lock a message into one's own preconceived idea/agenda.

This isn't just semantics here. I'm talking about arresting the figments of your imagination so that a productive exchange can actually take place. Having to correct your zealous misinterpretations is tiresome.

[ace on 26.10.04 at 18:33]

Mr. Oxford,

Look mate...you even spelled it out here in your above quote:

"Sucks, but that's reality."

That seems to be your answer to everything political. It sucks, you can't do anything about it, politics is a bitch...take your pick.

You are a smart guy with a great sense of humour. How about putting some of that effort into NOT making things a bitch?

THAT is why I am bothered by most of your responses...other than the one about Paula Cox...I really thought that was clever and funny.

Political and social apathy is something that most of us Bermudians are guilty of, but you just seem to sit back and accept it and berate those who feel that maybe things can be changed.

Maybe I'm wrong about you...I don't know. I can only take what I read as being who you are.

[Mr. Oxford on 26.10.04 at 19:51]

"It sucks, you can't do anything about it, politics is a bitch...take your pick."

No, you look, ACE. Pointing out what I think is realistic and YOU adding to it, "you can't do anything about," is the issue here. I never said you can't do anything about it, I never said that one should be unconcerned and I have never endorsed social apathy. That is YOUR personal distortion and interpretation, which arises from your continued failure to read the thread, failure to comprehend the thread or tendency to twist a post to compliment your own logic/argument.

To be frank it is downright delusional for you to be lecturing anyone or to call them sheep. Normally I'd ignore it, but it's so blatantly obvious that you wilfully misrepresent another poster's words, or just don't read them at all (something you did at least twice in the last thread).

I'd much rather discuss the topic at hand, but it's twice as hard (if not fruitless) when I have to continually go back and point out your embellishments. Do you think that you could at least take the effort to read what is actually written instead of making some blinkered response off of your baseless assumptions?

Thanks

[Fornicator on 27.10.04 at 07:36]

"Unconcerned is possibly overstated"

He did the EXACT same thing in the portuguese/portagee thread. Possibly? I think the odds are more like certainly.

"You are a smart guy with a great sense of humour. How about putting some of that effort into NOT making things a bitch?

THAT is why I am bothered by most of your responses...other than the one about Paula Cox...I really thought that was clever and funny."

You know, it's pretty friggin arrogant for one poster to think he's in an absolute position on an issue - rating other participant's posts is so condescending.

[ace on 27.10.04 at 08:01]

lol...my goodness.

You ommitted the first sentance in what you quoted me as saying there Mr. Oxford.

"That SEEMS to be your answer to everything political."

This is me giving my opinion, not me stating what you had specifically written.

Why did you do this?

You did so to give an impression that I am embellishing the truth when in fact all I was doing was connecting logical "dots" that when someone continually claims things "suck" and are a "bitch" that they don't really imply that much can be done to change them.

"That is YOUR personal distortion and interpretation, which arises from your continued failure to read the thread, failure to comprehend the thread or tendency to twist a post to compliment your own logic/argument."

No, this is my personal OPINION. You are the one leaving out parts of quotes to manipulate what I have said. You did this to twist MY post and compliment your own voracious assault on me and my character.

I'm done hen pecking with you Mr. Oxford. You claim to want to discuss the issues, but all I see is someone who claims that politics sucks and is a bitch. When someone "calls" you on this negative unconstructive attitude you attack.

You have yourself a nice day.

[Mr. Oxford on 27.10.04 at 10:38]

"That SEEMS to be your answer to everything political."

"You did so to give an impression that I am embellishing the truth when in fact all I was doing was connecting logical "dots" that when someone continually claims things "suck" and are a "bitch" that they don't really imply that much can be done to change them."

ACE there was absolutely no need to quote that first line, because if you actually read the threads, and considered what was being written, you would see that my comments go well beyond communicating what I think is reality. You are essentially locking onto pieces as you see fit, then when you combine that with your failure to read previous posts, you end up with your utterly illogical connection of the dots!

"You claim to want to discuss the issues, but all I see is someone who claims that politics sucks and is a bitch. When someone "calls" you on this negative unconstructive attitude you attack."

With all due respect ACE, the Referendum Please thread clearly demonstrates that you only read what you want to read, and that you will oversimplify that which is quite complex. Thus, you either end up missing the point entirely, or turning it into something completely different.

You have admitted to yourself in this very thread that "unconcerned" was possibly overstated, when the fact of the matter is that your comment was ENTIRELY overstated. "Power is a bitch", and "the system sucks" are commentaries on the realities of politics - not declarations of apathy as you describe them. You pulled "unconcerned" out of the same place that you pulled your theory on internet usage amongst blacks in Bermuda. That is the problem ACE - not that you are "calling me" on a comment.

Here's a clue for you: A constructive exchange of ideas requires that you read other posts in order for you to provide a constructive response. Try it, you might like it.

[Xando on 27.10.04 at 10:45]

Name that tune:

... hate your neighbours
but don't forget to say grace ...

seems appropriate to this crowd!

[Tiger Bay on 19.11.04 at 12:53]

I find it outrageous that while overseas Alex Scott repeatedly talks about independence as inevitable and a done deal; but avoids all discussion of it here in Bermuda.

This man is not a spin doctor; he's dishonest.

[Slowhand on 19.11.04 at 15:23]

Agreed!

[big bad wolf on 19.11.04 at 17:43]

No Barking up this Tree...Wolfy Agrees too ^..^