Shadow Play

Wednesday's announcement by the UBP of the creation of a shadow portfolio of Race Relations and Economic Opportunity is a masterstroke - both of vision and of political strategy.

Politically, this bold move is likely to ignite a vociferous debate and threatens to overshadow the unveiling of the PLP's Social Agenda in Friday's Throne Speech. Clearly, the timing was not accidental. But to suggest it’s merely a reaction to Alex Scott’s speech on Monday night is wrong-headed.

Race relations are a problem in Bermuda. Not as big a problem as the media would sometimes lead you to believe, but a problem nonetheless. Creating a portfolio dedicated to tackling this problem is a political strategy, yes, but it’s also an admission that the problem exists and a commitment to doing something about it. It will be hard for the party to justify the dissolution of the portfolio in the future, even if they won the next election, and you can bet the PLP will raise merry hell if there’s any indication that the Opposition’s actions are at odds with its lofty words.

The UBP's announcement is likely to throw the PLP onto the back foot. The most notable thing about the new shadow portfolio is that it's not really a shadow portfolio at all: there's no equivalent ministry within the Government to be shadowed. This announcement must surely put pressure on the PLP to answer the question: why not?

David Dodwell is an interesting choice as the position’s first appointee. While it may be harder for blacks to trust a white who claims to seek racial reconciliation, appointing a black to this post would have been pointless – what’s needed is a dialogue between the races, and for that the black community needs a white interlocutor. Mr. Dodwell has spoken with humility on this issue before, his recent speech at the Labour Day celebrations striking a chord with the mostly black, working-class audience. Thus he may be the UBP MP most trusted by both blacks and whites. He certainly did pretty well in the popularity poll recently conducted on this site.

Of course, some will be scornful of the UBP's initiative. They'll dismiss it as a cheap political stunt, refusing to believe that the UBP wants to do anything to unite the races.

They’re wrong. The PLP have sought to exacerbate the Island's race problems, not solve them. Promoting the issue to one worthy of a ministerial post – even if, for now, it’s only a shadow – is the best way to give the problem the prominence it deserves.

Comments

[Fornicator on 28.10.04 at 08:09]

"Politically, this bold move is likely to ignite a vociferous debate and threatens to overshadow the unveiling of the PLP's Social Agenda in Friday's Throne Speech. Clearly, the timing was not accidental. But to suggest it’s merely a reaction to Alex Scott’s speech on Monday night is wrong-headed."

How so, Phil? It takes pretty much no effort at all for an Opposition to come up with its Shadow Ministry of the week. Just announce it. There really is nothing to it as far as I know. I'm not saying that it is absolutely a reaction, but I don't see the proof that this is the UBP being bold and visionary either (ie not a response to the PLP's social agenda hubub).

I also don't see how this could put the Government on the backfoot when they are at the same time calling for proactive (bad word choice, eh?) inclusiveness the day before, which will then be repeated mantra like fashion throughout the throne speech. I expect the PLP to be hyping the arse out of their social agenda from Tuesday fowards, and this UBP announcement will likely get smothered by it.

This is no different than when they appointed Lousie Jackson to Shadow Seniors Minister. The creation of this shadow portfolio itself really amounted to beans. I think that when people look at an Opposition they really don't care about the structure (except at election time). What does impress them is not the labels, but the effectiveness of the Opposition to keep the Govt. in check. Louise Jackson fails miserably on that part (squabbles with Butler over Cuba, anything to get a vote performance on seniors). And with this post it's just a changing of labels and chairs. Same MP's, same party, a minister rumored to be an interior decorator (specifically window dressing). It just doesn't impress me when the PLP is talking about shifting their party to the centre. Publicity-wise, that is enormous, and I stress publicity-wise.

I totally agree that the idea of having this specific portfolio in a Govt is a nice idea - I think the UBP's 2003 campaign promised an office of econominc opportunity, or something like that. But at the end of the day, unless Dodwell actually does something more than newspaper soundbites and grandstanding in the House of Assembly (a-la-Louise Jackson), this will be written off quite fast.

I can't wait to get my hands on the paper to see how the press has reacted to it!

[jake on 28.10.04 at 09:06]

I am not so sure that I agree, Phil. What black people need most is fairness - not more emotionally appealing, but without substance iniatives from Alex Scott or David Dodwell. What metric do we propose to judge this Ministry by? Are its objectives Social? Economic? Political?

I prefer the role of magazines like the Bermudian Business which highlighted young Bermudian achievement. An excellent issue that should be read from cover to cover. They show that as Bermudians we can achieve. Yes the participants are both black and white, but what comes across more than anything is that they are achieving as individuals. They are being judged as people. That should be our objective.

I think this is in many ways a sincere initiative, but unlikely to achieve much. I am, however, open to hearing other views though as I am still thinking about this one.

[The Limey on 28.10.04 at 09:07]

I agree that the ultimate success of this initiative will be determined by what David Dodwell actually does. I disagree that the UBP can make up pretty much any shadow ministry they like whenever they feel like it. If they subsequently realise establishing portfolios like seniors and race relations was a mistake, they'll lose a massive amount of face by abolishing them. Making this a ministry indicates that they're not afraid to talk about race openly, and I think that's significant coming from the UBP. It's certainly a more significant move than the PLP's call for inclusiveness because, as far as I'm aware (and I stand to be corrected), the PLP has never called directly for racial reconciliation, just better opportunities for blacks.

[replicator on 28.10.04 at 09:10]

You say this is a reaction to the Social Agenda but yourself point out the party promised an office of economic opportunity in the 2003 election? Dodwell and Swan were out and well received at Labour Day. Plus, Gibbons was talking about reconcilliation in his first big speech well before the election was called in Oct. 2002.

Isn't the PLP's social agenda a reaction to the UBP, not the other way around?

Sure there was some strategy involved, stealing some thunder, but if they hadn't been laying a foundation over the past 2 years it would indeed look reactionary. I don't buy your argument.

And do you really think the Social Agenda will be a move to the centre? Sounds more like it's going to be a move way left to me. But we really don't know because it's all empty rhetoric for now.

Where's the beef? The speech the Premier gave the other night sounded nice but it was conspicuously devoid of details. We'll have to wait for the Throne Speech to see if this is just more Alex Scott talk I guess.

You also state that the Senior appointment hasn't achieved anything. Ask the 300 seniors who showed up at the UBP's conference this weekend what they think, ask the Housing Trust seniors who have forced Alex to backtrack on the rent hike.

Government have failed miserably on Seniors, and spent all last week trying to do some damage control before the UBP's event, hastily arranged Press Conference on Friday, and got pasted by the Fordham University report.

I sense you're in damage control, validating what Phil said in his post.

[jake on 28.10.04 at 10:25]

I also challenge the notion that it must be a white person to have validity. I think it has to be someone with credibility - without regard to their race. There are indeed white people credible in the eyes of black people, and conversely black people who have the trust of whites. If Dodwell is such a man, then good; but it is a reflection of the man, and not determined by his race.

[Mr. Oxford on 28.10.04 at 11:23]

Call me crazy, but why are you guys pitching a tent over this one? Anyone see the UBP roll out any programs with this announcement? Any schedule of events? A mission statement? There is no more beef here than in Scott's speech. In fact, Gibbons is using stump statements from the 2003 campaign.

There are no real powerplays in the shadow cabinet, and Dodwell will still be speaking for tourism in the House of Assembly. It wouldn't have been any harder than announcing a Minister of International Business or Global Transport. So how could this possibly be seen as a major event at this stage of the game?

It's the same players, same message and no new initiatives. It's not bold nor visionary - it's just rewrapping the same package at this point, obviously timed with the Throne Speech and potential for the PLP to swing to the centre.

Where are the ideas, programs or plans to address the issue? Gibbons denounces the social agenda talk as nothing but rhetoric, but then offers nothing but rhetoric himself. You can't condemn the social agenda speech as nothing but talk and then praise the UBP for doing same thing. Both parties are in equal possession of cheap words that require action in order to have any real merit.

[replicator on 28.10.04 at 11:46]

The UBP's announcement isn't even 24 hours old.

Scott's been pounding the Social Agenda for months.

I imagine the UBP will have to put some meat on the bones of this in their Throne Speech reply or you'll be justified to have a go at them.

[Tiger Bay on 28.10.04 at 11:48]

"Anyone see the UBP roll out any programs with this announcement? Any schedule of events? A mission statement?"

No. Nor has the PLP.

[ace on 28.10.04 at 11:54]

"Where are the ideas, programs or plans to address the issue? Gibbons denounces the social agenda talk as nothing but rhetoric, but then offers nothing but rhetoric himself. You can't condemn the social agenda speech as nothing but talk and then praise the UBP for doing same thing. Both parties are in equal possession of cheap words that require action in order to have any real merit."

Wow...I agree with this 100%.

Enough talk...let's see some action, from both sides.

[Mr. Oxford on 28.10.04 at 12:11]

Tiger - That's what I meant when I concluded with, "Both parties are in equal possession of cheap words that require action in order to have any real merit."

The UBP doesn't have the burden of running the Government and coming up with new ideas - and all they can do is pin the same tail on a new donkey?
They could have crushed the PLP's Social Agenda talk if their announcement also came with ideas, initiatives, print materials, conferences, etc. An imaginary shadow cabinet shuffle means squat on its own - They simply haven't demonstrated that they are taking the lead on the issue, and Gibbons just saying that the social agenda should not be taken serious appears to be reactionary politics as usual.

Call me when the revolution starts, brother.

[replicator on 28.10.04 at 12:22]

Come on Ox. You're smart enought to know that there is some strategy involved here on both sides.

The question for the Government is whether Scott over-hyped and will undeliver - almost an inevitability after his incessant trumpeting of how great this is.

And for the UBP it is whether they, after making an announcement yesterday, provide more details in their reply. Only 8 days away.

Come on, you know you don't fire your entire arsenal in one go.

Saying that, the UBP have an advantage because this is a continuation of what they said they'd do during the election with their Office of Economic empowerment, angel investors, small business agenda etc.. They've already got some details out there but will have to say what they can do, with the limited resources and legislative power of an Opposition to move this forward.

If their work on Seniors is any indicator they'll use predominantly pressure tactics and working with specific groups to advance their ideas and force the Government to do things. They are building credibility over time to set up their next election campaign.

When you're the Opposition you can't roll out ideas the day before an election and expect people to think you're sincere. The UBP is laying some groundwork, both new things and those that extend their 2003 campaign.

[Mr. Oxford on 28.10.04 at 14:32]

"Come on Ox. You're smart enought to know that there is some strategy involved here on both sides."

Following yesterday's promises up with more detailed "promises" in the Reply will be equally unimpressive - they need to demonstrate that their efforts to address race transcends politics and not that it is because of politics. I want to see action not hear rhetoric. I get more than the recommended daily allowance of BS from my government every day. Why would I want more from the Opposition?

This is precisely why I give them so little credit. If you also ask what has the Opposition done over the last six years you will come away disappointed. They've had six years to come up with a credible approach to address race in Bermuda, and they don't need to be the Government to take the lead on real programs to address the issue. So why should I get excited about an effortless creation of a pseudo Shadow Ministry?

So far this all looks like standard politicking around Throne Speech time, and with the PLP speech on Monday this is exactly what I'D expect from a UBP that might feel threatened by a PLP effort to woo the UBP voter base.

This announcement without any real ideas or programs is absolutely hollow. It's practically hilarious that the UBP is telling people not to trust the PLP's social agenda talk - have they forgotten their own credibility problem after three decades of rule? And this is all they can bring to the table? Ridiculous! Kirk Mundy was just as believable at his recent parole hearing.

[Tiger Bay on 28.10.04 at 14:47]

"They've (the UBP) had six years to come up with a credible approach to address race in Bermuda"

No matter what dirt you throw, the UBP is a racially integrated party. Seems to me it's got a more credible approach than the PLP.

[jake on 28.10.04 at 15:22]

Really?

What percentage of their membership is black and white?

What is the percentage on sponsorship broken down by race?

Let's not make believe that they are without problems when it comes to race. If that is the case, why are they so rejected by the majority of black people?

Both parties suffer from polarization problems which stem from their histories. Let's at least begin with the truth on this.

[Tiger Bay on 28.10.04 at 15:41]

"Both parties suffer from polarization problems which stem from their histories."

Agreed. And that's a surprise?

Look at the UBP MPs for more than the past decade -- they represent Bermuda's racial and social mix.

[Mr. Oxford on 28.10.04 at 15:47]

Tiger - There is no denying that the UBP has a more racially integrated leadership than the PLP. There is also no denying that the UBP gets broader support accross the races. And there is no denying that both the PLP and UBP have been racially divisive over their histories, regardless of the racial composition of their MPs.

The majority of the population woke up to the UBP reality in 1998. And like it or not, even some of the UBP's own MP's and Senators have declared that there is a strong disconnect (read duplicity) between what the party looks like and what it actually does.

You might also ask does the UBP voter base actually integrate amongst themselves, or is it purely politics (eg: I know several black UBP supporters who do not have (perhaps ever) had a relationship with a white person)? Thinking about this more, I'd love to know how many UBP supporters actually live integrated lifestyles, because that would be the real litmus test for how integrated the UBP actually is.

It's now 2004, and only one year ago the UBP admitted that it had not done enough. So in the context of here and now, especially if Scott's speech is sincere, it is the UBP who has been caught flatfooted. I don't think that anyone expected the PLP to say what was said in Monday's speech. I for one expected them to become more isolationist, more arrogant and more pompous. I expected them to alienate themselves right to the shadow bench.

Assuming that the speech is genuine, and assuming a transformation can be pulled off: With three+ years to go, the UBP will have to do a hell of a lot more than this announcement to convince voters to re-elect them. The more the PLP looks like "The New UBP" sans BS, the harder it will be for the UBP to get any traction. The more announcement they make without real action, the more they'll be perceived as the charlatans of old.

Where's the beef, Tiger? Where's the proof in the pudding that the UBP actually is any better than the PLP? So far it's just very cheap words.

[babe truth on 28.10.04 at 16:05]

"You might also ask does the UBP voter base actually integrate amongst themselves, or is it purely politics (eg: I know several black UBP supporters who do not have (perhaps ever) had a relationship with a white person)? Thinking about this more, I'd love to know how many UBP supporters actually live integrated lifestyles, because that would be the real litmus test for how integrated the UBP actually is."

Insert PLP for UBP in the above and re-read. Why single out the more integrated party for the test?

The PLP chase away whites. Every election 'white devil' become the rallying cry for the PLP. From a political perspective the PLP have ZERO credibility in wanting to be genuinely integrated.

They want whites to come over to a party that is outwardly hostile and then complain that they're outwardly hostile because they won't come over. No shit! They think they're better served by keeping whites away and then saying "see they won't integrate". Very cynical but effective.

The UBP have supporters who don't integrate and some who are resistant, but the party's diverse leadership pushes against that and drags them along. The UBP, for all its failings, has made far more racial progress than the PLP.

Sometimes it works, sometimes they have to compromise, and sometimes they screw up, but I'd be scrutinizing the party who demonizes the other race on a regular basis for any litmus test.

[Mr. Oxford on 28.10.04 at 16:25]

"Insert PLP for UBP in the above and re-read. Why single out the more integrated party for the test?"

It is the UBP who claims to be an integrated party - not the PLP. I'm suggesting that readers should really put that claim to test, because being more integrated than the PLP and being genuinely integrated is not the same. The two can be worlds apart - fictitious, even. No one ever asks how well do UBP voters actually get along together, so I'm hoping that someone will comment on how integrated the UBP body actually is.

I totally agree with your description of the PLP's tactics. But my comments in this thread are 100% weighted on the Monday night speech. Complain all you want about the PLP's past. I'm talking about the impact of the UBP's announcement in the context of a PLP that has the day BEFORE expressed a major desire to be inclusive AND is also backing that up with an un-PLP like approach to addressing independence. That takes a lot of wind out of the UBP's sails, and the Throne Speech hasn't even been read yet. Plus we are three years away from the next election!

If the UBP can slap on "New" and expect everyone to forget their 30+ years, why can't the PLP do the same for their 6 years? They'll need to do a whole lot more to beat a PLP that opens its arms (even if in reality they are no more sincere than the UBP has ever been).

[Tiger Bay on 28.10.04 at 16:55]

Sorry. I don't buy it.

[ace on 28.10.04 at 17:00]

Hang on a second Mr. Oxford,

The speech given by Alex said this about the new membership drive:

"There are several themes I touched on last year that will be repeated, with emphasis this year. To cite an example … it will require that we embark upon a membership drive. We must seek to increase the party membership and expand the make up of our party. If there are those who are reluctant to respond to our invitation to come to us, we must be prepared to go to them. In this way our commitment to the New Bermuda will be seen to more than rhetoric and nothing less than our best effort.

We are making efforts to reinstate our youth wing program in order to ensure that we shoulder our responsibility to the young, and their and our future."

The only thing that "hints" at including white people in the PLP is this line, "expand the make up of our party".

But is this what he really means? Could be...but it isn't exactly spelled out.

He could be just simply trying to win back the black supporters of the UBP that have deserted their ranks and/or possibly other ethnic groups, such as Asians, Shri Lankan's, Bangladshi's etc.

You must forgive us white people for being a bit suspicious of being actually included in this expansion of the PLP membership after the rhetoric displayed at the last election.

You are ABSOLUTELY right about the actual integration within the UBP being very "surface" and also that our population is effectively self segregated.

I was "called" on the latter issue by a well known poster here on his own Bulletin Board that is unfortunately no longer active. He was right and as a result we decided that we should do "our part" to get to know each other as a black Bermudian and a white Bermudian.

We met, had a wonderful meal together and made promises that we would get together more often in the future.

Unfortunately both of our "lives" got in the way of this effort. I have 3 children under 5 years old, and he was starting a new job and training hard to get accepted at a new position at work.

Sometimes this self-segration, that I do not deny exists, is difficult to overcome, even when well intentioned efforts are made.

The two of us have not been able to get together since...not because we don't want to "hang out" with a different race, but just because we are busy as hell.

The issue of ending this self-segregation and addressing racial issue is difficult on this very simple one on one example.

It is going to be waaaaaaay tougher to deal with on a national level.

[Mr. Oxford on 28.10.04 at 17:04]

"Sorry. I don't buy it."

C'mon, was there ever a chance? I don't think so. Big nod to Loki's comment from last night (almost forgot). Got a cap for our resident UBP fanboy? :-)

[babe truth on 28.10.04 at 17:09]

Oxford,

Strange that you've hooked on that one line about increasing membership, it struck me as a throw away.

Ah yes, the UBP is and claims to be integrated (although not perfectly) while the PLP claims to want to be - which has been consistently insincere. (Alex was talking about demographics as being all that mattered at a PLP rally I went to in 2003. Also on Monday he was back on Berkeley being awarded due to race, which he changes almost daily to suit his audience.) Credibility comes with consistency. The UBP have been pretty consistent for the past few years, and their leadership doesn't go that far back. They're a relatively new (there's that word) bunch.

In the way that you think the UBP has no credibility I think the PLP has none on race.

I'd rather have a partially integrated party who wants to be better and campaigns on it than a non-integrated party who trots it between elections and then reverts to their divisive ways in the waning days of a campaign.

My sense is that the UBP see a lot of wind in their sails. They're as energised an opposition as I've seen 12 months after narrowly losing an election.

[Mr. Oxford on 28.10.04 at 17:10]

"You must forgive us white people for being a bit suspicious of being actually included in this expansion of the PLP membership after the rhetoric displayed at the last election."

Completely understandable. Both of these parties need to show the beef.

[Mr. Oxford on 28.10.04 at 17:17]

"In the way that you think the UBP has no credibility I think the PLP has none on race."

Actually I think that NEITHER party has credibility on the issue, regardless of the racial composition of their MPs. I'm not buying the UBP is more integrated line, and I'm not buying the PLP's line from their speech. I'm just pointing out that the UBP's announcement does not give them an edge in my opinion - if anything it looks reactionary. They would need to have much more, especially giving the PLP has said that their independence commission will be broadly-represented (followed up by the inclusion statement). But until that actually happens, I'm not believing anything that EITHER of them have to say until I actually see action.

[ace on 28.10.04 at 17:26]

Is there a full moon or something today?

Mr. Oxford and I have not only agreed on an issue, we exchanged posts without snapping at each other.

Maybe there is some hope.

:)

[The Limey on 28.10.04 at 17:45]

While I sympathise with blacks who are suspicious of the UBP, I genuinely don't understand how anyone can say that the UBP is not more racially integrated than the PLP. Isn't the fact that the black/white composition of their MPs is almost the same as that of Bermuda enough? Isn't the fact that roughly 1/3 of the black population voted for them at the last election significant?

I also don't understand why how well UBP voters get on with each other is relevant to the discussion. What we're talking about here is how well the UBP as a parliamentary party can represent the interest of both blacks and whites.

I also dispute the assertion that the Opposition have as much of a responsibility to act (not talk) as the Government. Even on the issue of race relations, the UBP cannot do as much in Opposition as they could do in Government. They don't have access to the same resources as the Government (money and people) and so can't possibly be expected to "deliver" to the same extent. What matters is whether their talk makes sense and whether it can be persuasive enough to cause the Government of the day to act where it would otherwise have not.

If you think the idea of a Ministry for Race Relations and Economic Empowerment is a good idea, give the UBP some credit for coming up with it.

[ace on 28.10.04 at 17:58]

"While I sympathise with blacks who are suspicious of the UBP, I genuinely don't understand how anyone can say that the UBP is not more racially integrated than the PLP. Isn't the fact that the black/white composition of their MPs is almost the same as that of Bermuda enough?"

It is a 9.00am-5.00pm relationship that whites and blacks in Bermuda seem to have Limey, and what I think what Oxford is saying is that this remains true amongst black and white UBP MPs. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

Sure they meet, sure they discuss issues, but when it is time to "knock off" they go their separate ways.

The best example I can think of with respect to the lack of black and white integration is the old Rosebank Theatre we had, which is now where the Bank of Buterfield now stands, near the 24 hour gas station.

As a child when we went to see movies there were two lines...one for the upstairs and one for downstairs.

Whites went up, blacks went down.

It wasn't a written rule and it wasn't as if you faced the threat of violence, at least in my experience, if you joined the wrong line. It was just the way it was.

It still basically is, although not quite so blatant in today's Bermuda.

Both sides are to blame, although the "history" of this is obviously in the fact that segregation was made "law" by the whites in power back in the "bad old days".

But, it is a very difficult problem to solve, as I have shown above.

[replicator on 28.10.04 at 18:31]

Oxford says:

"... I'm not buying the UBP is more integrated line"

I can only assume then that you are sitting at a brail keyboard at the Blind School then.

That isn't up for dispute. It's a simple fact.

That suggests that you simply can't accept reality. If you can't concede that point I'm not surprised they can't do any right in your mind.

[Fornicator on 28.10.04 at 20:31]

Phill,

NAR, BB-BS, YouthNet, The Foundation for Bermuda Studies and others, are all examples of groups that have launched grassroots movements without the resources of a Government. If they can do it, why can't the UBP? It takes little money and resources to set up meetings, have discussion groups, hold forums, launch a website, come up with a policy paper or plan. The UBP has done none of these things, so how is anyone suppose to take this as anything more than Throne Speech politicking?

Six years and all you can do is appoint David Dodwell to a shadow post? The creation and maintenance of this website takes exponentially greater effort than announcing the creation of that Shadow post! I'd even go as far as saying that this website has probably fostered more frank dialogue between blacks and whites than the UBP has in its entire history.

Re integration I think the best measure for real integration is the policies and actions of an organisation and not the faces. George Bush's key aides are Dick Cheny, Donald Rumsfeld, Condeleeza Rice and Colin Powell. Now would anyone here say that the Bush inner circle is a great example of diversity in the Republican Party? How many of you would say that this is proof of integration/representation in the Bush Administration? And with a serious face.

Let's take ACE's comments. Going by the faces methodology, XL Insurance and other large exempt companies could be considered the world's most integrated organizations in the world. Blacks work for XL. Whites work for XL. Asians, Latinos, Indians, you name it. Take a wild guess at the racial makeup of those who support the company. I'm sure the investors come from all parts of the world and races. But would this be enough evidence to say that XL is an integrated company? Of course not.

Putting people together in a room does not make it integrated. Coming together only to fulfill your own individual economic wants/needs does not make it integrated. In my opinion it is genuine care for one another that makes it integrated. It's in the actual policies of the organization and the interaction of the players when there is NO SELF-INTEREST to motivate them.

Just like we could see people go their own ways after 5:00pm, one should ask if UBP voters actually do get along, or are they motivated by self interest. Maybe like the 2004 Presdential campaign, a huge chunk of Bermudians have been scared into supporting the UBP. We've seen what scaremongering can do in the US, and we know it happened throughout our political history. I'd therefore say that votes alone are not a true test of integration.

Can anyone comment on how UBP MPs actually get along? Do Max Burgess and Trevor Moniz ever get together for a round of golf? Did John Barritt and John Swan ever go out for happy hour? Did David Saul and Jerome Dill ever visit one another over the Holiday Season? I haven't a clue, but I do think that this is the better measure of how integrated a party is.

[The Limey on 28.10.04 at 21:13]

Fornicator - NAR, BBBS and YouthNet are all single-issue organisations. The UBP is the Opposition party and has to make its voice heard on a multitude of issues. It's unrealistic to expect it to be able to fund effective programmes in all these areas. That said, Grant Gibbons said today that "the UBP will also come up with substantial programs aimed at broadening economic opportunities", so it's reasonable to expect to see something. If months go by and their new post achieves nothing I'll speak out about it. But for the time being, I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.

While I agree it would be nice if blacks and whites socialised after work more, I don't think that's the most important thing in the whole race debate. What matters is that people don't judge each other based on the colour of their skin. I don't care if Max Burgess and Trevor Moniz don't ever get together for a game of golf, so long as neither of them dislikes the other solely on the basis of the colour of their skin. The blacks and whites in my office usually go their own ways after work, but what does that matter if we all respect each other?

It's no different to people from different economic backgrounds tending not to hang out together. So long as you don't discriminate against someone on that basis, I don't see that it matters.

More socialising across racial boundaries is a great way to increase understanding between the races, but it's not the goal. Eliminating discrimination is the key.

[Fornicator on 28.10.04 at 22:10]

"The UBP is the Opposition party and has to make its voice heard on a multitude of issues. It's unrealistic to expect it to be able to fund effective programmes in all these areas."

Phill - Organising a forum costs relatively nothing. Writing a policy paper costs nothing. Having open session meetings costs nothing. Coming up with ideas and a plan to address the issue costs nothing. Even Christian Dunleavy runs his own website. What has the UBP done besides make this announcement? That's pretty sad for six years in Opposition if you ask me.

So Grant Gibbons says today that "the UBP will also come up with substantial programs aimed at broadening economic opportunities." Okay, how is that any different from Alex's statement from his speech? How is this press event different from any other year when both parties routinely pimp the electorate around Throne Speech time? Why should we give either party the benefit of a doubt when both have done nothing more than pay lip service to the issue of racism? Alex and Grant need to show me the money, because they've both broken promises.

"More socialising across racial boundaries is a great way to increase understanding between the races, but it's not the goal. Eliminating discrimination is the key."

Yes, and this is the key critique of the UBP. When you look at their actual actions and policies, you see nothing more than talk about eliminating racism. The UBP says look at the party's racial makeup as proof, and all I'm saying is that the colour of the MP's and voters skin is no more proof of integration than the level of diversity at XL insurance or George Bush's Office. The colour of their skin tells me absolutely nothing about the content of their character.

Mutual self-interest is about as far as you can get until you discuss the actions, policies and personal interaction of the group - right now the UBP is just as impotent as the PLP on this issue. If Max Burgess and Trevor Moniz only get along for their own selfish reasons, then the UBP should cease the talk about being integrated. Mutually self-interested is more like it, and they should stop with the race rhetoric and call them selves the Conservative Bermuda Party (scrap the United, please). Integration is more than just respect to me - friendship is the goal.

Surely some UBP member lurking here can provide a few words on how well the UBP MPs and voters get along when there is nothing to gain? Anyone willing to speak on this issue? Jamahl, perhaps? Dunleavy? Perhaps someone could point Dodwell in this direction?

[Mr. Oxford on 29.10.04 at 10:07]

"Is there a full moon or something today?

Mr. Oxford and I have not only agreed on an issue, we exchanged posts without snapping at each other."

Actually there was a lunar eclipse the night before (no kidding). :-)

Replicator Says: "I can only assume then that you are sitting at a brail keyboard at the Blind School then. That isn't up for dispute. It's a simple fact. That suggests that you simply can't accept reality. If you can't concede that point I'm not surprised they can't do any right in your mind."

Actually it's not that simple, Replicator. The PLP can thank Renee Webb, and the UBP can thank Trevor Moniz:

http://www.bermudasun.bm/archives/2000-02-02/01News02/

Ten years ago, when Mr. Moniz joined the UBP, he said it offered “the better deal for Bermudians.” But even then, he said, [the party had a “coalition of very divergent interests” pointing to members with very different agendas.] And the same applies today: [“Let’s be frank, the UBP has always represented vested interests, the white Bermuda establishment.] But also within that group you had people from other segments of the community. And, for many years it worked well.” He added that even ‘back in the old days’ when the party was stronger, it did not operate as a team. Unlike the PLP, which had a political agenda, the UBP, he says, [never held any fixed political principles apart from economic prosperity.] “But they were always able to hold together, to some extent, people who had very little in common. Everyone was going in the same direction but for completely different reasons.”
And now? “I feel sorry for them; they were able to hold together this coalition for many years and now it is disintegrating. They have nothing left to offer people now that they don’t have any political power. But if you look at a lot of the individuals involved, they had either economic power in the sense that they came from wealthy establishment backgrounds or were people who had been put in a place of power. “In essence I feel sorry for them because it is very difficult for them to cope with their much-reduced circumstances. And so far they haven’t coped very well as they aren’t used to having to stand on their own two feet like adults, they were used to being propped-up.”

If Moniz can say the above, how can anyone seriously take the racial makeup of the UBP as proof of how integrated they are?

Phill Says: "It's no different to people from different economic backgrounds tending not to hang out together. So long as you don't discriminate against someone on that basis, I don't see that it matters."

But if rich and poor people formed an organization on taxation that IN PRACTICE only worked for tax cuts for the wealthy, wouldn't you call the group fraudulent? If the poor people appeared more interested in getting perks than bringing forth fair taxation policies, wouldn't you be doubting? If those rich and poor people never got together wouldn't you be sceptical of their promises?

People of different economic classes should mingle together, shouldn't they?