Out Of Focus

After Government-sponsored focus groups came under attack recently for having "inappropriately political" content, Director of the Department of Communications and Information Beverle Lottimore had this to say:

“[The Premier] is the leader of our country, the one we look up to for direction and the one we are going to hold accountable. If he is doing something the public does not approve of, somebody needs to let him know.”

It suddenly became clear why Mr. Scott seems oblivious to the opposition of most Bermudians to independence. He's obviously just not had a focus group on it yet.

Comments

[Tiger Bay on 26.01.05 at 09:22]

This is clearly a case of Government funds being used for party purposes.

If the Government wants public feedback, it should be gathered in a public forum (or even an issue specific referendum, but that's another story!). The PLP also has MPs whose duty it is to represent their constituents.

If Government does not trust the press (as Ms Lottimore's comments inferred) then Parliament should be broadcast live and unedited on cable TV.

[Cedar Hill on 26.01.05 at 13:33]

DCI's actions and Ms Lottimore's remarks undermine the impartiality of the civil service. The crudeness of her spin is matched only by the premier's own brand of distortion.

[Tiger Bay on 28.01.05 at 10:40]

Beverly Lottimore says in the paper "The Department of Communication and Information has the responsibility to communicate with the public."

Then why does the Government website not include the text of every speech by a Minister? Why are up to date position papers not there? Why are the schedules and minutes of Parliament not there? Why is there no information on public consultations or the text of draft legislation? Posting on what we are getting out of Caricom?

The only highlight of DCI's website is a glamour shot of Ms. Lottimore!

Ms. Lottimore - Bermudians want more communication about what Government IS doing, not secretive focus groups!!!!

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 28.01.05 at 14:00]

Tiger,

I like your comments about Parliamenary sessions being broadcast live. This policy was institutedin te Bahamas in 1992 when the Free National Movement won the Government. I was not living here at the time but would assume that there was some difference in the quality of debates because the public was watching. What it does do however, is make certain MPs are present when the House is in session.

Whenever I decide to watch it I notice that very few MPs are absent from the House. Then again Ministers here are fulltime.

[Tiger Bay on 28.01.05 at 14:40]

People have a right to know how their MP is performing in the House ... in fact, we should go further: we should know how our MP is voting!

[jake on 28.01.05 at 15:02]

Again we have walked into the crap laid out by Christian Dunleavy. I disagree with his hyperbolic rantings normally, but it is so predictable as to be sad.

Christian "discovers" some fault and gives it life in the Royal Gazette and on his website. (is he paid for those articles? Does the UBP pay for the political coverage it gets?) Phil picks up on it in his new article in the RG (are you paid for that Phil? How much?) and puts it into his website as well, and then the Royal Gazette covers the "story". Most of the commenters here tend to agree with the conclusion that the PLP is corrupt, inept etc.

The editor writes an 'independent' Op piece on it and - surprise surprise - agrees with the conclusions posited by CD.

The more media mentions we can get the better, as the buzz created makes the issue.

What I really liked was the way in which the legal system was thrown out the window in the Gazette opinion page today. No longer is it necessary to stay within the law. Now we must stay within perception as it is defined by the UBP's Jamahl Simmons and Christian Dunleavy - who have the nerve to use a word like "spin". The list of "convictions" in the press said more to me about how mere allegations now equal condemnation. I have worked with Jamahl up close. He is a well paid mouthpiece for the UBP. How much does he get paid? That's right. He doesn't want to say. I guess they are getting their money's worth.

There is a convergence of media coverage, and Phil, you are becoming a part of it. Objectivity is out the window. Even Dr. Brown's speech on what will be done for tourism you riddle your support with built in doubt and cynicism. I am sure you will claim that that is just your nature. Perhaps it is mine to be equally cynical about the way in which all these people seem to be arriving at the same point in a UBP / PLP contest.

It also did not escape my attention that in each instance that someone dares to put forward an alternative view - Laverne Furbert on CD or Mrs. Lottimore on the Gazette - the story is followed -in the same edition - with the response of the UBP or Gazette person giving final comment. "Oh no, that's not what we meant. We were fair." Right.

George Orwell said it best, "And the animals looked from pig to man and from man to pig and they could not tell the difference."

Come on Phil. Leave the RG. Go back to being an independent writer and thinker. Leave behind the snide comments that are the center of Christian's website. He won't even allow comments because he knows his message gets distorted. You don't have to join the Bermuda establishment. We don't need another biased writer. Christian and the daily diatribe from Jamahl suffice. We need you to be the Phillip Wells who would stop crap on your site by asking people to back their stuff up.

Bring back the old Phil. I miss him.

[Tiger Bay on 28.01.05 at 15:28]

Oh come on Jake, old chap! Your lengthy discourse there avoids the point: the focus groups/poll appear to have inappropriate content for a Government sponsored activity. The situation should be independently looked into and resolved. It's binary: either the PLP is wrong or the UBP. Let's find out.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 28.01.05 at 15:34]

Tiger,

I concur, every vote taken in ther House should show how each MP voted. I believe in total transparency.

[ace on 28.01.05 at 15:39]

Jake is predictably responding with his distain for predictability (and avoiding the issue at hand...also quite predictable).

lol

(Yes, ace is predictably pointing this out.)

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 28.01.05 at 15:53]

Without getting into a debate about the Focus Group, I have to agree with much of what Jake has said.

Can somebody other than Jake or Fornicator tell me if there is anything that the PLP has done right? If there isn't please explain how it was re-elected as the Government. If it has why is everything I read in the RG about the PLP negative? I can understand the position of Christian and Jahmal because the are fully in the political arena but the editors seem to be consistently biased. Why do PLP spokes persons not get the same coverage as CD & JS?

With regard to the RG bias, I got into this while David White was still the editor, his comment was it is his responsibility to set the political agenda. I could agree with this if there were other, competing daily papers. Does anyone else feel that RG has a responsibility as the only daily to be neutral? Or am I standing alone?

Taking from an earlier post, why is it that those who do not support the PLP always critical? I see very little in the way of suggest, resolutions and idea, I only see complaint, contempt and statements about the PLP being corrupt. I ask again, if the PLP has done such a bad job why is it still the Government?

I am very curious.

[jake on 28.01.05 at 15:56]

That's not fair Ace.

You and I agree on a number of points and we have said so. Tiger as well.

I do believe that this new injustice is another petty example of the blind leading the can't see. If there is not problem then tell us all how much each of these people are paid to do what they do. Does Christian get paid? Does Phil? Does Jamahl? How much?

When the shoe is on the other foot you guys go silent. What about Tom Vesey at the Sun. What is his story about today? - same thing. Are you telling me that a phone survey asking about PLP popularity warrants national attention?

If so then say so. I will happily tell you what I think about that.

[shipstones on 28.01.05 at 16:14]

The PLP has put in Employment Act
Placed Immigration on a more even keel
Improved TCD
Improved Ferry Service
Put in Necessary money laundering legislation
Allowed HSBC to buy Bank of Bermuda
Proposed GPS system for taxis
Got more airline seats
Given break to Hotels on import duty
Gone after delinquent tax payers
Given Long Term Residents some security
Knocked down toilets on Park/Queen Street
Supported International Business at conferences
Had a excellent Minister of Finance throughout their term
Passed Insurance regulation to BMA
Stayed a British Colony

I think allthese and more have been covered by media

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 28.01.05 at 16:21]

Ships,

I like how you through in the last one, Stayed a British Colony. My felings on that have been cleaerly stated and docmented, therefore, no need for my comment there. Although it is tempting (lol)

So you will admit that the PLP as done somethings right. That being the case, why is it that every proposal put forward by the PLP is met first and foremost by negativity. Don't youthink the constant battles in Bermuda would cease if UBP supporter, or non-PLP supporters at least considered PLP proposals before passing judgement?

[jake on 28.01.05 at 16:28]

I am impressed shipstones. That is level commentary.

[loki on 28.01.05 at 16:40]

"That's not fair Ace."

You know what's not fair, Jake? Your criticism of Christian and your defence of the utterly ridiculous and contemptible Laverne Furbert. When I read her two letters to the editor, it made my blood boil. Go and read what Christian wrote in his article - in summary: Bermuda's workers, and BIU workers in particular, had been insulted and done a great disservice by Derrick Burgess's assertion that workers in Bermuda didn't work on a master/servant basis, it's 'more of a negotiation'. His comments were RIDICULOUS and entirely deserving of the scorn poured on them by Christian. In one sentence, Burgess managed to reinforce every stereotype about we so-called 'lazy-ass Bermudians'. So what did Sister Laverne do? She lied. That's right - read her two letters and compare her diatribe to what Christian actually wrote. Literally, every assertion she makes in her letters is an outright lie. She said that Christian defended the Coco Beach management - he did not. And it wasn't merely a case of "oh, that's not what I meant", it was a case of Sister Laverne lying, and blatantly so, about what had been said by Christian. I challenge you to read Christian's original article next to Sister Laverne's responses - if you have even an ounce of intellectual honesty, you will have to agree that letter reads as if it is referring to a completely different article. Oh, and she lied again yesterday, when she reprinted the letter (along with a bunch of other complete lies about various things that she falsely alleged that Christian had said in the past about Ewart Brown). Of course, she didn't print Christian's original article so that readers could see for themselves what he had written. Don't you go to hell for this crap?

[jake on 28.01.05 at 16:46]

I never defended Laverne. Her letter was way off mark in terms of its tone, content and representation of PLP thought.

Where it was right was its direction regarding Christian's continuing lack of judgment in making his clearly partisan comments. From forked tongue to ruthless, we are subjected to adjectives that are inappropriate over issues that are immaterial.

Christian has become quite the cause celebre. Scrutiny comes with the territory.

Oh, leave the sister bit out. It is condescending when used out of context.

[gombey on 28.01.05 at 16:51]

laverne is just the mouthpiece for the dame, who she used to work for,ie the Gombey race seperartist party
,the gombey Mau Maus won't be happy till bermuda is in the same third world gutter as the rest of the caribbean,when we will be all riding donkeys and milkin goats!!

[Tiger Bay on 28.01.05 at 17:21]

Gombey, please wipe the spittle off.

Jake, Dunleavy is partisan, that's his aim. It is possible to be partisan and fair.

Laverne has a touch of the CCCP political officer about her! The Workers Voice still publishes? Who knew?! Get that woman a blog! :)

[loki on 28.01.05 at 17:40]

"Oh, leave the sister bit out. It is condescending when used out of context."

It was intended to be condescending - someone who is willing to lie to the extent that she did in those two articles deserves all the contempt that can be thrown at her. Scrutiny comes with the territory, I agree, but scrutiny shouldn't be outright dishonest, as hers was. It can be partisan, it can be biased, but to just LIE is utterly indefensible. She is an embarrassment to the BIU, no question.

Oh, and 'Gombey'? Please go back to the Bermuda Hatespeech Forum if you're going to post racist bullshit. Thanks.

[jake on 28.01.05 at 17:48]

It is possible, but he has gone beyond that.

Are you saying that he cannot fairly be decribed as the UBP spin child? The purported wunderkind of words?

Laverne is not the issue Tiger bay, but nice try. THe issue is the convergence of media messages purporting to be independent voices all singing from the same song sheet. It is noteworthy that neither you, nor loki, nor ace choose to deal with that.

[The Limey on 28.01.05 at 18:02]

Jake - You're right. I should try to stop more of the crap that gets posted here by asking the commenter to back their comments up. So let me start with you.

Christian "discovers" some fault and gives it life in the Royal Gazette and on his website. Phil picks up on it in his new article in the RG and puts it into his website as well, and then the Royal Gazette covers the "story"

What issue are you talking about here? The focus groups? I haven't talked about that in my column and I haven't passed judgement on that issue here either, except to make a cheap pun at the Premier's expense. Neither of the columns I've written so far have picked up on any point introduced by Christian, in fact, and neither will next week's. Get your facts straight.

Even Dr. Brown's speech on what will be done for tourism you riddle your support with built in doubt and cynicism.

I have the temerity to doubt Dr. Brown?! Shame on me! Yes, I do doubt Bermuda will have 400,000 air arrivals in 3 years time. So should you. Look at the 2002 Digest of Statistics - the figures are in there. It's been a steady decline since the mid 90s. The cheap airfares will help but I doubt whether a 10 year decline can be turned around in 3 years. I hope it can, I just think it's unlikely to happen. But if you'd like to bet another bottle of champagne that he can, I'd be happy to do so.

Come on Phil. Leave the RG. Go back to being an independent writer and thinker... You don't have to join the Bermuda establishment. We don't need another biased writer

Let me explain to you how writing a column for the Gazette works. Every week, I pick a topic that interests me and instead of posting it on the blog I keep it for my column. At the weekend, I write about it. By Wednesday morning I email it to Bill Zuill. On Thursday it appears in the Gazette.

Granted, I have only been writing for two weeks. So far, however, the Gazette has not told me what to write about. Quite the opposite, in fact: at the start it was a bit of a struggle to get Bill Zuill to tell me what he was looking for. The Gazette does not edit my column to give it a more pro-UBP slant (it just edits out the puns in the titles). I assure you as soon as I am told that the column I've submitted is too pro-PLP or anti-UBP and so can't be published, I'll let you know and I'll stop writing for them shortly thereafter.

In the meantime your assertion that writing for the Gazette makes me less independent and more biased is nonsense. Calvin Smith still writes for the Gazette doesn't he? Is he a UBP hack too?

Are you paid for [your Royal Gazette column] Phil? How much?

Yes I am. $100 per column. And given the paper doesn't edit my columns or tell me what to write about, that's relevant how exactly?

[Tiger Bay on 28.01.05 at 18:29]

Questioning voices are healthy, whether they are from the UBP or PLP. Government is there to serve the people, not itself.

The fact that Government conducts polls and focus groups is not objectionable; it is, however, when the questions veer from public service topics to political ones.

[jake on 28.01.05 at 18:32]

I am happy to oblige. Let's begin.

I think your general position in the centre is compromised when you join the chorus in the Royal Gazette. What was your purpose with the above thread but to touch the same issue as Bill Zuill, Christian Dunleavy, The RG reporter and Jamahl Simmons. Let's not forget Tom Vesey who also leaned in.

Your article on Brown was fair until it started to go into the politicians cannot be trusted theme. Sure, that is a fair comment, but neither can journalists, and it is a fair point noticably lacking when you quote the opposition or their mouth pieces. It was hardly relevant to the story if your honest belief was that this is a fair plan. You feel, I submit, that by adding this built in criticism, no one will see you as a PLP supporter even though I suspect most of their policies you would agree with. Let's be clear. The issue is media convergence, not Browns' statistics.

And your pay is relevant because consciously or not I suspect you will be tailoring your comments to make the grade. The titles are just the beginning. Write 4 articles in support of the PLP and see how you are treated. Why do you need to write for the RG? IS your journalistic message not satisfying enough here on this blog where people can respond in real time and debate? Why do you take the money?

Please respond also to the new standard of super legality. Mere legality seems insufficient now as expressed in these threads. Corruption is accepted, when not proved. I could equally allege that it is wrong for you to take money from the RG, and pretend to be independent. Does it become so because I allege it?

So go ahead and be pissed at me, Phil. It is my intention to provoke some thought on this issue of media convergence.

[shipstones on 28.01.05 at 18:34]

Up yours Jake!

[shipstones on 28.01.05 at 18:47]

This blogg is limited as far as the number of people it reaches. RG is much larger.
Why don't you stop buying it? There was a boycott some years ago by a black activist led group which reduced the RG's sales by 10%.
Guilden gets more space in RG than Phil!
There is no shortage of biased political commentary in favour of PLP. Every time government holds a news conference they are reported. I don't understand what this convergence bit is all about.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 28.01.05 at 18:53]

Gombey,

Do you realise how many Bermudians have roots in te Caribbean? Do you knowte historyof the Caribbean? Why are some people so high on their horse that tey believe that becase they live in Bermuda and may earn a substantial amount of money that they are better than others.

In brief, the history is this. Bermuda because of its fortunate geographic location was settled by the British who began trade with the Virginia Company. The Bahamas becase of its many islands and cays was inhabitated because it was ideal for privateering. Whether you want to believe it or not, the Bahamas is a very wealth little country. As are many of the other islands. It has in excess of US$400 million in reserves versus Bermuda at US$75 million.

Unlike Bermuda, which is effectively one island the 700 Bahama Islands and cays stretch from South Florida to Cuba. The British put very little infrastructure in place. Thereforem after Independence the Bahamas Government had to build roads and schools in the 35 inhabitated islands, they had to put in electrical and communication infrastructure and they had to build airports.

Islands further south had natural resourcesand that was the only reason they were taken as British territories. The Brits did absolutely nothing for these countries by way of infrastructure or creating an economy.

Yes, Bermuda and Bermudians have done very well. But tell me, how many Bermudians can afford toowntheir own homes? Do not think for one minute that we live in grass huts here in the Bahamas. I am in the process of introducing a new construction product to this market, one that has been in use in Bermuda for a number of years, the ifficulty is that the building codes are stricter here than they are in Bermuda, imagine that.

Even with stricter building codes the average Bahamian can enjoy homeownership. Can you saythat about the average Bermudian?

It is time to come off te high horse and realise thatyou are no better than anyone else. You may be better off than many but you as a person are not better or more valuable.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 28.01.05 at 18:54]

Ships,

But i don't get paid for my articles. LOL

[shipstones on 28.01.05 at 19:03]

September 11, 2002 – 18:04
The Colour Line
Editorial from The Nassau Guardian, Sept. 11, 2002

The pre-Colonial era to the mid-1950s and up to 1967 was a dismal period for the black majority in The Bahamas. They went through a time of perpexity that not only thrived on their physical labour but also perpetuated the enslavement of their mental capacity.

That was a dark time for the country, which changed on Jan. 10, 1967 and was solidified 15 months later on April 10, 1968 when the Progressive Liberal Party won overwhelmingly at the polls and put in motion the 25-year reign of Sir Lynden Pindling as the head of government.

In all that time though, and the subsequent 10 years of the Free National Movement and the country's second black prime minister, the mentality of the majority has failed to rise beyond the colour line, with the masses now controlling the direction of the discrimination.

In the 35 years since the PLP toppled the United Bahamian Party, the white membership of the House of Assembly can be counted on two hands. The oligarchy that once ruled has become practically non-existent in the political direction of the nation and are usually quiet about government actions unless decisions affect them directly.

The UBP was the white party but black men were a part of it and sat in the House as UBP members, elected by mostly black men, and in some cases white voters. Prior to the creation of the Free National Movement, a black man was the chairman of the UBP.

The show of racism is on the other foot today and despite it being a tight fit, some people refuse to take it off and ease the pain. There are those persons born after the fact but they cannot forget the stories heard of blacks not being able to go into the Savoy Theatre, the Grand Central Restaurant or the Colonial Hotel. Their minds have been poisoned by the historical hysteria of 300 years of slavery and they see every white person in authority as "the master with the whip."

This is what Brent Symonette, and every white person who aspires to political leadership in this country has to face. Symonette is told that he is a racist simply because he is white and his daddy, Sir Roland Symonette, was a UBP.

That is unfortunate in this time when we claim emphatically to be One Bahamas and one people under God. This reversed racism and hypocrisy is unfair to the Bahamian people generally and particularly that 15 percent who make great contributions to the economic development of the country.

Today's masses are educated people who should be free in mind and body, and can be and do whatever are their aspirations. They must not let repressed racism surface and overpower them whenever it suits a selfish purpose.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 28.01.05 at 19:08]

Ships,

I saw that article and can tell you categorically that most Bahamians do not hold the views expressed in it.

I was very serious when I offered to open my home to you so that you can see the Bahamas that I see.

You cannot know a country by what you read. The only way to understand it is to spend some time in the country.

[shipstones on 28.01.05 at 19:22]

Thanks Guilden, if I come to Bahamas I will take you up on the offer. When you come to Bermuda I would like to meet you too! Let me know and I will contact you directly.
My daughter had a boyfriend from Freeport (mother was black Bahamian head mistress and father Irish guy who used to run airport but now rents dune buggies). She felt welcome with all his friends when she visited Freeport.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 28.01.05 at 19:29]

Sounds good. Drop an email so we can arrange something. I plan to be home in the next couple of months.

[ace on 28.01.05 at 19:32]

I think that Phil, Christian and Calvin "in it" for the big bucks.

[jake on 28.01.05 at 19:46]

Whatever, ship. I made my point, and I hope not to harp on it. Phil is intelligent enough to agree to disagree, but he will think about it.

[The Limey on 28.01.05 at 23:28]

Jake,

I've thought about it.

I'm afraid you're still talking rubbish.

My purpose with the above thread was to get a cheap laugh. Seriously. You need to lighten up more.

I can assure you I'm not writing for the Gazette for the money. My last two columns have taken the best part of a day each to write (I hope I'll get faster). If I was doing it for the money I'd want more than $100 for that.

It's like Shipstones said - the circulation of the Gazette is much larger than the readership of this blog, and it gets to a different demographic. It's an opportunity for me to get my thoughts out to a wider audience and I'm not going to apologise for taking that. I don't come from the same partisan backgrounds than Calvin and Christian do so I genuinely think I can offer a less partial commentary.

I'll continue to write the same sort of stuff I write on here - that's why they asked me to do the column after all. You're entitled to your belief that it'll corrupt me I suppose. But perhaps it would be a little more open-minded of you - and a little less mean-spirited - to just judge me by what I write.

As for media convergence, I don't think you understand what blogging is about. Of necessity, most of the things I and every other blogger like me talks about originate in the traditional media. The RG is the only daily newspaper in Bermuda, so clearly much of my stuff is going to come from there.

You criticise Christian for his comments about Derrick Burgess and me for mine about Dr. Brown's tourism plan. But then you agree that Ms. Furbert's criticism was way out of line and you won't take my bet on Bermuda's chances of getting its arrival figures up. And you call me biased?

Talking about the fact that politicians cannot be trusted was central to my point. What's the point of having a bunch of SMART objectives you can measure the Government's performance by if once they've been announced they're never heard of again? Happens all the time in politics. The cats bill is one (trivial) example that immediately springs to mind. The issue may be media convergence for you, but when I wrote that column I was thinking about Brown's plan. Sorry my assessment of it doesn't agree with yours but that doesn't make me a UBP hack.

If you want to read sycophantic fawning over government initiatives I suggest you'd be better off reading their press releases.

[The Limey on 29.01.05 at 11:01]

Jake - I've just re-read your comment of last night and realised you suggested that I'm actually a closet PLP supporter!

I think you must be the first person who has ever suggested that. Well, if I end up joining the PLP I guess you'll be able to say you saw it first!

But here's another idea for you: maybe I support neither the UBP nor the PLP. Maybe I just look at the ideas being presented rather than who is presenting them. I wish more people in this country would do the same.

[jake on 29.01.05 at 11:04]

I don't mean to be mean spirited, nor do I wish to stiffle your ability to promote discourse. I have seen the Royal Gazette's campaigns over the years and nothing has changed. Cloud it in psuedo liberal jibberish if one wants, but I see the result as providing the truth of its intent and purpose.

If you want me to lighten up, say something fair and funny Phil. Lend your talents in both directions. Peter Woolcock is a good example. I get concerned when he ridicules the PLP and I laugh when he ridicules the UBP. That is my bias coming through - not his.

I will recant my call for your exodous from the Gazette - sure. I really do like to see another point of view. Just be conscious that the media is a powerful tool in a small community. We spent far too much time under the boot of the UBP and we have no intention of going back to that state of affairs. Governments may change, and the new UBP may one day form one. But we will never go back to the period when fear ruled our community and racism was its name. Anything that leads us in that direction I will challenge.

I make no apologies for that.

But I will say one thing. Your comment that my concerns are rubbish suggests your celebrity has already begun to take hold. Be patient Phil. You do not have all insight into a community you have been a part of for a short time, and see only from your own limited perspective. All I ask is that you seek to offer genuine comment - do not seek to be our judge.

Good luck with your column, Phil. I wish you well.

[The Limey on 29.01.05 at 11:14]

Thanks Jake.

I'm not saying all your concerns are rubbish. I'm still making my mind up about any biases the Gazette may have. All I can say for certain is that so far I see no mechanism for any editorial bias to get into my columns.

I would have though that Calvin Smith's column was evidence enough that the Gazette is happy to let pro-PLP points of view into its Opinion pages.

[shipstones on 29.01.05 at 21:47]

Jake,
I laugh at Chris Rock when he has a go at white people and I laugh when he has a go at black people!
If its humorous, I laugh! I don't pick and chose what to laugh at based on bias.
Satire is sometimes quite painful for the person its making fun of, but I find it funny. Sarcasm is not.
May be the Premier should include in his poll whether people want independence, it would save a lot of time and effort!
Satire or sarcasm!