Grandstanding

I have no idea whether the UBP's decision to walk out of the House of Assembly on Friday was justified. I'm not familiar with parliamentary procedure and so it's unclear to me whether the Speaker behaved appropriately or not. Yet even if the UBP's walkout was a reasonable reaction, it still has a whiff of grandstanding about it.

What troubles me more, however, is that the Speaker doesn't seem familiar with parliamentary procedure either. If he were, he would have been able to give a clear explanation of the grounds on which he was proposing to delay debate of the UBP's motion of censure.

It also concerns me to hear the Premier insisting that the residents were consulted when 188 of them sent a letter to Housing Minister Ashfield DeVent last Thursday insisting they were not. The residents were clearly not impressed either. Whether they have any right to expect to be consulted over the new housing is a moot point, but as Mr. DeVent promised that he would, it was foolish of him to press ahead without having done so in an unambiguous manner.

It's tiresome to see politicians from both sides of the House behaving so childishly, particularly when they're asking for their pocket money to be increased.

Comments

[mwz on 23.05.05 at 15:01]

Childish - yes. Unfortunately not uncommon in any goverment debate in any country right now. I don't know if the UBP are grandstanding more than they are frustrtated with a speaker who doesn't appear to know the rules. The Premier's reprimand is even more amusing given the recent history of the PLP as an opposition. I can distinctly remember Derek Burgess marching out of the cabinet and slamming the door as he left when Ernest Decouto was speaker. I guess that was a time when being disrespectful was acceptable. The funny thing is the Government could probably do a lot for itself if it stopped jumping at everything the UBP is critical about. I am more tired of the "well the UBP did it" and the "the UBP is critizing us too much" excuses from the Government. The government needs to step up to the plate and start accepting responsibilty for it's self and stop whining everytime the UBP calls them a name. If they start doing so maybe they would get a lot more respect. Alex Scott appeared to be heading in that direction in the beginging but has since waned as of late. If the opposition asks a question they should stop smoke screening the answer with rant and rave and a "boo hoo the opposition is critical"! It would also be nice if both sides of the house were courteous to one another and stop with all the cat calling and harrasment when someone is speaking. That might go along way to changing some of the things on the island and ...maybe they could be an example for the rest of us. I know... they could change the format of cabinet to a blog site and each member could write their arguments and then the public could comment on the issues. There would be no room grandstanding, cat calling, harrassment and no denying what they said!

[Terry on 23.05.05 at 16:20]

MWZ, at exempted company. Childish, I would not say so. Outburst, did happen. Standing on principles, yes. Having read the article(s) the Honorable member is justified and required by his oath to be a good boy and present/represent his constituants, and their concerns. After all these years, if someone 'ain't gutt', a knowledge of the rules or have them at the ready, then it's a House connundrum. A simple, Mr./Mrs so and so I will look into it and get back back to you would have worked. I think then the Memeber would have accomplished his objective/s and a more diplomatic conclusion/solution would have taken place.

The UBP members were justified in their altogether overreaction. The reaction from the Government should have been for the benefit of the community, and not divisive.

Have a good 24th holiday. I will try and figure out whats going on with the Dem's and the Rep's.
Same thing.

Terry.

[jake on 23.05.05 at 16:40]

Terry,

No matter how frustrated the UBP may have been with the Speaker, for the Opposition en masse to leave the chamber (not the Cabinet, which is another place entirely) was not warranted, and was completely out of character.

The PLP were in Opposition for 30 years, and the UBP could learn many lessons in loyalty, both to the country and the crown. People play procedural games. Being skillful in the procedure is part of being a parliamentarian. At no time is it acceptable to behave in an undignified manner.

That Phil and MWZ can even give value to allegations tied to the housing misses the point. There is a way to register complaint, and bringing the house into disrepute is not one of them.

We are not the only Parliament outside of the UK. There are many in the former colonies. They will look at us in amazement at how poorly we conduct ourselves.

As for Mt. Lowe, perhaps he was confused in the uproar. That this incident can be placed at his feet is sad, because he did nothing to warrant the behaviour the United Bermuda Party displayed. It would be no different if violence were used. There would be no justification; there would be no excuse.

There is none here either.

[Terry on 23.05.05 at 17:23]

Jake, your comments noted. I do know the Make Up of Government. Mr. Lowe may have been confused at the Matter put before him. HE should have dealt with it. Does he get confused all the time, sometimes, frequently? If the Speaker does'nt know the Rules, who does? Get the book out. I really don't care what other Carribean, Colonies think. My member is suppose to speak for me, not for you, thats why you got your own representative.

Getting back to your '30yrs' as an opposition, thats why they were there. Somehow, somewhere they became the Government of the day. There has been more trials and tribulations since they took, or whatever power. Sorry, had to leave the site for a minute, someone was trying to sell me a Cell Phone. Boy marketing is tuff, as it is in all Houses, Senates, Chambers, Cafe's etc.

The present Government has/had/done walked out before. Look at history and reflect what happended after that. Today, just a News Paper article.

Terry

[Andrew on 23.05.05 at 20:02]

Jake,

You're missing the point completely.

As I understand it, any member can object to any motion given that they have grounds to do so. Usually, those are 'unparliamentarily language', 'misleading the house' or that it 'predicts a debate' that is already on the order papers.

Is there anyone here prepared to say that what the Opposition did on Friday was any lower than what the Government did?

The Government had absolutely no reason to object to the motion.

" he did nothing to warrant the behaviour the United Bermuda Party displayed"

Of course he did. Mr. Barritt sought and was given his approval of the wording of the motion. As soon as it became clear that the Government would not give its approval, he abruptly changed his mind. The Speaker is supposed to become impartial upon his election to the chair. Clearly, in this case, he was not.

This incident was perhaps extreme and certainly regrettable. It was not however, childish, grandstanding or disloyal.

[Andrew on 23.05.05 at 21:52]

Parliament – From French parler “to speak.” The underlying meaning is “discussion, consultation.”

The Government’s affront on Bermuda’s Democratic process, constitutional authority and its citizens’ right to free dissent continues without pause or shame.

So the hue and cry witnessed in Parliament last Friday should come as little surprise. Given a litany of scandals, an increasingly partial Speaker and a Government that possesses a Cromwellian contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny, the latest incident was perhaps inevitable.

Yet, the true outrage was not that the Speaker’s voice was dispensed with, nor, for that matter, the Opposition’s.

That the plight and concerns of the residents of Mary Victoria and Alexandria roads have been overlooked, along with Parliamentary custom, is the real scandal here.

Still, it should be lamented by all Bermudians that it has come to this. By ignoring established precedents and creating dangerous new ones, the Government’s actions last Friday have brought them to a new low, never conceived hitherto.

We can only hope that the Speaker’s “voice of authority” can become a voice of reason and put an end to this madness.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 24.05.05 at 10:12]

Unfortunately the nature of politics is that in reality it is no more than a game, a game that tends to be won by those party that holds the most seats in the legislature.

The PLP hold the most seats and they are only giving the UBP a taste of its own medicine, which the PLP had to swallow for a 30 year period.

The actions of the current Speaker are no different from the actions of Speakers under the various UBP Governments. It is well and good to say the Speaker should be non-partisan, however, this is politics and the current Speaker was a PLP candidate before he was Speaker.

I am not and do not profess to be very knowledgeable about Parliamentary Proceedure, nor do I care to be knowledgeable on the topic. To me what goes on On-The-Hill is nothing more than antics and political grandstanding, so who really cares. The work of the country is really handled by the Civil Service not the elected MPs and the work of the country is going on and will go on despite the play of the kids On-The-Hill.

I say let them have their playtime.

[blah on 24.05.05 at 10:24]

blah blah blah blah blah...

HAPPY BERMUDA DAY!

[Corsair on 24.05.05 at 10:48]

"The actions of the current Speaker are no different from the actions of Speakers under the various UBP Governments ..."

Really? Can you name any examples. In fact can you name a single Speaker of the House of Assembly prior to Stanley Lowe? Such broad-brush attacks do not do you any credit. On the contrary, they actually undermine your booming and wrathful judgements ...

"I am not and do not profess to be very knowledgeable about Parliamentary Proceedure, nor do I care to be knowledgeable on the topic."

Sort of speaks for itself, doesn't it? You are not knowledgeable about the subject. You don't care to become informed about it. But you'll sound off nevertheless, invoking all manner of myths, stereotypes and out-and-out fictions. As somone said in a letter to the editor this weekend, PLP propagandists never allow the facts to stand in the way of a good rant ...

[jake on 24.05.05 at 10:55]

Andrew,

I am not surprised at how quickly you add this to a list of UBP complaints at the PLP because you are unable to look at un-Parliamentary behaviour for what it is.

There is a huge difference between the substance of a debate, its procedural framework, and behaviour outside the acceptable.

Substance: The Housing Debate - should we deplore the behaviour or not

Procedure: Is that an acceptable motion in that it names a person and does not refer to a Minister - is it acceptable to found our objection on wording when the identification - whilst outside the appropriate naming - is unambiguous. Which gets voted on first.

Unacceptable: Storming out of the chamber whilst Parliament is in Session. Insubordinate comments directed at the Speaker. Bringing Parliament into disrepute.

UBP Bully Boy tactics are disgusting. They have lost the honour they held for so long in the form of Harry Soares or Harry Cox. They are indeed a NEW UBP! John Barritt should be ashamed as he is trained to know better. If he behaved that way in a court room - no matter what the Judge was deciding - he would be in contempt and subject to an unappealable punishment.

To behave in the House in that fashion is no less deplorable.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 24.05.05 at 13:18]

Corsair,

"PLP propagandists never allow the facts to stand in the way of a good rant"

When did I rant and when did I say anyone was correct in their position?

Why do I need to know Parliamentary Procedure to know that the proceeding in the House are nothing more than granstanding. I have simply chosen not to concern myself with Parliamentary Procedure, maybe that's because I have no burning desire to run for a seat in Parliament.

How many Bermudians are familiar with Parliamentary Procedure and how many truly care about Parliamentary Procedure? My guess is very few.

My sounding off was about the nature of debate in the House as it exist and the fact that it is the Civil Service and not the MPs that truly manage the country.

[Andrew on 24.05.05 at 13:32]

Jake,

I'm not saying that the UBP's behaviour was parliamentary - it was not.

I too miss the Gentlemanly politicians. Yet, I have difficulty believing that any of them would have stood idly while the Speaker working *en rapport* with the Government, would attempt to validate such a sham.

Let us not forget the role of Parliament. To some of Guilden (and others) the 'house on the hill' means something still.

I don't pretend to know the full circumstances behind Friday's exodus. I'm inclined to think that neither do you.

This much we do know, however. Those in most need in our community; those in need of housing deserve to have their voices heard. Whether through the media or an Opposition motion in the house; the rights of the minority must never be suppressed by the rule of the majority.

Thus far, the PLP's housing policies have been manifestly inadequate. The only real proposals have been what amounts to a Potemkin Village of mobile homes, or building in the already overcrowded area of Prospect.

Perhaps what the Opposition did was deplorable. Yet, I struggle to see any fair comparison between it and the Government's actions. As Government they should be held to a higher standard. Higher than the laws, higher even than the rules of the house. I don't accept 'unethical but not illegal' from my Government. I don't accept a betrayal of the civic virtues so heavily invested in Parliament.

Maybe I'm being hopelessly idealistic. But to some of us, this matters a great deal.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 24.05.05 at 13:41]

Corsair,

One other thing. Am I labeled a PLP propogandist simply because I am a PLP supporter? Or is it because I do not support the UBP?

It seems to me that when one supports the UBP, as most posters on this site seem to do, it is reasonable and expected but once one is a supporter of the PLP one is labeled a propogandist.

[Bill Cook on 24.05.05 at 13:52]

Andrew,

If the law whether civil or political does not protect the people then the law is an ass.

Guilden I feel you are partly correct re the civil service.

But think of the civil service as the team of horses pulling the wagon.

Then think of the wagon master as being the politician who makes all decisions of the direction the wagon will go, when it will go etc, what the wagon will haul etc.

Of course the wagonmaster as politician cannot lay his whip across the bare asses of underperforming civil servants thank goodness. Perish the thought.

Just a little touch of whimsey to brighten Bermuda Day not that it needs it really.

[SarahT on 24.05.05 at 13:59]

I don't think what they did was deplorable. I think everyone acted like children (and I was there, so I can say that with authority) but I don't think what they did was deplorable - what the UBP did, at least.

First of all, they did not hold up any Government business. The only things Government had to get done were a little bill that Patrice Minors put forward correcting some mistakes - and Michael Dunkley ensured he stuck around to deal with that before he left. The only other thing was Walter Lister reporting on Wedco's year - and frankly considering he wandered off into a little pro-Independence rant for part of that, spent the majority of the time praising Ewart Brown for the fast ferries and other efforts, and really only highlighted the snorkel park in Dockyard, I really don't think the UBP needed to be around for that.

Second, this stuff about identifying or not identifying Ashfield in the motion - that was not the objection that either Otti Simmons or the Premier offered. I don't know where that complaint came from (the Premier appears to have thought it up on Sunday?), but it certainly didn't come up in the House, at least not from the Government benches. And frankly it's complete nonsense.

Third, whether you agree with Barritt's motion or not, and even though he did turn awfully red in the face, the principle behind their actions is valid. Government basically tried to shut down the chance for the Opposition to do their job - act as a Government watchdog and investigate things that regular people can't. The point of the motion was to investigate what really happened (did he consult or not, and why not if he didn't?) and if Governmet had a problem with the wording they could've amended it, as they have done so countless times before. But now, depending on what Stanley Lowe says next week, there may be no public, candid investigation into what happened. Those people don't have representation, and the entire point of MPs is that you elect them to speak for you - if you take that power away, what's the point? (They certainly don't deserve a pay rise, that's for sure.)

As for Stanley Lowe, he should never have allowed it to get so out of control. He approved the motion already, what was he waffling for? Someone said it earlier, if he doesn't know the rules, who does? He was completely at a loss. Not a good trait in a Speaker.

Let me be clear that I don't like either of these parties. I support certain people in both parties, but I am not PLP or UBP. But I have to say, while the UBP may have yelled and stormed out, at least they acted out of a self-righteous anger (whether you think that anger was valid or not). Not so with Governmnet, they just acted like petty children. What was Derrick Burgess mimicking an English accent for? Why did Dr. Brown have to bring race into it - AGAIN? Why does the Premier go on and on about how the UBP did it to? Who cares! It's so boring and SO childish and made me ashamed of all of them. No wonder the UBP walked out, I was pretty close to walking out myself.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 24.05.05 at 15:01]

Sarah,

You highlight the very reason why there are no television cameras in the House of Parliament. The way elected officials, on both sides of the House act is a major embarrassment and would be an even bigger embarrassment if the sessions were televised.

I think the actions of Members of both sides is extremely childish, in fact on occasion it could be said that children in the school playground offer a higher level of debate.

[SarahT on 24.05.05 at 15:18]

Too true, Guilden!

[Slowhand on 24.05.05 at 19:09]

I for one would like to have my representative's questions answered, and his points heard, not stiffled by nonexistant rules that are made up at the whim of the ones with no answers, who also assume they have no one to answer to.
The opposition were passionate because they knew they had a valid point to make.... The Government was equally aware of this. Does it not concern EVERYONE that they are able to quash any kind of debate as they see fit??!!
We hear them whine constantly about how "They did it to us" from the now Govt, ex "Loyal" (don't make me laugh) Opposition. Please, if someone could come up with a time where the previous Govt made up parliamentary rules, could you please let us know? Yes they will have used the existing rules of the house to get their way, but to make them up on the fly?..... I'd like to know.

[Andrew on 24.05.05 at 20:36]

In case anyone is curious...

Rules of the House of Assembly (HTML)
***
http://www.fortknox.bm/NXT/gateway.dll/Laws%20of%20Bermuda%20-%20HTML/consolidated%20laws/rules%20of%20the%20house%20of%20assembly
***

Rules of the House of Assembly (WORD)
***
http://www.fortknox.bm/NXT/gateway.dll/Laws%20of%20Bermuda%20-%20WORD/consolidated%20laws/rules%20of%20the%20house%20of%20assembly
***

[Tiger Bay on 25.05.05 at 03:15]

Agreed Guilden. Parliament should be televised in full and Hansard-style verbatim transcripts available.

The Speaker appears not to be up to the task.

[Raptor on 25.05.05 at 08:52]

Andrew: I was unable to retrieve either of the two documents you listed.

[Andrew on 25.05.05 at 09:02]

Raptor,

In that case go to:

www.bermudalaws.bm -> continue to site -> enter site -> type 'Rules of the House of Assembly' -> press 'search'

Look closely among the results and you'll see an HTML and WORD version. They're well worth a read, I'd say.

[Tired on 25.05.05 at 10:15]

To Guilden: You and others making comments like the PLP are giving the UBP "a dose of their own medicine" only perpetuate the problems in Bermuda. Bermuda Day was yesterday, so starting today why don't you and all the PLP supporters quit complaining and quit trying to get even with the UBP and show Bermudians what you can or cannot do for them. Stand up on your own two feet and quit using the past as a crutch.... prove what your made of. Bermuda will not move forward on the bs and lies of the past, it takes honesty and desire by the supporters of the PLP to get off dead center. Forget the past...today is a new day.....go out and see what positive thing you can do for the future of Bermuda.

[Onion on 25.05.05 at 10:16]

No matter how out of line Government was, nothing justifies the Opposition breaking the rules of Parliamentary protocol. It smacks of vigilantism.

In the same way, regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the property dispute between the Brombys and Talbot, nothing justifies them taking a piece of pipe and threatening him.

This "end justifies the means" mentality sets a very dangerous precedent.

As Jake said, Mr. Barrit cannot and would not walk out of Supreme Court if he disagreed with a decsion of the Chief Justice.

In the same way a sixteen year old who is wrongfully arrested by the police is not entitled to cuss of the policeman and slap him upside his head.

[sleepy on 25.05.05 at 10:42]

What sets a dangerous precedent is a Speaker caving to a Government who want to violate the rules and pre-empt debate.

There was no basis for his ruling and the UBP did the right thing.

I applaud your ability to cite precedent in the defence of someone ignoring it.

[bs on 25.05.05 at 10:45]

Onion,

Your argument is a two way street -- don't forget that.

"No matter how out of line Government was, nothing justifies the Opposition breaking the rules of Parliamentary protocol. It smacks of vigilantism."

In my mind, nothing justifies the current government breaking the rules of the house when trying to prevent a motion from being tabled. In fact, the government (speaker) attempted to set a new precedent and make his own rules -- prompting the walk-out. As far as I know, there is no rule saying you can't walk out of the House. It might have been extreme, but so was Lowe's "vigilantism" (for lack of a better word).

Don't just point the finger blindly. Try your best to look at the situation in a open-minded way.

My guess is you don't live in Prospect.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 25.05.05 at 11:00]

Tired,

Tell me what I can do to make your life more comfortable and I will see what I can do.

I agree that the PLP needs to move forward but I disagree that we should forget the past. Politics is about getting votes and as long as we PLP supporters can have people remember what the UBP did the longer we can keep our PLP in Goverment.

It is all well and good that you want the PLP to be the Government for all but like any other government around the world, if they keep the majority happy rather than a few who line their pockets (as the UBP did) they will continue to win votes.

What gets me with your comments is that you are so full of complaints about how the PLP are acting but I'm certain you were very quiet and content when the UBP was the government and they were doing things much the way the PLP is doing them now. I guess because the bias was toward you, you were okay with it and now that the tables are turned you get defensive.

For the record I will continue to say what I wish to say and you can choose to get upset about it or ignore it. It is your choice but just know that I will not be quiet.

[funny on 25.05.05 at 11:12]

Why are the government laws above on the Fort knox website? Gov has a large IT team and has a big web infrastructure...

[Onion on 25.05.05 at 11:16]

Sleepy writes:

"I applaud your ability to cite precedent in the defence of someone ignoring it."

Who am I defending?

Sleepy, bs,

I am not even addressing the merits of the UBP's case or the PLP's defence. What I am saying is that two wrongs don't make a right. There was nothing honourable about the PLP's actions and there certainly was nothing honourable about the UBP's actions. I don't have to live in Prospect to reach this conclusion.

[bs on 25.05.05 at 11:18]

Guilden,

With your comments you epitimize the problems with the PLP government. They have squandered an opportunity to unite Bermuda and take us forward into a new century. If politics to you is merely about staying in power then I am thankful all you do is sit on the side and comment. Politics at its roots, is about ideals and making this world a better place. Power and money corrupt and healthy egos play their roles, but chances are, if you speak with any politician, they started out their careers with great intentions. Too bad so few are able to stay on track.

Anyhow, I truly believe that the PLP are smacking the faces of the very people that gave them a vote of confidence in 2003. I hope they keep it up. There will always be people that are at one extreme or the other and will tow their party line regardless of what it truly represents. Those people will be unconditional loyal to their party. But its the swing voters that count. These people are becoming more disillusioned.

Bermuda needs to move forward out of this mess we find ourselves in and come together. The past needs to be put to rest and we need to look to the future, not only for our Island as a whole but for our children. The fact that you are unable to see that makes me feel sad for you.

[bs on 25.05.05 at 11:22]

Onion,

"I am not even addressing the merits of the UBP's case or the PLP's defence."

Yes you were.

"What I am saying is that two wrongs don't make a right."

Is that what you are saying now, or was that what you were saying before? I don't see anything about that in your previous post.

What's your argument Onion? Because if you can't find it one post I am sure there are two other posts you might be able to find it in....

/weak

[sleepy on 25.05.05 at 11:31]

Onion:

"What I am saying is that two wrongs don't make a right".

What I'm saying is that the PLP/Speaker were wrong, yet you're chastising the UBP for not going along with it, because they should respect the Speaker? Bizarro.

I'm not sure what you're saying really, or if you have a position at all on this, or if you just want to be critical of the UBP.

But what you seem to be saying is that the UBP should go along with the Speaker even when he is violating the rules.

That makes zero sense.

It's pretty simple: The UBP could not let a vote proceed, or a new precedent would have been set whereby the Government controls what the Opposition can do in Parliament.

There was only one wrong here.

[Onion on 25.05.05 at 11:34]

Guilden,

It is unfortunate but this site only reflects the way our society is at large. It's all fine and dandy for people like Tired to say the past is the past and now we are moving into the future. You will not get a reaction from most bloggers on this site in the wake of the Brombys getting an absolute discharge for assault on a 75 year old man.

When Nelson Bascome's son got probation for importing drugs (a poor decsion and rightfully appealed) you would've thought it was WWIII with the vociferous reactions we got around the island.

In the same way, in the wake of the Rebecca Middleton case people went crazy. People were practically marching the streets crying out about injustice. It is funny how the Shaundae Jones case has been quickly forgotten. Black on black crime, no big deal. My guess is that the DPP will have trouble convicting anyone for the twins murder as well, and that will also be forgotten.

Tired, like it or not, there are still double standards in the way people view things in this country. The past is still, to an extent, the present. We cannot move forward unless people show they don't just develop a social conscience when only their race is being affected by somethng. That goes for black people too.

Last night's Faces of the Nation was a good watch. The panel included Robert Pires, Kim Young, Sir John Swan, Dame Lois Brown-Evans and Wasi (I forget full name).

[Onion on 25.05.05 at 11:42]

Sleepy, bs,

Noboddy said the UBP is to go along with the speaker. I could care less about the PLP or UBP so don't make the assumption that I am as partisan as you seem to be. I am saying that walking out of the House cannot be the route to solve any and all problems that a party may encounter in debate. I am not defending the Speaker.

BS you are also very naive if you discount the self-preservation tactics that ANY political party may employ in ANY country around the world. THAT is politics. THAT is human nature. The UBP did it, the PLP do it and if the UBP get back in power they will do it again. It's sad but a reality! This is not a racial thing, it's not a party thing, it is a human nature thing. Mankind is essentially selfish and self-serving!

[sleepy on 25.05.05 at 11:50]

Onion. The Speaker had started a roll call vote. Tell me what other action they should have taken?

Abstain or walk out was the choice, and abstaining wasn't good enough as the motion would have been blocked.

The Speaker couldn't state on what basis he was making his ruling and the UBP were therefore more than justified in leaving the chamber.

They didn't call him an ass, they didn't throw things at him. They just left. Seems reasonable to me.

But I think I'm wasting my breath here. If you're not yet convinced I doubt it's possible.

[Onion on 25.05.05 at 11:59]

Sleepy,

Are you saying the motion to abstain would've been blocked?

Sleepy says: "But I think I'm wasting my breath here. If you're not yet convinced I doubt it's possible."

That's the problem with party politics in a country. You assume that I am staunchly PLP so I am not prepared to hear anything else. Pity.

[sleepy on 25.05.05 at 12:16]

Onion, I didn't say it wasn't possible to convince you because you're PLP. I just think you don't see it the way I do and I'm not sure much more attempts will help.

The problem with party politics is that you assume that I assume you are PLP. I'm trying to discuss the procedure not the parties.

But to answer your question on abstaining. There is no such thing as a motion to abstain. What I'm saying is that they could have abstained from the vote, but it would have carried regardless and a new precedent set whereby the Government presides over the Opposition.

The only real choice was to stop what was about to occur by walking out.

I maintain it was entirely reasonable and the only course to take.

You seem to disagree. I think I've made my case about as well as I can. If you think they were still wrong then we'll have to just agree to disagree.

[Pitts Bay on 25.05.05 at 12:20]

What options did the UBP have? They could have stayed in the House and been out voted (the PLP does have the clear majority in seats (although only a 1%+ majority in popular vote)) or they leave the House out of disgust. They chose the later.

In my view, this was the only thing they could do to bring this issue to light. Somewhat volatile I agree, but it has highlighted the apparent bias of the Speaker and the steps the PLP will take to stifle debate when they are criticized.

[denning on 25.05.05 at 12:29]

Onion, I regret your comment that "It is funny how the Shaundae Jones case has been quickly forgotten. Black on black crime, no big deal." I think you do a disservice to the entire community with a comment like that. His mom has done everything in her power to keep this dreadful and shocking crime in the press and in our minds, and I for one feel my heart break each and every time she is in the press, expressing her grief and demanding justice for her son. I am not alone. The vast majority of this community, of any colour, deplore these acts of villany. If there is less of an uproar about Mr. Jones than there was about Ms. Middleton, it is not because of the colour of the victim's skin. It is because we see, time and time again, over and over, these types of violent crimes going unsolved or unpunished. We grow numb to the injustice.

Please do not leave Shaundae's mother with the perception that this community does not value her son, or feel profound sympathy for her loss. That would be horribly unfair, to her and to all of us.

[Terry on 25.05.05 at 12:46]

YO! Easy guys, your putting things forward that you kept locked up all these years. You want to go back to the early 70's? Well guess what? What went around is AROUND. Deal with it. I see so much of the past resurfacing. It's gonna bite you. Again, I quote my friend Bob Marley, "ONE LOVE" . Thats for all, not just some.

Terry.

[JJ on 25.05.05 at 13:02]

I seem to recall that the uproar over the Middleton murder was as much to do with the public's displeasure over the incompetence of the police, the Crown and the judiciary in not nailing the right person for the crime, as it was to do with the murder per se. In the case of the Shaunedee Jones murder the chief suspect was identified almost immediately and disappeared, only to be recently brought back and acquitted of possesiing fire arms!
Both were violent crimes for which no one is apparently responsible.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 25.05.05 at 13:02]

Pitts,

"What options did the UBP have? They could have stayed in the House and been out voted (the PLP does have the clear majority in seats"

So basicaly what you are saying is that the UBP should not even participate in the House debates because they are always going to be out voted?

BS,

"If politics to you is merely about staying in power then I am thankful all you do is sit on the side and comment."

I never said what politics was to me. Do not put words in my mouth.

What I was saying was that entire nature of politics and politicians, like it or not is about getting the vote. Why do you think the UBP will never take a firm position on anything unless and until they have some idea as to how the electorate feel? If the residents had never said a word the UBP would also be mum on the topic. Think about all the positions that the UBP has taken since they have been the Opposition. Every last one has come after a group of electorates have stated how they felt and the position of the UBP then becomes a reflection of those persons. If that is not about trying to capture votes then tell me what it is.

Now if I am wrong show me that I am wrong. Give me an example of a UBP position that was taken and expressed prior to a comment from the public.

[The Limey on 25.05.05 at 13:03]

Onion

While I liked Jake's Supreme Court analogy at first, it's flawed. If John Barritt doesn't like a decision handed down by a judge, he can appeal it. No need to storm out. The same thing is not possible in parliament: who can the UBP appeal the Speaker's decision to?

Given that, what do you think would have been the most appropriate response for the UBP? (That's not a loaded question BTW - I'm still thinking about this myself)

[JJ on 25.05.05 at 13:09]

Who is the sitting MP for the constituency where Victoria and Alexandria roads is situated?

[The Limey on 25.05.05 at 13:18]

Mary Victoria Road is in constituency 13 (Glenn Blakeney). Alexandra Road seems to be on the boundary with constituency 14 (Paula Cox).

More information on electoral boundaries is available here.

[JJ on 25.05.05 at 13:18]

just found out. It's PLP MP Glen Blakeney.
So, one assumes the residents sort support from the UBP as they were not getting any help from their PLP MP. Hence, in response to GG's comments re vote catching maybe the UBP were doing the local MP's job for him in seeking to address residents concerns. If this gets them votes so well and good.

[bs on 25.05.05 at 13:19]

Guilden,

I still feel sad for you. You read my post and clearly don't get it. All you can do is point at that UBP and say, "look what they do", "look what they did" -- its pathetic. Keep towing the line...you are completely predictable.

[sleepy on 25.05.05 at 13:19]

Guilden,

"So basicaly what you are saying is that the UBP should not even participate in the House debates because they are always going to be out voted?"

No, he didn't say that, nor is that the point I've been trying to make. The point is that they were attempting to preclude a debate at all.

This is really not that complicated.

[The Limey on 25.05.05 at 13:22]

Guilden

Same question to you as to Onion: what do you think the UBP should have done?

[Bill Cook on 25.05.05 at 13:30]

I cannot speak for others but I have repeatedly been on talk shows and written letters to various editors with regard to not only the Jones case but several other in my opinion miscarriages of justice.

Some have been simply horrific.

One of the many reasons that the Middleton case caused anger in the white community was in part due to a crowd of black youth cheering the verdict and giving the black power salute outside the courthouse.

The overwhelming majority of all Bermudians were disgusted both black and white.

I and many others are not prepared to accept that we can not improve the judicial system and find a way to have the punishment fit the crime, remember punishment is part of the rehabilatation.

[Bu on 25.05.05 at 13:37]

PLP MP Glen Blakeney has not held a paid job since he was fired from ZBM years ago,he could not give a rat's ass about residents of Mary Victoria Road .Being an MP is the only way he can get an income,and a radio license for Hott FM,which is so biased and anti-white- anti-UBP,like Fresh tv, it breaks any laws of news standards or ethics.They are merely propaganda outlets for PLP.

[Pitts Bay on 25.05.05 at 14:13]

Guilden

"So basicaly what you are saying is that the UBP should not even participate in the House debates because they are always going to be out voted?"

That is not what I meant!! The principles of a Parliamentary system are that you must be able to debate issues. If the party in power is going to prevent debate, or prevent the opposition from bringing any motion just because they do not like it, then we might as well have a single party system, (see Cuba, N. Korea etc where disagreeing with the Party can lead to prison or even execution!!).

There was clearly an issue with the matters in Prospect, 188 constituents had concerns over the actions (or non actions) of Mr DeVent. The PLP and the Speaker didn't want to hear this (reminisent of "we don't care what you think"). Through their actions, they prevented that motion from being heard, contrary to what the "rules" allow.

Again, what options did the UBP have. What would the PLP have does if the situation was reversed? I expect it would have been more vitriolic than the UBP's actions on Friday.

Onion & GG - what should the UBP have done? - nothing? Just "learn their lesson"?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 25.05.05 at 14:46]

BS,

"Keep towing the line...you are completely predictable."

So because I disagree with you I am towing the line? Please, Anyone who knows me knows that I have never towed anyone's line. I think, act and speak for myself. But as I have said many times in the past agree, disagree or be indifferent to what I say, it matters not to me because I don't live my life worrying about what people think or say about me.

Limey,

What should they have done? They should have realised that they are in Opposition and that as Opposition sometimes what they want to present will not be heard because they are the minority in the House. It is no different from Parliament in the U.K. or any other Parliament around the world.

JJ,

"Hence, in response to GG's comments re vote catching maybe the UBP were doing the local MP's job for him in seeking to address residents concerns."

Show me where the residents contacted the UBP and I will withdraw my remarks about the UBP using this solely for the purpose of vote gathering. I stand to be corrected but I believe the UBP picked this up, not after being approached but after seeing the residents reactions. There is a vast difference.

[Onion on 25.05.05 at 14:55]

Limey, Sleepy

I do not know what the UBP should've done. I am not knowledgeable enough about Parliamentary procedure to make a judgment. I have only gotten a version of events through the media - not the most reliable source. If the situation was as you say then I can understand the UBP's actions. In the absence of any other information at my disposal I cannot argue with you.

Let me rephrase and say the manner in which each party conducted itself during the session was certainly less than honourable. What is also clear is that this cannot be allowed to happen again.

[Desperado on 25.05.05 at 15:22]

"What is also clear is that this cannot be allowed to happen again."

It will happen again though. When the PLP was in Opposition, it marched out of the chamber more times than I've had hot meals. Unlike the present leadership, the late Frederick Wade was very well versed in the rules of Parliamentary procedure. He exploited them to his advantage time and again - he was nothing if not a master Parliamentary tactician. Call it grandstanding, if you will, but these antics were as attention-grabbing then as the UBP's walk-out is now. The PLP also made a habit of boycotting Royal visits at the drop of a plumed hat - agreeing to attend and take part in the various ceremonies, then pulling out at the last possible moment to draw the maximum press coverage (first happened in 1971, I believe, when Prince Charles was here). Politics is as much about theatrics as it is serious deliberation. Sometimes these theatrics take the form of high drama. Sometimes they are farcical. Ultimately it's the voters who decide on this on election day ...

[sleepy on 25.05.05 at 15:24]

Guilden, for once can you refrain from speaking on things you know nothing about.

Let's start with this:

"What should they have done? They should have realised that they are in Opposition and that as Opposition sometimes what they want to present will not be heard because they are the minority in the House. It is no different from Parliament in the U.K. or any other Parliament around the world."

Utter rubbish. Your ignorance of Parliamentary systems is astounding. Evidently you're living too close to Fidel.

Oppositions can always be heard, that's their role. Their motions may not be successful but they have an explicit right to table them for debate.

Secondly, the Prospect residents have asked the UBP to take up this cause, because Blakeney is both AWOL and has hung them out to dry.

Get a clue.

[Onion on 25.05.05 at 15:42]

Sleepy, Desperado,

Ultimately, as long as you have a party system you will have a Speaker of the House who is partial, a ruling government and an opposition. That is the nature of politics. You will have politicians focusing more on political tactics than the business of the people. It sucks being in the opposition, as the PLP learned for 30 years. Let's face it, the PLP endured a lot of UBP crap for 30 years, and with human nature being what it is, whoever is in opposition will continue to endure it. That is no justification for the actions on Friday, but such actions were certainly not out of character. The two party system served the UBP well for decades and now in 2005 we are questioning the checks and balances in the system (eg, how do you appeal a decision of a Speaker who has made an objectionable ruling?) Why is this an issue in 2005?

[Desperado on 25.05.05 at 15:52]

"The two party system served the UBP well for decades and now in 2005 we are questioning the checks and balances in the system (eg, how do you appeal a decision of a Speaker who has made an objectionable ruling?) Why is this an issue in 2005?"

For the self-same reason the PLP made an issue out of it as recently as 1997. The Opposition protests what they feel to be objectional or biased rulings from the Speaker with their feet. It's a Parliamentary tradition the world over. It's certainly not unique to Bermuda. Must be said, tho', that Mr. Lowe (who is impossible to dislike personally) has made a number of extremely peculiar rulings of late. They seem to owe more to his imagination than anything found in the rule book. On occasion, the former PLP Opposition was faced with similar rulings from past Speakers. They walked out as well.

[Onion on 25.05.05 at 15:54]

"The Opposition protests what they feel to be objectional or biased rulings from the Speaker with their feet. It's a Parliamentary tradition the world over. It's certainly not unique to Bermuda."

Agreed.

[Desperado on 25.05.05 at 15:58]

" ... as long as you have a party system you will have a Speaker of the House who is partial ..."

That ain't necessarily so, Onion. David Wilkinson is a prime example. During his years on the UBP backbenches, he mercilessly heckled the PLP - he was one of the UBP's best and most relentless bare-knuckles Parliamentary fighters. As a result of this formidable reputation, when he became Speaker he went out of his way to be absolutely impartial - much to the chagrin of his former UBP colleagues, much to the delight of the PLP (Frederick Wade called Wilkinson the most even-handed Speaker he ever served in Parliament with). Wilkinson was the ultimate Parliamentary example of a poacher turned gamekeeper: Wilkinson is also an example others should follow.

[Onion on 25.05.05 at 16:08]

Desperado, what measures are in place to ensure impartiality?

[Desperado on 25.05.05 at 16:16]

The measures largely take the form of past precedent.

If you are interested, there is a very, very long tome called "Parliamentary Practice & Procedure" by Erskine May. It is the Bible of Parliamentary conduct around the world in Commonwealth countries that use the two-party system.

Ironically, even Robert Mugabe can quote it chapter and verse - one of the principle reasons he kept wrong-footing the Zimbabwean Opposition (whose leaders obviously had not read it) in Harare's Parliament.

Bermudian politicians in both the UBP and PLP used to be very, very well versed in Erskine May: its "rules", if known, provide canny members of both the Government and Opposition Party with ample opportunity to trip one another up and seize the Parliamentary initiative. And there's no doubt whatsoever that on Friday John Barritt had Erskine May on his side and Stanley Lowe did not.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 25.05.05 at 16:44]

Sleepy,

"Utter rubbish. Your ignorance of Parliamentary systems is astounding. Oppositions can always be heard, that's their role. Their motions may not be successful but they have an explicit right to table them for debate."

Call it what you will. I never said they did not have the right to be heard I said that on many occasions they WILL NOT be heard because they are the Opposition. What does knowlegdge of Parliamentary procedure have to do with that? It is a reality and I reiterate that it happens in every parliament.

[Bill Cook on 25.05.05 at 17:05]

Onion,

I guess it does suck being in opposition for 30 yrs or any yrs really.

However it also sucks being a racial minority in a country where race dictates so much both in politics and every day life.

It also sucks even when you are the government and also the racial minority.

In reality while the ruling UBP appeared to dominate the parliament it was not quite as it seemed,let me tell you why.

When it came to major decisioning making the executive of the UBP would get together and consider how will this go down with the black population, whose support they depended on to stay in power.

In this regard that in my opinion when the PLP said jump the UBP said when and how high?

When it came to giving long term residents status prior to the 1998 election the UBP decided that it would not sit well with the black voters and waffled also they decided to terminate 100s of long term Portuguese workers permits forcing them to leave Bermuda even after many long years.

Instead of doing what was morally correct the UBP decided to do that which was politically expedient.

A bad decision which cost them a lot of Portuguese votes and many other white votes.

It is only my opinion but I truly beleive that the large majority of black voters would have supported those very long term residents in status grant, but the UBP ever fearful of upsetting them decided not to risk it.

The point of all this is to say that the UPB in power has more checks and balances to keep it in line than does the PLP as witnessed by Col Burch's now famous or infamous quote"we dont care what you think" it would have been a frosty Friday before the UBP would ever made a statement like that.

[Terry on 25.05.05 at 17:28]

With referance to Mr.Guilden's "They will not be Heard", sounds like Tirany to me. Mr. Gilbert, you seem to be getting it from all sides. I wonder why. Just because you pen your name, it does not make you more worthy of an opinion than the rest of us, nor does it make you unworthy.
I think some of the personal stuff you fling around is diviceive. How did you spend your 24th holiday. You should have come home to Bermuda and graced them with your personal views. It would probabley suited more to see you in person, since you have so strong a tie with the Island.
Far is near.

Terry.

[Raptor on 25.05.05 at 17:30]

"Call it what you will. I never said they did not have the right to be heard. I said that on many occasions they WILL NOT be heard because they are the Opposition. What does knowlegdge of Parliamentary procedure have to do with that? It is a reality and I reiterate that it happens in every parliament."

Guilden: The point is that having an Opposition is extremely important, and they must be heard, (as is also their right, which you accept). Knowledge of parliamentary procedure assures that right will be exercised, so it's crucial. Knowledge of parliamentary procedure is something both parties have full access to and should be familiar with--especially the Speaker! To not be heard because they are the Opposition is unacceptable, whether it's PLP or UBP. It is dangerous and beside the point to argue that this balance can be let go. It seems as though Lowe does not have procedure down. I would argue just as vociferously if the situation had been reversed, and the UBP had tried to force a vote on something that had not been presented, and the PLP walked out. In 2005 I want a government that works!

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 25.05.05 at 17:42]

Raptor,

I do not disagree with you, however, when I refer to "knowledge" I am referring to Sleepy stating "my" lack of knowledge of parliamentary procedure. I agree that any one who runs for public office must know and understand parliamentary procedure otherwise it delays the due process of parliament.

Terry,

Actually I had a very good day yesterday. I never said using my real name made me more worthy but if someone is going to come after me surely they should do so using their real name. Surely, I have a right to know who my attacker is, do I not?

As far as getting it from both sides, so what. My skin is not thin, I can take criticism and more importantly I am not afraid to be criticised.

"I think some of the personal stuff you fling around is diviceive."

Please show me were I have ever made personal attacks on anyone. So where is this decivisivemness you talk about? I may attack someone's position but I NEVER go after the person. That is not who I am and all my writings have shown that.

[slowhand on 25.05.05 at 17:49]

"What should they have done? They should have realised that they are in Opposition and that as Opposition sometimes what they want to present will not be heard because they are the minority in the House. It is no different from Parliament in the U.K. or any other Parliament around the world."

Well, this seems to be the common misunderstanding of what the Opposition is supposed to do. NEVER did the previous Opposition do this... And rightly so. Nor should the present Opposition.

[lickinalong on 25.05.05 at 18:14]

The Westminster Parliamentary system does not translate well to small communities such as Bermuda. This is another example of that fact. In the UK where you have 650 parliamentarians the politics is less personal. The speaker is exceedingly careful not to be biased. My guess is that he is supported by independent legal counsel to advise him.

In this situation, the Speaker, since he did not seem to know the rules should have called for a short recess, checked the various rules, met with the leaders of both parties and then made his decision. Instead he made what appears to be a highly partisan decision.

This is an area where our constitution needs to be changed. The Speaker should be appointed by the Governor after consultation with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. He should have his own legal counsel, independent of the Government to advise him. He should not be an elected individual and as a result should not be able to vote. Instead tied votes would automatically be won by the Government.

In Bermuda this would be a fairer and more just way of managing debate in the house.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 25.05.05 at 20:34]

Lickinalong,

Very well said and I am in full agreement with your comments.

[Onion on 25.05.05 at 21:01]

Yes, lickinalong, that would ensure a degree of impartiality in the Speaker.

Terry, chill out. Nobody has been attacking anyone personally on this thread.

[jake on 26.05.05 at 08:16]

Phil,

Your comment that the court analogy does not fit because of a lack of appeals route does not fit. Consider the lack of appeal in the Privy Council. Does that entitle lawyers or appellants the right to storm out if they lose? Of course not. They would be in contempt, and frankly for those who practice at that level it is unthinkable.

Parliamentary behaviour is what we should demand from our politicians. The UBP failed at it on that day. We can differ on the merits of their procedural claim, but can you honestly endorse the walkout as a means to debate in Parliament, Phil?

[sleepy on 26.05.05 at 11:18]

Nonsense. They didn't "walkout as a means to debate" they walked out because debate was being prevented.

Big difference.

[jake on 26.05.05 at 13:08]

I have no doubt that you see a difference Sleepy, but I was directing my question at Phil.

Since you think it is nonsense, however, how do you feel litigants should behave where they have had a ruling go against them, where they believe it was unfair? Do you apply the same standard to Parliamentary proceedings?

Help me to understand why the UBP did the right thing in your eyes by breaking the rules of Parliamentary behaviour, and when it would be ok for the PLP to do so as well.

Please be awake when you are answering the questions.

[sleepy on 26.05.05 at 13:17]

Care to point me to the rule which states that people cannot leave Parliament while in session?

[Terry on 26.05.05 at 13:31]

Jake, Sarcasism is naughty and down right rude.Sleepy was awake, so am I. One can leave anytime they want. Democracy, ever heard of it?. Thats not sarcasim, thats a fact.

Terry.

[The Limey on 26.05.05 at 13:33]

Take your point jake, but has the Privy Council ever taken an action which it has been unable to justify according to its own rules? It's not an issue of one of the litigants having a decision go against them, it's that a decision was taken which could not be justified by the rules of the chamber.

What's more, Parliament clearly does not take itself as seriously as the Privy Council does. When would you hear one lawyer yelling to another "you're getting a lesson now!" or affecting a mocking English accent? As such, it seems inappropriate to compare the two bodies.

I'm still conflicted about what the UBP should have done. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder if walking out was perhaps the only option they had.

[Point on 26.05.05 at 13:34]

jake

Your scenario assumes the speaker has sufficient knowledge of the relevant proceedings in the same way a judge/magistrate would have in court. He did not.

[Onion on 26.05.05 at 13:45]

Limey,

You give lawyers too much credit if you think theatrics don't go on in court. You give judges too much credit if you think those on the Privy Council bench are not subject to make mistakes.

A lawyer cannot walk out in a tantrum just because all avenues of appeal have been exhausted.

[sleepy on 26.05.05 at 13:51]

But the point is that to go through all avenues of appeal lots of judges review the details and in theory errors will be caught and corrected.

In the Parliamentary case, which really doesn't equate to a courtroom at all, if the Speaker errors the only recourse you have is to protest by not participating.

Endorsing the error out of some odd idea of procedure would be boneheaded.

Lowe pushed it straight to a vote without explaining the basis for his unprecedented action. There was no choice.

[ace on 26.05.05 at 13:54]

Can I get some clarification please?

Did the PLP ever walk out in the past?

If they did then surely that is sufficient to justify the actions of the UBP?

It's just the old "They did it, so why can't we" merry-go-round argument, I know, but it seems to be enough to justify much these days.

[Onion on 26.05.05 at 13:57]

Sleepy, as I said, I don't know parliamentary procedure that well. Bermuda has the oldest Parliament outside of Westminster. Has this never happened before? Has no-one taken into account what is the appropriate recourse. After umteen ceturies this is the best we can come up with?

I need to go read that authority on parliamentary procedure someone recommended earlier.

[desperado on 26.05.05 at 14:05]

"Did the PLP ever walk out in the past? If they did then surely that is sufficient to justify the actions of the UBP?"

Sleepy, I've said it before, I'll say it again. Parliamentarians who take exception to a ruling by the Speaker that seems to fly in the face of Parliamentary procedure are fully within their rights to protest by exiting the chamber. It's happened in Bermuda at least half-a-dozen times in the past that I can think of - with the then PLP Opposition leading the charge on every occasion. Such rapid exits may be undignified. But they are not unparliamentary.

"I need to go read that authority on parliamentary procedure someone recommended earlier."

It's called Parliamentary Practice & Procedure by Erskine May, Onion. Should act as the Speaker's de facto rule book. Whenever you hear MPs calling out "Point of order, Mr. Speaker" they are challenging an opponent based on a procedural point enumerated in this volume.

[sleepy on 26.05.05 at 14:59]

Desperado, you're referring to Ace I think.

Onion, I've read Erskine May during my university days and still own a copy.

[desperado on 26.05.05 at 15:08]

"Desperado, you're referring to Ace I think."

I think you're absolutely right. Sorry ...

[jake on 26.05.05 at 15:31]

Phil,

"Take your point jake, but has the Privy Council ever taken an action which it has been unable to justify according to its own rules? It's not an issue of one of the litigants having a decision go against them, it's that a decision was taken which could not be justified by the rules of the chamber."

Court decisions, like Speaker's decisions can be seen as wrong - even at the highest levels. That is why the House of Lords (or Privy Council in Bermuda - same guys though) can overrule prior decisions of the same body. What is clear, but obvious to me that you have difficulty accepting - is that it is improper to stomp out because you deem yourself wronged. You can complain, and you can even make noice about it in the press afterwards. You should not act in an un Parliamentary manner. There is NO EXCUSE which justifies it. Certainly not a decision by the Speaker in the heat of an argument.

"What's more, Parliament clearly does not take itself as seriously as the Privy Council does. When would you hear one lawyer yelling to another "you're getting a lesson now!" or affecting a mocking English accent? As such, it seems inappropriate to compare the two bodies."

You do not know what you are talking about here Phil and you are grasping a straws. They are both judicial formus set by rules of behaviour and are directly analogous. Lawyers make dumb comments all the time under their breath, both in Bermuda and the UK. Same in Parliament.

You seem hung up on the bad behaviour of the PLP members. Are you saying that poor behaviour is one sided? Does it justify leaving the chamber en masse?

Basically: why can you not bring yourself to call it what it was - wrong.

[Point on 26.05.05 at 15:43]

jake

the poor behaviour is clearly on the part of the speaker....you just can't bring yourself to accept that.

[Andrew on 26.05.05 at 16:03]

I agree Phil, there really wasn't much they could do. They stood on principle and left in protest. For that I applaud them. That to avoid compromising their position they had to break Parliamentary rules, is truly regrettable.

When you consider the alternative, leaving in protest was the only choice.

qui tacet consentiret

[Terry on 26.05.05 at 16:11]

Woh Ho Andrew, thats Heavy. I think the Premier, the Speaker and a couple of the ones that walked out, should go to that back room where they keep the liquor and have a chat. Can you imagine the Publics view of this if they came out and just said, 'its behind us and were moving on for the good of the People'. That would make me proud to be a Bermudian Onion.
Oh yes Mr. Andrew, I know the phrase from an old Boss.

Terry.

[JJ on 26.05.05 at 17:11]

Why do we keep harping on about whether or not the UPB was right or wrong to walk out? Most people seem to feel it was regretable but perhaps the only option. Isn't the desire to stifle debate on the part of the PLP (and seemingly the Speaker) the more unseemly part of the debacle regardless of the UBP's response?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 26.05.05 at 17:12]

Can someone please explain to me why the UBP walking out is such a big deal? Aside from publicity what did it accomplish? Nothing!

As far as I am concerned they can walk out anytime they wish because their walking out should not stop the business of the House.

Their walking out was nothing more than grandstanding because they surely were not properly representing their various constituencies by walking out.

I keep reading that they had no choice, I disagree, as adults we always have a choice regarding our actions. Are they going to walk out on every occasion that the Speaker goes against them?

Did the Speaker make an error regarding Parliamentary procedure? Maybe but rest assured he will make more mistakes just as the rest of us human make mistakes. From what I have heard and read over the years Stanley Lowe, overall, has done a very good job as Speaker and has been as impartial as a politician can be expected to be.

For the record, when you are elected by the people, Government or Opposition, and you walk out of the House proceedings you do a disservice to those who put you there.

[jake on 26.05.05 at 17:15]

There was no need to walk out. They did not need to be silent, they could have dealt with it like leaders and parliamentarians.

I do not excuse Lowe or condemn him, as I have not studied the procedure any more than any of you.

But of course, the UBP can do no wrong in your eyes. That is sad.

[Andrew on 26.05.05 at 17:35]

Jake,

The UBP has done wrong in the past, and will certainly continue to do so in the future. So stop with the strawman arugments and let's debate this.

This isn't about procedure, it's about principle. What authority is vested in the rules if they can be concieved on the spot?

This was to Parliamentary democracy what show-trials are to justice. It is indefensible. Period.

I see this, I sense the majority of Bermudians see this. What do you see, sir?

[Terry on 26.05.05 at 17:38]

Mr. Jake, please refer to Andrews comment.

Qui tacet consentiret. You can only take so much and be silent so long.

In my eyes, whom ever does wrong will have to deal with me....

Terry.

[JJ on 26.05.05 at 18:14]

GG wrote
"Can someone please explain to me why the UBP walking out is such a big deal? Aside from publicity what did it accomplish? Nothing!"

I agree. As I said above, the more unseemly part of the debacle was the government's desire to side step debate on an issue which is important to a large number of constituents who live in the roads concerned.

[loki on 26.05.05 at 18:18]

Who cares? Neither party has the monopoly on bad behaviour. I don't blame the UBP for walking out and certainly don't condone the low tactics that this government has consistently used to try to stifle debate (this has been a pretty consistent theme), but this is unfortunately how Bermudians seem to accept Parliament. This didn't just start last week and it won't end anytime soon. Until Bermudians teach our parliamentarians that we expect more from them, it's going to be business as usual. When Stuart Hayward was an MP, I sat in the House on an occasion when every single member of the PLP and UBP (apart from the Speaker) left the Chamber as he began to speak. Bad behaviour in the House is nothing new.

[Terry on 26.05.05 at 18:54]

GG wrote why is it a big deal. Because the Limey and the News media made it so. Compehend?

Terry.

[jake on 26.05.05 at 19:25]

Andrew,

If you equate the comments on this site with the majority of Bermuda then you need to examine your sample size.

As for silence equating agreement, the saying, whilst quaint, and latin to boot, is not appropriate. The UBP should have remained in situ and dealt with parliamentary business in a parliamentary fashion. To do so does not equate to silence. It means using the tools provided by the system that has governed us to complain and seek change. Electoral persuassion should have been the objective, not disrespecting the house.

I know it is hard (for you) to not have them in power, but I am less understanding of poor conduct because I saw people out of power for over 30 years receive much worse, and deal with it much better. If you examine Governor's reports and commission reports you will see time and time again PLP members acknowledged as loyal opposition members, and parliamentarians. If we behaved as the UBP members do each time they are reminded that they did not win the election, it would be equally unacceptable.

The house should be a place of dignity and there is no argument - in latin or english - that would make me think it was ok to depart from that standard. Even indignation has its limits.

[Andrew on 26.05.05 at 19:32]

To all,

It's a big deal because this is finally what it has come to. It's a big deal because the PLP's intoxication on power has reached its legal limit. It's one thing to be arrogant, quite another to be autocratic.

I would argue the importance of this is self-evident. Our Parliamentary tradition is long and distinguished. Most of us would like to keep it like that.

It's extremely important.

[Andrew on 26.05.05 at 19:55]

Jake,

Your position is absurd.

Whether you like the expression or not, whether you like the fact that it's in latin or not, it's entirely appropriate.

Why should the Opposition have stayed there? Why should they expect to endure something so unendurable? Why dignify such an indignity? Watchdogs should not be muzzled.

This transcends Parliament. This goes beyond the walls of the House of Assembly. This was an insult to all Bermudians.

There's a quote by William Hazlitt that I'm trying desperately to remember. Until it comes to me, I stand by the first quote. Had the Opposition stayed it would have lent credibility and validity to something bereft of both and deserving of neither.

[JJ on 26.05.05 at 19:59]

Jake

Do you think it was an example of good/acceptable "parliamentary fashion" to stifle debate?
I have read your opinions and debates on this web site and you strike me as an intelligent person who can, when you want to, see both sides of the argument.

Can you not see/admit that this flouting of the democratic process, regardless of the fact that the PLP has the majority of seats, is bad?

[Longtime Lurker on 26.05.05 at 20:16]

As a young Bermudian who's never taken the time to read up on my parliamentary history or rules (shame on me!), I'm going to admit my ignorance on this issue rather than take sides straight away. For the sake of myself and anyone else in this thread who isn't versed on parliamentary rules, can someone answer a few questions?

Here's what I see as being important:

- It seems that the PLP and the speaker acted wrongly in cutting off debate over the motion. However, were official rules broken, or did they simply ignore past precadent?

- Similarly, are there rules stating that MPs should remain in the House while it is in session, or is this just unofficially seen as respect that the House is owed?

- A question that's appeared often in this thread is "What should the UBP have done?" I haven't seen a satisfactory answer yet. Are there parliamentary procedures for an Opposition that believes the Speaker is acting in a partisan manner, and if so, what are they?

- What is the history of walking out of the House? It's been mentioned in this thread that this was done by the PLP during their tenure as the Opposition. But does this mean that one PLP MP lost his temper and stormed out, or does the entire party leaving have any history as a form of protest?

- Finally, what is "parliamentary" behavior? I've always thought of parliamentary systems as being fairly boisterous and disorderly compared to the US Senate - and that this was a good thing! Am I wrong in thinking that this isn't that big a deal, unless you're the media or trying to score political points off the behavior of your opposing party?

[Andrew on 26.05.05 at 20:37]

Following an arduous search of the RG archive, it turns out that the Opposition has walked out of the House before.

I believe I remember listening to this. There were only a few members left in the house, and the incident wasn't quite as dramatic as last week's.

http://www.theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030224/NEWS/102240008

[jake on 26.05.05 at 20:40]

"Can you not see/admit that this flouting of the democratic process, regardless of the fact that the PLP has the majority of seats, is bad?"

I see huge problems with preventing debate. I am not so clear on parliamentary procedure, but I am able to see procedural foolishness when it rears its head. It is wrong for the PLP to do so.

That said, I know it to be the case that in Parliament under both Governments this happens. Debates that go all night are another example the UBP used to keep people in the PLP from commenting when the UBP was in Government.

What I find objectionable is the failure of people on this site to call the UBP out when they do wrong. It is always an admission of wrong in the distant past. Never at the time.

I have accepted your invitation to call out the PLP. Who will cross the line and do the same for their party?

[loki on 26.05.05 at 21:51]

"I have accepted your invitation to call out the PLP. Who will cross the line and do the same for their party?"

Well, I hope that my previous post qualifies: to clarify, if that is necessary, the PLP's behaviour, and particularly that of Alex Scott, Ewart Brown and Derrick Burgess, was deplorable. I personally don't have a problem with the UBP walk-out in the circumstances. Not sure that they had any other choice but to refuse to dignify what the PLP was doing. Having said that, bad behaviour in the House isn't new. The UBP did much the same when they were in power. Let's not kid ourselves here, please. I don't blame the parties as much as I blame myself and my fellow Bermudians for teaching the parties that this behaviour is acceptable

Andrew,

"I see this, I sense the majority of Bermudians see this."

With respect, I disagree with you on this point. I don't think most Bermudians care about what does or does not go on in Parliament.

Loki,

"Not sure that they had any other choice but to refuse to dignify what the PLP was doing."

If the UBP stayed in the House I do not think that would be dignifying what the PLP was doing. At the end of the day the UBP walking out solved nothing, it still didn't get the matter resolved. How many people would be able to ke their jobs if, due to frustration, they walked off the job? Very few.

The UBP would have risen above te antics of te PLP had they stayed in the House. As far as I am concerned when fighting for something you believe in you do not simply give up, unless of course you are not really all that committed to what you are fighting for and you want some media attention.