March Madness

Opposition Senator Bob Richards was absolutely right to point out the insanity of three members of the Cabinet participating in the march for affordable housing earlier this week.

The march was a protest against the government. Clearly, members of the government should not have joined it. That Terry Lister (Minister for Education and Development), Walter Lister (Minister Without Portfolio) and Patrice Minors (Minister of Health and Family Services) are all members of the Cabinet makes their participation even more ludicrous. They were, in effect, publicly criticising the Government's housing policy (or lack of it), a violation of Cabinet collective responsibility. That their participation had the blessing of Cabinet merely suggests a cynical attempt by the PLP to hijack the march.

To be honest, the response of politicians on both sides left me cold. Premier Alex Scott's warning that the protesters should not allow themselves to be used by political forces was insensitive and condescending. I didn't think much of Kim Swan using the march to deliver a fiery speech either, which just politicised the rally further. I was left with the impression that both political parties saw the event as an opportunity to fire shots at each other. The protesters seemed to be caught in the middle.

This was meant to be a demonstration by the people. The UBP should have stayed away from the rally, unless their MPs wished to participate in a personal capacity. The PLP should have limited their involvement to meeting the marchers outside parliament and listening sympathetically to their concerns. By marching alongside the protesters the politicians came across as scheming, not sympathetic.

Comments

[Cancundreaming on 21.07.05 at 18:46]

Isn't this one of those issues that while we can all start debating the roles of cabinet collective responsibility, the hypocrisy of the PLP etc, we really don’t know what happened. Were the Cabinet members invited generally? Where they invited personally? Did they ask for permission from the organizers? Were they hiding in the bushes waiting for the march to pass them so that they could jump in half way?

Limey, you haven’t answered these questions, and without doing so I don’t see how you can form your condemnation. If anyone knows the answer, it would be cool to know so it could be judged properly.

[Steve Moffat on 21.07.05 at 19:15]

Yeah, they were there because they all need low cost houses...

[ace on 21.07.05 at 21:04]

I thought it was an interesting tactic. Instead of lambasting the protestors they joined in.

It is comedy gold, but it was interesting.

[waiting on 21.07.05 at 21:33]

Limey,/
/
Please forgive me for not addressing the topic but I have a question. For the last week or so whenever I click on comments to one of your articles I get a very long delay before they come up. Sometimes almost 2 minutes! This is new. Have you changed something or do I have byte size gremlins?

[The Limey on 21.07.05 at 21:36]

waiting - I've not changed anything. But Typepad have "upgraded" their service at the beginning of July, which seems to have made many things slower. The delays you're experiencing could be a result of that.

[hotspur on 21.07.05 at 21:39]

It looked like there were maybe 50 or so people marching down Front St. It really was a scraggy looking group which was surprising because this is supposed to be such an important issue.

Maybe the problem’s not really that bad or is it just that most Bermudians couldn’t give a toss?

[Save De Cut on 21.07.05 at 22:47]

Everyone seems to be worried that members of the Government joined the march. I think the real irony is that members of the opposition who march one day with people who don't want houses in their back yard joined a march crying for more affordable houses. The opposition need to make up it's mind.....you can't have it both ways you are either in favour of building houses or not!

[jake on 22.07.05 at 11:33]

I think their joining was more misguided than cynical.

The PLP have always been the party of the placard. Union and Party supporters have been co-mingled from the inception of party politics. It is hard to be on the other side now - to actually be "the Man" now. It is the same uneasiness expressed when Union leaders become management. It is not so easy to watch profits float out the door to the workers when the door is yours.

You are right that the role they should have played was to listen. The UBP can join in the march as they are playing the contra-Government role anyway. The protestors may not have wanted them however. They do not make up the traditional power base of the UBP anyway. People without housing are less likely to register to vote, and under our old system they were the ones most likely to want to do so and be turned away at the polling station. Under our current system they don't need to register annually, so both parties would be well served to listen to them and attend to their needs.

[Two Cents on 22.07.05 at 11:58]

No wonder only 50 people turned up to march

Who plans a march at 12 Noon on weekday ???

With that timing a more suitable march would be for the "unemployed" not the "homeless"

[Shree Cents on 22.07.05 at 21:07]

The fact that only approximately 45 to 50 people showed up including 7 or 8 politicans might be an indication that although there is a housing shortage maybe the problem is not as great as some people make it out to be. It was also interesting that only black members of the U.B.P. were reported to have showed up.....Wayne Furbert,Louise Jackson,Kim Swan and Jamal Simmons. I'm sure white members of the U.B.P. would not or really did not feel comfortable marching as jake said, open displays of protest has always exclusivley been a "black " thing in Bermuda. Whites have never really felt the need or maybe never really had to fight for rights in BDA they were always a given.Unfortunately everything in Bermuda still generally comes down to Black & White.....until problems become collectively our problems the chances of solving them I believe are very slim.

[Cancundreaming on 23.07.05 at 09:40]

Shree Cents,

I wouldn’t use the number of people, or the lack there of, as an indication of the housing problem. Many of the people on this site are some of the most cynical Bermudians I’ve meet, I’m not excluding myself, and if you ‘guys’ were given an opportunity to march for an issue you believe, I think the answer would be this. (at least for some of you)

Q: Let’s march today for (insert issue here) from Front Street to the Cabinet House.

A: I would, but do you really expect the government to do anything about it even if I were to march? Exactly, so what should I?

The lack of marchers does not mean the problem is unimportant, exaggerated or that it doesn’t have island wide support. Also, from my understanding, the march was scheduled for noon on a Wednesday. Once you take that into consideration, there were probably a number of practical reason why many people didn’t participate.

I’m not sure about the motives of the UBP or the organizers of the march, like most people I can’t read their minds. But if you’re right, that only the black members of the UBP felt comfortable marching, it illustrates a larger problem I think, if some black Bermudians feel that white UBP members aren’t comfortable marching with them, however are you going to convince them that the UBP should govern them.

[Bill Cook on 23.07.05 at 10:15]

Regarding politicians joining any marches any realist would view as probably more interested in votes than genuine concern, even though in my opinion those esp Louise Jackson have a clear record of concern over a long period of time.

As for those black members of the UBP not representing the power base may at one time had some merit but today very little.

I am a member and the democratic process is pretty well established, ie black members have contested seats for areas with white members of long standing and won,and I can state that the black membership is made up of strong individuals who make their presence felt and are not any more yes men/women than I am.

Trouble is when one tries to get a fair representation to reflect our diversity we are condemned for using people if we dont we are accused of racism,damned if you do and damned if you dont.

The housing problem is REAL its not racial and the small turnout in no way reflects the importance of the matter.

Some Bermudians who are not in a high paying job but work hard and honestly simply cannot afford the high cost of living and struggle,its not just the irresponsible and the least among us need a roof over our heads regardless.

There is no way everyone can afford a house even a lower cost house but its no shame in renting a government subsidised unit and it is governments responsibility to put money into this situation as otherways the problem will not be solved.

No sane businessman will put money into building units to lose his money.

The difficulty is that these units will house the responsible and the irresponsible those who will keep up their places and those who will not

[save d cut on 23.07.05 at 12:44]

I agree that units will house the responsible as well as the irriesponsible. Where I have concern is Government is working with the people's money....its all if us who are helping the irrisponsible. I know Government is obligated to help but am I? I ask this after was educated on the cost and up keep of those beautiful nails, while I have to bit mine to make sure my essential bills are met monthly.

[Bill Cook on 23.07.05 at 13:13]

Save,

The problem is not the gov spending our money its just that gov world wide dont get the biggest bang for the buck.

If there is an acceptable alternative I have not heard anyone put it forward to date.

We have to elevate the education of the irresponsible so that they will become responsible not excusing their irresponsibility or being in denial.

[Martin on 23.07.05 at 13:57]

Save...

Sadly - that's part of being in a democracy. When MP's spend on your behalf, they do so with your authority, blessing, support and any other word they can come up with.

If we don't like it - we change the Government.

At least - that's the idea!!

[save d cut on 23.07.05 at 16:10]

Speaking of Gov spending....approximately how much would it cost to have an environmental imapact study done????? Now that would be money well spent!!!

[Terry on 23.07.05 at 16:37]

I must commend Bill Cook on his thoughts and presentaion. I mus admit that there are a lot who do contribute and most with good intentiions and forethought.

Bill, with your forthright and simple use of the language that we all use, I feel better knowing that someone, somewhere, overthere really feels the needs and can use some common sense as to how to address them.

Also thanks for the support your give overseas as well as that you give at home.

And thanks to that Limey guy/gal that gave us the avenue to express our views and have thenm recorded in the annals of history.

A great day too all.

Terrytoons..................................

[Shree Cents on 23.07.05 at 21:25]

I assume Save De Cut may be talking about an environmenal impact study on the effects of widening the passage at cut road St.George's to accomodate Minister Dr. Brown's Super Cruise ships. If in fact that is what she is referring to, I fully agree that it needs to be done before they blow up the island at the mouth of the town cut channel and expose St. George's Harbour to the open ocean more that the shoreline and costal infastructure can possibly handle. Besides does St. George's really need more tourist, it is impossible to move in the old town now when the two normal ships are in port. Back to housing though.... as I said before the opposition seems to have lead the charge against the Government on every housing project that they have proposed lately John Barritt at Mary Victoria Road, Kim Swan at Anchorage Raod in St. Georges and Susan Holshouser at Southside in St David's Mrs. Holshouer even went as far as to join the list of objectors to planning. Opposition for opposition sake in this case is stupid and dangerous. The country needs more affordable units!

[TheSpectre on 24.07.05 at 10:13]

Well I believe some have missed the point of this post that being it was improper for Government Ministers to participate in a march against the present administration.

I could see through a Government backbencher supporting this cause but not a sitting Minister.

And while this situation is not derived of Government legislation but what is viewed as a lack of proactive solutions to the problem making it rather hypocritical for Ministers to support a cause that for the most part is suppossed to bring pressure on the presnt Administration and by association themselves to act.

Also it is easy to view their participation as little more than courting the voting public this I find rather distasteful and improper.

In my oppinion the "Honourable" aproach would have been to stand and recieve the marchers listen to their concerns and make more than the half hearted shortsighted approach to solving this crisis than what has been seen to date.

And as it relates to sustainable development we have clearly moved beyond saturation point, even the common layman can see that.

Maybe we can invite that little Dutch lad to stick his finger in the leaking dam in the hope of avoiding all out catastrophe until we can look to replace what clearly is an out of touch Administration.

PS "Dont Make/Let It Happen Again"