The UBP’s consultative forum

The UBP’s “consultative forum” at Francis Patton School last night wasn’t quite as consultative as the name would suggest.

I rushed to get there for 7pm, the scheduled start time. I don’t know why I bothered. The meeting started on time, but for the first 35 minutes I had to listen to Lady Tyson and the O’Connor family singing about the hero that lies inside me, and praising the Lord.

I was unimpressed. I had gone to the meeting to hear about the UBP’s plans for the country, not attend a concert. One song I could have suffered through. But three? I was on the point of walking out; I understand that several other members of the audience actually did.

While waiting for the meeting to start, I read through the party’s “8 pathways”, listed on a poster at the front of the hall. I first saw these at the UBP’s meeting at the Southampton Princess earlier this year. Most were clear and direct: “housing”, “healthcare”, “education and training”, “targeting disadvantaged groups”, “a sense of community”, “basic necessities” and “employment”. One, however, was not: “Bridging the Great Divide”.

I assumed (correctly, as it turned out) that this was referring to the UBP’s desire to tackle racism. The wording struck me as odd, however. It was as if the UBP is still so self-conscious about the race issue that it can’t quite bring itself to refer to it directly. Why “Bridging the Great Divide”? Why not simply “eliminating racial disadvantage”?

The moderator for the evening was someone called Simone Barton. I can’t tell you why she was the moderator, because she didn’t explain her involvement with the UBP. Her preachy introduction made me feel like I was in church. She paced up and down the aisle declaring that “Bermuda is a country that needs to be protected!” and “We are here because we care!”, to appreciative shouts of “All right!” and “Mm hmm!” from the audience. I felt like I was at an event for the party faithful, not one that was trying to reach out to PLP supporters or undecided voters. Perhaps others appreciated the gospel style, but it left me cold.

So it was a relief when Wayne Furbert finally stepped up to the podium. Much of his speech was the usual political motherhood, bemoaning the state of the country under the PLP and emphasising the need for change. “This event signals the start of a new era!” he declared, but didn’t say why. Par for the course for a political rally, I suppose, but I was more interested how the UBP intend to effect change than what they think needs changing.

At one point, while talking about the need to provide affordable housing for everyone, Mr. Furbert started to choke up. “That shows he’s genuine” said one woman behind me, approvingly. I gagged, overcome by a tsunami of cynicism.

Tears won’t build houses. You need a plan for that. And I didn’t hear one.

There were some concrete commitments, however. Mr. Furbert reiterated the UBP’s pledge to introduce fixed-term elections, and open up House committees. He was less emphatic about his belief in referenda, however, saying only that they will “have to be considered”. He made no mention of introducing a mechanism to allow the recall of an MP mid-term.

I was pleased to learn that Deputy Leader Michael Dunkley writes a letter to his constituents after every session of parliament, explaining what happened and the positions the UBP took. I think that’s a great idea – but why not put it online, so everyone can read and discuss it?

Ideas that I hadn’t heard before included their plan to introduce permanent offices in each constituency, specify a minimum number of hours that each of their MPs should spend on constituency matters, and set aside a fixed sum of money for each constituency for things such as road repairs. Sounds nice, but is it an effective way to work? What would be the cost of having an office in each constituency? What is the benefit of budgeting for repair work on a constituency level? What if the needs of one constituency are greater than those of another?

To emphasise his determination to effect change, Mr. Furbert promised to retire from politics (not just step down from the leadership) if the UBP does not deliver on its promises. Initially he said that would be if the party failed to deliver healthcare and housing for seniors. Later in the evening, however, he seemed to tie his fortune to his ability to deliver on all the party’s promises.

This is a bold move, but for it to mean anything Mr. Furbert will need to be more specific. Which objectives is Mr. Furbert committing himself to? Are they specific, measurable and time-constrained? Is he promising that the UBP will meet all of them, three-quarters, half, or what?

The final 40 minutes was turned over to “quick questions” from the audience. I was disappointed by this. As this had been billed as a “consultative forum”, I had been hoping for a longer, deeper discussion.

Ultimately, the evening felt more like an opportunity for us to consult the UBP than for them to consult us.

Comments

[Charles on 19.07.06 at 20:08]

Why “Bridging the Great Divide”? Why not simply “eliminating racial disadvantage”?
LIMEY,

Why racial disadvantage at all? You can level the playing field all you want but that won't necessarily eliminate racism of every kind. Why not (Eliminating the stigma of racism forever)?

[SmokingGun on 19.07.06 at 20:55]

Good point charles but I like the fact that Limey picked up on the insecurities that seem to still be apparent.

As much as I like to use a coloquism I think the party needs to be far more explicit and simplistic about how they present their case. No pie in the sky ideas about how this or that's going to happen. We will do A, B, C and then we will do D, E and F. And after that we will make sure G, H & I are taken care of. After all is said and done we will have X, Y & Z in place.

I think a good start would be for the individual UBP members to simply sign off on the code of conduct by themselves. Forget about the PLP.

[Wayne Furbert on 20.07.06 at 07:11]

Limey let me thnak you for coming. Although I do not agree with everything you have written I take your point and will improve it.

It was our intention not to be specific at this forum.

However, I can assure you that we will drill down and lay out our plans going forward at future meetings.

You have heard me before say that my interest is Bermuda, and that I want to do what is best.

Based on that if the United Bermuda Party can not deliver on some of the most important issues facing the country and peoples hopes continue to be dashed than I personally would feel that I have failed, and hence I feel I would need to step aside and let someone else do it.

Remember it is not about you or me it is about the greater good.

Thanks

Wayne

[chapa on 20.07.06 at 07:54]

I had planned to attend the meeting on Tuesday evening in the company of three young voters, but having seen the meeting advertised 'somewhere' was unable to relocate the information. Might I suggest that these 'open forums' be advertised more prominently for those of us who are perhaps not as organised as we should be.

I am upset that I missed the meeting.

[Bill Cook on 20.07.06 at 09:04]

I did not attend the meeting but 3 friends did and commented on the singing etc.

I am non religious but respectful of those who are, however politics and religion is a dangerous mix in my opinion.

I think an opening prayer would be acceptable but I and I imagine others are more interested in finding solutions to problems to move the country forward than listening to something that would be more at home in church.

If I had gone I would have wanted to know what the UBP thought about the proposal to destroy the SPH golf course to turn it into a condominium village for foreign owners who could own cars etc.

If I want to nurture my spiritual side there is channel 13 on television for those interested.

[Darkside on 20.07.06 at 09:17]

WF: "It was our intention not to be specific at this forum."

With all due respect Mr. Furbert, Bermudians need to hear some specifics (from both parties I might add). Time is running out and I believe we would all like to see specific plans for taking us all forward. I realise it is politically safe to adopt a "sit back and wait approach" but our problems are real and they are confronting us now. We need to know what each party plans to do about these issues now (even if such plans are not perfect at this time). It is time to go out on a limb and suggest clear plans of action even if doing so exposes your party to potential risk. To do so would demonstrate the decisive fortitude that this country’s leadership and Bermuda itself so desperately requires.

[SmokingGun on 20.07.06 at 10:33]

Mr. Furbert - If I may make one suggestion. Make good use of this blog and any others that allow you and your team to get good solid discourse going with Bermuda.

It is a wasted opportunity that the current administration sorely misses out on making good use of.

Oh and one other thing. Bermuda has watched our government get more and more bloated with excessive hirings and expenses. Please be careful not to add to it with additional infrastructural and duplication of jobs. We need efficiency, streamlining and accountability and above all less waste.

Thanks for taking the time.

[Linda on 20.07.06 at 11:18]

Thanks for filling us in on what we missed at the meeting Limey. I too would have liked to attend, but find 7.00pm a bit on the early side. Trying to get dinner cooked and downed that early is a stretch. Would like to see the next meeting moved up to at least 8.00pm. I also thank Mr. Furbert for responding, and would be very interested in hearing from other members of parliament on some of the topics addressed on this forum.

[Wayne Furbert on 20.07.06 at 22:48]

I have noted all your comments and will implement them the next time.

By the way there will be NO SINGING (smile) unless it is me.

Wayne

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 20.07.06 at 22:51]

As long as it isn't "My Way", Mr. Furbert. We've had enough of that song. *grin*

Oh.. and "I Will Survive".

That one's not a joke. I just hate that song.

[teacher on 22.07.06 at 18:29]

"Remember it is not about you or me it is about the greater good."
Wayne Furburt

Wayne, it was nice to see that you listened to the comments here and seemed to have taken some of them on board.

I have got to tell you however; I think that you should be taking every opportunity to explain UBP policies and start to explain to people like me why we should vote for your party.

In many cases, this present administration is as effective as a chocolate fireguard; yet, your party does not seem able to build on this opportunity. You are in opposition, so start to tell us why we should use our vote to vote you in.

Its time to stop talking in abstract notions of the greater good and get down to specifics at every opportunity. Take my field, education. What are you going to do about the school system? How do we know which schools are performing well? How do parents know? Why isn’t the Ministry of Education inspected by HMI for Education? Like other agencies such as the police. If we want to build a robust system that is fit for purpose then its time to speak clearly and plainly. My Union would probably be annoyed by my comments, but it’s the parents who have votes not the Union.

Think of all the money that tax payers have put into the system. Are they getting value for money? The answer is we don’t know.