C4C calls for committee rule

| 16/01/2013

IMG-20130115-00431 (225x300).jpg(CNS):  Cayman should strive for a committee style government in which independent minded politicians of integrity will analyse and review the issues facing the islands and come to some form of consensus in the best interests of the country, says the Coalition for Cayman (C4C). The public advocacy group, think tank, potential watch dog and political supporter of the principle of independence, that is itself struggling not to fall into the trap of becoming a political group, believes that while party politics may be a modern day reality, Cayman could still have a committee style government akin to that in the Channel Islands, a style of rule that the former premier, McKeeva Bush, had also advocated in the past when he criticised the constitution for institutionalising advarsarial politics.

In a presentation to the media on Tuesday, James Bergstrom, the group’s executive committee chair, said the coalition wanted to put Cayman back on course towards a style of government that was more problem solving than political, where the representatives sought out the best solutions based on knowledge and sound advice.

Admitting that this might be a naïve position, Bergstrom said he believed that, despite the current situation and Cayman’s constitution being geared towards party politics, the country could still try for a committee style government. 

The group believes that within the party system the politicians are acting on the basis of what they are being told by the party leaders, and not acting on their own conscience. This form of government, it says, is not democratic.

“We are optimistic and believe we can make a change,” Bergstrom stated in the face of questions from the press regarding the entrenchment of party politics in Cayman's political, system and difficulties with forming governments made up of people with opposing views on the main issues of the day.

As C4C is not a party, the chair said; it has supporters — not members — who share their position on the need for better government and who oppose the party system. He said the goal of C4C would be to give their candidates advice on policy but not make policy, despite the publication of their founding principles, which could be interpreted as a policy direction. Nevertheless, Bergstrom added that the group would adopt some positions, though he was not clearon whether this was policy or principle in terms of specific issues.

Wrestling to explain its own identity and how the C4C would expect to see a government formed if candidates of diametrically opposing positions were elected, even on its own ticket, Bergstrom and his coalition colleagues spoke about the need for better government, pointing the finger at both political parties for their shortcomings.

He emphasised the need for politicians to consider and analyse the things they do in government, as he said the lack of analysis and research that goes into some legislation which is passed by government in Cayman was frightening.

Still blaming the party system rather than the politicians for Cayman’s political woes and economic difficulties, the group believes that, although it may endorse candidates that have very different positions on the issues facing the country, they will still be able to successfully join a government.

The group's support and endorsement of candidates will not be based on their personal campaign platform, Bergstrom said, but on their adherence to personal principles. Should any of the candidates the group supports be elected into office or form part of a government, C4C said it intends to continue as a watch-dog over those candidates and intends to publicly condemn those that don’t continue to follow these principles. On the other hand, he also emphasised the need for those candidates endorsed by C4C to maintain their independence.

The C4C has not yet fully explained how their candidates will be able to follow its founding principles to the letter or retain their independence if any of them find themselves part of a coalition Cabinet and bound by the collective responsibility of that position, without resigning over every disagreement with a position the government adopts.

Trying hard not to fall into the trap of being labeled a political group itself, the C4C continues to raise questions in the community about what it really is and how it will fit in terms of the elections law, the campaign, or any future government. The group will be assisting with the financing of the candidates it endorses but it says the donations will be capped to prevent any one individual donor being able to unduly influence a potential candidate.

C4C has still not endorsed any candidates, though it is expected that they will support Roy McTaggart, who has announced his intention to run in George Town, but the group is still campaigning on various politically related issues at present. Coming out of the campaign to encourage people to register to vote, its next goal will be to reinvigorate the one man, one vote campaign as the group also believes that a change to the law could see voters go to the poll this May with just one vote and have the top relevant number elected in each district.

Bergstrom said the next major public awareness campaign before the national poll would be about political corruption and what constitutes corruption.

Category: Politics

Comments (87)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Dreadlock Holmes says:

    I'm not advocating for this group, but if the members of C4C are reading these posts as they probably are it must leave an impression.  That impression is: people don't trust the present political system.  And if they do, their fingers are crossed.  That is precisely what they are up against the idea that there is always another hidden agenda.  This isn't exactly their fault but a legacy they need to overcome.  Basically people want to hear the truth for a change. Also the principles they have stated sound reasonable, but as Whodatis said, what people want to hear are specifics. Normally, political statements are filled with vagueness. Often it seems to be designed that way. "Change you can count on",  "Yes we can"  etc.  Vague statements about what they might do given the right circumstances.  Which we find out later don't exist. We are quite often told the previous failures of a different political party are to blame.  Allow us to interrupt..  we know this.  It would therefore be refreshing to hear "this is exactly where we stand, these are the TRUE finances, and these are the problems, this is exactly what we can accomplish."  This has never, ever happened.  How do you judge accomplishments or performance when the goal posts can be moved so conveniently?  Let's have unadulterated facts and figures we can take it.  Truth in advertising should apply to politics as well.  We won't like it.  But at least it's truthful.  And given our priorities we can go from there.

  2. Caymanian voter says:

    The C4C is made up primarily of the Merchant Class. Many of whom don’t hire Caymanians in their businesses and hold many work permits for foreign workers and history will show that it is the same Merchant Class that created many problems for middle class Cayman.
    The Big C4C members may have a few Caymanians in lead positions in their firms but they themselves usually hold those seats then their next level of management and enforcers are are foreigners who have either secured Caymanian Status, Key Employee status or have Residency with the right to work and stifle young and upcoming Educated Caymanians from getting any further than then concept of the wretched ‘glass ceiling’. See it but don’t touch it mentality.
    So when they are advocating for candidates it’s going to be the same style of system they use in their businesses that will be applied to ‘their’ candidate.
    We will endorse you and financially back you but here is our not so invisible list of things you are expected to accomplish in our favor during your tenure as an Elected Official.

    So are they any different? No. Just a different group but this time they are the real Merchant Class.
    Will they advocate for the poor & needy or for the betterment of the suffering Caymanians? Their message hasn’t convinced me of that. Have you seen the majority of their members mingle outside of their cliques? Will they ever? Can they truly represent anyone other than their own Merchant Class compadres? They themselves made deals with both the UDP and PPM Governments during their respective tenures which benefited the C4C Members and their businesses.

    • Anonymous says:

      What a load of croc 05.00!! Again blame everything on the expats!/Merchants…. In our business I know for a fact that if I don't employ Caymanians as well as expats I get a visit from Immigration and told too, even if they don't really want to work or have the right qualifications, or worse the right attitude…and your post is proof of that…attitude, attitude and attitude, sadly the wrong one…wake up and stop bitching and start doing something positive

      • Anonymous says:

        the merchant class is corrupted 9:58 and so is you.

        • Anonymous says:

          That’s right, the Merchant Class is the root of all evil. Lets shut down all private business and business owners and let the CIG run everything. With our new class of Professional Politicians, we will show those stinking Merchants how business should be run. We will get rid of the Expats too. Expats and Merchants, devil worshipers all.

        • Anonymous says:

          13.02 I am devestated by your wit and intelligence. You can't answer the point, because it is correct, so you get personal. Oldest trick in the book, anyone with a good working brain will see that. Pathetic.

    • Anonymous says:

      On the bright side C$C appears likely to split the UDP vote.  Look to candidates who state what they are for at the time they announce their candidacy. I don't understand  all these people who announce they are running but refuse to say what they are for or against? Makes me think they are waiting for someone to tell them what they stand for or that they really don't stand for anything. "I'm running and I'm seeking the support of C$C ,but don't ask me what I stand for. I'll tell you later."  What's up with that?  Same stuff different day…

    • Anonymous says:

      To: Submitted by Caymanian voter (not verified) on Thu, 01/17/2013 – 05:00.     Please stop the attempts at class warfare,we have enough division amongst Caymanians already.

    • Anonymous says:

      Because they do not hang out in bars or gamble

      is not a good enough reason to condem hard working

      succesful people.

      Please consider your family and all others then

      cast your vote for the Cayman Islands.

      Thank you.

  3. Anonymous says:

    They will bankroll and support candidates? Is that not what some well known families have been doing for years to keep our ex-premier in power?

  4. Anonymous says:

    I don't know about C4C, CUC C$C or whatever they are called.  I'm not voting for UDP. I'm voting for the best man and/or woman for the job.

  5. RRP says:

    Personally I am sick of hearing party vs non- party bickering. We need to change our focus. It is completely irrelevant in my opinion. Is this a udp/ppm strategy of dismissing this group because this group seems to be comprised of a number of intelligent, educated and successful people who can carry intelligent and thoughtful debates? Is that perceived as a threat to the other parties, since their political debates are strictly limited to personal attacks? Should we just dismiss all c4c candidates just because of some believed conspiracy theory that they are a party not a coallition, new UDPers, who will side with Mac and bring udp leadership again? Come on people, give it a rest!

    I have read the papers over the last 3 years and noted the continuous political bickering between the two parties. Not once have I seen any well thought out ideas from these MLAs (aside from some rare occasions from ezzard). Not once have I heard a debate on issues from these MLAs. Their track record speaks for itself. Let me remind you: Debt, unemployment, govt lawsuits, significant overspending, bloated civil service, crime, inability to produce accurate financial accounts, under budgeting expenditures and overstating projected revenues, failed policies, failed projects and last but not least alleged corruption.

    In my opinion we need to move away from discrediting a new candidate because of our perceived conspiracy theories. We need to listen to each candidate and determine if such candidate has what it takes to get us out of this financial mess and put our country back on track for prosperity. Wether a candidate is ppm, udp or c4c or independent, should matter least. We need to elect the right people for the job. I am have noparty or coalition affiliation. I just want to see the best people lead our country. Stop voting party lines, since that’s what has gotten us into this mess. This election vote for people not for parties, coalitions, associations, groups or whatever. The LA should be a platform for constructive debates not a platform for personal attacks and televised embarrasment. We need diversity in government to prevent one group from having full control of our country. We need all MLAs to work for us in the LA. We don’t need people like capt Eugene, Kurt T, jon jon and the rest of them that have not contributed anything while collecting salary and pension each month from us.

    So let’s stop bickering about irrelevant theories and select the best people for the job, whether they are backed up by parties, coalitions or no one.

    • Anonymous says:

      I fully agree.

      I would like to hear from an intelligent Caymanian for a change!
      Haven’t we heard enough of the illiterate rabble? Everyday on Rooster it’s painful.

      I’m tired of the current shouting, pseudo-televangelist propaganda ‘meetings’ where the melas don’t take questions and just blame, point fingers and complain.

      McKeeva shuffling papers and arguing with the news anchor lady for daring to ask a question!
      Julianna playing the ‘God’ card and quoting scripture;
      Oh! And the fan favorite analogy about righting the “good ship Cayman” — enough! uggh!

      We can surely have a more focused, sensible discussion with these new candidates – at last I think!

      Lets talk SENSIBLY about the country’s issues, so we can find some solutions for this place we all claim to love

  6. Anonymouse Man says:

    Everyday C$C seems more like a cult in the making rather than any kind of useful organization with a structure and regulations to conduct themselves.Just for the record we have had committee style governments in the past…. and they were extremely deplorable in their conduct and acted as if they were responsible to God only. We will never go back there.

    • Anonymous says:

       

       
       
    • Anonymous says:

      Clearly you've been in hybernation for the last 8 years. Wake up and read the news!

  7. Austin Tacious says:

    These people lost any credibility they may have once had when they associated themselves with Austin Harris.

  8. Dreadlock Holmes says:

    Reading these comments what comes to mind is how closely this approach… represents what many of us believe democracy should perform like.

  9. Anonymous says:

    The problem that I see with C$C is that after admitting that the previous purchase of a two-bit politician was not successful, they are now asking people to endorse the purchase of a better class of politician. I'm sorry, but I will not vote for any politician that I know is bought and paid for.

    • Anonymous says:

      If James Bergstrom's position on what's good for cayman and Caymanians is representative of C4C, then God help Cayman if they take control.  As a key partner of the law firm Ogier's, he  is one of the architects and promoters of the policy to ship more Caymanian legal jobs overseas and prevent Caymanians from participating in the profession that has made him a wealthy man.  As for Roy McTaggart and Jude Scott, if you respect singlemindness and the ability to make money, you must respect these guys.  But other than that they have little to recommend them as representatives of the people.  And if i am not mistaken Jude was a strong supporter of McKeeva serving on a number of government boards this term, including a stint as Chairman of Cayman Airways.  He also worked behind the scenes with the UDP party during this term. Are we sure that tie has been severed?

  10. Reality Check says:

    It is not the committee system that is the advantage the Channel Islands has, it the fact they are not scared to let residents vote after they have lived there a couple of years. 

    • J Salasi I. -111? says:

      Yow forget that resident voting thing. Can’t work, me say it na gon happen.

  11. Anonymous says:

    People……..Votiing at Election time in May is really quite simple….Its the process thats F*d up.  If I vote for the ones in GT that I feel are the best for Cayman and can work with Tom Dick and Harry in WB, BT,NS and EE then all is well if the Tom, Dick and Harry all get in in those districts.  The problem lies in that if good men and women get in in GT but we have numbnuts and numpties in the other districts like we have had, then we are screwed no matter what.  We need to change the Election system to where if there are 15 or 17 people running the country we should ALL be allowed 15 or 17 votes and whoever comes out in the top 15 or 17 are OUR elected members period.  Cayman is way too small to be divided into districts where one person in one dsitrict can become a dicktator over all the earth.  Other than this we need one man one vote.  If we need to change the Constitution again then so be it…lets get it right.  This voting only for the persons running in the district you live in is archaic and is no longer viable.  Unless this changes by May all I can say is vote for the people you have met, talked with, questioned, listened to, and researched their background  and their stances on the things most urgently needing attention in Cayman, NOT for someone who is your best friends cousin, etc. etc. etc.      

  12. Anonymous says:

    Whatever they call themselves, Coalition has intelligent Caymanians:

    We kept asking where they were and what they were prepared to do..
    Here is their answer.

    And they can atleast make an articulate, reasoned argument on political issues, ask intelligent questions and put forward sensible policy solutions

    Who the hell wants to hear Foolio, the newly minted expert on Pensions again?

    I would like to have a discussion, finally, with an educated Caymanian professional, for a change!

    • Anonymous says:

      Intelligence is a double-edged sword. Can you imagine the damage McKeeva and Foolio could have done with a bit more intelligence?

  13. Anonymous says:

    The committee system being proposed is a good fit for the size of the Island. the timing is also bang-on.

    I am sick of hearing the blame game between rival political parties, potentially successful programs instigated by one government are uprooted by an opposing, successive incoming government, before they can bear fruit for the people of Cayman.

    A committee style of government would re-instill values of accountability, well thought out and executed strategies thus allowing future generations to prosper.

    Think outside the box folks, this is a good alternative.

  14. Anonymous says:

    At least they are offering slightly better intellectual discussions on politics…I cringe every time one of gold ole Caymanians calls Rooster or worse, mumbling Sterling and the Jordanian…

  15. Anonymous says:

    Why don’t any of these jokers run than trying to be puppet masters? Need I say more…

    • Anonymous says:

      ……ah, a little more. Explaining what you mean would be helpful

    • Anonymous says:

      When I look around the C4C all I see is want to be rain makers.

      Hey wake up we don’t need rain anymore, ever heard of de-sal ?

  16. Anonymous says:

    What do these hot shots know about low-middle class issues? They all seem to come from the top end of society. Without good foundations Cayman will have nothing to stand on. We need solutions from the bottom up not the other way around!

  17. Anonymous says:

    So instead of being the wizard of Oz pulling strings in the background now they are doing it in front of our faces and we should just obey?

    Who do you think we are Derek Zoolander?

  18. Say Wha? says:

    None of the shrewd C$C businessmen and women became rich by giving away their money for free. Their preposterous claim that they'll be financing/sponsoring/paying off (take your pick) some of the candidates whilst expecting nothing (ie. favours; influence; a say in policy) in return is downright laughable.  In fact, it's insulting to our intelligence!

  19. Whodatis says:

    Knowing a few of the members and (suspected) affiliates of C4C fairly well – who are all decent individuals – the following will not be easy to express.

    Thus far they have not presented themselves in the most concise manner as there is much confusion regarding their actual role in our democracy / community.

    This self-appointed party / lobby group / think-tank appears to hold itself up as an entity worthy of the trust and support of the general public. However, on what basis are these suggestions made?

    Over the past 10 years both the PPM and UDP convinced the general public that they were the best choice for the job. However, both were quickly dismissed at the end of their respective terms because the electorate suddenly felt otherwise.

    The difference between a "political party" and the current status of C4C, is that the electorate has a clear understanding of who and what they are dealing with, and all is clearly defined.

    Contrast that with whatever it is that C4C is striving to be – faced with a mandatory choice between it and a traditional "political party" – I would have to select the latter.

    (Kindly note that the above is no more than a matter or principle as I am not a supporter of either political party.)

    In any event, at the end of the day, when it comes to selecting my representative, what matters most to me is the following:

    • What are your thoughts on development?
    • How will you approach the youth unemployment issue?
    • What are your views on a minimum wage for the Cayman Islands?
    • How do you assess the 50/50 population split in regards to Caymanians / Expats?
    • What are your views on the current state of trade schools / training / opportunities in the Cayman Islands?
    • How do you regard our dependency on work permit fees?
    • Do you believe that Caymanians are being treated fairly in the job market of their own country?
    • What are your views on the "general" work ethic of Caymanians? (Assuming for the moment that the people of any given country actually possess a "general" work ethic!)
    • Where do you see Cayman in terms of a British Overseas Territory in the next 10 years?
    • What are your views on the decriminalisation of "drugs" (marijuana) in the Cayman Islands?
    • How will you address the increase in crime?
    • What are your views on the frighteningly high rate of teenage / unplanned pregnancies in Cayman today?

    Similar to many other western countries today, our society is also crumbling from the middle and lower levels downwards. If these issues are not immediately addressed, thefancy "top" that the majority of our representatives and "big shots" appear to only care about will no longer exist.

    *Having reread my post I realize its focus has strayed from the C4C (as well as PPM or UDP), and has centered on what I feel is most pressing to this country.

    The normal practice would be to redo the post with the necessary edits and ommissions, however, I have decided to let it stand. I made that decision because I honestly believe that this is how many Caymanians feel today. We may have a preference of, or hatred toward, a particular group / individual, but at the end of the day, what we all (should) want is the best for Cayman.

    In my humble opinion, the above checklist are some of our most pressing issues.

    The individual or group that speaks (and acts!) best to those issues will gain my support – regardless of his or her affiliation.

    Quite simple really.

     – Whodatis

     

    • Anonymous says:

      Thanks Whodatis. To get back to the point on party vs committee, I am with you on the party option. I have read all the arguments against party politics and for me the question boils down to this: if you put 17 “individuals” in a room with the view to reaching a consensus I guarantee you there will be at least 50 different viewpoints from the 17.

      Cayman is becoming or already is a complex society with complex issues. You cannot form a government with a group of “individuals” regardless of how smart they appear to be with the hope that they will debate their way to a consensus. Government has the unenviable task of making decisions that affect 55,000 people and apply scarce resources to affect those decisions. The “party” that gets my vote is the one that clearly demonstrates an understanding of our issues and have a reasoned plan for tackling the issues.

      Too bad C4C did not properly think this through before presenting themselves to Cayman. Obvious misses in judgment: thinking Cayman is in the mind set of accepting any association which looks, smells and taste like a secret society. This one point is your undoing and it would take a marketing genius spin doctor to get you out of the hole you dug for yourselves.

    • Anonymous says:

      Whodatis.

      You ar so correct in your article.

      You should run for office. Your list of concerns are what all Caymanians are talking about.

    • Anonymous says:

      record thumbs up response for whodatis……

  20. Anonymous says:

    This is exactly why we never got new schools or a road corridor purchased in "the good old days". When politicians each wanted their portfolio to have attention for four years and weren't willing to compromise and say: "let's put away 5 million a year for this project" regardless of whether any large capital project would be done for them to say "I made that happen". We will go back to that with "committee rule", hashing things out over a pot of turtle stew instead of the wider membership body and the public having input. 

  21. Anonymous says:

    Whoever C4C is, there is a point here. Party politics works better in larger environments. In Cayman, you have a very small assembly, and you have this bizarre system of different sized constituencies. If one man is big in a 4 man constituency then he can control the assembly by having non entities elected alongside him, with marginal support from elsewhere. Thats what happened, and the result was that a single person could control the assembly without even having regard to his party members, and with contempt for the democratic process.

    His dirty deals could then continue, maybe he let a few others do a few for themselves, but democracy was absent. The only thing that could stop him was the RCIP, lets hope it isnt just a short term halt!

    A "committee" style would suit you better because it would prevent this sort of hijacking of democracy, but it depends on finding a few good people. In a political party, there must be a key character, others must fall in behind him. In a committee based system you can have a government of all the talents, but to do so you have to rid yourselves of this unbalanced constituency arrangement. That means dividing constituencies into single member single vote areas, and thus allowing more independant MLA's who would elect from among themselves a Premier, hopefully honourable.

    Parties only work when ther are differing fundamental manifestos on which they are elected, in the US it is the far right Republicans versus the centre right Democrats, in the UK it is the socialists versus the centre right, in Cayman you simply dont have that sort of divide, the community is small enough to have a roughly similar agenda, which is to keep business bouyant and the economy turning over. Under the party system you simply had self interest at the expense of ordinary Islanders.

    Next time round then, elect whichever individuals can achieve your long term personal best interest, dont be fooled by parties, and please dont elect 2nd 3rd and 4th members just because the 1st elected member gave you a fridge!

     

  22. Dreadlock Holmes says:

    As far as I can see they have some good ideas in that government should be run more like a business.  Because it is a business to all intents, and as I've said before people are the stockholders.  The committee concept consisting of knowledgable people also makes sense. Those with government portfolios should have some knowledge of how to run them in the best interests of the public. Or so we would hope however the four year cycle of elections can prevent needed feedback and when mistakes are made they become critical. Before they can addressed. In light of that  let's take another further page from business. Cayman's problems are immediate and need solutions the problem people have seen so far is one of : "let's try this. oops! that didn't work! let's try something else."  It has given the impression of a government which has targets but which is blindfolded. There are a lot of wounded. 

     

    Businesses which are not privately owned have stockholder's meetings. Ie. in this instance it would mean public meetings on a regular basis to find out if the policies being examined have the support of the public before they are implimented or, as I said, the stockholders. Not an opportunity once every four years. It is their money and investment, after all.  That seems to have been forgotten. And instead people have received..  "We know what's best.  So be quiet."  If a public feedback loop were inserted and this formed part of the principles C4C said it is following it would go a long way to convincing people it isn't just another special interest group. Which is what political parties on Cayman appear to have been.

     

    And one other thing C4C should consider mentioning as a principle politician's salaries should be tied to the unemployment rate.  And right now they should be rolled back! …. drastically.  Then we will see if  the desire to be in office is in line with the rest of the principles.

  23. Anonymous says:

    A question…………… is C4C made up of people who are ineligible under the constitution to run for office?

    • Anonymous says:

      I believe you are referring to The Chairman of the Progressives – Mr. Duckworh.

  24. Say Wha? says:

    1.  Is it just me or is everyone sick and tired of hearing from C$C?

    2.  The more that they deny that they are a party, the more it lends me to thing that they are a party.

    3.  The group will be assisting with the financing of the candidate it endorses, yet will somehow refrain from unduly influencing that potential candidate – wow!!!  That pretty much tells you all you need to know.

     

    • Common sense says:

      This happens with all political hopefuls doesn’t it? I think the difference is C4C wants to endorse independent candidates who can debate issues, are open minded responsible and give the country hope and pride instead of the usual persons who follow the leader at all times to the detriment of cayman.

      • Say Wha? says:

        Look, I think you provided a very reasonable and thoughtful answer, so please don't take this as an insult.  My main issue with C$C is that it refuses to recognize what it is.  I have far more respect for someone who admits that he's dumb than someone who pretends to be Einstein.  So yea, basically, I  have a problem with a party (walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.) that doesn't call itself a party – screams "untrustworthy" and leaves people with a bad first impression.  People are not stupid.  We're not a party, we're not a party, we're not a party; sound like Lance Armstrong's infamous chant:  "I didn't dope, I didn't dope, I didn't dope"…Ummh, no, you actually did dope. 

      • Anonymous says:

        i understand that the C4C will finance their candidates and the C4C will become an advisory group to the candidates that they endorse and finance should they get into government.  Seems that those candidates lose their independence by being funded and directed by puppet masters and become….cant think of another name other than 'party'!

    • Anonymous says:

      I am not involved in C4C or any politics at all here. Regardless of the source, the idea is sound. The Channel islands are a model of a modern, accepted democracy with some very good ideas floating around. They lead the captive insurance world in terms of new ideas, as much as we might like to think otherwise.

      You do not have to support C4C, UDP or PPM to support a good idea, just don't dismiss it because of the ambiguity of its source.

      • Say Wha? says:

        Agreed, but a good idea by Stalin ought not to be received the same as a goodidea by Mother Theresa.

  25. Anonymous says:

    I will begin to have trust in C4C once they categorically state that they are independant of any vested economic interest in Cayman, not just independant of either the PPM or UDP.  Until they, I trust them as far as I can throw Mac.

  26. Anonymous says:

    At least they are trying to do something.  So many people like to point out what is wrong but are not willing to do anything about it. 

    • Anonymous says:

      Yea,  I know what you mean, take a look at the CCA (cayman contractor Association) always pointing out  what is wrong, but refuse to do anything about the problems that face the industry. 

  27. Anonymous says:

    This notion that the C4C isn't a party and because of that, is somehow better is just absolute nonsense,  I don't care which party or no party you are with, PPM, UDP or whomever independent….

    Parties offer real bylaws, a uniform structure an way to elect its own members and policies via structured a process and democratic way.  Party, although imperfect, and immature and have a long way to go in Cayman, are still better that some association with no rules, legal structure or real regulation that govern them.

    No party group of people is basically a gang, where under the table deals is likely how things get done.

    It sounds good in theory and appeals to emotional people out there with no clue about real politics.  the notion that parties = Jamaica etc, is again utter nonsense. 

    The same politicians who been crying that we should example ourselves like the modern democracies around the world (like the push for one man one vote), are the same "politicians" that will tall you BUT in the same breath…, will claim we can't, and should not, have structured parties… WHY?  because that's popular now, because it automatically means its an anti-establishment position and therefore good for "THE POLITICIAN",  not the public.

    Don't be fooled by this emotional crap that some loose non organization is somehow better that an organized party with a set ideology and laws which regulates it. 

    Rather, find a party that best suits you and try to make it a better party OR, find some independent candidate to support and create a party around that person.

     

     

     

    • Anonymous says:

      Please think back to the last10 years,political parties are

      all about getting elected and staying elected

      at all cost. they are all about themselves

      and believe if they through money $$$ around,

      our $$$ they can remain in office while the

      majority of us struggle to survive.

      TIME FOR A CHANGE, when we had teams we were all

      much better off.  Seen

  28. Anonymous says:

    I am not a member of any party (being a Civil Servant), but it appears as if James Bergstrom is being a bit disingenuous is his description of party politics when he says that party politicians have to act on the basis of what they are told by the party leaders.

     

    Doesn't every party (ok UDP excepted) have committees similar to what he is advocating that determines the party's stance on any issue? Therefore aren't party politicians already being influenced by a committee similar to what he is advocating?

     

    When you vote for a party you know (hopefully) what you are voting for BEFORE the person is elected. For example, the PPM have stated that if elected they will implement OMOV. All of the UDP past and present have voted against OMOV.

     

    C4C appear to be saying we will form a "more intelligent than you" committee and tell you how to vote on any particular issue. We will disguise our true intentions by saying "country first" and "what's best for the country". Of course every politician, be they PPM, UDP, C4C, or truly indepent, usually think that what's best for them must be best for the country. C4C just seems to be another group seeking representation without authorisation from the majority.

    • Anonymous says:

      19;59

       

      You forgot to mentioned the independent wants to reverse and stop our development

  29. Way my Kman Gone? says:

    "Still blaming the party system rather than the politicians however, for Cayman’s political woes and economic difficulties."

    Its true that the people within the parties are what make or break them; but I have to give this one to C4C. When you have an institution that facilititaes the wrongs of party members/leaders based solely on allegiances to that grouping then that institution should be removed. These Islands individuals that are loyal to CAYMAN making choices for a better CAYMAN and that benefit the CAYMAN PEOPLE – that does not describe the politics of the PPM or UDP. I would like to describe them here but God knows I sin my soul everytime I have to talk about those jacka$$es – See what I mean!

  30. Anonymous says:

    Govt. by committee. That's a lot of naive nonsense and was only supported by McKeeva's words (not actions) because he thought it suited him politically to say so at the time.   

  31. Hope Floats says:

    "He emphasised the need for politicians to consider and analysis the things they do in government as he said the lack of analysis and research that goes into some legislation which is passed by government in Cayman was frightening."

    I for one totally agree that we need to get rid of our current corrupt and incompetent parties ( I think that accurately describes both) and leave behind the implementation of  knee-jerk policies (if one can even  call them policies) and circus politics (we can definately call the current cast of politicians clowns). Been searching for hope……..C4C please give me some! 

    • Anonymous says:

      You say PPM is corrupt? Please give details, the public would like to know. 

      • Anonymous says:

        16;39

         

        i see more corruption within the different public servant departments.They are the ones running the country.

        • Anonymous says:

          The post said both parties are corrupt. It mentioned nothing about within govt. depts.

    • Anonymous says:

      Keep on floating hope. Name one thing that the PPM have done that is corrupt. You mistake them for the UDP.

  32. Anonymous says:

    i saw the news on CITN last night and am impressed with how this group responded and presented themselves. i had some misunderstanding about C4C, but after seeing the news last night, Mr. Bergstrom was very sharp and clear with the groups intentions.  The country will benefit greatly with this type of advocasy and public awareness group and we should embrace and support them. They are looking out for the best interest of Cayman.   

    • Anonymous says:

      …said the paid C4C professional blogger. Get ready for more of these nonsensical "Oh gosh that was just great" comments as C4C is paying good money for good press. "They are looking out for the best interest of Cayman"…give me a break!

    • Anonymous says:

      10;27

       

      We have been listening to this type of advocasy for the last 35 years and it keep getting worst.

      Who is willing to stop flooding and destroying our businesses, just to get  fees for government revenue.

      Who will stop the Immigration department from giving work permits to individules that are undesirable to live amoungst us…just to increase revenue for the government to further waste.

      These people speak of "for Cayamnians" which ones? the ones that got it by status?

      These are the same people that brainwash the business owners that unions are a bad thing. just so they can control the business and suck the money for revenue.

      Caymanians let me say this, if you all do not stand up and form your trade and labour unions.. dog will eat the bones that is left from your supper.

      No government is going to fix anything to make your life and business any better.With them,  its all about what policies and laws  to raise revenue. 

  33. Anonymous says:

    Plain stupidity, does not even deserve a sentence. 

  34. Eyes wide open says:

    C4C's focus is misguided and naive. A democracy is founded on the principle of majority rule. The majority of the voters pick the leaders. The majority of the leadership leads. If you want rule by comittee, form a commune. C4C is ignoring the fact that the people they pushed to elect 3.5 years ago were of weak character and driven by love of money, not love of Country. On what basis did you pick Mr. Bush as your star candidate back then? Love of Country? I think not. Perhaps it is out of embarrasment that C4C refuses to acknowledge the mistake they made and the huge role that greed and corruption has played in Cayman's downward slide over the past 3.5 years. Furthermore, C4C is going to have a hard time finding electable candidates that are not already comitted to run under a legitimate Party banner. Are they taking the position that Party affiliation automatically excludes candidates from C4C support? This whole C4C concept reeks of influence buying. In 2013, we will elect intelligent candidates who support openness, transparency, honesty, and integrity and we will hold them accountable for closing the corruption loopholes exposed by the previous administration. We will not be fooled by C4C wannabe king makers that meet in secret, dont tell us who they are or what they support, and offer cash as a lure to candidates willing to support their agenda. C4C can't be blamed for trying to distance themselves from the UDP and the disaster of Mr. Bush, but this is a small island and we all know who you are and what you are really about. You are not the solution to our problem, you are the problem.   

  35. Unison says:

    The problem I have is my own mind. As soon as I find a solution to my problems, I believe I have everything figured out. Then I try to live in accordance with that mental construct, all to find I become mechanical, overly ambitious, and selfish. I wanted a positive change but became a monster in the process of trying to make that change. I wanted to do good, but became self-righteous in the process of doing good. Why?  Because I had it all figured out, and once I had it figured out, who could tell me different, who could teach me?  With my ambition came pride, and with my pride came a change that ended up for my own self-interest. I could run for politics, but I fear my self, and anyone that can't control him or her self, is unaware of their own nature, will have good intentions, but as soon as the they are made into everlasting goals, oh how it is easy to forget your self and the people around you. Your goals become your god and your thirst for power becomes spiritually crippling.   

  36. Anonymous says:

    c4c…. the only thing I know is that they are against parties?….

    so the future of cayman is to be decided by small town, small minded, backward independents????

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  37. Anon says:

    Why did we go to party politics anyways has it really helped us at all?

  38. Anonymous says:

    Wouldn’t it make sense to have someone with Roy’s qualifications as minister of finance? I believe we need a CPA in that position to drive government financial accountability. Let’s get those audit reports finalized so that we can actually make decisions on actual audited numbers rather than thin air. Let’s engage in operational audits to understand waste and ineficiency in each government entity and department and develop sound policies and oversight to improve efficiency of our government and reduce unnecessary spending.

    I am interested to see his political platform.

  39. Anonymous says:

    seriously? this much ink CNS to tell us what exactly? that C4C see themselves as superior moral and intellectual beings capable of thinking for the rest of us? we should trust their vigorous vetting process endorsing candidates on the basis of their "principles"? Same Ann Raynd principles silent on the fundamental issues in Cayman (Scratching my head here). can they share their vetting process? scoring?vetting committee names from the C4C membership? what – we the voters should turn off our brains and turn on our loyalty to C4C? vote for who THEY deem worthy to run under the C4C banner? they knew who they would be endorsing before the launch!!! Roy, Jude, Jackie, Tara, Johann, Chuckie and Mervyn? they don't need to take a stand on issues either?

    Committee style governance will run amuck and get us stuck. what is more dysfunctional that ego driven committees? what is more useless than analysis paralysis? merchant class, wealth oligarchists who have no clue what the poor in Cayman, or in their home countries, look like?

    • Anon says:

      Thats right – they knew – and bet $1000000 that Sharon and Winston will be there as well.

      When these people run and get the endorsement /moneyof C4C – ask how we were able to predict this before hand

  40. Anonymous says:

    There are Countries that are being successfully governed by a committee, but I'm not sure that this would be possible under our current Constitution!

  41. Anon says:

    Please stop pretending C4C;

    You are a Party – and its already known who you will be endorsing / running.

    In addition to Roy, there is Sharon – need we continue to name them? or will you?

  42. H.A.M says:

    What is the difference between PPM and UDP? Here it is all about the personalities not policies and both have harmed and mismanaged cayman.

  43. anonymous. says:

    As far as I’m concerned, C4C are a bunch of liars. Any claims of them not being a party is hogwash when the candidates they endorse will all run under the C4C banner and they have committees to guide (keep in line?) the candidates. No way I’m voting for any of you.

    • Anonymous says:

      C4C are liars?

      What about PPM?

      UDP?

      Independents?

      So, now what? What do you suggest we do –

  44. Anon says:

    Any alternative to udp, ppm and Fab Five has to be better for the country just look at what the parties and its leaders have done to our beloved Cayman Isles.

  45. Really? says:

    Really? more smoke and mirrors and no substance C$C needs to come clean and be honest with the voters, they are a party in disguise and are seeking political power. Cayman do not be fooled!

  46. Anonymous says:

    Ok now im really confused c4c. Please get in the elevator and return to your ivory tower.