East End MLA says Premier is lying over pay cut

| 27/05/2010

Cayman Islands News, Grand Cayman Headline News(CNS): The political representative for East End has hit out at the premier and called him liar in connection with the retreat over MLAs’ salaries. PPM member Arden McLean told CNS that the opposition benches were never consulted over the proposed 20% pay cut for politicians and they had certainly never rejected it. He denied the premier’s accusation that he had ever indicated that he or his PPM colleagues were not willing to accept the proposed reduction in salaries or said anything about only being willing to take the same 3.2% cut in line with other public sector workers. That rejection, McLean said, came from the UDP’s own MLAs and it was time the people of Cayman began weeding the lies from the truth.

McLean emphatically denied that he or the PPM had ever given any indication in the Legislative Assembly or anywhere else that they were not prepared to accept the pay cut, despite the fact the premier had announced MLAs would receive a pay cut of 20% without having consulted the opposition or the independent representative for North Side, Ezzard Miller.
The East End MLA engaged in a heated discussion with Premier McKeeva Bush yesterday, which was broadcast on Rooster’s morning talk show when he called the premier a liar. Bush said he had seen the reaction of the opposition and knew they didn’t want the pay cut.
However, McLean said that all along members of the PPM had been willing to accept the more significant reduction in pay if it would help towards balancing the budget. Appearing as a guest on CrossTalk, the East End MLA said that the premier’s suggestion that all MLAs had rejected that cut was misleading.
“He did not consult us, so he shouldn’t  say it was us when it wasn’t,” McLean maintained, referring to his opposition colleagues, and said the pay cut must have been rejected by the government UDP representatives as it was not the PPM.
The premier called the radio show and accused McLean of reacting in such a way that he had made it clear to him the opposition was rejecting the pay cut. The premier suggested that at the last meeting of the LA earlier this month McLean had said he would only accept the same cut as the rest of the public sector. McLean denied the allegation and said the premier was lying and was both shameless and disgraceful by trying to mislead the country into thinking it was the PPM representatives who were rejecting the cut when it was his own members.
Speaking to CNS this morning, McLean said the premier’s accusations were outrageous and he had never said anything of the kind and no one in the PPM had been asked anything or consulted in any way about MLAs’ salaries.
“The people of this country need to begin to weed out the lies from the truth,” McLean said. “The premier was encroaching on my integrity and while I may respect his office he was certainly not respecting me when he made those accusations.”
The row erupted as a result of comments made by the premier to News 27 on Tuesday that the proposed 20% salary cuts for all MLAs, a 30% cut for himself and reductions in benefits had been rejected by the members of the House in favour of cuts in line with the 3.2% pay cut that will impact all public sector workers from 1 July. The premier has said that MLAs’ salaries will be cut now by the 3.2% and he will be talking a 5% salary cut in his premier’s pay and not the 30% he had originally offered to take.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Headline News

About the Author ()

Comments (71)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Did anyone get Frank McField’s rebuke to Arden for his ‘unparliamentary conduct on Rooster? Yes, THAT Frank McField! That is what you call NERVE. No former Minister/MLA has embarrassed themselves and this country more than Frank McField by his outrageous conduct in public that led to criminal charges and conviction. And he was not defending his integrity at the time (which is understandable).  Frank, you should be last one delivering lectures on this subject given your recent personal history. But I understand that your purpose was to distract from the real issue – that McKeeva was attempting mislead the public about who rejected the 20% pay cut and blame it on all MLAs but Arden in particular, and to seem relevant.      

  2. Anonymous says:


    A Combining form with the meaning "Much, Many"

    Any of numerous small bloodsucking parasite
    POLITICS! A bunch of jokers!
  3. johnny says:

    Arden, you came out too late!


  4. Anonymous says:

    This whole matter on this flip flopping on MLAs salaries only tell me one thing.

    They all know that come the next election most if not all is headed for the Recycle Bin. Consequently they will grab all the money they can now, since their opportunity to do so in the future may be in jeopardy.

    More to come, mark my word.

  5. Anonymous says:

    People please do not ignore the fact that the greed started with the top heads of the civil servants,The Deputy Governor comes out with this ridiculous offer of 3.2% across the board and the big wigs in the civil service association accepts this with greedy arms"oops did I say that I meant to say open arms".

    Then Big mac and his gang decide well so and so will be making more than me if we take these big cuts so we better go with the flow,3.2% ! all of UDP agrees,but what about those poor civil servants at the bottom! who cares let them suffer at our greedy expense cut them 3.2% also, we are not done with them yet take away their overtime and cut their duty allowance that way the budget will look good and we can all keep our six figure salaries, that my folks is how it went down.

  6. Mat says:

    There are alot of unseen forces at work upon the Premier’s mind. It is almost like he is being swayed back and forth like a leaf blown by the wind. It appears his boat is not anchored, he has not yet begun fishing for the economy. It is like he is still undecided on how he is going to fish.

    May God help us and our Premier so that he makes good decisions for the benefit of all

    • Stand Firm Arden says:

      Trust me, the whole of Cayman is so proud of "The Action Man" for standing up to the bully.

      The only couple of people who would claim that Arden did the wrong thing, are the couple people who are getting the large contracts.

      As a caller said, you would not be a man if you did not defend yourself if you are accused of something you know you did not do, and it was so obvious that the bully was a long ways from telling the truth and then claimed "he saw the expression on his face".

      Well, I know there would be alot of dead people around if the truth went by the expression on my face.

      Action Man, for us, the people who have no say on the outside, PLEASE Stand Firm against the bully. 

    • The look says:

      That picture is of Mr. Arden McLean thinking of what he thinks of Mr. Bush.

      Anger and Disgust.

      • Anonymous says:

        The picture looks more like that of a frightened man after committing an ignorant act.

        Our nowaday Politicians remind me more of backyard roosters than statesmen.

        How can we expect any better from our children when our leaders engage themselves like this.

        Shame on all of them who carry on this way.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Elio why are you and the other MLA’s being so quite on this very important matter? Do you know this could help make this Island re-bound immediately. I had, note had, a lot of confidence in you, I voted for you but you have let me down badly, enjoy the next three years, cause BoBo you will get only one term in there if it’s my vote you counting on. Come on you all need to assist in this recovery if we are going to go anywhere. It will be a cut only for the next three years, and you won’t have to worry cause your time will be up. BE MEN OF INTEGRITY LIKE ARDEN!!

    • Anonymous says:

      Elio is trying to make as much money as he can in these 4 years for as sure as H&%l he is not going to be re-elected!

    • Anonymous says:

      Try hush! Arden just lucky that Austin had bolts already in place on those doors over at Rooster so that Elio coudn’t bust in and grab the mic 🙂 Otherwise he probably would have been right there. Madam Secretary.

    • Anonymous says:

      Why is it that our society here in Cayman is so hell bent on tearing each other down? The truth about who is doing what in government will have its day and the people who you think are doing nothing will shine like the starts at night.  Oh wait, maybe they won’t, because there seems to be a cloud of jealousy and resentment hanging over this island that keeps good things from happening!

      All of you negative posters should be ashamed of yourselves..Get out and do something good for your country instead of sitting behind a desk criticizing others. Maybe offer up constructive criticizm on this website instead of foo foo garbage to make yourself feel better.


  8. Anonymous says:

    Maybe the Premier is taking a play out of Bruce Golding’s play book.

    As Leader of the UDP he thinks his salary should be cut by 30%, but speaking as the Premier he thinks 3.2% is sufficient.

  9. Temporary Legislative Clerk says:

    Official Hansard Report – Monday, 1 March 2010

    The Speaker: The Premier has sought permission to read a statement at this time and I have granted it.
    Reduction of Elected Members ’ of the Legislative Assembly salaries
    The Premier, Hon. W. McKeeva Bush: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This statement is on reduction of salaries of Elected Members of the Legislative Assembly.
    Blah, blah, blah…..
    Members of the United Democratic Party agreed that elected Members of the Legislative Assembly must set an example by having our salaries reduced.
    We have agreed that effective March payday, 2010, the Premier would have his salary reduced by 30 per cent. And all other elected Members of the House would have their salaries reduced by 20 per cent.
    The ability to meet with our constituents and to serve them is important, therefore, we do not propose to reduce MLA ’ s constituency allowances which pay for constituency offices. The Government is also requiring elected Members of the House to pay 50 per cent of their health insurance premiums. I believe that is running something like $700, over $600 for some Members. Anyway, it would be 50 per cent of that.
    Blah, blah, blah…..
    These are hard knocks at this time. We have not cut the civil servants and public service salaries. We will sit with their Management Council and chief officers and examine the situation. But cuts there will be.
    The Speaker: Thank you, Honourable Premier.
    Third Elected Member for George Town.
    Mr. Alden M. McLaughlin, Jr.: Madam Speaker, with your kind permission, I would like to ask a short question.
    The Speaker: Granted.
    Short questions—Standing Order 30(2)
    Mr. Alden M. McLaughlin, Jr.: Madam Speaker, I believe that all of us on this side agree that we ought as legislators to set an example. So there is no argument about that. I just wonder if the Premier can confirm that other non-essential benefits, if I may term them such, such as provision for a personal chef for the Premier and a housekeeper, and chauffeurs and security and certain other allowances that I am aware of are being paid to certain members of the Government, whether those will also be either cut or will cease.
    The Speaker: Honourable Premier.
    The Premier, Hon. W. McKeeva Bush: Madam Speaker, when I took over the post of Premier blah, blah, blah…
    The Speaker: Honourable Premier, I think you have answered the question.
    [More questions and more answers about guns, security etc. blah blah blah]
    The Speaker: Thank you, Honourable Premier. I think we have exhausted that subject. Elected Member for North Side, last question.
    Mr. D. Ezzard Miller: Just on a matter of clarity. Is the Government going to bring a formal motion to do this, which would be debated? Or is this de facto today?
    The Premier, Hon. W. McKeeva Bush: Madam Speaker, from my point, I am not bringing a motion. I have that authority to cut expenditure for us.
    All of the details, including the blahs, can be found here on pages 474 to 480.
    • Anonymous says:

      One of the most important points brought out in this exchange is ‘DICTATOR!" It is so glaring that it ain’t funny: "I am not bringing a motion. I have that authority…."

  10. Callingyourbluff says:

    I write this as a direct request for Mr. Miller of North Side, whom I believe to be a man of action, to bring forth a motion to cut the salaries as put forward by the Premier in March.

    I would ask that Mr. Arden McLean second the motion to show his support for the motion and his position of not being against the initial offer.

    I would ask PPM to also support the motion so as to put the pressure on the UDP to reveal their hands as supporters or detractors from Mr Bush initial offer.

    I would ask that all those readers to show your support for this by giving it a thumbs up.

    • Isabella says:

      I am putting two thumbs up for this.  Lets see those denying this, put their mouth where their money is, or are they only blowing steam.

      • Anonymous says:

        I think they have answered your question, Isabella. They were dead serious.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Is the Premier being ‘economical with the truth’?

    I listened to archive recording of the exchange between Mr. Mclean and the Premier on Rooster.

    The Premier said that he had suggested that his salary be cut by "UP TO 25% or 30%" and that other MLAs salaries be cut by "UP TO 20%". 

    The Hansard 1st March, 2010 page 477: 

    Premier: "Government met all weekend to continue its expenditure review process.  Members of the United Democratic Party agreed  that elected Members of the legislative Assembly must set AN EXAMPLE by having our salaries reduced. 

    "We have agreed that effective March payday 2010, the Premier would have his salary reduced by 30%. And all other members of the House would have their salaries reduced by 20%". 

    Mr. Alden McLaughlin: "Madam Speaker, I believe that all of us on this side agree that we ought as legislators to set an example. So there is no argument about that. I just wonder whether the Premier can confirm that other non-essential benefits, if I may term them as such, such as the provision of a personal chef for the Premier and a housekeeper, and chaffeurs and security and certain other allowances that I am aware of are being paid to to certain members of the Government, whether those will be also cut or will cease?". 

    The Premier: "…Madam Speaker, I do have a driver who acts with me as security on that level. No. That is still in place. I do have a housekeeper. No. That housekeeper will still be in place. I do not have any personal chef. I do not need one. I never did need one; and never did advvertise for any. Not me.  Whatever people put in their wording, that is them. I did not ask for that. I do have a housekeeper as Premier…I do have official duties that I have to entertain people at various levels and for various reasons. And my wife and my family chip in to help during those times. But we need somebody to help us…that is why I TOOK a 30% pay cut, because my salary STOOD at $14,800. If I take 30% of that it goes well over $4,000 being cut from salary".   

    The exchange then devolved into discussio about MLAs being issued guns and about health insurance contributions and civil service salary cuts. 

    Mr. Ezzard Miller: "Just on a matter of clarity. Is the Government going to bring a formal motion to this today, which would be debated? Or is this de facto today?

    The Premier: "…from my point, I am not bringing a motion. I have that authority to cut expenditure for us. 

    A number of points emerge from this:

    1. The Premier claimed that he had the approval of his UDP colleagues in the House for the MLA salary cuts. There was no demur from the government bench or backbench. 

    2. It was clear that there was no prior consultation with the Opposition or the Independent member but that they should accept this as a fait accomplim being as the Premier did, that he had the authority unilaterally to make the cuts. Notwithstanding the lack of consultation, the cuts were intended to apply to all MLAs including the Opposition and Independent member.

    3. There was no dissent from the Opposition, but instead a general agreement that MLAs needed to set an example. 

    4. There was no "UP TO" qualification in his remarks. In fact, the 30% cut he was supposedly making was stated as if it was an accomplished fact. 

    5. It was never suggested that the MLAs would follow the civil service example, but rather that the MLAs should set an example for the civil servants. The MLA pay cut was supposed to take effect for the March pay day. We are now in May.

    In light of these facts, I leave the reader to judge who is telling the truth and what it says about thecharacter of each.  



  12. Richard Wadd says:

     I have known Arden for a long time, and not always on the best of terms.

     Call him ignorant, call him arrogant, call him anything you like, but the one thing you never call him is a Liar.

     He is from the ‘Old-school’, a man of Integrity, and commands respect as such.

     Watch-out Mac, you stepping on the Wrong man’s toes !

    He will tear you a new …’you know-what’.

  13. islandman says:

    They are all for themselves.

    The only real diffrence here, in my opinion, is that PPM is the "lesser" of the two evils.

    Both were in agreement over the past five years on five different occasions to raise their salaries to the tune of 20 to 35 %. Now they can’t agree on a meaningful reduction…at least until we are out of the current economic crisis. So selfish and greedy…what an example for the rest of us…

    Time for better representation!

    • Isabella says:

      If I was close enough to you Islandman, I would have to kiss you for this comment, so true.

  14. Anonymous says:

    What I don’t understand is why since Mr. Bush (at least on behalf of himself) was volunteering a pay cut of 30% in March he is now only prepared to give a 5% cut. He does not need his colleagues to agree to his cutting his own salary 30%.  The truth is that of all members of the House he needs the salary the least given his huge pension together with his benefits as Premier.  Is this consistent with a leader of govt. who is insisting that the govt. must make sharp cuts in expenditure?      

  15. Oliver says:

    What we fail to realize here, is that these two individuals are ELLECTED officials of this country. They both acted like children, well to be honest .. All politicians do, not only here. But if our ellected members can’t get along and work together, what are we to do.

    As leaders, we expect better of them. I am not a member of the UDP or the PPM, and I will state now and forever that Party Politics are causing the distruction of this country.

    We need young well educated Caymanians to take over the leadership, I am too old for this, but we have to make a change. The back and forth about pay cuts with government is very silly. Here is what should have been done.

    Ellected memebers most if not all, own business or have other business interest….. take a 40% pay cut.

    Heads of government departments 10% cut. Anyone making less than CI$3000.00  leave be…… and those making over a 5% cut.

    Everyone share cost in health insurance and pension contributions make it law .

    Just saying….. I can’t see this Island recovering from this slump for a next 3-4 years if then…. WAKE UP PLEASE….

    A conern  Caymanian

  16. Anonymous says:

    I have heard this exchange on the radio from the station’s website.

    I remember reading about this in the newspapers at the time that the original announcement was made, and thinking that it was so honorable of the Premier to offer to assist the country by taking a 30% pay cut, and also honorable of all of the other members for agreeing to take a lesser amount.

    The essence of that exchange and this story on CNS appears to be that the only person who really offered or agreed to take the higher pay-cut was the Premier himself.

    So if the others at this stage cannot agree, or as they claim has never agreed or was part of the discussion, then the only person who owes it to the country to take a 30% pay cut is the Premier himself. The mean reason for that is because he promised to do so, and announced it to the people, and as leader of the country he is expected to stick with his promises.

    Keeping the promise of a 30% pay cut would in my view bring honor to the Premier and his office, and set a good example for the people of the country, and might encourage his own party to agree to a higher pay cut than the 3.5%.

    Does anyone agree with me?



  17. Anonymous says:

    This shows that Mac can’t just tell the rest of the UDP members what to do!

    PPM on the other hand – if Kurt says ‘drink’ they say ‘how much’.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Yes Arden……put it to him. As I’ve always said, you need to join up with The Chuckster and The Ez and build a team !!!

  19. Anonymous says:

    All I can say is thank God that someone else has joined Charles Clifford in fighting  McChavez. Perhaps, just perhaps, the rest of the PPM is waking up……at least Arden was awake yesterday…..wide awake !

  20. Anonymous says:

    I vote in George Town and went to every one of the Chamber of Commerce debates for the district and heard every single candidate answer "yes" when asked whether they would take a 15% pay cut. Ms. Lucille is the only one who even qualified it – she said yes, but the salaries should be reinstated to previous levels after the economy improves and budget is balanced. Most of them simple leaned down and said "YES!" very loudly into the microphone, most didn’t even make further comments. And this was before things got this bad!

    I would be willing to bet not a single one of them from any district would have said "no" under those circumstances. Election rhetoric is bad enough, but to continue pure rhetoric, posturingand pandering after you’re an MLA? Disgraceful. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

  21. Just Sayin says:

    Hey! I have a great idea, lets add three more clowns in to this circus and pay them all extortionate amounts of money too, that should help!

  22. Anonymous says:

    I heard Arden say on the radio when seeking to rebuke Mac that ‘he wasn’t like Kurt Tibbetts’.

    I guess that means that even within the PPM leadership they know that Kurt is weak.


    • Anonymous says:

      I took that statement to mean McKeeva has constantly attacked Kurt personally for years, but Kurt doesn’t hit back directly to challenge him and rarely makes it personal. However, Arden wouldn’t "take it lying down," as they say.

      This is not necessarily a sign of weakness, it is more a difference in personality in my opinion and diversity of response – immediate rebuke and also raising your voice, or taking it in and making comments based on the real issue at a later time.

    • Anonymous says:

      He meant that Mr. Tibbetts is very kindly even when dealing with the XXXX Mr. Bush. Mr. McLean takes no prisoners.  

    • street watcha says:

      The Party machinery, for it to work effectively, you can’t expect to make reference to your leader publicly, as if he is weak even though down in your heart you might know this is the case. The party stands or fall together. It is called the doctrine of collective responsibility. Such differences are better trashed out at the party meetings behind closed door. I would never have made such a statement publicly. John public might read into it that there are differences in the shadow cabinet.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Mac thought that the current UDP members could be driven like, for example, Charles Clifford or some of the other weaklings in the PPM. So he went before the House and ran off his mouth about talking about huge cuts in MLA salaries.

    Mac hasnow been made to realize that the position is: the Cayman Islands are are all in this equally together, and if the Civil Service can’t afford more than 3.2% – why should anyone else put more.

    So, let it never be said that the UDP is all about what Mac wants – he got some real men in the UDP that he needs to keep satisfied now.

    • Rabble Rouser says:

      The one and only time the other UDP Members of the House have spoken up against the wishes of their leader appears to me to be when it was in their own self interest to do so. How do you account for the countless opportunities they have had to do so when it would have been in the best interests of the Cayman Islands and it’s people?

      That and that alone is what speaks volumes here my friend, you spin it anyway you want to, we are not all stupid enough to fall for it I am afraid.

      • Anonymous says:

        Self interest is why some of these politicians are there. One of them said that she will not be running after the next election as she will have enough pension then to live from. I can only imagine that there are others that feel the same way too.

    • O'Really says:

      The only issue I can recall the UDP backbenchers going against BigMac on is this issue, when their own vested interest was attacked. Did they stand against him when he tried to politicise the legal aid system? Did they stand against him when he questioned the concept of innocent until proven guilty? Did they stand against  when he questioned the FOI or threatened the press with penal fees?

      I suspect we differ on many things, but none more so than how we each define a " real man"!

      • Anonymous says:

        Say what you want about Mack but he and Mike is probally the only two that are willing to take that 30 and 20 % from their salarys. I think that it is unfair for Mack to take all the blows any how. I am sick and tired of tthe politrics that some of the others are playing. Some of the others are playing dumb, cant reach them by phone much less see them. We are tired of calling only to hear that the mail box is full. Mr Mike is one that answers all calls.

        • Anonymous says:

          I think that you missed the fact that Mac has announced that he is only prepared to take a 5% cut. When you are the leader the buck stops with you. 

          Of all of the MLAs Mac can most afford to take this cut:

          1. He has the biggest salary

          2. He has the biggest perks – housekeeper, car, driver, travel etc.

          3. He is receiving a big pension already together with his big salary. 

          4. He has a real estate business. 

          Yet he is only prepared to give 5%. Shame on Mac.   

    • Anonymous says:

      "real men"? LOL. If you, Anon 10:28, honestly believes that the UDP backbench opposed Big Mac as opposedto Big Mac telling them what to say & do, then you will surely believe me when I tell you that I made $10 million yesterday selling land, & that my name is Trump. Do you believe me? Well I do not believe what you say. It is obvious to me that the UDP backbench acted with Big Mac’s blessings or acted on Big Mac’s orders. Wake up man, we all know that the rest of the UDP are a bunch of puppets & wimps.

      You say "never let it be said that the UDP is all about what Mac wants-"
      Well let me say this to you, I know for sure that the UDP is all about what Mac wants. It always has been & always will be. Until the UDP gets some "real men" who will stand up to this tyrant & dictator & replace him "the UDP will ALWAYS be about what Mac wants."

      • Anonymous says:

        Silly rabbit!

        Why else would Mac back off his plans to cut salaries.

        UDP is no longer for Mac.

    • Hard Core UDP supporter says:

      I remember Elio running off at the mouth while at Rooster and during the campaign saying that he would ensure that every word and every deed be in the best interest of the people who voted him to office.  Now Mr. Elio how you agreeing not to take a salary cut greater than the CS in the best interest of the Caymanian people?

      I wonder why you don’t answer your phone Mr. Elio? Why you can’t say hello to the people who voted you in? I hope you invest your money wisely cause you may actually loose your deposit in the next general elections…

      "You can fool all the people sometime but u cant’ fool all the people all the time"

      I wonder if the folks at the GT MLA Office would vote for Mr. Elio again? I wonder when the last time the people of Watlers Road saw Mr. Elio?

      • Anonymous says:

        Go Ellio!

        You got ‘um hot boy – you know you on top when they can’t even mention another soul in the UDP except you and Mac.

        Dont worry about the crabs – we will vote for you again; keep up the good work.

        • Anonymous says:

          Poor sad deluded soul. You must really take the people for fools if you believe they will vote in Ellio again.  

      • Anonymous says:

        Politics or Politricks. Call it what you like.

        Politicians will say anything during an election campaign to get them elected. It is us the stupid voters who knowingly vote for them even though we know they dont mean anything they say.

      • ANON says:

        I know Mr. Elio would be dumb to run again.  We all know that. Mr. Mike know that Mr. Elio was bad mouthing him and the rest of the team during the GT elections.

        I wish that Mr. Johnathon from GT had won a seat.  He is a good man.  I really didn’t know too much about him until he ran and so I couldn’t vote for him but I hear a lot of good things about him inclduing that he answers his phone and he has helped a few Caymanians get jobs.

        He is also very approachable and very intelligent.  I hope he runs in the next election the country needs people like him. If he continues to prove himself, I will certainly give him an X come the next time.

        • Anonymous says:

          Think again.  We all need to review these candidates properly before next election.  You would be supprised (or not) what you find.

  24. Anonymous says:

    How can they voice their support or opposition if it was never brought to them for consideration.  The PPM are only aware of the intention to cut salaraies via the Premier’s public rants.  How can you get on here to berate the PPM on its response and not even bother to comment on the fact that the Premier introduced the 20% slash and then, staying true to his way, back pedalled and did not even present the motion to the MLAs?


    • Anonymous says:

      It was debated in the LA on March 1st someone has already included the pdf of the Hansards. Please take a read of it. Alden spoke and gave his agreement and echoed the sentiment on behalf of his colleagues.

      • Anonymous says:

        But it was never a full motion open to debate. The previous poster’s comment still stands. They got to ask questions and make brief comments, but there was never a debate about it, McKeeva said he had the authority to do it and he would do it.

        • Anonymous says:

          so would a debate then make it binding?

          Does anyone know what would have truly been needed to have these salary cuts take effect from the March pay period as stated?

          Was a motion really needed or was the Premier correct in saying that he had the authority to reduce expenditure but not increase it?


      • Anonymous says:

        Sorry to be daft 10:59, but where do I find this?


        CNS, do you have a link to what this is referring to?

        CNS: Legislative Assembly website – Hansard

      • Anonymous says:

        The opposition agreed to the original proposal of 20% paycuts, even though they were never consulted on the matter. But the issue in this matter is that the premier then changed the original 20% paycut proposal to 3.2% to be in line with the CS & claimed it was the opposition that was refusing to take the 20% paycuts. That is absolutely false, & in fact it was his own UDP backbenchers (under the force of the boss) who refused the 20% paycuts not the opposition. In other words Anon 10:59, there is no dispute about the original 20% paycuts, but that Mckeeva Bush claims the opposition refused to take more than a 3.2% paycut. 

      • are u dumb & blind says:

        yes 10:59, Alden was agreeing on behalf of his colleagues to the 20% paycuts that was originally put forth by Mckeeva Bush, but at no time will you read in the hansards of the House or elsewhere that Alden agreed to a 3.2% paycut only, or that he & his opposition colleagues refused to take more than a 3.2% paycut. As Mr. Arden said "no such thing was said or agreed upon by the opposition," it did not happen.

        Mckeeva Bush was reading from their "facial expressions" to interpret that the opposition was refusing to take more than the 3.2% paycut.
        I am grateful to the premier as of late because it seems likes almost everyday that he comes up with some foolishness to give us a good laugh, it is becoming hilarious, I hope he continues with his stupidness (except for the fact that he is embarrassing his country & his people).

  25. Anonymous says:

    Does the premier’s "big cut" of 5% also include a cut in his monthly pension that he receives on top of his salary? Nobody mentions that fact that he has two cheques a month!!!

    Really this is just a drop in the bucket. The lower paid civil servants will be suffering far more to make ends meet, than the small amount that will be deducted from our leader and the members of the legislative assembly.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Arden did the right thing. The Mac needs to be publicly called out and shamed for his blatant lies. He needs to hold himself to the standard demanded by his office. For too long, people and worst of all pastors let Mac go around misleading people. Mac got called out publicly yesterday, and he should be called out every time he spews fabrications.

    PPM were in agreement to take the cuts that were initially announced although they had not been consulted.

    The people stand with you Arden!

  27. Anonymous says:

    Maybe then Arden, seconded by Alden, should rally the opposition to lead by presenting a motion to the house to drop all of the MLA salaries by 20%….Yeah right!! I still haven’t heard Arden or Alden say whether or not they would have accepted the cuts. Of course, it would have been political side to go against it but, hey, that’s what politicians do to survive.

    They are all alike. Despite what any of them say they are quite pleased that they are keeping their high salaries.  After all, isn’t that the greatest of the spoils for getting elected??

    All of them, UDP and PPM should have spoken out in favor of the paycuts when McKeeva brought it up and then held him to it by following the necessary parliamentary procedure to get id one. Instead both sides remained silent and as soon as it is taken off the table both sides start wrangling.

    UDP and PPM, both of you need to lead by example not show the entire Cayman Public that elected you how childish and uncaring you are. Many of you have second jobs and businesses and could survive with out the high salaries.

    Again I call on all MLA’s to put aside the crap and have unanimous vote to lower the salaries. The one leading this will be my hero.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Johnny, Johnny, Johnny. I am not a member of the PPM, but you really need to stop drinking the UDP Kool Aide.

    In a democracy the government of the day puts forward the proposals, which in turn is supported by members of the party, and if it is a win-win situation then the opposition may also support the proposal.

    In other countries I am made to understand that they may even debate the issues in a rash and civil manner before taking a vote.

    What exactly did you expect a member of the opposition to say when the government of the day says "I am going to cut your salary by 20 percent"? Should they have said "make it 25"?

    There was never any proposal before the house for a cut in salaries. The Premier, in his usual dictatorial style, made a statement that salaries would be cut. There was no prior discussion with the opposition, nor within his own party it would seem, and the issue was not open to debate. Macdinejad had made a decision.

    Like most of the decisions he has made since taking office, he has since changed his mind. Why would you seek to lay the blame for the Premier’s indecisiveness at the feet of the opposition?

    The problem seems to be that the Premier has so many "handlers" whispering opposing ideas in his ear that when he reachs the LA, or a talk show host by phone, or even an open microphone somewhere, NOBODY has any idea as to what he might say next.

    On the bright side I can say one (year) down, three to go. We have weathered worst storms that this.

  29. Anonymous says:

    I wonder when since Mac Mac start looking on the Oppositions faces and decided to change his plans?? So-called ‘sour looks’ has never stopped him before..

    Let’s not get so emotional boys; nobody ever really wants a pay-cut 🙂

    • Anonymous says:

      so mac now flip flops because of the threat of marches and now also because of the faces people make??????

      what a joke this guy is!

      and what a joke every other udp member is for standing behind him….

  30. Rabble Rouser says:

    My God Johnny, are you deaf, dumb or just stupid?

    The XXXXX Honourable Premier did not consult anyone, he just opened his mouth and let his belly rumble as usual.

    If he was serious about it in the first place he would have brought it as a motion to the floor, then we would have been able to really see who was in favour or not. However he was just playing his usual game of silly buggers with the emotions of the people and more specifically the Civil Service whom he was trying to convince to take a bigger salary reduction than he knew was feasible. This time it backfired on him.

    Deal with it.

  31. Anonymous says:

    First of all every single one of them in that  LA is just a like looking out for that  silver  dollar and not for there country as they where hired by the people to do  I have never seen more spinless people that we have for representatives if they where so against  this 3.2% why didnt Mr. Premier run his mouth off like always and let them know that look its going to be 20% and thats the bottom line but no sames like his back benchers has more say that what he does so they should be the premier if he cant make a decision and stick to it .

  32. Anonymous says:

    Children please!


    Rather than fighting about it why not just take the 30% pay cut ?


    Problem solved.

    Your welcome,

    The Cayman Public

  33. Anonymous says:

    I could careless about the school yard fight between boys!!

     As a voter I will be watching this situation very closely and will not accept anything less than what was originally agreed by ALL15 members of the house on March 1 2010 i.e.

    1) 30% pay cut for the Premier

    2) 20% pay cut for the remaining members

    Everything else is an absolute crock of $&*#(()@ and complete smoke screens from the true issue.

    If the above original cuts do not happen then the integrity of every single member of the House will be called into question PERIOD!!!!

  34. Anonymous says:

    This sounds exactly like MacDinjad’s style.We all know his bulldozer ‘one man show’ style of leadsership.

    Thanks Arden for not letting him get away with spewing misinformation.

  35. johnny says:

    Maybe for Alden, but I didn’t see Kurt Tibbetts complaining about it – nor did I see the rest of the PPM members.

    When they were in the House, why didn’t they speak out against it???


    And all of a sudden Alden speaks out after the fact. He should have voice his support for the 20% cut.

    Did I hear any of the PPM members voice their support for it???

    I don’t understand these politicians

    • Anon says:

      With all due respect, this response is pure excrement.

    • Anonymous says:

      You have missed what Arden & Alden are complaining about.

      The Premier announces to the public that the MLA’s are going to take a 20% cut and he will take 25% to 30%, it appears that no one, including the PPM said nothing, but that is NOT the issue.

      After once again realizing that he opened mouth before ensuring that brain was engaged the Premier now realizes that his own backbenchers are not willing to support this pay cut that he publicly announced so what does he do? He then publicly announces that ALL the MLA’s refused to take the pay cut making himself come out looking like the innocent person. He wants the public to believe that he tried so hard to do these pay cuts but NONE of the other MLA’s are willing to support it.

      What Arden and Alden are now speaking out against is that he cannot tell the public that ALL MLA’s rejected the cut because they were never asked about it in the first place! They were TOLD they would be taking a pay cut or rather they heard the rantings of the Premier. Did the Premier actually meet with the Opposition and inquire how they felt about the pay cut? NO! His own party rejected the paycut, now suddenly he is including the opposition in that rejection.

      It was not a question, it was not a discussion, it was a statement made by the Premier and just because the Opposition probably looked absolutely shocked, that does not automatically translate that they had rejected it.

      Bottom line is you cannot say someone rejected something that you never offered/proposed to them in the first place! Arden is simply saying that the Premier is lying when he says that ALL of the MLA’s rejected the 20% cut because the Premier never had a discussion with the Opposition, did he poll them to determine who was for and against? NO! One also cannot determine someone’s decision simply by looking at their face! The Premier was determined to keep the Opposition out of all discussions relating to the Budget that he did not consult with the Opposition on anything but when it backfired on him then suddenly they had a part in the decision?

      Come on Mr. Premier, you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.