Motion gets over 1st hurdle

| 01/05/2012

LA speaker_0.JPG(CNS): The opposition’s no confidence motion in the government has been accepted by the speaker of the Legislative Assembly, despite its submission during a meeting and not before as would normally be required. However, that is just the first hurdle for the second no confidence vote to be brought to the country’s parliament since the UDP government was voted into office.  With the first procedural problem mounted the opposition leader and the independent member, who have proposed the motion, now need to get the vote on the order paper, which lies in the hands of the chair of the Business Committee – McKeeva Bush.

Obligated under the Standing Orders to facilitate opposition motions as well government business, the premier in his role as Business Committee chair cannot dismiss the motion but he can still delay the debate by putting off the motion to another sitting. At present, legislators are scheduled to meet next Wednesday 9 May to debate the referendum motion for the one man, one vote national poll.

“I am glad that the motion was accepted by the speaker,” Ezzard Miller, the independent member for North Side, said Monday evening, “but now we have to get it on the order paper and the last time it took several months.”

All of the opposition members have said that unless the lack of confidence motion is placed at the top of the agenda for the meeting on 9 May, they will not participate in the proceedings of the country’s parliament.

“The premier is chair of the Business Committee and the UDP has the majority, which is troubling given the comments made by Mark Scotland that the UDP will not support the motion,” Miller added.

The North Side member said that Health Minister Scotland seemed unconcerned that the premier was the subject of three police investigations and that all members of the party would be standing by him and were not going to ask him to step aside. 

The opposition motion, which has been proposed by PPM Leader Alden McLaughlin and seconded by Miller, calls for a lack of confidence in the government because Bush is now the subject of three police investigations. The motion, however, covers the entire government because under the constitution it is not possible to call for no confidence in the premier as only the ruling party can remove their leader.

Although doomed to failure even if the motion reaches the floor of the House, the opposition has pointed out it is the only tool they have to try and persuade the government members how untenable the premier’s position is given the circumstances. It will also provide an opportunity for the electorate to hear clearly where members of the government stand on the issue and explain their reasons for supporting the premier, despite the three investigations.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Politics

About the Author ()

Comments (36)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    It's Gilbert & Sullivan 2012!

  2. Fairplay says:

    I am no defender of the UDP, however fairness is important: that the head of a governing political party, Premier Bush in the case of the Cayman Islands, is head of the Business Committee is quite common throughout the entire Commonwealth. There is not anything unusual about our situation at all.

    Has anyone seen a Government that lets its Opposition determine its Agenda; does Bank of America let Wells Fargo have a say in its affairs? Does anyone in their right mind really believe that this same situation did not exist under the PPM Government and does anyone think the PPM will change this situation when it regains power? The answers are no.

    I believe that there is a 50/50 chance of the UDP dominated Business Committee allowing this to get on the Order Paper of the LA.

    If it is not placed on the Order Paper or merely stalled for months on end, the UDP Government could say they were acting in the ‘national good’: that debating the Motion could cause further damage to the Cayman Islands.

    My main message is this: bloggers should take the time to learn what is the “norm” and stop reacting in the absence of such knowledge. It is normal for any ruling Government to control the Parliament’s Agenda-setting mechanism.

    • Anonymous says:

      It's hard to dismiss 3 serious investigations as the norm in the civilized world, but thanks for trying.  These are not personal investigations into some romantic fouls with an intern – these are into serious breaches of the duty of office.  In First World Nations the interest groups would lobby the party to reshuffle – even if temporarily – so that a speedy resolution could be reached.  The status quo is only typical in third world and military dictatorships.   

    • Anonymous says:

      "I believe that there is a 50/50 chance of the UDP dominated Business Committee allowing this to get on the Order Paper of the LA".

      Rolston said on TV that it was unlikely to get on the order paper because government has to determine priorities.

      While it is true that government controls the business of the House should the Premier really be chairing that committee when there is a clear conflict of interest in this case?

  3. Anonymous says:


  4. Anonymous says:

    if Bush doesn't excuse himself from chairing this meeting, what's left of hisalready tarnished political career will be well and truly over. Apart from Scotland and Solomon, his real best friends would never forgive him.

    • Anonymous says:

      That still won't stop him.  Its "I'm innocent and have done no wrong Bush.  If only he had done something right!  Anything!

  5. Anonymous says:

    this doom to fail, none of the UDP will go against KEKE, THE UDP ARE  COWARDS TO STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT!!!!

  6. UDP Supporter says:

    When Jesus was alive he had to face many doubters, just like our Premier is doing today. But just like Jesus our Premier will rise again and do his works for the people of the Cayman Islands. The doubters and those who have turned their faces away from the Lord will be silent then!

    • A real UDP supporter says:

      Please spare us from this Jesus / religious rhetoric, because you do not in any shape or fashion represent the UDP. McKeeva, our leader, is not compared to Jesus!

    • Knot S Smart says:

      UDP Supporter,

      A Real UDP Supporter below is telling you that you are what Connor was in Mobile…

      I think you need to pray for him too…

    • Anonymous says:

      If we push this analogy, doesn't that mean Mr. Bush must be crucified first?

  7. EYE ON THE ISLAND says:

    That's a conflict of intrest but he will let it go because he knows he has the votes. But bring it back up as soon as possible. Don't give up.

  8. Anonymous says:

    LOL! Head of the Business Committee is the PREMIER…himself.  How can this be?  This man needs to excuse himself from the chair of the Business Committee and let Ms. Mary or the Governor appointment a new Chairman.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Reading is important — read between the lines. Don't swallow everything.

  10. Peter Milburn says:

    Lets see how this pans out.

  11. WREX says:


    The sad thing is that PPM had their chance and did no better than UDP.  Some politicians need to make room for new candidates and try to get a real job like everyone else.  

    There are good people on both parties, but once they are in position, who do they hold allegiance to, the citizens or the party?  

    Maybe is time for them to disassociate themselves from their parties and associate with the citizens they represent. 

    FYI: I'm voting independent…

    • Anonymous says:

      please, let's just stick to the issue at hand, we can worry about cleaning house, come 2013.

    • Anonymous says:

      While this is not the topic, your post shows just how miguided, small minded, vocal and irrelevant the group of people who want Cayman to do away with the political party system has become. Do you guys want Cayman to go back to wooden ships, donkeys and carts as well? They were some really good days then too. You all want change but you want change but at the same time you expect things to be how they were 25- 50 years ago.That is not likely to happen. The party system is here to stay, join one and become a leader! 

  12. Anonymous says:

    Enforce the Oath of Office under which all MLAs pledge to serve.  

  13. Anonymous says:

    I find this to be a total disaster that the person you are bringing the motion against is also the chairman of the committee, this is a joke. AND THE REST OF THE WORLD IS WATCHING THIS. WE HAVE GONE TO THE DOGS.

    • Anonymous says:

      Exactly the reason why he should have stepped aside months ago!  What Bush fails to appreciate is that he's becoming a laughing stock as well as a national embarrassment!

  14. Anonymous says:

    Not to worry Alden and and Ezzard. We fully understand you're making the best of a very bad situation. Thank you for caring for your country and your people. You are doing your part. Leave the rest to God Almighty who WILL get us out of this mess. God bless you gentlemen.

    • Peter says:

      If they left all to God Almighty in the first place, they would be coming with solutions on how they can help the UDP boost our economy, instead of tearing everything down!

      • Anonymous says:

        Thank you for admitting that the UDP is tearing everything down.

      • Anonymous says:

        They might if there was any chance whatsoever that the UDP would listen to their suggestions.

      • Anonymous says:

        And if the UDP listened to God, they would be sitting down with the PPM and the people and having an open honest give-and-take to benefit the people.

    • Anonymous says:

      Wasnt it God who let this happen in the first place?

  15. Knot S Smart says:

    Is it not a conflict of interest if a 'no confidence motion' is brought against the Govt, meaning the Ministers of Parliament – that they then vote on the motion? Because who would vote against themselves?

    Common decency requires that those whom the motion is against should abstain from voting!

    But then 'common decency' is not so common these days I guess…

    • Anonymous says:

      Not sure you have thought that through. Your suggestion is essentially more flawed than the present one. Doing that would mean that every single no confidence motion would automatically pass and would be a recipe for mischief.

  16. Anonymous says:

    This is more intriguing and malicious than a spanish soap opera.