Where loyalties lie

| 21/12/2012

When Margaret Thatcher, the ‘Iron Lady’ who led Britain as prime minister for more a decade, was ousted from power, she felt betrayed by the Tory party which forced her resignation and she left Downing Street in tears. And yet, she went on to serve two more years on the backbench of the House of Commons before retiring from the lower house of parliament in 1992.

Because whatever anyone might think of Thatcher and her politics, her loyalty to her party and to her country was never in doubt. She stepped down because the Conservative Party did not believe that they could win the election with her as leader, and in the UK, as in all established democracies, people vote for the party that they believe will lead the country as a whole to greater prosperity and social cohesion.

Thatcher wasn’t happy but ultimately she put party and country first. Now compare that to McKeeva Bush, who has given his party far greater reason for his removal from the leadership role but is having what can only be described as a hissy fit over it. Desperately trying to retain a stranglehold on political power at the expense of the party is not patriotism, certainly not party loyalty, nor is it putting the people before self, which are all traits that we expect in any true leader.

Anyone who thinks that Bush should have remained in office does not care or just does not understand that the police investigations into his suspected financial irregularities, even before the drama of his arrest, were dragging the Cayman Islands down and the ‘Post-UDP 5’ made the right decision for the country. (See this viewpoint.)

The word “traitors” keeps popping up in the comments to refer to those UDP members who finally mustered the courage to force Bushout of power, but the context is always traitors to Bush, not traitors to Cayman. So where do the loyalties of Bush and his supporters lie? Certainly not with the party, because party politics – the real kind – does not depend on any one individual; it is an allegiance to a certain set of values and ideas. Blind support for one man (or one woman) is no more or less than a personality cult, which is a destructive force in any society.

Here in the Cayman Islands party politics is still in its infancy and, to be fair, neither party has really been clear about any cohesive social, political or economic philosophy that ties its members together and enables its supporters to feel that they have some idea as to how the party will react to future unpredictable events. In fact, it’s hard to discern exactly where on the political spectrum any politician in Cayman actually hangs his or her hat, once you get past the catch phrases and platitudes.

Without a clear political ideology that holds the politicians together there is no ideology for voters to support, and all too often it boils down to family or other ties, blind trust, a new fridge, favours to be returned, or which candidate will get the most money to spend on their district.

The PPM does at least function as a proper party. Kurt Tibbetts stepped down as leader after losing the 2009 election, which one would expect, and the next leader, Alden McLaughlin, was elected by the party members. Honesty and integrity are moral rather than political ideals and establishing openness and transparency are methods of governing, not economics, but if these are the chords that bind, it’s a good start. However, they need to establish what their party is – ‘not McKeeva’ is not good enough.

On the other hand, the UDP, the first and the second version, never did seem like a party so much as a vehicle for Bush to be the leader of the country and it appeared, from the outside as least, that those who joined him did so purely to either get elected or gain a cabinet position (or both). The shattering of the UDP over the ousting of McKeeva Bush supports this idea that the party was always just a means to an end for the ambitions of its politicians. If this is so, where do their loyalties lie?

Discounting for a minute the rampant speculation that personal gain is an essential motive, it seems that the main players of the now polarized UDP owed their allegiance either to Bush, who carried them into office by sheer force of personality, or to the districts that elected them.

A glaring example of district loyalty over country is the Hurricane Hilton on Cayman Brac. A party with an holistic view of the country (which decided it could afford a hurricane shelter) would ask the basic question as to which district was in most need of a shelter. The leader of the country and the rest of Cabinet (including the deputy premier) should want to protect as many of its citizens as possible in the event of natural disaster and place a new shelter where it has the potential to save most lives, and I don’t think anyone would argue that this was the Brac.

Juliana O’Connor Connolly was always the odd one out in the new UDP in that she never did need McKeeva Bush to get re-elected, but (and this is an important 'but') she does need to be a part of whatever political grouping is in power to have a place in Cabinet.

However, the way she has influenced the allocation of funds during the Bush administration – diverting resources, with questionable legality, from Grand Cayman to pave the roads on Cayman Brac, for example  – indicates that her mindset is still district politics, not country or party politics: get what you can for ‘your people’ and to hell with the rules.

Many Brackers don’t have a problem with that, just as many West Bayersfeel entitled to Mac’s largesse. But, just like West Bay, the funds and favours have not resulted in any real lasting improvement in the economy. Those lovely paved car parks didn’t create any new customers for the merchants, and the prices at the shops, the dwindling pay-packets and rising costs for small businesses (which is all of them on the Brac) are enough to make you weep.

It remains to be seen if the ‘Post-UDP 5’ will form a proper party and if they have enough political maturity (not granny wits) to move away from Bush-style politics, an unhealthy mutual dependency between politician and voters, in which love of country – called upon often but practiced rarely – takes a back seat to benefit the few, where secret deals are negotiated behind secret doors, due process is optional and dissent must be stifled.

The ‘Post-UDP 5’ have loyally stood behind Bush in the past, even as he attacked his enemies and vilified the media – or even taken potshots themselves. I wonder, now that they are on the receiving end of his wrath, whether they finally understand that personality-cult politics, which they nurtured, creates an unhealthy atmosphere for society at large. You might enjoy the feeling of power at the time but it brings with it extremes of emotions in the people you govern that will not benefit you or the country in the end.

Neither Juliana nor Alden McLaughlin has the right personality to create a personality cult. This is a good thing. I remain hopeful that enough voters have been horrified by the chaos created by McKeeva Bush’s government that in the next election, if he stands, he will be relegated to an echo chamber of dwindling supporters.

Then, if the two remaining parties – PPM and whatever the ‘Post-UDP 5’ become – are able to set out and explain to the public what it is they stand for, the rest of the country could have an election that is about ideas, not who is loyal/dependent on whom, and a debate on policies rather than puerile insults.

One can always hope.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Viewpoint

Comments (58)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Tired says:

    Typical Caymanian mentality, I'm "vex" with UDP so I going vote for PPM. PPM despite the favor shown on this site has its fair share of dark secrets. I'm so tired of this PPM vs UDP, its time for the people of these islands to benefit and not just the politicians. We have had the same individuals in power regardless of party, district or ethics. One man one vote is not the answer to our problems. It is time for Caymanians to stand up and demand accountability for its elected members. Simply creating more seat in Parliment is not going to work if we the people continue to turn a blind eye. 

  2. Anonymous says:

    I do support the fact that they finally decided to what is right for the Cayman Islands.  However, I will not forget that it took them so long.  Neither will I forget that 2 were not elected properly, that when they won the case against those few brave enough to fight them, they also got the judge to issue an order that it their costs were not paid within a few days, they would issue bankruptcy proceedings against those few brave souls, nor will I forget the terrible example the Minister of Education has set for the youth of these Islands.  We have lost many people through drunk driving and someone in his position should have a higher standard of behaviour.  Nor will I forget various other unethical, unprofessional behaviour and the disgraceful attitude towards the public if they dared to disagree with anything the UDP put forward.  I wish them well.  I am glad to see that the PPM and UDP will work together for the good of this country but I cannot forget.  

  3. Anonymous says:

    Dred, get real.  Learn how to understand what you read before making groundless accusations.  At what point did the author of the commentary ever say that what the former premier did was right.  His/her argument was that the UDP 5 acted out of self-interest and not out of love for country.  Easy on the juice.

  4. Antony Duckworth says:

    Let us rejoice in the fact that our political parties do not reflect differences in our community, or ideological opinions, as they do in many other countries. 

    Let us be glad that our parties do not reflect a class system, religious differences, ethnic differences, traditional prejudices and affiliations originating in forgotten history, different opinions on whether the tax system should transfer wealth from rich to poor, different opinions on whether Keynes or Hayek got it right, different support bases (organized labour or the merchant class or other special interests), different opinions on whether government should be big and answer all needs, or smaller and less interventionist. 

    Donot wish for unbridgeable divisions of that sort.  Just now, when we have so many problems to resolve, and confidence in our government is at such a low level at home and abroad, the emergence of that kind of political division is the worst thing that could happen to us. 

    There are and always have been fundamentally important differences between the UDP and the Progressives.  They have to do with the kind of government we want, and what we expect of our elected representatives.  Corruption, power-seeking, patronage, openness, efficiency, propaganda, intimidation, who really calls the shots – these are the big issues here.  I think Nicky sees those differences and presumably understands their vital importance.  So it is a mystery why she wants to see other political divisions in this country.

    Let’s get the country back on course with a healthy economy and a trusted government before we indulge ourselves in the luxury of philosophical or ideological divides.

    Of course every party and every independent candidate must present a manifesto telling voters what they will do if elected – starting with who they will support as Premier.  But manifestos need to give an honest assessment of the country’s real problems, and reflect good advice and common sense in shaping the way forward – not some ideological rant.  And no government will lead the country out of its problems unless it shows by its actions that it puts the country’s interests first.   We need confidence in government, not ideology.

    Antony Duckworth

    • Anonymous says:

      Sorry you lost me at rejoice….could you repeat that last bit?

      Quacks McDuck

    • Anonymous says:

      The 1950's and 1960's saw the emigrationof workers from the Caribbean to the UK as part of the UK's post WWII rebuilding. They played an important role in the post war development of London in particular. In 1987 they elected the UK's first 3 black MPs to give their communities a political voice.

       

      The contribution of expats to the growth and economic development of Cayman in the last 40 years must rank at least as equivalent to their Caribbean counterparts referred to above, yet here we are, 40 years on, without any non-native Caymanian even having stood for election as a MLA, let alone elected.

       

      It is disturbing therefore to read from someone in your position that we should " … rejoice in the fact that our political parties do not reflect differences in our community…". You are joking, right? Let the PPM field candidates whose intellect, proven track record, integrity and commitment to the island are obvious, but who lack the "true Caymanian" gene and your party will genuinely have taken a step to true integration of our community. Until then your assertion that " our parties do not reflect differences in our community…" is simply more politics as usual.

       

      The next step in the maturing of these islands is for the expat community to be genuinely represented on the political stage. My family has 4 votes ready to be used and no-one to vote for. How about it?

      • Anonymous says:

        The "true Caymanians" are outnumbered, unlike the situation back then in the UK.  No comparison so please stay out of our politics – we can handle it on this little 2 x 4 island.

        Not to worry though, in a few years, there will be no "true Caymanians" or very few, in the little political arena as that too will be controlled by the power-hungry expat-Caymanians.  Unfotunately, they will introduce that hostile & aggressive mindset of the politicians who represented their grand parents in the surrounding countries.  

        • Anonymous says:

          "….so please stay out of our politics – we can handle it on this little 2 X 4 island". What an absolutely hilarious comment, given the dreadful political events of the last few weeks here and the fact that we have a former premier under police investigation who has been replaced by a new premier who has spent a fortune of the taxpayers' money on useless foreign travel to exotic world destinations with her "bodyguard" and has, according to the Audit Dept, "improperly" used public finds to pave driveways and parking lots in Cayman Brac!!!! Yes, Fri 11:40, you have a WONDERFUL political situation on this 'little 2 X 4 island".

          • Anonymous says:

             Fri, 12/28/2012 – 18:21 yes, these islands undoubtedly have our share of corrupt individuals but obviously as bad as these "2 x 4" islands are, and as much as you make derogatory comments, itmust still be much better here than where you came from or surely you would not be so eager to gain representatives in our legislative assembly. You are the kind of expat that we do not need here.
             

            • Anonymous says:

              So, 23:14, were the "derogatory comments" true or untrue? And, yes, I may indeed be the sort of expat you don't want here – the sort that states the uncomfortable truth about the political situation here and some of the stupid xenophobic posts that appear here on CNS from intellectual midgets – but what on earth makes you think I want to "gain representatives in our legislative assembly"? I have no such desire for that because I know the electorate here will only vote for the same sort of born here  intellectual midgets I referred to above so I would never waste my time hoping for something that will never come to pass.

              • Anonymous says:

                So why waste your time on here ranting?  Just to see how many of your kind support you.  Read about your country's political mess and you won't have time to come on CNS and spew .

          • Anonymous says:

            Yep – you stay out of Caymanian politics. Anyway, you must know which majority nationality voted for Mac, who by the way, helped these people as well as many poor Caymanians.
            Our politics is as good as any other.

        • P A Rody says:

          I agree we must save the "true Caymanians". I propose a law preventing "True Caymanians" from marrying or procreating with expats or those "power-hungry expat-Caymanians".

          This should keep the "true Caymanian" bood clean from expat impurities

          • Anonymous says:

            What!  No more 'convenience' mariages – how you expect us to get status? Bwoy na taak so.

        • Like It Is says:

          The only true Caymanians are blue iguanas.  I love how these foreigner-Caymanians, ie Caymanians who have more recent Jamaican links than the Caymanians who have more historic Jamaican links, will bring political ruin to Cayman.  After all the true-blood, non-muggle Caymanians did so well when they elected Mac.  Pathetic power-hungry racism, pure and simple.

          • Anonymous says:

            Is Jamaica the only foreign country represented here? Nope. BTW not all Caymanians came from Jamaica.

          • Anonymous says:

            Please go run for politics in Jam – no corruption there.

      • Anonymous says:

        Do you really want to go there? The first reaction to immigration 'wave' to the UK (which was proportionately tiny compared to immigration to Cayman) was to demand that such immigration be stopped or 'Rivers of Blood' would result and to take away vested rights of abode for many from the Caribbean and elsewhere. Even today many Brits are saying that "Enoch Powell was right!". There is nothing more galling than the sort of hypocrisy and selective history that your post represents. You betray your own mindset when you compare having black MPs in the UK to give "their communities" a political voice to expats being politically represented here since, regardless of their british citizenship, and the fact that many have been born in Britain, you are saying that they are expats in Britain.    

        FYI non-native Caymanians have stood for election and at least one, Sir Vassel Johnson, has been elected. But of course there is nothing preventing non-native Caymanians from running from office once they are prepared to follow the same rule as native Caymanians – have no other citizenship.  

        Because of its economic power the expat community is already well-represented.

        • Anonymous says:

          I'm sure you feel better for getting that off of your chest, but it is of course all irrelevant diversion as far as the central theme of my post is concerned.

           

          You put forward no cogent argument as to why well qualified expat ( used here to mean simply non true blood Caymanians ) candidates should not be welcomed into the local political parties to stand as prospective MLAs. My view is that this is both equitable and a necessary part of Cayman maturing as a society.

           

          Your view that expats are already well represented by virtue of their economic power strikes me as almost Neanderthal; your statement simply supports the existing shady status quo when events over at least the last 8 years show this to be well and truly broken. 

          • Anonymous says:

            The post was exactly on point.

            The post clearly said that "non-true blood Caymanians" are welcome to put their hat in the ring so long as they are willing to observe the same rule that applies to Caymanians – to have no other citizenship. 

            Mere name-calling does not add any weight to your argument. Apparently you could use some of the maturity you think Cayman should have. It is actually quite insightful to note that economic power tends to trump direct political power.   

            • Anonymous says:

              Far from being " exactly on point" you continue to miss the point.

               

              It has nothing to do with whether non-true blood Caymanians are able to stand as a candidate for the LA – they can. It has everything to do with the ongoing failure of the current political parties to recognise the diverse composition of Cayman society ( as shown, at least from the PPM's perspective, by Duckworth's original post ) and the need, after decades of social change, to field a team of candidates truly representative of that society and to put their political weight behind those who are deemed "expat". Politicians are meant to lead in easing social tension; the current Cayman crop, like all those before them, feel that part of their job is to further entrench existing social divisions.

               

              An expat standing as an independent candidate, as opposed to one representing an established party, has a significantly reduced chance of being successful. The first black MP's to be elected in the UK did not stand as independents, they stood as  Labour party candidates. Clearly the concept of an inclusive society where one objective of political parties is to unify the society they represent eludes you. In this you unfortunately have much company in the local political parties. 

               

              And just for clarity, it was the clear message in your posts that an inclusive society is of no interest to you ( and presumably of no value to you ) that I called Neanderthal, not you. A subtle but important distinction which unsurprisingly you missed.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Loyalties rhymes with royalties…

    Coincidence?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Good article except that it glosses over too easily Julianna, Rolsons, CG, Mark and Dwayne’s collective complicity with McKeeva for nearly 4 years.

    Too little too late for me, I do not think they have don anything worthy of regaining any trust.

    Especially when they are still offering platitudes to McKeeva their mentor etc and saying how hard it was for them to step away from him. I’m not impressed by words. I still require meaningful ACTION to show you are going to be different

    If they want to impress me:

    Release the KPMG report
    Government budget and exoenditure cuts
    mla pay cuts

    Otherwise it’s just more ras CHAT!

  7. Ebanks says:

    Thank you Julie / Thank you Mark / Thank you Dwayne / Thank you Rolston / Thank you Cline… just thought I show my appreciation for their bravery and putting the country first. As we all know, McKeeva Bush is a difficult man. He has many ties and he is very threatening. It took courage to stand up to him; especially Rolston who was mentored by the man. My congratulations to all of them, and I wish them the best. Let's us all move forwardthis New Years, drop the past misgivings, and this our new government your support. Let's give our new Premier the chance to make a difference.She will not be there for long and tearing down a newly appointed Premier will benefit no one. Hence, let us give her our support and whatever we say and publish build up instead of tearing down… like I said before, tearing down someone's character, doesn't accomplish anything. To the critics and partisan ones for that matter, these 5 just started, so give them a chance for God sake!  To everyone have a Merry Christmas and God continually bless these Cayman Islands. Ebanks  🙂

  8. Knot S Smart says:

    I support the five brave people who stood up for what is right for the country and not for themselves:

    Ms Julie, Mark, John John, Rolston, and Cline – Thank you!

    And lets not forget the others who have always been standing up for the people:

    Ezzard and Arden, and Alden and the PPM – Thank you!

    And Mr Governor – Thank you for the stability that you bring, and for your unwavering insistance on good governance!

    The real traitors are the four who put their own interests before the interests of the people that elected them, and even before the good people of their own party.

    When we think of UDP now we will always remember the four who put their own interests before the country!

    Then have the audacity to ask the people they harmed, for cash donations.

    You four should hang your head in shame!

    And so should anyone else who leeched off of our tax dollars…

     

  9. Chris Randall says:

    A very clear and lucid exposition, Nicky.

    The constitution is quite clear: The governor must invite the leader of the party which wins an election to try to form a government.  The current leader is Julianna; it makes no difference that the election was over 3 years ago and the party then had a different leader. She is unquestionably the leader NOW and thus entitled to be Premier.  The UDP hierarchy outside the L.A. has no standing in the matter and must defer to the leader or resign from the party.

    As the artical so clearly states, party politics is very very new to the Islands and may well have developed more as a vehicle for supporting a particular personality than to propound a set of policies to be followed by anyone elected as a representative of the party to the L.A.

  10. Non-Party Member says:

    Thanks for a well thought out commentary, Nicky. A pleasure to read. The reference to Mrs.Thatcher most pertinent.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Another excellent Viewpoint, rich with insight. Keep them coming.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Exceptionally well written article!

  13. Uhum says:

    I fail to see how the UDP 5 did anything for country.  There are many who have commented on other boards that the UDP 5 finally made the right choice and finally did the "right" thing for country, etc…  It took them 4 years to finally do the right thing?  Really?  No, no, no, no…  The only thing that the UDP 5 did is realize that the ship was sinking – that they struck a huge iceberg and recovery was highly unlikely (at least not in the short term).  Unlike the others who decided to stick with McKeeva to try to save the ship, the UDP 5 jumped in the lifeboats, women and children be damned.  If anyone has ever seen the Seinfeld episode where the fire alarm goes and George pushed children and the old lady aside on this mad scramble for the exit, you'll know what I mean.  Personally I have far more respect for those who stuck with McKeeva.  Despite the fact that I think that all of the UDP are a bunch of weasels, at least McKeeva's weasels did not sell out when the going got tough – the others did.  Not only did they betray country for 4 years, they now betrayed their master. 

    • Anonymous says:

      Since when is the premier anyone's "master"?  Try joining the 21st century.

      • Uhum says:

        You're proof that revolution does go in reverse.  When I said master I meant it figuratively and not literally – didn't think that I had to explain it to rocket scientists such as yourself…  When the premier used to say jump, the UDP 5 jumped  – whe he said sit, they sat.  And when he sait bark, they barked.  Hope this explains it for you Einstein.  So back to your village now, they've called to say that they're missing an idiot.

    • Dred says:

      What an ignorant moron.

      I am not a Juju fan or any of the others but it was HIGH time they made the move they did. Mr. Bush was not "saving the ship" as you would propose he was wailing away with a pickaxe at teh rest of the bottom of the ship.

      Do you actually consider….

      1) Calling the governor the enemy

      2) Staying in office and making a mockery of the countries judicial system

      Or anything else he has done as a way in which he could "save the ship"? He is under investigation and has been arrested for suspicion of crimes against the people of teh Cayman Islands and you think nothing of that?

      As I said before you are an ignorant moron. A coolaide drinking, Jim Jones loving moron. 

      • Uhum says:

        Oh Gosh, more proof that stupidity knows no bounds – MacKeeva was tryingto save his own sinking ship…  Didn't think that this had to be explained…  As I post this response to you, the headline of your response shows as "What an ignorant moron.  I am" (Hit REPLY to your comment to see exactly what I mean)  How truly fitting – and remember, you said it – I didn't.  Do you need me to explain that to you as well?

        • Anonymous says:

          Yes, the "ship" did have to be explained. Usually people think of the premier as the captain rather than the ship which is the country.

          • Uhum says:

            Actually it does not have to be explained, unless you have the brain of a bird.  In this case the "ship" did not refer to country, just as it does not refer to country when you say:  "He jumped ship".  It's called context – and if you had read the context you would have understood that when I said ship it referred to MacKeeva's ship/party, etc.

            • Anonymous says:

              I have a very able brain and contrary to what you might believe your post was a bit rambling and "ship" did not fit any context. And learn to be civil and not so rude.   

    • Anonymous says:

      I was with you right up until the words "Unlike the others who decided to stick with McKeeva…".  What ship were they trying to save exactly? Certainly not Cayman. Initially all of them signed a written request for McKeeva to resign as they thought that was in the best interests of the country. The question is why did they change their minds? Were they threatened? Did the simply lack the moral courage to stick by their commitment once they faced McKeeva? Did Ellio not get his Cabinet post that he had demanded? In any event they put McKeeva Bush (he is presumably the ship that you are referring to) before the interests of their own country and there is nothing at all to respect them for. They did not sell out? Yeah, that is probably right since the only thing that stopped Ellio was that he did not get his 30 pieces of silver. For someone like Mark Scotland there was nothing at all to gain. He simply kept his old Cabinet seat without any change in his responsibilities so I don't know what the "sellout" would be, and for the others they must haverecognised that this would jeopardise their position within the UDP and there would be hell to pay all for having a Cabinet post for a few months. Whether self-interest was involved or not it took a great deal of courage to take that action. I am not buying what you're selling.           

      • Uhum says:

        To answer a few of your questions…  The ship that they were trying to save is MacKeeva's – you're right, definitely not Cayman.  Why do I respect the fact that Foolio and others stuck with McKeeva?  Well, because when things go badly, you need to stick with your team – whether for good or bad.  It's too late by now for apologies anyway.  I imagine that Foolio, etc. realizes that McKeeva is done – at least he ought to…  As for the "sellout", well, someone like Mark Scotland (who you argue has nothing to gain) has lots to gain – he "betrays" MacKeeva with the hope that his constituents "reward" him by voting him in again next year; same with the others.

        • Anonymous says:

          There is a far greater risk that having served as his Ministers for 3 1/2 years they are already tainted and so will lose support both in the UDP and non-UDP camps.

  14. Anonymouse Man says:

    This is a great article, well said in simple English. I think Juliana and the ohter 4 have done what is right and we should give them support until the next election, then we can make  a decision on their political future.

  15. Verticalpig says:

    Mac wasn't de-railed for the benefit of Caymanian voters imho, he tried to cut a deal with the Chinese behind the backs of the UK and the UK wants to send a message.

     

    Point is where do things go from here? It isn't just the candidates who need to change – it's the electorate. If enough are swayed by promises of jobs, presents and money nothing changes.

     

    The Governor is compromised over good governance, how can he come down on graft and the like while he's blinder than a wrestling ref to what JuJu has been up to? Instead he shakes her hand as new Premier.

     

    Sad to say, as bad as thing have become, they may have to be worse before anything really changes.

  16. Anonymous says:

    I think despite everything that the best course of action is to vote the original UDP back in now tag it shed the weight of the former five. They were clearly the problem!

    Signed,

    Not Big Mac

  17. Dreadlock Holmes says:

    While I agree with poster 12:30 in that politicians almostnever state what it is they intend to do once elected and view an election as a means to an end, and often what they do comes as a complete surprise, McKeeva Bush is a prime example of that as someone who didn't have a clue and just "winged it." Following that this most recent turn of events has an upside. It has been an re-education for the voters. Let's leave the politicians out of this for a moment because we're still not certain they have got the point. I can't agree with 12:30 that the UDP5 should be given an opportunity to prove anything. Or… that their hidden agendas have changed. The optics are off. And so is the timing. As far as a lesson to voters though this has been a serious wake- up call. I believe I've mentioned this before, but it needs to be said again: an election belongs to the voters. It is not a platform to be used for finger-pointing. The election process has been completely taken over by politicians and Wendy is right: For want of any clear policies that's what we have come to hear and expect. It then becomes a personality contest. We can't expect politicians to learn a new way because in their minds the "old way" has always worked. The "old way" diverts our attention away from real issues by focusing on what the other political party have done or what they have done wrong. Tell us something we don't know it's fine to devote a little bit oftime to that merely as a reminder but what are the solutions? What are the policies intended that will change that?? Not promises. Policies… PLANS…. METHODS. Can't hear you.  Because in order to get those answers…. we must be free to ask questions and not be treated merely as an audience for some blowhard politician. IF MEMORY SERVES US ALL CORRECTLY… THAT'S what has taken place to date. If voters don't want history to repeat itself the process will be simple: "We have now heard from the candidates. For each candidate the next few hours will be devoted to questions from the public."

    • Anonymous says:

      Agreed. The candidates should be out answering the publics questions and perhaps asking them what they think could make a real difference in public spending. The public may have ideas that no one in government has thought of. We also need to address the idea that politicians should personally look after people. That is the root of corruption in the whole of the Caribbean. 

  18. Anonymous says:

    I hope this new government puts the one man on vote into law. They have the power to do so with Bush gone and it would truly show they are here for the country.

    • bradley says:

      If they can pull this one off, I tell you, I will be changing my views about this Woman Premier. Forget the paving incident. She will make me proud indeed. Also a bonus would be to have a "one man TWO votes" where everybody will be able to have another vote in electing "WHO" should be in the Premier post, but I think that may need an Order in Council to accomplish, because it would mean chaning the Constition. They have so little time to make a difference, but like I always say, IF THERE IS WILL THERE IS WAY. Let us see what these Post UDP 5 really do for this country. 🙂

  19. Anonymous says:

    Very well said.

  20. Anon says:

    Foolishness!

    Traitors – all 5 of 'em.

    Bunch of Judas looking creatures wanting power.

  21. Anonymous says:

    The political landscape has been dramatically changed. We have already 4 political groupings (UDP, C4C, Post UDP-5, and PPM). And I bet you before May, you will have alot of Independents. This should be a very interesting election. But I am happy that we have more to choose from, because at the end of the day, this is our country, we should be able to pick and choose the right ones for the job and not get carried away by party politics.

  22. Anonymous says:

    BRILLIANT!

  23. H.xxx says:

    Nicky, nice article. It is too bad that the party's values and ideas are not listed out before election. Too bad that they declare no platform as to what they stand for. Only in Cayman!  Rather they leave people are forced to vote on personality and not on the issues or "values" like you say. They cleverly conceal what they stand for and once they get in, they do differently to what they promised. The parties here fail to make official declarations as to what they defend because they fear being judged by a set of standards.

    My hope is that the post UDP 5 is not judged from the past. Rather, they have started a new group, fresh from MB'sinfluences. We should all move FORWARD in our mindset, and give them the support that is needed today for this country – not criticize them, write articles as to what they have done, and demounce them because they were engulfed by Bush politrix. We have to always look forward, use the past when we can to build up and not tear down, and think on those things that are in the best interest of our beloved islands.

    • Anonymous says:

      The "Post UDP 5" are all tainted by MB and should never be re-elected, they stood/sat silently by and perpetuated his dogma. They should not be given one ounce of credit for what has now transpired.

      I am extremely apprehensive about the next election, watch out for those independents who are not really independent, it happened last time in George Town, they split the anti-UDP vote and let the UDP in. MB will make them all sorts of promises

      • Anonymous says:

        I'm no Julianna supporter nor care too much for any of the UDP 5 but why put them down?  Give them a chance to work with the PPM and the Independants and stop being so negative.  They finally made the right decision and we should give them credit for that.  Let's give them a chance to make things right and 2013, we can decide whether to put them back in or not.  

        We need to keep our country together.  Mac is dividing the country.  Why can't people see that?  Nicky: this is a wonderful viewpoint.  Margaret Thatcher is one of my heroes.  Mac doesn't care about this country but for once the UDP 5 put country first.

    • Anonymous says:

      The PPM, now the Progressives have published comprehensive and detailed manifestos before the two elections in which they participated — 2005 and 2009. 

    • Anonymous says:

      Your first 3 lines are false. Manifestos are always published which contains their proposed policies.