‘Not them’ isn’t a qualification

| 07/01/2013

Some believe doggedly in the FCO ‘conspiracy’ and are throwing their full support behind Mac going into the General Elections (assuming he makes it to that stage as an eligible candidate). Another group has some concerns regarding the FCO’s approach to recent events but feel that McKeeva is not fit for the job simply due to his incompetence, not because of the so-called conspiracy.

Another group rejects any form of FCO responsibility and is basically happy that with Mac’s fall the country has a chance of recovering from his poor leadership. Finally, we have the hard core ‘anti bushites’, who are happy that he is gone and are completely comfortable with the idea that the FCO (or anyone else for that matter) may have had a hand in his downfall (i.e. “thanks for helping us out”).

Wherever you stand, there is no doubt that the issue has the potential to divide the country, although not as much as party politics has over the past 12 years.

The differences of opinion on a national level is now also leading to calls for the scalps of those that supported McKeeva over the years and this call goes beyond his inner political circle and extends now, it seems, to corporate support, business big wigs, etc. But while this point must be well taken, to take things down this road seems a huge waste of energy that would be better placed elsewhere, such as assessing the true qualities of alternative candidates in the upcoming election beyond the one ‘qualification’ they will try to keep at the forefront: that they are not McKeeva or UDP.

The role of corporate and other supporters, as long as it does not breach any laws, is a legitimate part of being involved in the political process in any democratic country. And this support is not always as unrelated to performance as one may think: if a government or politician gets support and then screws up, they will most likely lose that support the next time around. The so-called 'big wigs' in business have the right to change their support in the same way that we as individuals do. To suggest otherwise is to pander to the stupidity of party or group allegiance that is starting to plague this country; i.e. the idea that somehow, once you have been associated with one group or another, if you change later then you are dishonest or disingenuous, etc.

Secondly, seeking scalps ‘by association’ will not be effective because you can rest assured that the winning group would have had its share of support as well and sometimes from the very same persons/entities (because in Cayman that’s how the ‘game' is usually played, as many of us are starting to learn).

At the same time we don’t need to “forgive and forget”. In fact we can “punish”, especially elected members who we feel should have done better, by using our vote in May. But we must reserve some of our energy also for assessing the qualifications of anyone, whether party member or independent, who steps forward to suggest that they are the right answer to take our country forward.

‘Not McKeeva’, ‘not UDP’, ‘not PPM’ or even ‘being independent' are far from being qualifications for lifting the Cayman Islands out of this mess. We absolutely must forget the ‘perceived associations’, colours and t-shirts and focus on the candidates or, ironically, we will end up in the same place but with a different ‘group’ come the morning of May 23rd 2013.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Viewpoint

About the Author ()

Comments (55)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anonymous says:

    This is just an article trying to get people to vote against udp. The party may seem split up but udp has more answers than the others because they try to get development going to help people get employed.

    That is the most important thing and many of you don’t realise how imporatnt it is.

    • Anonymous says:

      And we all realize how important that new fridge/driveway/CS job/church fund,etc. is to you.  For the rest of us the facts are more important then the promises.  The time to take responsibility for yourselves is here.

  2. anon says:

    unnah nu fu real. when austin and his c4c people get going we will finally see the true force of independents. and the parties will be over finally so nothing to worry about there.

    what we DO need to worrry about is if we will even make it to may with the cashflow troubles that we hearing abotu in government right now. a lot of suppliers are not getting the bills paid and small businesses are suffering becauseu of that!

    if they cannot get a bigger overdraft from the bank how wil they pay the bills? that is the crisis that we are now facing.

    • Anonymous says:

      It is the usual thing for Government to have cash flow problems at the end of a calendar year and into the first month or two of the new year.  Bear in mind that a major portion of government"s revenue is from the fees received from the financial industry: bank licences, company fees, hedge funds etc. and as far as I know they are usually paid in at the end of January with allowances of up to 30-60 days to submit.  By February, March things will be looking better and that is why the bank will give overdrafts, because it is based on the historical evidence of the peaks and valleys of government revenue.  Let us try to not over-sensationalize everything. The sky is not falling – not yet anyway! 

      • Anon says:

        You might be forgiven for thinking that if the government have been long aware of the peaks and troughs in their income they might by now be able to plan for it a little better than having to take out overdrafts. Those overdrafts cost the country in overdraft income and fees. To me it is another symptom of a government unable to manage basic cashflow matters.

    • Anonymous says:

      C$C is a party they just deny it.

  3. anon says:

    i have read a lot of very good viewpoints and comments from people and i am sure many are caymanian. but i dont understand why they dont use their names. this writer is one of those examples, always making very solid arguments. we need all of these caymanians to stand up and be counted. I am not caymanian and for the record that is why I am not using my name above because I was warned to stay out of this type of thing due to my immigration status. but i wish I could reveal my name.

    • Anonymouse Man says:

      So why don't you use your real name?

      • Diogenes says:

        Why don't you read his comment – he states quite clearly that he does not give his name because he is not Caymanian and is concerned re his immigration status – the clear inference is that he is worried about retaliation.

        As for the original comment, I can see that work permit holders have a reason to be concerned about their identities becoming public if they criticise people of infuence. There is also some sense to the argument that people eligible to stand for the LA and to vote should be more open about their identity – if we all live in fear, its difficult to identify a viable alternative for eection, and the credibility of any argument raised can be undermined by an inference that it is being raised by someone without a long term stake in the country.  However, what the writer fails to appreciate is that its not just work permit holders that may feel exposed to retaliation.  Caymanians can be concerned about their employment and livelihoods, particularly if employed by a government owned entity or the Civil Service.  Recent experience in Cayman has shown only too well how individuals taking brave decisions have suddenly found themselves redundant, retired or otherwise removed (or in the case of the NRA, had a whole organisation punished!). 

  4. anonymous says:

    So true. now if only someone out there would listen. I seriously wonder what would happen if we all decided to ignore the parties completely. im sure cayman would still be here and maybe better off.

  5. anon says:

    well said! i dont think we will be able to completely erase this party allegence nonsense but i hope we can. It has caused a split in my own family so there is no doubt it has an impact. and to be honest the division makes no sense at all because we are not disagreeing on policy at all just that i prefer 2 guys from the old UDP and they prefer ppm. and soemhpow instead of us being family (in this case first cousins) we are now udp or PPM. it is kind of stupid to be honest. i cant wait to see it totally disbanded

  6. Dreadlock Holmes says:

    I agree with most of this viewpoint but there is one critical statement I don't follow. That is:

    "The role of corporate and other supporters, as long as it does not breach any laws, is a legitimate part of being involved in the political process in any democratic country."

    As we all are aware unknown special interests and corporate lobbying form an grey area of government. The processes used may be "legal" or at least on the very edges of legality, but they have also perverted democracy in ways which often make it accessible only to those who have resources. At least more resources than the public has available. Election campaigns cost money. Sometimes, as in the U.S., a great deal of it. The public can show their support one way or the other through their votes but they don't normally provide the vast sums necessary nor can they afford to hire lobbyists. In theory, they have lobbyists in their elected representatives, but those representatives also know where the money came from. They don't forget and we are reminded of thisconstantly.  In order to restore Representative Democracy, election campaigns should be funded entirely with public funds with each party receiving the same amount. This may sound costly but would save us far greater than that in favors being used by politicians to pay back the loans they received. Make no mistake they are loans. Lobbying should also be eliminated and bring us back to the theory of one person- one vote and equal say.  Which is what Representative  Democracy is supposed to be and that is not what we have now.  This is our system of government and if we see ways it is being gamed we should do something about it.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Praise the Lord! PPM gonna rule again!

  8. Anonymous says:

    This seems to have been written on behalf of C4C, the backers of which formerly supported McKeeva.  McKeeva was a known entity before 2009. None of the recent events should come as a surprise to anyone. But that was fine as long as he was doing the bidding of his patrons. When his patrons realised they had lost control of their man then they needed new donkeys to ride and hence C4C was born. If on the other hand they genuinely believed that he was the right man to lead the country then it shows such a shocking lack of judgment that their endorsements for other candidates has no value at all. I believe they are being disingenuous about the reasons for removing their support from McKeeva and their motives for supporting other candidates are to be distrusted. 

    • Anonymous says:

      I doubt this written on behslf of them because this same writer beat the crap out of c4c about their credibility. What we need to do is think about things with an open mind without seeking to label and blame any and everyone all in the name of this ppm and udp stuff.

      • Anonymous says:

        Regardless, the points made were valid. It is not just a matter of people changing who they support politically because their former party did not perform. These Bush-UDP supporters supported the UDP because they hoped to gain personally from that support. If that was the motive for support then we can expect no different motive now. Further, we are being asked to rely upon the judgement of these people to endorse candidates while they are in effect admitting poor judgement about their previous choices. An open mind is fine, but a blank mind which takes no account of the past is just plain stupid.   

  9. Anonymous says:

    I have an idea. If kearny gomez could put “101” , “good riddance” and “honesty” on the ballot in bodden town we could check the box on all three and replace what we have now.

    Seriously what will chuckie and ossie do about the dump? Will they reverse that or keep mark and john john promises to bring filth to the district?

  10. Anonymous says:

    Wicked viewpoint again 101. Bless.

  11. Anon says:

    Agreed although the article could easily have been entitled “udp doesnt have any qualifications”.

  12. Anonymous says:

    I disagree. “PPM” IS a qualification. They would inject some well needed honesty and intelligence into things right now and not this embarrassment for past 3 years. Compare udp and ppm terms and aside from complaining about the schools which is a good investment, you will see that its like night and day and ppm are far far better option for the country right now.

    • Anonymous says:

      Sorry mate, since when is 197 million a good investment in a school in a town of 40,000? Unless the schools will generate 400 savants per year, I am not following.
      PPM did not realize that it wasn’t the facilities that were causing low output. So where was their intelligence you talk about? They are just as useless as the UDP arrestees. That’s the issue!

      If UDP is no choice, neither PPM, and neither C4C, who will we vote for? That’s my frustration.

      • Anonymous says:

        I swear people just make these figures up. Since you say "school" (singular) I assume you are referring to the new high school at Frank Sound which did not cost $197m. Even the $118m it supposedly cost was in part due to actions of Mckeeva's UDP when it took over. It terminated the contract with TJI and had to pay damages plus it is always more expensive to start over with new contractors.

        Further on making figures up where did you get the idea that there are only 40,000 people in Cayman? If there are 20,000 people on work permit alone (not including their dependents, nor foreign govt. workers, nor permanent residents, nor Caymanian adults, nor children) obviously the population must be higher than 40,000.     

        • Anonymous says:

          I think he was taking about the two schools combined. You must be an Alden flunky.  And look for the combined cost of the two schools to be north of $225m in th end, though granted, the UDP can be held directly accountable for part of that. But even if the PPM had won the election in 2009, the cost for the two schools would have been at LEAST $175m, so the writer's main point still stands. Don't give me that nonsense about how Tom Jones Int'l had a signed contract. That project was going pear shaped from the onset and everyone knew it. Cayman's other general contractors knew it the day after the deal was signed.  So hush.

          • Anonymous says:

            Does a concern for truth and accuracy and a refusal to spew the UDP party line automatically make one an "Aldenflunky"? But just so you know, I am an Independent. My point was the poster was making up figures. That still stands.  

  13. Anon says:

    Very good article but sorry it wont help much because most of us will vote for the person that is popular and speaks up the most. Andcalso remember that handouts is common around this time and some people who really need it will have no choice but to vote for those who help them. I know i will get thumbs down for saying that but it is true thats what goes on on the streets.

  14. Anonymous says:

    C4c can help this situation if they field good candidates and not just previledged merchant class who are only in it because they already have money but now seeking some political power to make thier lives complete. Right now what they putting out there for candidates represents less than 5 percent of caymanians. What about the rest of the people?

    • Anonymous says:

      I'm expect you are right; McKeeva will play both the race and white families of privilege card against C4C. If you want to fight in his ring you will have to get down and dirty. Remember George Bush jr won the US presidency twice by going country and stupid.

      • R.U. Kidden says:

        Correction, Mr. Anonymous……  George Bush did not have to "go country and stupid".  He was already there.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Good article. But I would still prefer ppm gets a try this time as they did not cause any screw up as big as udp. Also they are not corrupt at all.

    • Anon says:

      They may not be corrupt but are they competent?

      • Anonymous says:

        Yes, they have got some good, young educated people on board this time around.

    • Anonymous says:

      I agree that the PPM did less damage to the reputation to the country than that of the UDP but personally I still hold the PPM and UDP responsible for the rapid decline in the standard of living for Caymanians due to the mass status grants that have destroyed this country forever and for this I make no apologies. 

    • Crazy Bald Head says:

      A joke you a talk remember the slide started under the ppm and FFR exists because they mismanaged projects and the countries finances along with the current udp. The combination is what gave the FCO the perfect excuse and ultimate control of the purse strings

      • Anonymous says:

        The recession started in 2008. The country's financial woes are due in large part to the recession. If PPM did not spend on these large projects the recession here would have been deeper, unemployment greater and crime even more out of control. In other countries, such as the U.S., what they did was known as economic stimulus. What you do not understand is that govt. finances are not the same as household finances since govt's responsibilities extend beyond itself to the economy at large.  

        Cayman is in a better position that some of our competitors including Bermuda. The only reason Bermuda did not have to sign an FFR is because it did not have equivalent provisions to our Public Management and Finance Law and has the ability to raise its debt ceiling.

    • anonymous says:

      wow.. did u really just say PPM didnt screw up as much? let me refresh the page and check comments again and hope i see something different.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Sorry but why do you have to say mac was a poor leader? He showed more courage than any other i know under the current situation. He is still pressured by uk and thats what is really going on. Because we dont liek him we have to turn against him and only god knows he will return better than ever this year just wait and see.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yup this is exactly where the big guy gets his votes from!

    • Anon says:

      Err…maybe because he IS a poor leader?

    • Anonymous says:

      Seriously you people need to stay in west bay and start your own website.

    • Anonymous says:

      Did you just say courage? Lmao! The only courage he had was to embarrass the country with his ramblings and mismanage our finances. Sure very courageous considering what we will now do to him in the elections.

    • anonymous says:

      its a good thing we dont "liek" him. Learn how to spell and then next time try voting based on whats right for the country and not based on what you can get…

    • Anonymous says:

      I swear some of you people must be on crack. Mac was a monumental disaster as premier. He actually made Kurt look good. First, he is incompetent. He has not accomplished a single thing but stumbles from one blunder to the next (Cohen deal etc.) Too busy looking for how he can benefit instead for looking out for the interests of Cayman. After 4 attempts he still managed to botch the cruise terminal tender so that cruise ships are cutting back on tourists by 1/4 million which means the loss of millions of dollars in revenue. He has seriously damaged our international reputation with his scandals and his expat tax.  He squandered our money on lavish overseas trips with large entourages and has nothing to show for it. He has damaged our relationship with the UK. Virtually every time he opened his mouth it created embarrassment for every sensible Caymanian by the ignorance that came out of it. He obviously lacks the temperament for the position of premier with his tantrums, insults and threats. His administration was chaotic – no consultation with the private sector, half baked ideas being put into law, no overall plan (oil refinery, EE port, megayacht dredging in the North Sound). 

      How could anyone in their right mind think he was a good leader?   

      • Grandfather Troll says:

        "How could anyone in their right mind think he was a good leader?"

        Dear Mr. Anonymous,  They don't!

    • Grandfather Troll says:

      Where is that "Idiot" button?

  17. Anon says:

    Very true. Now lets get some newblood elected this year.

    • Anon says:

      Thats harder than you think. Most of these jokers are linked to one o the parties directly or indirectly.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Let us hope we will see candidates that have the best interest of the country at heart, rather then a Pay check and a Pension for themselves.


    • Anonymous says:

      You are right but u know whats funny. The ones who dont need the salary and pension are not trusted by the people either because they are power grabbing. Although thats probably just oir money also anyway
      You never know these days its the same s..t different day!

    • anonymous says:

      also you forgot to mention the double dipping benefits.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Excellent viewpoint!!! The country needs and deserves the very best leadership at this crucial time.

    • anonymous says:

      yes but where are they? they refuse to run for office as they are comfortable somewhere making lots of money or they are afraid of the being torn apart by ignorant voters who will have nothing to say about the issue facing cayman but will attack them personally. i seen people who stood up to represent last election and got very little votes. people here dont want change at all. That guy that was president of chamber commerce for a few months, he was one of them. sorry forgot his name.

  20. Anonymouse Man says:

    I agree with your general views.  Except division, I hope you are not deliberately skirting reality here. Divisions have come mostly along corruptions, back scratching, hand washing and cronyism and all the isms. That has nothing to do party ideology. (Or maybe it does).

    The qualifications to be an effective legislator are difficult to clearly define. However being a good leader does not always translate into a good manager or an effective law maker.

    We must to look at the achievements or accomplishments of individuals, when we assess them as potential candidates for the job of an MLA. For too long we have elected the ones that talk the loudest and look the best, even though they have not accomplished anything in their lives, some of them have never even had real jobs. Some of them have nothing to tetify to, for good reason. I have been guilty of voting for candidates based on who they are and what they say, and what their agenda looks like. Yet they have no abilities to manage their own business, their own families…what was I expecting from them? That was in my past,,, what was I thinking?   

    • Anonymous says:

      Dont know what you were thinking but i hope this time you will change. I know many who did same thing. They are changing votes this time. One thing i agreevwith is that we must welcome when people change their minds especially in the current scenario where change is very much needed!
      If i see someome who used to be udp and they now ppm i wont criticise them i will just say thank you for coming to your senses!

    • Anonymous says:

      If they are not a good manager or lawmaker what use will they be to us?