Cabinet taking UK advice

| 09/01/2013

(CNS): The new government has made it clear that it is taking a more conciliatory approach with its UK masters, in particular with regard to the public procurement process. Cline Glidden, the new tourism minister, revealed that a report has already been undertaken by the UK’s economic advisor regarding previous attempts by the Cayman government to get the cruise berthing facilities project and airport redevelopment started, which indicates where it believes things have gone awry. Glidden said he had clarified the support of the governor for the port development but the project would now move forward only on the basis of advice from the UK.

Speaking at a government press briefing, he said that entering into talks with a sole bidder was simply not an option as far as the UKwas concerned, which excluded the possibility of a design-build type project along the lines of the three failed attempts on the cruise port. Glidden confirmed that in the case of both Owen Roberts International Airport and the cruise berthing facilities in George Town, the new government would be following the existing Cayman laws regarding procurement as well as guidance from the UK.

The minister, who as a back-bencher led talks with the first two proposed developers at the start of the previous UDP government on behalf of the premier, said that an economic advisor from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who would be working with the Cayman government on procurement issues, recently visited the island to meet with the governor, the attorney general, the auditor general and Port Authority staff.

Following those meetings, he submitted a preliminary report pointing out what was unacceptable about the previous attempts by the Cayman government to find a developer for the project. Glidden said the document gives an outline of how the UK expects to move forward with the cruise berthing facilities as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the governor have offered their support for the project.

Based on that report, Glidden said the ministry was now working with the Port Authority to see what informationit and other government agencies held that would be requiredto put together a proper procurement package that would satisfy the UK. He explained that over the last three years, various components have been developed that would be required and the goal now is to see what the Cayman Islands Government can use in terms of plans, designs, what it owns and what resources are already available to help shape the tender package for bidders.

The tourism minister also revealed that he and the new community affairs minister, Dwayne Seymour, would be going to Florida soon to meet with the Florida Caribbean Cruise Association representative (FCCA) to re-start talks now that the position of the UK had been clarified and its support confirmed.

Against the backdrop of the fight between the former premier, McKeeva Bush, and the UK’s overseas territories minister, Mark Simmonds, over Bush’s insistence that Chinese-based firm, China Harbour Engineering Company, would develop the port, despite the UK asking him to put the project out to tender, Glidden said some confusing messages had gone out to the FCCA.

He said the persistent comments from the UK could have given the impression that, while the Cayman government was intent on developing piers, the FCO was not necessarily backing the project at all.

“We needed to clarify the position of the governor and the UK before we go back to the cruise lines,” he said, noting that the UK's clarification of its support, on the condition that the proper process is followed, would help the process along with the FCCA.

Glidden said that there was no way that the Cayman government could simply go back to the GLF bid or any other sole bidder since, despite the financial concerns and the cost of putting together a request for proposals and a tendering package, the current legislation was inflexible. He said there was no provision in the law for negotiations over a design-build project, which is where government had gone wrong at the start.

“In 2009, government was in the position of having no money for the development and a traditional procurement,” he said. Glidden explained that with a project of this magnitude it could cost anywhere from $5 to 10 million to prepare a tender, which was why government had attempted to go down a different path with a design-build project. But after three failed attempts, the UK has said the project must be in line with the current law, which means government will essentially need to start over.

However, as some of the components that would be required for the package have been undertaken over the last three years during the failed attempts to kick-start the project, first with the Dart company DECCO then GLF Construction and more latterly CHEC, he said those could form part of the proposed business model, which the UK wants to see.
Glidden warned however that the lack of cruise infrastructure was having a significant impact on the industry and most people were aware of the dire situation.

Asked about the report undertaken by the UK’s advisor ,Glidden said he would check with the Governor’s Office to see if that could be released to the public, but as it was authored by the FCO and not the Cayman Islands Government, he could not just automatically release the preliminary findings.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Politics

About the Author ()

Comments (74)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Naya Boy says:

    Taking advice hahahahahaaha are you kidding me, let me rephrase that "instructions" This has been the plan all along. It is just so sad how some here suffer from some serious delusionary illnesses.

    • Inselaffenallthewaytothebank says:

      Your mighty Mac left you all trussed up over a barrel.  Now pucker up, because you know what all us repressed public school boys do to someone bent over a barrel . . . .

  2. Anonymous says:

    Does governance only apply when it is the Cayman Islands government?

    Does it mean when the FCO talks of governance there should be no transparency? That document should be released to the public. Cline Glidden should be ashamed of having let out that statement.

    • Anynomous says:

      I totally agree with you 16:10.  Apparently Cline Glidden or any of the others do not know what they are doing without McKeva Bush.  Are they completing any projects?  Mac was a Leader, what ever they may say about him..

      • Anonymous says:

        lol. In 3 1/2 years which projects did 'leader' Mac complete? These 5 have been the govt. for less than a month. Give them a chance.

        It amazes me that this country still has idiots like you trying to claim that McKeeva Bush was a great leader when the only thing he actually accomplished during his term were huge govt.. payouts for breach of contract, scandals, and airline miles galore. He stumbled from one disaster to the next and was the epitome of incompetence.   

      • Anonymous says:

        Yeah he led plenty including himself astray and led us into an abyss of ever-increasing debt.  That's about all he ever was capable of leading.

  3. Red Flag says:

    If a dock is to be built, it should just be a pier with no shops at all on it or on the end of it.  A landing facility only.  Anyone given the right to put a shop on it is just being given a leg up on the rest of the existing shops already doing it tough on the island.  I would look for political connections between anyone being granted a permit to open a shop on such a pier and the government overseeing the project.  Everyone is tired of that very scenario already.  Saying that, I still say that a cruise ship pier is not the way to go.  A good tender landing facility would be a better, cheaper, faster way to improve passenger service to and off the island.  When the weather is bad, no one will use a pier, when the weather is good, why not a tender.

    • Diogenes says:

      1.  Without shops there is insufficient revenue for the developer, and CIG does not have any money to pay for the piers.  So you can either wait until CIG gets its spending under  control and pays down enough debt that it can afford to build the piers at public expense, or you are facing  commercial development to pay for it.  Agree that retail development is absolutely not in the interests of the current retail outlets, but then again you could ask why they should get a free ride on the taxpayer from the benefits they would get from a publicly funded pier system.  Personally I think CIG should be paying for the infrastructure, but the situation is more complicated than you present.  The difficulties in ensuring that people who benefit from government services are the ones that pay for them is an age old one in economics.

      2.  The cruise ships would prefer a sheltered pier with a breakwater in rough weather.  Its a lot safer, and they can disembark regardless of weather.  And in good weather, it is a lot easier and faster to get passengers off on a pier system than a tender. The larger ships cannot even feasibly disembark their passengers without one within the limited time they are in harbour, hence the rescheduling by cruise lines.  And the longer the passengers are on shore the more money they will spend.  And in any weather, any cruise ship at anchor here keeps its engines running – there is a fuel cost for them in not docking.  Why do you think facilities have been put in place by places like Roatan?

    • Anonymous says:

      Okay….get ready to hit thumbs down  !

      What do cruise passengers like most about Cayman?…North Sound and Seven Mile Beach.

      How long do cruise ships stay here?…One day.

      What is the SMB / North Sound experience like when the weather is too rough to tender in GT? … average at best.

      So…. berthing facility allows ships to call when they can't and allow tourists to experience….GT shops….!!

      Frankly I think it is better that people have to sail by sending a note back saying

      'shame..had top miss Grand Cayman today..was really looking forward to STingrays and Beach…some other time..' 


      "managed to dock at Grand Cayman today…what is all the fuss about… waves anbd sandstorm on famous SMB – nothing special and the shops are just a scrum of usual stuff we can see anywhere …disappointed".

      Yes I know that short term we boost Govt revenues by having all of the boats stop here but we will dilute the average memory and guess what these guys all post reviews on Trip Advisor and will influence our fly ins too (who wants to stay several days to experience SMB when Trip Advisor highlights that it can be less than idylllic!). Short term gain will result in more long term decline.

      Just sayin!


      • Lady Marmalade says:

        SMB is not that great a beach.  It is narrow, it is sloped and it faces in an unfavourable direction.  And it is part of a relatively unattractive island.

        • Anonymous says:

          Narrow means that wherever you are on the beach it is just a short distance to the water. If you are not interested in the water then anywhere is fine for the sun and you can get a truck to dump sand there.

          A "sloped" beach has the advantage that the water will wash back down into the sea.

          A "favourable" direction would be a matter of personal taste, but I bet a beach where the sun sets would win any popularity contest. Also, the lee side of the island (as opposed to windward) means the water is calmer.

          I could go on, but I am beginning to suspect that you have never seen the SMB.

          • Lady Marmalade says:

            I spent too much money living on it.  Overrated.  Completely.

            • Anonymous says:

              Try Cuba next time, i hear its pretty cheap to live there.

            • Anonymous says:

              Well get off it then.

            • Anonymous says:

              12.03, stop moaning and bitching and go live somewhere else so people who want to live on SMB can! The choice to live there was yours, right? Or did Cayman immigration or the prison service force you to live there?


              Why, oh why, do people moan about things they inflict on themselves…

            • Anonymous says:

              In that case I recommend Brighton Beach. I hear its not crowded this time of year.

        • Anonymous says:

          I was the poster to whom you replied.
          I don’t have to agree with your dislike of SMB and the ‘relative unattractiveness’ of the Island – in fact I choose not to.
          However even if I adopt your view the point is that it is at its best when the sea is calm and the wind is low and there will be more people holding your view if they visit it when the sea is up (which is when the pier will ‘come into its own’ and let people come ashore where currently they can’t).
          So whatever you think of SMB letting tourists experience it for 1 day only when the seas are rough has to be a bad advert for Cayman

  4. Anonymous says:

    This man circumvented and totally ignored CI law and an open, honest, fair transparent tendering process for the past 3.5 years by holding direct talks with both Dart and GLF in two failed attempts to do these projects. Explain why Dart was handed the project even before the last election if "the UDP" were elected to Government. The Port Authority tender was an absolute charade and a total sham, so please explain to the people of the country that he represents, why would we trust you now.  He followed McKeeva for three whole terms in office and was his right hand man and closest adviser. He must think we are all fools to believe this crap! Sounds definitely like a cover up to deflect a corruption probe on all the UDP party Goverment members in the Bush Government.

    • Anonymous says:

      The way I interpret this article is that the 5 sheeps who blindly followed their leader for way too long finally admit that their leade and they themselves have ignored any due process and regulation AND they seem to have had no clue what the due process and regulations are!

      People, just remember this at the upcoming elections!

  5. Anonymous says:

    As someone else already said why not get the airport runway extension done first. That way we can attract tourists using long haul flights from all over the world rather than just North America.In the meantime make an assessment of the revenue impact on the reduced number of Carnival passengers to support the contention that the expense of building a docking facility will be recovered by an increased influx of cruise ship passengers. From what I see, George Town can barely cope with the current number of cruise ship tourists so bringing even more will cause chaos and the Islands reputation will suffer because visitors will be reporting an unpleasant experience.

    • Anonymous says:

      You can't just extend the runway. Long runway = bigger planes= more customs/immigration staff=more baggage carousels=more taxis=more [parking space=larger restaurants=more airline countyers= etc.etc.=NEW TERMINAL…Doh.

      • Anonymous says:

        Then find the damn BILLIONS that were put aside for a new airport and arrest those responsible for financial mismanagement of public funds. Oh no, I forgot, this is the Cayman Islands where corruption and financial mismanagement are someone elses fault. Just saying.

      • Anonymous says:

        British Airways Boeing 777's can and have landed at Owen Roberts, so why not now? Start talking to BA and make it worth their while to re-new direct flights with tourists who are willing and able to spend hard earned cash on a worthwhile vacation experience. That means hotels NOT more condos to supply a package product to the consumer.

        If you build them, they WILL come.

        • Anonymous says:

          The British and Europeans generally do not like condo style vacations, this is referred to as 'self catering' and has a significant but limited following amongst those seeking a one or two week vacation in the sun. Hence the explosion in the 70's of resort hotels and thepackage holiday market.

          There are many varied reasons for this, but mainly the fact that accommodation and food is generally of a high standard and the vacation details are taken care of by travel agencies and airlines. Simply one easy package that enables people to book and forget until nearer their departure time and be reassured by company reputation and professional trade protection policies.

          For the sake of tourism, employment and controlled development, Cayman needs to review its policy on tourist accommodation and the facilities offered.

          Contrary to the blinkered view of some, its the mass middle classes who supply wealth to economies, especially through tourism, NOT the super rich.

        • Anonymous says:

          You are right – they did for a short period in 2001. As with the DC10 before it and the 767 both before and after it the runway is not the issue (they all hop light to Nassau and run heavy out from there). The problem is simple – demand. I am not sure if it was carrying a high enough load factor before 9/11 but certainly since then the route reverted to 767. If the demand increased they could use the 777 again or just increase the frequency of the 767 to +/- daily (yeah yeah I know – terminal capacity etc but it manages on the days they do fly in so…). We ‘just’ need to be more attractive to the Europeans which is where we fail (scuba divers apart). NB the stop in Nassau is not necessarily an issue because it adds so little to the time and you don’t have to get off. The only issue is that when you research it you then think …well why not just get off at Nassau and we then get compared directly and too often lose out with the family vote.

      • Anonymous says:

        More employment!

        • Anonymous says:

          For who? The private companies are not even hiring Caymanians. The only Caymanians are hired by CIG (Customs, CAL, Civil Aviation, and Immigration), the private companies (bars, shops, security checkpoints, other Airlines, and ticket counter baggage handlers) all hire 99% expats.

    • Anonymous says:

      I agree, the runway is important, but British Airways already bring many thousands of Europeans and those from further afield across the Atlantic. Cayman's problem is that a huge percentage get off in the Bahamas to enjoy their all inclusive and resort hotels, facilities that Cayman can only dream of.

      As a UK citizen, I fly the BA route often and it saddens me to see so many people from all over the world alight in Nassau. The reason for this is simple, a person wishing to take a vacation in the Caribbean only needs to compare the cost of a weeks fully inclusive package holiday in Nassau with the basic BA airfare to Cayman. They are almost the same and Cayman is only an hour further away, on the same aircraft. If you then add the inconvenience and expense of finding self catering accommodation, then Cayman becomes far too expensive for the mass tourism market.

      Cayman needs resorts, it need all inclusive deals and it needs to ensure that all of the tourism trade coming in this direction continues on to this island and doesn't remain in the Bahamas. We need a longer runway and better facilities, we need 777's from London Gatwick, (as we used to have) and we need direct flights. And we need them NOW!!!!

    • Anonymous says:

      If you think there is congestion now, has anyone thought how the infrastructure in GT will cope with thousands of passengers being able to disembark at once?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Cline it is ironic that you are now the new Minister of Tourism which is stuck with this issue that is affecting many Caymanians. Perhaps you will now recall Charles Clifford's advice and warning to you, when you were tourism councillor, that if the UDP abandoned the plans which he left for cruise berthing which had started with the EIA , that you would achieve nothing in this term.

    Mr. Clifford said that this was because the EIA, planning, design and procurement is at least a 24 month process. But of yeah thats right Cline you said "substance over process". Look at where that got us !

    And for those who believe that we don't need cruise tourism……do the calculations. Average spend per cruise passenger US$125 x 1.6 million passengers per year = US$200M per year.. Head Tax US$13.50 per passenger x 1.6 million passengers = US$21.6M per year.

    So I ask the question : should we still forget about cruise tourism and remove US$200M from circulation in our local economy and US$21.6M in direct revenue from the Government's coffers ?

    • Anonymous says:

      Let's start with getting rid of that ridiculous Christian Heritage park and turn it into a badly needed parking and bus pick-up area .

    • Anonymous says:

      Chuckie, da u agin?

    • Anonymous says:


      Under almost all the proposals the Govt will give up most if not all of the berthing fees to the builder of the piers for 25 years plus so if it is Govt income to fund the budget in the short erm you are interested in then the only answer is 'no' to the PFI style pier contracts.

      As for USD125 average spend per cruise passenger look again at how that is made up. The vast vast majority spend nothing / next to nothing on t-shirts and / or a burger or cab ride and then a select few drop a whole load of money at expensive jewellers. 

      The average retailer gains very little benefit at all from the average cruise ship passenger and you can bet that the majority of the revenue at the jewellers goes to suppliers and / or owners outside Cayman pretty much immediately (unless Rolex etc have suddenly become a Cayman owned / distributed product) – 'USD200M circulation in our local economy?'..  circulation..really?!! ROTFLMAO.

      Now that is not to say that we should not build the piers but if we do lets build them on the basis of sustainable logic not the sort of illogical / unsustainable rubbish we expected to hear from certain 'former' eminences.

    • Jonas Dwyer says:

      Hello, lets get this straigt about Mr. Cliffords port plans and project.  Firstly there was no Business case, second, his project did not go out ot bids and thrirdly the cost and the details of thh contact were never fully revealed, if they were well!.

      So this praise of CLifford regarding berthing has to stop, for he did not follow proper procurement procedures as the UK and International standards require.

  7. Anonymous says:

    It is clear Cayman needs both projects for encouraging tourism and then some..Georgtown needs tidying up..what about some sheltered "no drive" zones so that it is more pleasant to walk..better access to SMB for tourists…what about simple things like freshwater showers, toilets and changing cubicles on the beach? The people doing that could charge for it…..


    Currently we have half a paradise, it would not take much thought to make it one of the best in the world. But transparency and proper consultation are a must or we will have the same mess and loss of cash and time that has dominated for years!!

  8. Anonymous says:

    There is a vast difference between permission to tender a capital project, and endorsement of the economic plan.  In the case of the Port, we can now see through public domain documents secured by CNS, that there was no financial assurances at all from the 2 most important groups the port project was designed to appease (Carnival and Royal Caribbean).  At best, there are only rough unconfirmed assumptions and projections.  It would be reckless to proceed without formal MOUs with the FCCA and liner members themselves.  It doesn't matter who is willing to trade our money and environment to build it, if there is nobody willing to guarantee they'll come and use it.  Carnival is already walking quickly in the other direction.  Honestly, who in their right mind would now forge ahead with an early 2011 mindset, blind to facts and events now disclosed in the public domain?!?  Reckless people with our (and our heirs) money.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Cline, you proudly led the last two failed attempts, which you now claim caused this problem with the UK….

    Don’t you see how incredibly stupid this is?

    Explain why you did that, following McKeeva for 3.5 years.

    And where is this UK report that you refer to, that is now your guiding light

  10. Anonymous says:

    Wait…him and Sacred Vessel traveling again too?….juju n cabinet going to UK, dese two clowns to Florida…the travel continues

    Unna never heard of ras video conference??

  11. Whodatis says:

    Firstly, Re: "The new government has made it clear that it is taking a more conciliatory approach with its UK masters …". Was that really necessary, CNS?

    Anyway, moving swiftly along …

    The procurement process is one thing, but the overall concept is another – and up until now, we still do not know what we should expect from this project.

    I would support the construction of cruise berthing if they are strictly p-i-e-r-s (no shops etc.).

    The main objective of this project is (should be?) to enhance and increase the tourism potential of our (arguably already saturated) country.

    If commercial facilties (new shops, new restarants, new casinos, new hotels) are added to this project then that objective will be sidelined and effectively, an entirely new dynamic will be created.

    Granted, it may generate more "money within the economy" – but that is nothing new in Cayman. Never before has "Cayman" generated so much money – yet never before have so many Caymanians been left out of the rewards.

    While that may mean very little to others, being a Caymanian, I take issue with this reality. I will support the project if it aims to address these matters.

    Anything other than that simply translates to someone else reaping the benefits.
    I refuse to finance such madness.

    However, if our cruise berthing allow for the ships to dock for longer, which results in my family and friends being better patronised in their various establishments island-wide, then we could sit at the table and have a discussion.

    Lastly, even if an elaborate and over-outfitted project, as described above, is acquired via the "proper procurement process" we will still end up in a negative position at the end of the day.

  12. Anonymous says:

    just let dart do it!

  13. Anon says:

    Thats right:

    Worship the Master UK – that's what you all are good for.

    • Pit Bull says:

      I would consider getting to that level and considerable achievement and an honour.

      • Anonymous says:

        For whom, Mr Bull?

        • Pit Bull says:

          There is no greater honour in life that a man could ever hope for than to be answerable to the greater good of England.

          • Anonymous says:

            You are becoming a parody of yourself.

          • Anonymous says:

            Bloody brilliant, Bull, old chap. By the way, did I see you and Patricia X walking hand in hand and shopping in Camana Bay last weekend?

            • Pit Bull says:

              If you did make sure you don’t tell Mrs. Bull because I never go shopping with her.

    • Anonymous says:

      What were you all good for?  Absolutely nothing but waste and destruction!

    • Anonymous says:

      Foolio that must be you. We all know that some dogs need a master. We also know that you are drooliing for independence and the gold mine that would be for so called "professional politicians" like you and your mentor/master. Try so get a real job and actually produce something worthwhile.

  14. Anonymous says:

    You mean they've decided to comply with the law now? Bravo, but what about some accountability for what has gone on before? If they were serious about fixing this mess they'd get an independent expert in to follow the money and tell the people what really happened with CHEC and GLF, Cohen & Co, the dump and other government contracts. Otherwise we're going to assume the worst.

  15. Anonymous says:

    The 2.5 million GLF payment plus the wasted money spent on Mac and Julie’s unjustified trips would have more then covered the RFP document preparation.

    • Anonymous says:

      Question: As GLF/Royal were paid a settlement, would they still be allowed to bid, and possibly win, on this public tender?


      Mac, should they be allowed to bid? I mean, Royal is a caymanian company right? 

      • Anonymous says:

        I think only GLF received a settlement, not Royal, check the documents. 

  16. Anonymous says:

    Airport redevelopment I would think would bring more tourist dollars with new destinations, more flights etc… For stay over tourists who are in the high end market as opposed to cruise liners who are in the low end.

    Should this not be the project to focus on?

    Not to mention it will costs significantly less than a brand new cruise ship port.

    • Anon says:

      I would like to hope BOTH projects are done

      • Anonymous says:

        Why finance a port that no liners have promised to call on?  Read the public port docs.  All they had were guesstimates and sketchy assumptions scrawled on the back of a napkin.  No formal agreements that could hope to offset the enormous capital and environmental costs, and probably another big lawsuit and settlement to the banking group.  Reckless egomaniacs operating without basic economic tests or rudimentary feasibility – that the Cayman Islands would have been saddled with funding (with no CIG income) for the next 2 or 3 generations.  We dodged a bullet.  We can see now that Carnival, without any pre-existing obligation or agreement with the Cayman Islands, are already walking – before any port would have been realistically completed. 

        • Anonymous says:

          It's called Infrastructure. Did we require the airlines to pay for the airport? Do you want to install toll booths on all of our roads? At this point, if we want cruise tourism, we are going to have to build a dock. The money injected into the local economy by cruise tourists far exceeds the passenger taxes collected. Only a fool would turn their back on the potential benefits to Cayman from a healthy cruise industry.

      • Hon. Absurdistani says:

        Our resources (cash in the govt coffers) are not unlimited. We must prioritize and determine which project has the most benefit for Cayman in the long run. How do we get the most bang for the buck?

        Questions to consider:

        Which type of tourist spends more per head?

        Which type of tourist is more suited for Cayman's infrastructure?

        Which project and result (airport opearting 6am – midnight or a sea port operating in the day only) provides more job opportunities for the local population?

        What new markets can we take advantage of with a new cruise port vs. a new airport?


        Personally, I think the airport redelopment (on the current site) makes much more sense than a cruise port at this point in our history.

      • Anonymous says:

        Ok, I would certainly take a cayman airways direct flight to London over BA. I wonder if we’ll see an increase in European investments into Cayman as a result of accessibility? Hmmm…let’s do it!

        • Anonymous says:

          Cayman Airways will never ever ever fly direct to London.Why on earth would they? So coinsidering whetehr ou would choose them over BA seems to be a rather futile exercise

    • Anonymous says:

      You are assuming that all we need is a longer runway to grow tourism. That's not necessarily the case as evidenced by the regular flights from Europe currently operated by BA. Our focus needs to be on improving the tourism product. The prevailing mentality is to keep pouring concrete and hope for tourists to show up. We have a runway, we dont have a dock. Let's build what we need (2 finger piers only) and leave what we want for another day.

      • Anonymous says:

        Very well said…stop spending on improving the kitchen…change the menu…!

  17. St Peter says:

    We wont get any port until Alden and the PPM takes over…

    Infact the only infrastructure improvements that we got in the past 30 years came during the 4 years that  Alden, Kurt, Arden, Chuckie, and the PPM were in charge of the country…

    Of all of the candidates, the PPM is the best choice to bring peace and prosperity to our society, and to rebuild Mac and his gang has destroyed…


    • Anoymous says:

      Well St Peter how come PPM didn't get the dock done during their term 0f 2005-09,maybe the prophet Daniel can answer that one.

      • St Peter says:

        I spoke with the Prophet Daniel and he said that Chuckie had everything in place and it was ready to start but then Mac and his gang took over and stopped the process…

      • Anonymous says:

        Because Chuckie was to busy rowing with Mac on the Court steps about whose name should go on the Royal Watler terminal/monument.


        To be fair, before the election in 2009 the dock was at a point where construction could have been started soon, but, Macbeing Mac, wanted his own builder to do it (DART), but when that didnt work out CTC (not Mac) went to GLF, but Mac derailed that and went to CHEC and you see where we are now.


        So, dont blame the PPM too much for not starting construction, blame Mac more for scrapping the work done before and actually regressing (settlement payment to GLF) the port/dock redevelopment

      • Hon. Absurdistani says:

        Anonymous, it's simply not possible to do everything in a term of 4 years. You may have heard the saying "you can only move as fast as your wallet allows you to".

        The PPM decided to focus on schools and roads. These impact the lives of Caymanians every day and were seen as higher priority than a cruise port.

    • Anonymous says:

      Do we really want PPM taking on any more infrastructure projects. Haven't we learn our lessons from the past.


      There is no way that I even want to see one PPM member elected particularly, Alden..Lord help us!


      No more PPM, C4C or UDP…New blood needs to rise!

      • Anonymous says:

        I agree with you because regardless of that C4C group's claims of not being a party, all I can say is that a rose by any other name is just as sweet (or stink whichever you want!).

    • Anonymous says:

      Don't know how you can even think this based on their total lack of opposition on anything until 3 months after the fact…if they were sharp they would have attacked everything when it happened and with good reason…to me demonstrates they all in same boat with UDP and the boat is sinking…bring back independent MLA's!!!