Who will be premier?

| 24/04/2013

As the electorate gears up to go to the polls, there are only two certainties that we can count on. Thefirst is that if the PPM get a majority of seats, at least 10, then Mr Alden McLaughlin will lead the new government as premier. The second is that if the UDP wins a majority, then Mr McKeeva Bush will lead the next government. There are no other concrete certainties as the other groupings do not on their own have the numbers to form the government themselves.

The C4C stated last night at their political rally that under no circumstances would they support a party leader as premier. This was basically confirmed this morning again by an independent candidate on the radio talk show.

What does this mean for the voting public? It essentially means that if neither of the above two dominant parties wins an outright majority, the next premier of the Cayman islands (who will be expected to captain the good ship Cayman for the next four years) will be someone who does NOT have the direct endorsement of the people to assume the top job. This person will be chosen in the smoke filled room after all the secret negotiations have taken place, where people can be expected to offer their support for seats on cabinet, etc. Defections are also possible — and as they say, "politics make strange bedfellows".

A coalition government will mean the people have no idea who will emerge as premier until after the fact, with the only known factors being that it will not be a party leader and most likely no other party member either. The reasoning for the latter comment is that if, say, Mr Moses Kirkconnell was supported for premier by the coalition group, you have to assume he would naturally replace the current leader of the PPM as well, and according to the C4C, they could not support this either (party leader as premier) as it would essentially be an endorsement for the party system, which they publicly despise. The party member could, however, resign from the party to assume the role of premier in this scenario.

I am not affiliated with either party, but support certain individuals in them, but I also like the credentials of many of the C4C candidates. However, with the position of premier carrying so much power and influence under the new constitution, I am somewhat reluctant to cast my votes for independents, as I want to be casting my votes ultimately for the best choice for premier.

With only two known choices as stated above, I am hoping that a third candidate for premier will be put forward from the C4C/independent group so that i can feel more comfortable mixing my votes. Otherwise I will likely vote straight for a party with a specific premier choice.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Viewpoint

About the Author ()

Comments (53)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    The PPM have more than one person in their group.., er, sorry i meant party, that would make a good premier.

    • Anonymous says:

      A Coalition government means GRIDLOCK. Nothing will get done. At least PPM will follow due process and we will get projects going which will mean jobs. Confidence will be restored which is what is truly lacking right now.

  2. Just Commentin' says:

    Considering what has transpired since the last election, I care less about knowing "in advance" who the Premiere will be: I am more concerned about ensuring who the new Premiere will not be!  I am ultimately concerned about putting the overall leadership of these islands in the good hands of well intentioned people with proven (rather than self-proclaimed) integrity, and proven (rather than hoped-for or promised) leadership abilities. Some bubbleheads will argue otherwise, but they are the ones who got us in this mess in the first place.

    I will cast my ballot for the person(s) I think will be good leaders with the expectation that they will exercise good judgement and integrity at all times – including their choice of a Premiere. If all people of these islands go to the polls with this as their single-minded goal then I should hope that good people will be elected.


    We should trust that the people we elect will have the wisdom and integrity to choose among them a person to lead that likewise exemplifies superlative character, courage, and the ability to lead wisely and selflessly.  Likewise, if we elect such people (rather than ignorantly wasting our votes on party puppets) in the event their chosen Premiere proves to be a bellicose ignorant, spiteful, dishonest, despot, they will have no qualms about deserting him/her and forthwith casting them out.

    If we end up voting along party lines like ignorant lemmings, then, like a dog returning to our own vomit we will have ensured the potential of the new Premiere turning into yet another bumbling ranting autocratic tyrant.  Why? Because, as history illustrates, party puppets, especially those in Cabinet, are bound to bow to the will of their party and their Leader, they will be inclined to allow a less than "honourable" buffoon to remain as Premiere. As a prime example, the "UPD 5" tolerated Bush's poor governance and antics until he nearly brought these islands to ruin. It took his arrest to make them finally jump ship and even then I am not so certain their motives were pure.

    The idea of the Premiere absolutely requiring the "direct endorsement of the people" in advance of the election is a smokescreen!  Would it not be far better that we elect 18 good and honourable people and entrust them to chose among themselves a Premiere, than settle for the inferior alternatives offered in this Viewpoint?

    Now if some of those rambling about needing to know "in advance" who the premiere will be are UDP supporters, I ask: Do you not also want to know in advance and with a great degree of certainty that the chosen Premiere will remain in office for the next four years? Considering the current situation the UDP cannot offer us that assurance (if you know what I mean, wink-wink), thus by your own reasoning, we must reject the UDP.

    The problem with the constitution that the plurality of bubbleheads voted in as supreme law of the land, is that it places far too much power in the office of Premiere. And way too many bubbleheads have exacerbated the problem by focusing far too much attention on the choice of Premiere in this election.  The party system enshrined by the Bubblehead Constitution sets this problem almost in stone. I pray we will vote in people who will have the courage and foresight to change this. 

    I have vastly higher aspirations that those expressed by Che Mydas. To paraphrase a statement in the Viewpoint,: "With the position of Premier carrying so much power and influence under the new constitution, I want to elect people with the wisdom and courage to change the situation!"

    I would sincerely hope that we will elect a cadre of statesmen who will have this philosophy regarding our next Premiere:
    "We voted you in Bobo, and we will take you out in the wink of an eye if you screw up!"

    • Anonymous says:

      Either you have too much idle time on your hands to write all of this or you havent discovered that there is free xxx on the internet. Most people dont read posts with more than two paragraphs.


      And no, I did not read your post. It was too long.

    • Anonymous says:

      Why express yourself in 100 words when 10,000 makes oneself seem so much smarter?

  3. Anonymous says:

    Anyone but Ezzard, who is the same type of old school politician as is McKeeva. Now before you hit the "thumbs down" button, who wanted to bring legal charges against the Compass reporter about his writing about the LA. It wasn't McKeeva, it was Ezzard.

    Fresh political ideas are needed and the country will be much better off when all these old politicians are put out to pasture. Let em sit around playing dominoes and talk about the good old days.

    • Anonymous says:

      Anyone expect McKeeva Bush or Juliana O'connor Connoly. Please Dear God not those two again. Nor Cline, Rolston, Mark, Dwayne or Mike. They have all proven themselves, no need to test them again.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Ken Bryan for premier.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Election Transparency is only possible if you vote for a party.  The members of the party elect their candidates and agree on the positions and their candidates agree on their Leader and Deputy Leader.  It's all open and above board.  Transparent.

    With C4C it is NOT Transparent.  They leave it vague, giving them the flexibility to make their own deals behind closed doors.

    If you want the mostimportant transparency of all, the election of our Premier and Deputy Premier vote straight PPM.

    • Anonymous says:

      13.18 I have never read so much rubbish in my life. The reason there are so many independents standing, whether C4C or not, is because of the blatant failings of the party system and the utter lack of transparency within the party system/government over the last two terms. People are sick of it.

      I would agree that the future scenario most likely is a coalition, and that will be decided when MLA's are elected by the people. As will the issue of premier and leader of the opposition. Telling people to vote PPM is not commenting on an article, its pure electioneering and should be ignored full stop.

      And how can you say it is all above board with the parties??? Mac is facing severe criminal charges, as is Joey and it might at some time reach down to UDP lite for the NBF handling, so nothing is certain at all, they might, or might not be in Northward!! XXXX

    • Anonymous says:

      Shal I puke now or later?  "Election Transparency" is the new buzzword for the "baffle 'em with bullsh_t" crowd.


      In regard to selection of a Premiere, your statement "Election Transparency is only possible if you vote for a party" is a blatent lie. The only way to true "election transparency" regarding selection of a Premiere is if the office were subject to direct popular election.  Under the party system the process is rigged beforehand in a protocol furthered by and inclusive of the favoured few.  


      I will give you an "A" for bullsh_t, but still I refuse to be either dazzled or baffled: the party system sucks!

    • Anonymous says:

      We actually do not have true parties here. We have tribes- groups that blindly follow their leaders. Clearly the case with UDP. PPM is slightly more of a party but without Kurt it would have also dissolved by now.

      Both 'parties' have allowed our national dept to go from $92M in 2001 to over $800M today…and that was in 12 short years!! another 4 years expect it to top $1,000,000,000!!! That is ONE BILLION!

      We clearly need to change this 'follow the leader' attitude….get REAL people elected even if it means voting for a mix of all groups and tribes and lets get Cayman on track again. We have a $300,000,000 bond coming due in 6 years and not one dollar has been put in savings for that. 

      Wake up Cayman!!!


  6. Anonymous says:

    As I said before Ezzard is the only person qualified to be Premier. He's the only person that has experience, education, integrity and not afraid to do the right thing. He certainly would not have made all the mistakes PPM and UDP has done. (100 million dollar schools during a recession). What's the point of borrowing to build something we don't have money to pay back. 

    Ezzard is honest he would not have signed on the CHEC deal where Caymanians only get 100 jobs while chinese get 400 jobs. Then hold the country hostage? For 81 years?

    Ezzard is for caymanians getting their fair share of work at reasonable wages. Remember it was Ezzard who tried to push through mininum wage. He wanted more then $5 per hour but the rest of UDP and PPM wouldn't go any higher. 

    Remember it was Ezzard who tried many times to get Mc Keeva out of his position again PPM and other members of UDP would not oust him. 

    Ladies and gentlemen do you remember the whistleblowers were the ones who trusted Ezzard with information about MAC. Why do you think they didn't bring it to the rest of them ,No honesty, corruption, cronyism you name it they could not be trusted.

    • Anonymous says:

      11.54- that is your opinion which you are entitled to. Thankfully it would seem that most people dont'

  7. CayStudent says:

    Not saying C4C is all golden and perfect (because they aren't), but I would prefer some of their candidadtes as Premier over Bush any day. 

  8. Anonymous says:

    The population never chooses the Premier.  That is ALWAYS a deal done in a back room.  In the USA, people get to vote for the President.  If you want a system where you vote for a Premier, set up a presidential system like the USA has.  If you support the party system such as it is, by viewing it this way, you are letting your representative off the hook for their obligation to represent you, in favor of letting them ride the coattails of a premier who you are not actually supposed to be voting for.  The party has hijacked the system to concentrate the power in one person, and that person can then be bought by the highest bidder.  This is why the system is fundamentally broken.

    • Libertarian says:

      And this is, to my opinion, exactly how the Governor and FCO want it. Less people power and power left in the hands of homegrown politicians, so when they mess up, they (the Gov and FCO) takeover and redeem us from them, and its another cycle… People need to wake up and smell the coffee; we have a democracy with a dog leash around our necks. 

      • Anonymous says:

        C4C wants to take the power away from the people.  Don't let them.  We need to all Vote for candidates who have told us who they will put as our Premier and Duty Premier.

    • Anonymous says:

      The election of Bush over Gore is a prime example of how the ppl in the United don't necessarily vote for who becomes president. sorry bud, you're wrong there.  

      • Anonymous says:

        2 issues: (1) The electoral college system is xxxxed – I wholly agree.  One person one vote, with a single count straight up – that's how it should be for any election, and (2) If Bush #2 stuffs the ballot boxes so Bush #1 wins the presidency by that crime, that's not a point against my position, that's a point against criminal behaviour in elections (as well as a point against people named Bush, perhaps). 

    • Lets be serious 10:39 says:

      10:39…  you are either misleading deliberately or just missing the facts.  If a voters votes for the PPM candidates they are doing so knowing (a) the policies that they Party has put forward as their priorities; and (b) that the poliyical leader of the party will be the Premier.  


      So – lets be serious, facts are stubborn things.  A vote for a PPM candidate will be a vote for agreed policies which the public are aware of, and also for a known leader.  


      A vote for C4C candidates will be a vote for unknown policies and an unknown leader. They will agree on policies after the election and decide who the leader will be.  The voter has no idea what will happen nor have a say.  After the vote is too late.  I want to know ahead of time who will lead and what will be done.  


      My choice is one of the parties and as the UDP are crap then I will be voting PPM. Capable intelligent candidates coming from a varied background.  Simple choice. 



    • Anonymous says:

      Uhh…not exactly, Bobo. In the USA as in the Cayman Islands, the population never chooses its chief political leader.  In America, the President is not chosen by the popular vote of the American people! The President is elected by the body that is commonly known as the "Electroral College" casting their "electoral votes" . The election goes to the House of Representatives should there be a tie in the electoral votes. There are fourcases where the candidate who won the popular vote did not become President.


      It is a bit of a complex arrangement, but before you go off giving bad advice based on a popular misconception, I would suggest you do some research on how America elects its President.

  9. Libertarian says:

    A two party dominance of UDP and PPM, logically limits the people to the beliefs of two parties and limits their choices. Not everyone will agree with the opinions of one of these two parties. Rather more parties and political alliances provide more diversity and more differing opinions. If there are multi-parties and groups, the Legislative Assembly will be more diversified in opinion and holistically represent the island. Laws will be legislated making it harder for the special interest to gain a foothold influence over the government since their will be more groupings in the house. There is a democratic rule I affirm:  The more "power that is shared" in a government is the less likely corruption will be found in its legislations. When you vote this May 2013 remember not to be so staunch on one party – the more differing opinions, the more debates well thoughtout, is the more we will have crafted laws for Cayman's best interest.

    Nevertheless C4C is no doubt a party. They say they are not a party, but they have a common objective and unified interests. So I agree with this this article. It would do them more justice to publicly make known who would be their leader. It would bring a sense of direction to where they are going. They have the crowd. They have the people who are motivated and will vote for them. In fact I drove across one of their meetings, and they are mustering crowds larger than PPM. All they have to do is advertise themselves more, and put up large billboard signs along side the road like PPM and UDP. We need that third option sobadly in order to bring diversity in the LA.

    • Anonymous says:

      U must be kidding about the C4C crowds being bigger than PPM…give me a break!

  10. Anonymous says:

    C4C wants to deny the voters the opportunity to select their own Premier.  Your viewpoint is exactly right.  We've all been talking about this at the office.  We think Sharon would have made a good MLA, but her allegiance to the C4C party's position that they won't support any other party's leader in a coalition government means we can't waste our vote on her.  It's really too bad.

    But, none of us are willing to let C4C pick who they want in a back room, we deserve the right to select our own Premier.  The Premier has a lot of control and it's unbelievable that C4C would expect us to leave that selection up to them. 

    My advice to Sharon is to denounce the C4C endorsement and support election transparency.

    • Anonymous says:

      C4C  wants horse-trading.  That is so that the power-brokers like Jimmy Bergstrom and company can continue to act as puppeteers both in choosng the Premier and government and then directing them.  The choice for the country is clear:  Either voters choose the Premier by voting for a party or group with an identifiable leader or they leave it up to those who are elected to do so.  In the latter case any number could play and we could wind up with a very unsatisfactory result and a completely untried and untested figure as Premier.  This will make him or her and the governement which they lead even more vulnerable and susceptible to the influence and wiles of the super rich and domineering captains of the financial industry.

      • Captain B says:

        This doesn't mean you have to vote for a party. If you vote in people who are educated, tested with leadership abilities, there should be no worries about getting an untested Premier. We get what we put in there, and if we stick to a party, we get party members who are mute to corruption and unwilling to break away from the party and put people first. I am voting for who I see is fit and that means anyone from UDP, PPM, C4C and Independent candidates.

        • Anonymous says:

          If you don't vote for a party then you aren't electing a Premier.  You are delegating your vote to the MLAs you elect.  


          In reality, MLAs are not going to elect an inexperienced parliamentarian to be the Premier the very first time they are elected.  That would be irresponsible.  So if you don't vote for a party (PPM or UDP) then by voting for a misc group of Independents you are essentially voting your Premier to be – Juliana (one of the PNA – UDP Lite), Ezzard or Arden.

      • Anonymous says:

        The only people that this country knows as the leader or premeir of the country that is still running are Kirk Tibbetts, Mac and Juliana.

        There are many that dont like any of those. Meaning they are willing to try a new untested individual. Guess what at some point you and I and everyone will have to do the same unless God forbid you plan to pass away before these individuals give up politics.

        Question now is who else would make a good choice to be leader?

        If you vote PPM it will be Alden. Any other?

        • Anonymous says:

          What happens if PPM is elected, but not Alden?

          • Anonymous says:

            They elect a new leader from the ones who got elected. But same situation will apply.

    • Anonymous says:

      I am curious, why do you think Sharon would make a good MLA?

      • Anonymous says:

        She is honest, forthright and cares about people.  She is very different than the old, rich guys she has committed to follow at C4C.  Really too bad.  She would have served her community well.

    • Anonymous says:

      In another article on CNS, Chuckie has confirmed what this viewpoint has said is correct. In any Coalition government, they will decide who is Premier after they are elected and it wont be any Party member either, of that you can be sure.

      In a coalition govt the premier will be either one of the sucessful, but inexperienced C4C candidates or it will be an independent candidate (Ezzard, Arden etc),




  11. Anonymous says:

    Election rules news flash: whoever becomes Premier will not have the "direct endorsement of the people". The people choose MLA's, not the Premier. Even if, say, the UDP wins the election, Bush is a candidate in only one district so the good people of…everywhere outside West Bay will have had no say at all in his re-ascension to power.

    • Anonymous says:

      Reality news flash: If you vote for the UDP in any district you are voting for McKeeva to be Premier. Similarly, if you vote for the PPM in any district you are voting for Alden to be Premier.

      You can't say you're going to vote for Mike Adam in GT because he's a good person but you don't support McKeeva. You can't think you're going to vote for Moses Kirkconnell in Cayman Brac because you think she would be a good representative but you don't support Alden.

      If you vote for a party you are endorsing that party leader. You are voting with the knowledge that in casting your ballot to elect one, two, three, four, five or six representatives that support McKeeva/Alden YOU are also supporting McKeeva/Alden.



      • Kevin says:

        What's wrong with voting for Mike Adams and not for McKeeva. Suppose Mike Adams gets a seat and not McKeeva and Alden!  Then somebody else will have to be Premier, and that somebody is from the 18 lot. So your partisan analysis is skewed, my friend.

        • Anonymous says:

          A vote for any UDP candidate is a vote for their leader as well, same for PPM.

          If the Coalition group will not help form a government with any party members, unless the premier is chosen from the Coaltion group, here is the problem.

          None of the C4C members have ever served a day as an MLA, much less a premier.

      • Anonymous says:

        That's the price tag for medium-to-good people following rotten-to-criminally insane leaders.  The medium-to-good people get tarred (and feathered) for following rotten-to-criminally insane leaders, and good people can't vote for them as a result.  Seriously though, if a candidate is a supporter of a criminally insane leader, even if they're OK personally would you really want to vote for someone with such incredibly bad judgment? Think that over for a while… People should reject everyone that is in a party, simply because they are in a party.  Cayman doesn't need members who answer to rotten-to-criminally insane leaders (and thier puppets). Cayman needs people who answer to Caymanians.

      • Anonymous says:

        Exactly right.  And if i vote for C4C candidates, who am i voting for as Premier, a most powerful position in the land?

      • Peanuts says:

        Mike Adam a Good Person, but NOT IN THE LA. Mike has lost his moral compass his Mom and Dad would not support his actions. Not again BoBo. Fool me Once not twice.

      • Anonymous says:

        That is NOT direct endorsement. The position of Premier is not an elected position. You can argue inferences and implications allyou like, but the Premier is not properly endorsed by anyone. 

      • Anonymous says:

        Reality news flash: It is entirely possible for the party to form a majority but their leader loosing his bid for election.

  12. Anonymous says:

    C4C, in their own words, is NOT a party, but a grouping of independent-minded individuals. Therefore, to say that C4C will not support a party leader as Premier is pure hogwash since they are NOT collectively bound to stand by anything they say on the platform.


    It's quite obvious that the independent-thinking C4C candidates, if elected, will be free to jump on any bandwagon that offers them a ride. No voting for a party leader as Premier is just one of the many non-binding promises this no-party-coaltion of say-anything-to-get-elected candidates will offer between now and election day.



    • Libertarian says:

      They are a "say-anything-to-get-elected" group! But that is what you want… people to get elected on their own merits in order to come together with other members of the House and work with them as a team to craft well thoughtout laws.  Am I correct?  Rather than riding on the coat-tails of a party name and leader, declaring their independence to work with whoever makes it into the House as a free independent thinker for their district and the country. Wouldnt we want members in the LA who are willing to work with other members?      

      • Anonymous says:

        Refusing to recognise the party's chosen leader is as far as you can get from being willing to work with other members.

        • Anonymous says:

          If only the quality of my votes were enough and i didnt have to worry about the quantity.

          • Disenfranchised says:

            If only I were allowed to vote at all.  The amount of money I pay in indirect taxes, that my business pays, the  employment we generate, the number of years I have been on island – all counts for nothing versus someone prepared to take a small handout for their vote. Yep – 18K people voting to pick the government that will then spend the tax revenues raised from over 30K adults on a subset of the 18K, with the majority of tax revenue raised from businesses that have no vote at all – a recipe for disaster.  You wonder why we have a goverment that wont get public expenditure under control – because the majority of the voters dont pay for or understand the consequences of financing the electoral promises.    

            • Anonymous says:

              Are you saying that you are not a Caymanian, working and owning a company here

              and that you want to vote. Would you allow anyone from outside your country to do that in your country.

              Bet neeeeeever happen.

              This is exactly why the old guard must go and we all put Cayman first and not special interest groups who the politicans for the last 8 years have allowed, make Caymanians to ride only in the back of the bus.

    • Anonymous says:

      C4C can't have it both ways.  They said at their rally that their candidates will not support any other party's Premier.  

      This means they are a Party, and since they don't have enough candidates in the race to make a government, then they have to make deals with other MLAs after the election and pick who THEY want as the country's Premier.

      As a voter, I will only vote for candidates that declare ahead of time who they will select as the Premier.  That means I will vote for a Party, and in this election that is the PPM.

    • Anonymous says:

      Thats exactly what C4C said. Are you saying they can't be held to account to their word because they are not a party? if so, that is not such a good endorsement for the independent candidates.