Message Board Archives

formed by Grenville Phillips

In reply to sudden

Dead on arrival.

How on earth is this the solution? The NDP failed. And the name is ridiculously outside what anyone would identify with. I hear that I thinking IT consultants.

Sudden, we have a third party - Independents. We need to change the system so that they can get a pick. That is the solution.

In reply to nick2020

Phillips is a seriously good guy. Not a politician tho but a proper cawmerian. no room for a third party in Bim but I rate Phillips highly and I know he will bring viable, realistic solutions. He may have to make some changes to the party name and his political language

In reply to nick2020

Agree. Gotta break the system in order to revamp it.

In reply to sudden

just what we need another Cawmerian

In reply to defeyeant



ting is..Grenville is my friend...but wuhloss...Im sorry...I aint as cynical as Nick but one cannot simply announce a new Political party...one has to do some serious leg work and profile building before anyone will take you seriously..and even then...YEARS before ppl will turn away from the traditional sides.

the swing voters ought to be first target...but as the last election proved...DEMS close ranks..or simply dont vote...unless you are a completely turned off DEM like me who got too close and saw the backstage shenanigans.

In reply to powen001

So when you do ALL the things you should do to form a new party you tink a fella going vote fuh yuh? De NDP comes to mind.

Dead on arrival.

In reply to powen001

Well if he is your friend join his party. Help him out. Isn't he a good guy?

In reply to sudden

His father is the well known Dr. Grenville Phillips I assume. Financial Consultant.

In reply to nick2020

DOA - yes, but needed! Of course any New Party has limited opportunity against these political juggernauts, but sweeping changes are needed.

start with cutting Ministerial perks and salaries. Ministers in Bim earn what... 8 x the national median? Plus perks galore.... it is not about service in government anymore - it's about securing the vote for self interest.

In reply to pelon

Quite the opposite. Ministers should be paid well and held accountable for their ministries. Where they fail against some set criteria they should be recalled. And introduce integrity legislation and jail them when they steal. But Politics is a serious business and politicians should be well rewarded

In reply to sudden

I like that concept good brother Sudden, the day they are held accountable is the day they should be well paid. Not before. You just shot your toe.

slow it down and think about your sentence:
held accountable... slowly... well paid...
again - accountable = well paid. You really thinking any Minister feels "accountable" for the state of our economy? Agriculture? Health Services? Please sudden, PLEASE... take the money and guh long...

In reply to sudden

sudden let us get real. Ministers do very little of the heavy lifting and get 10 Grand a month. The PS and the servants in the ministry does do all the work while the Minister delivers a speech written for him.

You pay people money to reduce the incentive of them being corrupted. Lots of good that does. 10 years, nuff salary, and bare hand outs then is cool out in a big house.

In reply to nick2020

Word.

No surprise though, when you swim downstream with the "party in power" your pockets end up more feculent than filled.

Oh well.

In reply to pelon

Wrong move.

You will attract the wrong people to run for office. To attract the best and the brightest, the pay with perks must be there.

In reply to Star

Let us be honest Star...

Look at the makeup of the BLP/DLP 30. They cherry pick professions so they sound like an impressive lineup on the platform.

Doctors. Lawyers. Businessmen.

Now what best and brightest Doctor and Lawyer giving up their day job to get the pittance of a Minister's salary? So the money could never be the carrot if you want to attract the best and brightest. You need to attract people who want to make a difference. To help the people and the country. For the greater good.

So your only chance to get the best and brightest in politics is when they are old(er) and are looking to transition into politics.

I was told many politicians are not successful in normal life. Maybe sudden can correct me.

In reply to nick2020

civil servants are the technical officers of the government. the ministers provide policy direction. in other words the ministers via cabinet decisions are the ones who decide the strategic direction a particular ministry will go. the technical officers give feedback as to the shape those policy directions will take and if they can be carried out.

as such the success of a particular ministry is predicated upon the good working relations between the policy officer and the technical / operational officer. however when a ministry fails or a project goes bust the minister shoulders all the blame in the public eye whether it is his fault or not. and so it should be. it could go so far as that minister being shifted to a different ministry, relegated to the back benches, and during the next election either not put up by his party to contest or he may be so maligned that he is voted out. on the other hand the civil servant can be shifted but he would hardly lose his job.

that being the case the life of anyone in government is a short and sometimes torrid one. politicians are cursed, lied on and ridiculed. their private lives are exposed and spoken about with nary a thought about how it affects them and their families. as such they should be paid and paid well and to reiterate be held accountable if they are lucky enough to be chosen as a cabinet minister

In reply to sudden

There is one problem with what you wrote - none of it is actually true.

1. civil servants are the technical officers of the government. the ministers provide policy direction. in other words the ministers via cabinet decisions are the ones who decide the strategic direction a particular ministry will go. the technical officers give feedback as to the shape those policy directions will take and if they can be carried out.

A minister sits down with the servants in a meeting and they give him/her ideas which her/she takes to cabinet. Now nothing is wrong with that setup because that happens in the private sector but most often these ministers are clueless.

Donville is a businessman who has/had a stake in nakednews, a Canadian company. Why was he Minister of Health as opposed to having a more Business portfolio (which he does now)? And let us not forget he got interests in a competing Health Care institution while he was Minister of Health.

Dr Ester Byer (no longer Suckoo) is a medical practitioner but is the Minister of Labour? Was she a good Minister of Labour before she get vote out to remain a seatless Minister of Labour?

No sudden, many of these people have no background in the ministry and rely heavily on the people who are paid a fraction for making the Minister sound like he/she has a clue.

In reply to nick2020

None of what you wrote negates what I said yet you started out saying I was wrong.

Even when the minister talks to the PS or other civil servants before a cabinet decision and I agree that that happens often, cabinet should give its collective decision before the ball gets rolling, so to speak. In that respect Cabinet is still the starting point

That certain ministers are not in roles that fit their private work experience is neither here nor there. That is what civil servants are there for, to offer technical advice. And cabinet too- minsters can get advice from other cabinet members who have knowledge and experience in the area. It is sometimes better not to have doctors as ministers of health becos of conflicts of interest and often time they clash with civil servants over technical issues becos the minister can find himself getting involved in technical issues given his knowledge in the area. Same goes for other ministries too

In reply to sudden

Solid Bro. Running health is more than healing the sick. The minister' cabinet says let there be light. The civil servants role is not to ask why but to say how it will be done.

In reply to sudden

You understand thoroughly how the process works in Caribbean democracies mate.

I would add that most of the policy direction comes from the manifesto which is presented by the party to the electorate.

And yes, politicians should be paid well, be on the job full time and be held accountable for the spend of billions of tax payers dollars.

At the moment Dr. Keith Rowley of the PNM in T&T is attempting to sell this very vision immediately above to the electorate.

...attracting persons with proven track records and holding them accountable are the keys to success.

In reply to Courtesy

Universally we can all agree on this.

You don't need to "attract" politicians with salary - this is not Intel or Google, they come on their own calling - the best of the best politicians put the needs of the people first.... (check history) In practice, many politicians end up running ministries as "theirs"

Paying "top dollar" to a politician is NO guarantee of performance OR accountability. That is the only departure I take from what is said here.

I even agree with Sudden on this point:

100% correct.

In reply to pelon

Sudden:

Pelon:

Can anyone disagree with a statement which contains "sometimes"?



And do you think you can attract consistently to the political environment high calibre altruist who can also manage efficiently billions of dollars?



Agree. This is why when you pay them top dollars they must pass the acid test of accountability and performance without fail..."shape up or ship out."

In reply to Courtesy
"shape up or ship out."
Sounds good, but that's the problem: Unlike Intel or Google (who pay top dollar for performance), you can't fire them easily, 4 years minimum! What is discussed here on this thread is ~THEORY~

in reality the corrupt (and/or complacent) politician can stay elected for 14 years - with NO accountability to anyone but themselves. It happens over and over in politics.

A new party (the original scope of this thread) can be beneficial towards breaking the well oil "systems" that set in when a party gets multiple terms.

In reply to pelon

Brother there are many other ways to reshape and strengthen the political system.

The history of politics in the Caribbean is replete with new parties coming and going with monotonous regularity without making any discernible positive impact on the political landscape and improvements in governance.

What about instituting the power of recall ...what about a Presidential system like the US...what about strengthening local government?

The key is to develop functional systems which lend to excellent performance in government.

In reply to sudden

This is what I am specifically addressing:



To avoid a chicken and egg discussion about where is the start, sudden is the Minister of X. When sudden takes up office from day 1 there is already food on your plate. Sometimes or all too often Minister sudden is just a mouthpiece of the Ministry who goes to parliament with a prepared speech on what the Ministry wanted before you arrived and long after you are gone.



You are twisting my very specific example. Dr Ester Byer is a lame duck Minister of Labour. I asked why isn't she the Minister of Health IF she is to be given a Ministry. So if a Minister is not there to have at the very least a working understanding about the industry he/she is going to be in I would hope that person has a working understand about how to manage a Ministry. You have failed to prove what experience Dr Byer has being the Minister of Labour. At least if she was Minister of Health you would be able to make a case for her.

It is here and there. So again, too many Ministers have little to no qualifications to do the job. If the Government was a company you sure as heck would not hire Dr Byer to be the head of your Human Resources. Nor Donville to be head of a department while he is a director of a competitor.

In reply to Courtesy

I read both Manifestos of the parties in the last election.
I was told that was a joke of an exercise.

I now see why.

Manifestos never tell the truth and are written to sound good so people will vote for you. I can cite far too many examples of this. The DLP said not a fella would be laid off. And in less than a year they laid off over 3000 people. They always knew they would have to lay off some people, but they hoped (and prayed) the measures they took would minimize job loss. But they were not telling the truth.

The BLP claimed they would reduce the cost of living and put money back in people's pockets. Said the CLICO shareholders would get their money back. Also said the country was broke. So how are you going to achieve all this? They said what the people wanted to hear, not what policies they were going to institute.

In reply to nick2020

Nick if you have managerial skills/experience you can direct an area of business even if you dont have a deep technical know-how. You have technocrats with the deep technical knowledge. It is your job to manage thier activity.

E.g. many board of directors don't have deep technical knowledge but yhey sit on boards of major corporations.

In reply to nick2020

It is a circular argument that you are having. In that you are arguing circles around your own head. I have said my piece and nothing you have said has added to your own initial position or taken away from mine. I propose we stop and agree to disagree.

What would better is to argue whether there is a need for ministers in the first place if a PM goes to parliament and lay out his case? In that scenario he could easily send his ideas to the PSs and other technocrats for action. The system of government and governing would probably have to change for such to occur and the PSs would more than likely be appointed by the PM or whatever title is chosen. That could work too.

In reply to sudden

But in that system the appointees will have to go when the PM is changed. So the PS job security will be under threat

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

Nick



I do not believe many of them can even do that.

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

Of course. And we are back to square one. He would be a political appointee like those in the U.S. And just like a minister except that a minister is elected as an MP and then selected to be a cabinet minister or if not elected, selected as a senator and then a minister.

In a system where the PM or president is elected then chooses who runs various governmental bodies he can bring in who likes or thinks fit to do the job. They may have the necessary skill in the area or not. Where those persons selected by the PM or president have to be ratified by some oversight body other issues might come into play.

So there are pluses and minuses to every system

In reply to sudden

Correck is rite

In reply to sudden

I think the most effective way to change the issue of a 3rd party is to allow for Independents to get a chance. That would make the number of party infinite. In Barbados if you ain't Bee or Dee the perception (or truth) is you can't do anything for people.

In reply to sudden

indeed...people like to discount the pain and suffering that Politicians have to endure while in office and if you were lousy..long after you left office too.

So I aint gonna knock Politicians for what they are PAID.

Its what they negotiate that I will have a problem with...and its rampant in a few fellas.

On that note I like how Fruendel has quietly moved them around and as far away as possible from the coffers...but alas..the latest Trans...still see de fella teching where he can...cant help it I guess.

In reply to nick2020

sad but true

This was in response to your comment re Dees and Bees are perceived as the only parties that can DO something.