In his third year as prime minister, Philip Davis/ Secret Squirrel is heard saying that he will bring relief from the cost of living, bring actions on crime, bring access to healthcare, [provide] wanting opportunities, bring new businesses. These are some of the things that he now claims are his new priorities; the question that I now have is were these not the old priorities and if so, exactly what has the New Day government been doing up to this point?

Taking the people’s money and giving them “free” breakfast”?

Now the issue of campaign financing has resurfaced and as usual the Prime Minister Secret Squirrel and his government cannot seem to give a straight, concise and viable answer to give to the people, only excuses, the last time they tried to spin this subject on the opposition and got totally embarrassed and were forced to “walk-back” their comments.

“PM: ‘Public cost’ for campaign financing” – The Tribune

Excerpt from this article; “PRIME Minister Philip “Brave” Davis said regulating campaign finance is fraught with “difficulties,” partly because it could require that public funds be used to finance political campaigns.

“You will find the alternative to campaign financing and regulating it is a requirement that perhaps the public purse should fund election campaigns,” he told reporters when asked about his administration’s failure to advance various progressive matters outlined in the PLP’s Blueprint for Change.

“If you check and benchmark where campaign financing is the law in various countries, you’ll find that a part of the access to campaign financing is from the public purse. Should I put that on the payment people at this time? I don’t know.”

Some countries have extensive public funding for political campaigns. However, some that limit who can make political donations, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, do not have a state funding system.

Mr. Davis said loopholes would always exist, allowing people to get around campaign finance regulations. He suggested he would not pass a superficial law without addressing deeper challenges.

Despite past promises, he reiterated that various matters of transparency and accountability are not a priority for his administration.

“When I walk and talk to Bahamian people, meet their families, they don’t speak about the Freedom of Information Act,” he said. “They don’t speak about campaign financing laws. What they speak to me about is relief from cost of living, action on crime, access to healthcare, wanting opportunities. They want new businesses. They need to be able to understand what we are doing for those. So those have risen for my priorities.”

First, Fred Mitchell has expressed scepticism about campaign finance reform, arguing that such measures can inadvertently restrict free speech. He contends that limiting campaign contributions might disproportionately affect smaller candidates and grassroots movements, making it harder for them to compete. Mitchell has also raised concerns that overly restrictive regulations could lead to unintended consequences, such as encouraging less transparency or pushing donations into less regulated channels.

Now we have the Prime Minister Davis, expressing the issues that he sees with campaign finance reform, but we would have thought that while in opposition and promising to bring it about that they would have had a solution to these “problems” but it would appear that they did not and three years in they still have no solution, so is it safe to say that they have failed on this issue also?

One of the problems that the prime minister states that we would have if campaign finance reform laws were implemented would be that the state would have to contribute to the campaign financing of the different organizations running; I ask why? Just because this is what other countries do.

Is Prime Minister Secrect Squirrel attempting to use this as an excuse to deter the public from asking for something that he and his chairman claim that the people are not asking for?

Would he be that deceptive?

The PLP fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END

Last week, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) New Day government Party held a church service to celebrate three years since it won the governance of The Bahamas.

I remember when people were cautious of what they said in church, especially in the pulpit. This was simply out of respect and/or “fear”, but it would appear that this “respect and fear” is nothing but a memory.

“PM touts three years of work” – The Nassau Guardian

Except from this article;  “As Prime Minister Philip Davis boasted yesterday of the work his administration has done in its three years in office, “rescuing” a country in crisis, he said there is still more work to be done.

“Now, believe us, we are acutely aware of how much work remains,” said Davis at a church service at the Church of God of Prophecy on East Street, New Providence, celebrating the Progressive Liberal Party’s (PLP) third anniversary in office.

“We have built strong foundations for progress, but we are still a long way from realizing the vision we share of a country in which a broad swathe of Bahamian entrepreneurs and investors become the central players in our economy, and when all Bahamian families have the safety, security, and opportunities they so deserve.”

Rescuing the economy of the country is one of the greatest mistruths that the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) New government has told, not just to The Bahamas but to the world to date. I believe that it is safe to say that no matter who had won the last election, the economy would have rebounded to where it is right now and in invite or dare anyone to present any empirical evidence to refute my assertion.

I ask of the New Day PLP government what economic initiatives did they put in place to bring about this “rescuing of a country in crisis” and exactly what crisis were we in that the country was not already recovering from?

If one were to listen to the New Day PLP government, it would seem an almost certainty that it was the former administration that brought about this “economic crisis” that they claimed that they rescued The Bahamas from but is this true and I feel this is why the New day government, even to date will only tell a part of the story.

Yes, this New Day government met global inflation rising rapidly but what did they do to ease the burden on the people during the time of the rapidly rising inflation? During this time was when VAT was added to breadbasket items and medication and almost every conceivable government fee that increased, including electricity.

Now we have a “hiccup” at the Bahamas Electricity Corporation (BPL) wherein there has been a “problem” with the last month billing process that did not produce the lower bills as promised by whatever initiatives that the New Day government was planning to put into place, being the private nature of this government.

Now, we have the New Day government claiming that there was a “hiccup” in the billing process and that the “savings” will be reflected in our future billings. I say that to say this, just as the New Day government has made claims of lower electricity rates and have not been able to deliver, what make one actually believe that they have actually fulfill the promises that they claimed that they have and not simply ridden a wave set in place by a former administration that they seek to vilify on a daily basis?

We presently have a government, in its third year still claiming “successes” that they cannot quantify, many failures that they and blame on others because they are unable to verify them, and much like their governance that they seem to attempt to create a story to describe.

One last question before I go; “What has this New Day PLP government done to date to bring about “a broad swathe of Bahamians entrepreneurs become the central players in our economy” and what are their plans moving forward?

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason; it is their nature.

END

In this morning’s paper, Prime Minister Philip Davis is quoted as saying after being asked if his administration intends to bring about campaign finance legislation; “Davis said, we are considering it, but it is not a priority for me now”. This all has come about as the issue of campaign reform came back to the forefront but the question is exactly how and why this was subject brought back to the forefront?

“Campaign finance law not a priority” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article;

“Prime Minister Philip Davis addresses the media following a contract signing ceremony at the Office of the Prime Minister yesterday.

Prime Minister Philip Brave Davis said yesterday he’s not minded to disclose the list of the Progressive Liberal Party’s (PLP) campaign donors unless those donors wish to be made public, and added that bringing campaign finance legislation, a promise the PLP made ahead of the last election, is not a priority for him at this time.

Last month, Free National Movement (FNM) Leader Michael Pintard said he is willing to reveal his party’s campaign donors and challenged Davis to do the same.

Davis said, “They can do what they wish. I don’t know where this issue of campaign finance [came up from], but for me, I will not disclose the donors to our campaign unless the donors are willing to allow me to do that.”

Asked if his administration intends to bring campaign finance legislation, Davis said, “We are considering it, but it is not a priority for me now.

“What’s a priority for me now is to relieve the pain that my people are feeling right now by providing fresh potable water for people in Cat Island, Family Island infrastructure and development, and ensuring that I am able to improve their lives.

“Campaign finance legislation won’t improve their lives right now. We’ve done a lot and a lot has to be done. I’m focused on getting those things done to relieve the pain and suffering of our people.”

What is delightful that the prime minister finally realizes that the people of the country are suffering and he is now looking to relieve this suffering; he needs to have a “come to Jesus” moment and ask himself that after representing Cat Island for so long why is he only now seeing the benefits of bringing potable water to the island?

But I have the propensity to digress and that is a whole new blog.

One may wonder how did the prime minister come to making this statement about campaign finance reform and exactly who are his party’s contributors are but then he explains, “They [the Opposition Free National Movement (FNM)] can do what they wish. I don’t know where this issue of campaign finance [came up from]”, but it was you, Mr. Prime Minister that introduced the subject of campaign financing when you attempted to “poison the minds” of the public against the leader of the opposition Free National Movement (FNM); the Hon. Michael Pintard; with your reckless remakes, meant solely to suggest that since the FNM has received campaign contributions from the GBPA then they must “carry their water”.

‘Pintard a water boy for GBPA’ – The Nassau Guardian; 28^th August 2024

Excerpt from this article; “Prime Minister Philip Davis yesterday accused Free National Movement (FNM) Leader Michael Pintard of being a “water boy” for the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA), Freeport’s municipal authority, and said he should say whether the GBPA contributed to his election campaign.”

I would be tempted to ask the question of this New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government if they have or had recently or at any time received any campaign contributions from the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA), but knowing their very nature; I can assure you that the question will end up on the LONG list of unanswered questions already asked of this government, having yet to be answered.

Fortunately, this question has already been answered by the Grand Bahama Port Authority’s Director, Rupert Hayward as quoted in the Tribune (10th September 2024); “GRAND Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) director Rupert Hayward said the authority has made equal financial contributions to the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and the Free National Movement (FNM), insisting that the GBPA is ‘politically agnostic.”

So, it would appear that Prime Minister “Secret Squirrel” has yet another “very well know secret”, as he has been caught “spitting into the wind”.  As it appears that he has been exposed and now with the question of whether or not he and the PLP has ever revived campaign contribution from the GBPA being answered and it being revealed that the GBPA has donated to both political organizations, I wonder what next miraculous spin job will he send his faithful crumbsnatchers out on and if this has him carrying any water for the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA)

The Progressive Liberal fails for one reason; it is their nature.

END

I am attempting to, make sense of it all.  The New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) came to office with the promise of reducing the cost of electricity.  The Minister of Energy, Jobeth Coleby-Davis; “Theodora Elpaba”, promised lower electricity rates by July of 2024 of course she missed her delivery date but that is the only the beginning of this saga.

She then went on the record or was it Secret Squirrel who made such a bold statement?

Prime Minister Davis it was, then went on record to make the bold statement of “I invite all Bahamians, check your bills at the end of July, and see for yourself” as he went on to promise lower electricity rates; okay fair enough.

We waited and then we looked with the anticipation of a child after Santa has visited the house the night before, and most of us were shocked, pun fully intended, because for most of us our bills had actually increased.

Were we only told to look at them so we could see how well the New Day government can and had swung us? That’s simply sadistic but I digress.

I can recall about two to five persons that actually said that their bills decreased, interestingly enough they were all a part of the New Government’s well-oiled and fine-tuned public relations “staff” but then again this here is another and totally different story with a lot of questions. 

The New trend that I am seeing leads me to make the following observation and ask this question; I have seen more and more commercial properties complain about the rise in their electricity, so my question is, has the New Day government applied an increase to the rates for commercial properties to subsidize their promise of lower energy costs and if so, is this good for the economy?

“Chamber: Rising electricity costs having a devastating effect on businesses” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article;

“The escalating cost of electricity is having a “devastating effect” on the business community, according to the chief executive officer of the Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers’ Confederation (BCCEC).

Dr. Leo Rolle, in a statement to Guardian Business, said: “The BCCEC is deeply concerned over the increased cost of doing business and the devastating effect this has on the business community, with the escalating cost of energy among primary concerns.

“We note the minister’s Jobeth Coleby-Davis, Minister of energy and transport comments relative to increased usage, equating to increased cost, and wonder whether the free energy audits that were mentioned during the initial rollout of the energy reforms have been offered to businesses and taken advantage of by those most impacted.

“While we acknowledge the minister’s comments, we continue our suggestion of education, public awareness and training campaigns, to ensure the business community is appraised of the nuances intricately woven into the fabric of the reforms.”

Coleby-Davis said in remarks in June on the government’s energy reform initiative: “All residential consumers with low and moderate electricity usage will benefit, as the base rate tariff for the first 0 to 200 kWh will be reduced to zero. The upper bands will stay the same, but even if you are a resident with a bill of around 600kWh, you will still benefit from the rate of your first 200kWh being reduced to zero. Note that everyone will still have to pay for the fuel charge for every unit they consume.

“The commercial base tariff will drop slightly from 15 cents to 14.5 cents, and the temporary supply 23 base tariff, which particularly affects the Family Islands, will drop from 16.38 cents to 15 cents. Again, they will both continue to also pay for their fuel charge.”

The Energy Minister comments suggest that all energy rates would and should have dropped but this does not seem have been the case and it seems that the business sector is taking the full brunt of this failed initiative, if it did indeed fail, because I am beginning to fervently believe it was a case of the business sector being used and taken advantage of but how will it affect our economy that is still in a stage of recovery?

Then there is the mystery of; if the private sector is seeing no relief and the business community seeing as jump in their bills; who is benefitting from this initiative?

The Progressive Liberal Party fails for one reason, it is within their nature.

END

It now appears that the very same game that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government has been playing with the public and the Grand Bahamas Port authority (GBPA) has now been turned on them but it would appear that the “wave” that they rode in on, is not as safe as the one that has turned on them and the vessel that they once sat comfortably in is not as “sea-worthy” as most thought that it was.

“Mitchell: GBPA working to turn citizens against govt.” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article;

Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell yesterday accused the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) of trying to poison the public’s opinion of the Davis administration.

Mitchell was responding to criticism from the GBPA over the government’s public statements on an ongoing dispute between the parties.

“They’re trying to map out a path to create public pressure on the government and to persuade citizens to turn against the government on this issue,” said Mitchell at a press conference in Freeport.

“That’s what’s happening here. Well, you know, it’s a very dangerous thing, it seems to me, to get involved in political contretemps with the government of the day.

“The predecessors in title would never have engaged in this. The problem is that you can’t have a situation where the public domain and the well is being poisoned every day by one side without some countervailing view being put.

“So, our view is every time false information is put in the public domain, the government has a responsibility to set the record straight. That’s all that’s happening here.”

It seems that there are two interpretations of the same law here, wherein the government is asserting that the Utilities Regulations and Competitions Authority (URCA) is the sole licensor and regulator for the utilizes in The Bahamas and the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) saying while this may be true to an extent, it does not apply to Freeport, which is guided by The Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA), which names the GBPA as the sole regulator of utilities in Freeport.

This was the beginning of the game by the New Day, Old Way Progressive Liberal party (PLP) government, where Chairman Mitchell and a band of very loyal PLP crumbstanchers used every waking moment to attempt to “poison the public opinion against” the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA).

They spent every waking moment in the “public domain” in an attempt to poison the well of the public domain” with the thought that the tides would never change, could never change, because as the Chairman of the PLP said ; “The predecessors in title would have never have engaged in this”.

Minister Mitchell seems to fail to realize that he is dealing with a new generation; as a lot of persons have come to realize that the New Day, Old Way PLP government has produced a much nastier, vile and wicked supporter.

So, Mr. Mitchell is now shocked by the “clap back” that he has gotten by a group that was fully expected to bow down at his feet.

But now with the tides changing, the Minister of Foreign Affairs seeks to attempt to cry foul – “oh, what a tangled web we weave…..”, but Mitchells seems to have gone even further than just the misrepresentation of the truth as the rest of us know it.

“That’s what’s happening here. Well, you know, it’s a very dangerous thing, it seems to me, to get involved in political contretemps with the government of the day.”

This sentence here is odd and seems threatening; it is strange that the chairman of the New day, Old Way government would suggest that the GBPA should not get caught up in “political contretemps with the government of the day”, is he issuing subtle threats to the Executive Director , whom he instructs to stay out of the present dispute between The Bahamas Government and the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA); I sometimes seriously wonder if Mr. Mitchell know what he is actually saying.

If my memory serves me correctly, this situation was on a very slow simmer and progressing “peacefully” until the Minister of Foreign Affairs saw fit to weigh in and begun this “us against them” war that we are currently engaged in today; I am beginning to believe that Fred Mitchell just may be the problem itself.

So wrapping this up, it seems that the Minister is now crying foul as he attempts to now paint the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government as the victims here, by accusing the GBPA of attempting to poison the minds of the public against the government, when he was caught “throwing the vile of  of poison in the well of the public domain.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason; it is their nature.

END

#ASTHETIDETURNS

“GBPA Must Live Up to Contractual Obligations” – The Bahama Journal – 16th August 18, 2024

Welcome back, let us look at what’s happening as we take a close look tonight at a brewing political and legal storm brewing in Grand Bahama.

 “GBPA Must Live UP To Contractual Obligations” The Bahama Journal, excerpt from this article

“Prime Minister Philip Davis continues to hold nothing back in his quest to persuade or force the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) to do more than it is currently doing to help revive the City of Freeport and, by extension, much of Grand Bahama.

While attending the Progressive Liberal Party’s (PLP) Grand Bahama men’s and women’s branches installation ceremony over the weekend, the Prime Minister said that the GBPA must do a better job of running the city for residents as mandated in the Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA).

‘Understand this,’ he said, ‘that is why we are doing something that no previous government has done before: we are insisting that the Grand Bahama Port Authority live up to their contractual obligations.’

‘The Port Authority has received concessions under the Hawksbill Creek Agreement worth millions of dollars. So, let’s admit what we all know, the politicians of the past were too timid, too deferential, too unwilling to hold the Port Authority to account,’ said PM Davis.

The Prime Minister says the Government will no longer subsidize private entities on the back of Bahamian taxpayers. He was also critical of the official opposition for not standing up to the GBPA on behalf of the Bahamian people.”

Let’s break this down, shall we?

First, it must be made clear that the Official Opposition was not and is not going against the people, but simply following the law, as it seems that Prime Minister Davis is finally seeking to do.

Is the prime minister attempting to backpedal as he now admits to the fact that the Hawksbill Agreement (HBA) is actually a legal contract? And I do agree with him that the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) has not been living up to their contractual obligations as per the Agreement, but why was it necessary for him to mislead the public in the first place?

As stated by the leader of the opposition, the Hon. Michael Pintard, GBPA is not just any entity; it is, by virtue of its contract, the regulator of all utilities in Grand Bahama, especially the city of Freeport. There has been no amendment made to the Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA) nor the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) conceding power of the government to allow for the takeover of these regulations by the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority (URCA).

It is a well-known fact that the Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA) gave special provisions to the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) that the New Day Davis administration now claims that the Electrical Act 2024 gives to URCA. In my opinion, only a lazy, incompetent, and inept government would not have given special consideration to these provisions.

I carry no water for the GBPA and as I have said before, I agree with the prime minister that they have to live up to their contractual obligations. But until we all realize that there is a legal contract in place which cannot simply be set aside by legislation that does not include all stakeholders is a legal affront to the whole situation brewing in Freeport and Grand Bahama on the whole.

It would do well if the government treated the Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA) as a legal and binding document that can only be updated by amendment that includes all of its stakeholders, which includes business holders in the Freeport area.

And only then can this issue move forward in a sensible manner.

The PLP fails for one reason: it is their nature.

END

“Unreasonable” _ The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article;

“Prime Minister Philip Brave Davis said on Friday that Grand Bahama Power Company’s (GBPC) request for an electricity rate increase is “unreasonable”.

Davis also hit out at the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) and its assertion it is the sole licensor and regulator of all utilities in Freeport. Davis said under the law, there is only one regulator with the power to approve a rate increase—the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority (URCA).

He was referring to a new Electricity Act that was passed earlier this year, which establishes URCA as the only regulator in the country’s energy sector.

However, GBPA has asserted its rights as the regulator for electricity on Grand Bahama, citing its powers as outlined in the Hawksbill Creek Agreement.

So the question really is; Who Holds the Regulatory Reins?

The Grand Bahama Power Company (GBPC) plays a vital role in providing electricity to the residents of Grand Bahama. However, the question of who has the legal authority to regulate this essential service has become a contentious issue, especially following the recent changes in legislation and the longstanding agreements governing the region’s utility sector.”

“Unreasonable” is how Prime Minister Philip Davis describes the request for a price increase by the Grand Bahama Power Company (GBPC), and I would agree with him on this for a couple of reason, one the power supply is not consistent and the power company just received and increase in 2022, but I feel that there is something else brewing beneath this.

There seems to be a vast difference of opinion between the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) and the government over who really has the sole regulatory right to the utilities of Grand Bahama.

I have asked who has been regulating Grand Bahama’s power supply all of this time and cannot seem to get and answer and I have asked who legally has the right; these are my finding.

The Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) Perspective

The Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) asserts that it is the sole regulator of utilities in Grand Bahama, citing the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, a foundational document that established the framework for the development and governance of the Freeport area. This agreement, signed in 1955, granted the GBPA significant powers and responsibilities, including the regulation of utilities.

Proponents of the GBPA’s claim argue that its regulatory authority has been well-established over decades, providing a consistent framework for utility management in Grand Bahama. They contend that the Hawksbill Creek Agreement is a binding legal document that should remain in effect, thereby underscoring the GBPA’s regulatory jurisdiction over GBPC.

 The Bahamas Government and URCA’s Perspective

On the other hand, the Bahamas government, through the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority (URCA), has taken a different position. Following the enactment of the Electricity Act 2024, the government asserts that it now possesses regulatory oversight over GBPC. This law effectively empowers URCA to regulate electricity services, ensuring that they meet certain standards and are provided in a fair and competitive environment.

Supporters of this viewpoint emphasize the necessity for updated regulatory frameworks that reflect modern energy needs and practices. The Electricity Act 2024 aims to enhance consumer protection, promote competition, and encourage sustainable energy practices—objectives that align with global trends in energy regulation.

Breaking down the Legal Framework

The crux of the debate centers around the interpretation of legal agreements and legislative changes. The Hawksbill Creek Agreement, while historically significant, may face challenges in light of the newer legislative framework established by the Electricity Act 2024. Legal experts may argue that legislative changes can supersede prior agreements, particularly when they are designed to serve the public interest and adapt to contemporary regulatory needs.

But what does all of this mean for Consumers and the Industry?

This regulatory tug-of-war has direct implications for the consumers of Grand Bahama. If the GBPA retains its regulatory authority, it may lead to continuity in how services are delivered, but could also stifle innovation and responsiveness to new energy demands. Conversely, if URCA’s regulatory framework prevails, it may pave the way for improved service quality, more competitive pricing, and greater accountability.

With that being said.

As the debate unfolds, it is clear that the regulation of the Grand Bahama Power Company is not merely a legal technicality; it is a matter that affects the livelihoods of many and the future of energy in the region. The interplay between the GBPA and the Bahamas government will likely continue to evolve, and the ultimate resolution will depend on legal interpretations, public policy goals, and the collective will of the stakeholders involved.

In the meantime, consumers and businesses in Grand Bahama must stay informed and engaged, as the outcome of this regulatory duel will shape the energy landscape for years to come. The question of who has the legal right to regulate GBPC remains open, but one thing is certain: the pursuit of a balanced and effective regulatory framework is essential for the sustainable development of Grand Bahama’s energy sector.

END

“FNM Seizes on Government’s ‘Cash Flow Crunch’” – The Tribune

In a striking revelation, the Opposition has jumped on comments from the Progressive Liberal Party’s (PLP) chairman, framing them as proof that the Government is grappling with a significant “cash flow crunch” while “taxing the private sector into oblivion.” Dr. Duane Sands, chairman of the Free National Movement (FNM), pointed out that Fred Mitchell’s message to PLP supporters not only sheds light on the administration’s “aggressive behavior” towards businesses but also confirms the “poorly-kept secret” of the Government’s liquidity challenges.

In a statement that could only be described as a candid admission, Mitchell characterized The Bahamas as being “in a tight economic squeeze.” He emphasized the Government’s reluctance to resort to international credit markets for foreign currency financing due to the heavy burden of debt service that would ultimately fall on taxpayers. He underscored the urgency of collecting every tax dollar owed to the Public Treasury, especially with the looming threat of hurricanes.

“The country is in a tight economic squeeze,” Mitchell declared. “We aim to pay as we go, avoiding borrowing unless absolutely necessary, especially with hurricanes ready to strike at any moment. We must gather every tax dollar before considering credit.”

Mitchell further lamented that while the poor and working-class citizens have been dutifully paying their taxes, some of the wealthier entities have managed to evade their fiscal responsibilities. “The PLP stands as their advocate, ensuring that everyone pays their fair share,” he insisted.

But let’s not forget the PLP’s tendency to circle back to their favorite refrain about “everyone paying their full share.” They aim to paint the FNM as the party of leniency, overlooking their own shortcomings in this arena. The recent reduction of VAT to 10 percent, while simultaneously removing it from essential items, raises questions about whether the poor truly have an advocate in this New Day, Old Way government.

Today, the FNM chairman responded to Mitchell’s comments, which admitted the country is facing a “cash crunch.” While some may have been caught off guard, many of us simply saw this as confirmation of what we’ve long suspected, despite attempts by the Minister of Finance and his team to keep it under wraps.

Naturally, the New Day, New Way government couldn’t take this revelation lying down. They swung back with a press statement denouncing the FNM as engaging in a “desperate attempt to mislead.” They unleashed a litany of grievances, from a 60% increase in VAT to failures surrounding the Oban deal, all while failing to clarify how the FNM’s statements were misleading.

They won’t disclose the outcomes of their VAT hikes, nor the stagnation of the Oban project, and they’re conveniently quiet about their consistent failure to meet fiscal targets. Why introduce truth into this narrative?

In their moment of fury, the PLP may have overlooked addressing the core issue or perhaps aimed to mislead the public themselves. They’ve attacked the FNM for “locking down” the country during the pandemic, while simultaneously labelling their opponents as “desperate.”

Amidst the PLP’s deflection, many are left wondering if it’s true that they owe their professional vendors six months or more in fees. The New Day, Old Way government seems to treat funds like a fleeting windfall, splurging at every opportunity.

While the PLP continues its assault on the FNM, claiming to advocate for those who owe their fair share, they should recognize that they must also acknowledge the FNM’s economic successes in its early years, such as reducing the deficit and improving the country’s standing with Moody’s and S&P and that the Free National Movement (FNM) i snot fighting against the initiative that both political organizations have not upheld over the years.

By neglecting to highlight these achievements and instead pushing their narrative, the PLP is, in essence, misleading the public. The failure of the Progressive Liberal Party stems from one fundamental truth: it’s simply in their nature.

END

Well, well, well, what do we have here on this fine and divinely ordained Sunday morning? I found myself under siege by none other than those devoted followers of the PLP, armed with before-and-after snapshots of the airport over at New Bight, Cat Island.

It seems that the construction crew has nearly wrapped up the concrete block exterior walls and is gearing up to pour those columns. The individual who shared these photos, or perhaps it was a fleeting video, seemed keen on portraying me as flustered by the “progress” that has seemingly materialized under the watchful eye of the representative for Cat Island, Rum Cay, and San Salvador – none other than Prime Minister Philip Davis, Esquire, AKA Secret Squirrel, after a whopping twenty-two years in office.

I must admit, it’s heartening to witness the airport shedding its shabby wooden skin and emerging as a more contemporary edifice complete with indoor seating for the convenience and safety of both residents and visitors. However, the lingering question remains: why did it take our esteemed representative, who once held the titles of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Public Works, so long to give this airport a much-needed facelift?

So, while they tout progress, I’ll nod my head and say, “Alright, we can now fly into New Bight without being left out in the rain. Even if it did take Secret Squirrel a whopping twenty-two years to usher in this long-awaited ‘progress.'”

And with that, we bid adieu.

In recent years, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) has faced significant scrutiny regarding its effectiveness in combating crime, despite its ambitious pledges outlined in the party manifesto. With Prime Minister Philip Davis emphasizing three key priorities—crime, the economy, and education—many expected a strong and proactive response to the escalating crime rates. However, the reality has been far from the promises made.

In its manifesto, the PLP made three bold pledges aimed at addressing the crime crisis that has plagued the nation. These included:

1. Increased Law Enforcement Resources**: Promising to bolster police forces with more officers, funding, and advanced technology to tackle crime more effectively.

2. Community Engagement Programs**: The party committed to creating initiatives focused on community engagement, aiming to build trust between law enforcement and local communities.

3. Legislative Reforms**: The PLP vowed to introduce tougher legislation targeting repeat offenders and enhancing penalties for violent crimes.

Despite these pledges, the party has struggled to deliver on its promises, raising questions about its commitment and ability to implement meaningful change.

In January 2023, Prime Minister Davis then went on to recommit to these previous unfilled promises, he said ; “Economy, crime and education, key areas of focus over the next 12 months” – In this article, Prime Minister Davis once again referred to the Progressive Liberal Party’s (PLP) manifesto, “Blueprint for Change”. In an attempt to further reassure the public that although the crime situation looked dismal he had not forgotten his promise.

All I can say is fool me once………..

Then in the January, 2024, Prime Minister Davis, came back out with an aggressive pronouncement warning criminals; “Bahamas Prime Minister warns criminals, we are coming for you”

When Prime Minister Davis addressed the nation, he highlighted the urgent need for a unified approach to crime, stating, “We are coming for you,” directly aimed at criminals. This fiery rhetoric was intended to bolster public confidence and demonstrate a tough stance on crime. However, the effectiveness of such statements has been undermined by the lack of tangible results and alleged questionable behavior by some members of the Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF).

While strong words can rally support and create a sense of urgency, they must be backed by action. The citizens of the nation have not seen a significant reduction in crime rates, nor have they felt the promised increase in safety. This disconnect between rhetoric and reality has led to growing frustration and distrust among the citizens.

While making the bold pronouncement Prime Minister Davis emphasized the importance of the economy and education in his address. However, the interconnection between these issues cannot be overlooked. High crime rates often stem from socioeconomic challenges, including lack of education and limited job opportunities.

The PLP’s failure to address these underlying issues has further compounded the crime problem. Without a holistic approach that includes economic development and educational initiatives, the fight against crime cannot be won. The party’s inability to integrate its crime-fighting strategies with broader social reforms has left many feeling that the promises made were merely political rhetoric rather than a genuine plan for change.

As the PLP continues to navigate its challenges, it is crucial for party leaders to reflect on the commitments made and the expectations set. The fight against crime requires not just pledges, but a sustained effort, innovative strategies, and accountability for results, none of which we have seen to date.

The citizens deserve to see real progress in their safety and security, and it is the responsibility of the PLP to ensure that their promises translate into meaningful action. Moving forward, a renewed focus on community engagement, economic development, and educational reform will be essential in restoring faith in the party’s ability to combat crime effectively.

In the coming months, it will be vital for the PLP to demonstrate that they can transform their pledges into action, or risk totally losing the trust of the very people they aim to protect but on their current course, they do not seem to be headed in the right direction.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) continues to fail for one reason, it is their nature.

END

#THENEWDAYOLDWAYPLP