Sometimes I really feel that it would be in the best interest of Fred Mitchell, Chairman of the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) to just remain quiet but a part of his duty is to defend his party, one that he seems to take very seriously; but what happens when his party policies do not line up with the best interest of the country?

As an elected official I feel that accountability to the country should come first but according to Mitchell sometimes answering questions isn’t worth the trouble.

“Mitchell says answering questions ‘isn’t worth the trouble’ sometime’ “– The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article;

“Amid backlash over a Cabinet minister’s revelation that the government rehired nearly 500 retirees, Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell said sometimes it “isn’t worth the trouble” to answer questions in this country.

He made the comment in a voice note on Monday as he again lamented the reaction from the Free National Movement (FNM) and some in the labor movement to the rehires.

“In many respects you can see why sometimes answering questions in this country, it isn’t worth the trouble really,” Mitchell said.

 “I get the impression that people don’t want to know the truth. All they want to do is find something to row about,” he said, questioning why critics want to attack police officers or teachers being rehired to fill needed gaps.”

First of all let me dispel two pieces of misinformation and spread some truth that Chairman Mitchell wishes to “hide” here; first, it is not only the FNM that has questioned this latest move by the New Day government and two, the criticism does not “attack police officers or teachers” as is being stated by Chairman Mitchell.

 We all know that Fred Mitchell and by extension, the New Day PLP party/government whom he represents, are not fans of  Freedom of Information, as they opposed the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA). What they fail to realize is that it is their responsibility as a government to answer plausible and reasonable questions put to them by the opposition and the others i.e. the public – it is something that we call transparency and accountability.

It now appears that the PLP party/government does not think too highly of these concepts, it would appear that they are foreign to them.  What I find curious is that if Chairman Mitchell truly got the impression that some “that people don’t want to know the truth”, he would not take to putting out his pointless voice notes three times a week in order to “set the record straight” and in order to disseminate “the truth” to “right thinking PLP’s”. It appears that he does feel that people want to know the truth or “the PLP’s truth” and this is where I feel were a conflict comes in.

It seems that the Chairman of the New Day PLP party/government is more upset that “the truth” that he seeks to disseminate is not being readily digested as he would like it to be by others out of the sphere of “right thinking PLP’s”.  It would appear that Mitchell and the New Day PLP government party/government are seeing themselves as governing a nation that does not think and therefore does not question any of their actions; it would appear that the New Day PLP party/government have come to believe that they are catering to a mindless citizenry, it appears that Mitchell and his New Day party/government are wrong – except for the few that regurgitate anything and everything that the PLP puts out without even attempting to rationalize it for themselves without fear of making themselves look at stupid as the person whom the follow blindly.

It is a very sad situation that an elected official would some to the rationalization that it’s better not to answer the public that hired them because they feel that that that population is intelligent enough to question him and the party/government that he represents.  It is sad that followers of his party believe that what he says actually makes sense, as they do not seem to see that it casts them in a very poor light.

The Bahamas deserves better.

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

END

“Exuma moorings project dead” – The Nassau Guardian

In a plot twist no one saw coming, the government pulled the plug on its secretive 21-year lease with Bahamas Moorings Ltd. mere hours after defending it. Public outrage over the clandestine deal—lacking environmental approvals, transparency, or basic common sense—seemed to have forced their hand.

Bahamas Moorings Ltd., in a graceful exit statement, thanked the government for the opportunity and reassured us all that they care deeply about marine conservation. Never mind that the project was scrapped before it even got past the shadows.

Now when you really look at it, this did not have to be this controversial. If there was not something really amidst, the real kicker is that the government’s own justification was that unregulated anchoring is damaging marine ecosystems would have seemed quite legitimate. So if the mooring system was the eco-friendly solution, why all of the “back-room dealings”?

Why the lack of public consultation?

Why the rushed defense before the sudden U-turn?

Ah yes, because secrecy is the PLP’s default setting. But they sure do call me “disrespectful” for pointing out that the Prime Minister runs his administration like an undercover spy mission, therefore having me labelled him “Secret Squirrel”

PLP Fails For One Reason, It Is Their Nature.

END.

In a recent and highly contentious move, Fred Mitchell, the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and Minister of Foreign Affairs, has launched a vehement defence of the Davis administration’s decision to rehire nearly 500 public service retirees. This action has ignited widespread criticism across the nation, transcending political affiliations, and raising serious questions about the government’s commitment to PROGRESSIVE policies and youth empowerment.

Mitchell dismisses the backlash as mere “propaganda,” particularly targeting the Free National Movement (FNM) for allegedly misleading the public. He contends that the government’s policy is a necessary response to the country’s shifting demographics, citing an aging population and a declining birth rate as justifications for rehiring retirees. According to Mitchell, The Bahamas faces a shortage of young labour, necessitating the retention of experienced older workers to maintain public services.

However, a critical examination of the demographic data reveals inconsistencies in Mitchell’s rationale. As of 2024, The Bahamas has a population of approximately 401,283, with a median age of 35 years. The total fertility rate stands at 1.4 live births per woman, which is below the replacement level of 2.1. While these figures indicate an aging population, they do not inherently justify the large-scale rehiring of retirees, especially when considering the potential stifling of opportunities for younger professionals.

Moreover, Mitchell’s attempt to link the current demographic challenges to historical events, such as the crack cocaine epidemic and the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s and 1990s, appears tenuous and lacks empirical support. These events, while tragic, do not directly correlate with the present policy of reinstating retirees into the public sector.

The government’s narrative also suffers from internal contradictions. Labour Minister Pia Glover-Rolle has previously stated that the rehiring initiative is part of a “succession planning” strategy, aiming to have experienced workers mentor the younger generation. This explanation conflicts with Mitchell’s emphasis on a labour shortage, suggesting a lack of cohesive policy direction within the administration.

Critics argue that if the Davis administration were genuinely committed to progressive ideals and empowering the youth, it would prioritize creating opportunities for younger Bahamians rather than recycling retirees into the workforce. The defence of senior positions by long-standing party members, including Mitchell himself, further undermines the government’s credibility on this front.

In conclusion, the Progressive Liberal Party’s decision to rehire a significant number of public service retirees, coupled with Mitchell’s unconvincing defence, raises serious concerns about the administration’s commitment to progressive change and youth advancement. The reliance on questionable demographic arguments and inconsistent policy narratives suggests a government more focused on preserving the status quo than fostering genuine progress for the nation’s future.

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

END

It would appear that the since the recent debacle in Grand Bahama where business owners said that they felt disenfranchised after being excluded from Carnival’s Cruise Port opportunities, the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government needed a distraction and what better than that money that the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) owe the government?

Fred Mitchell, Chairman of the New Day PLP government seems to be the “point” on this assignment and not any of the elected PLP members of parliament in Grand Bahama, not even the Minister of Grand Bahama; the Hon. Ginger Moxey, odd but then this is the PLP that we are talking about.

So Fred Mitchell went on the attack!

“Mitchell: New GBPA investor needed” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell said yesterday Freeport is being hampered by a lack of capital and innovation from the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) shareholders.

“Let’s put this clearly – Freeport suffers because the GBPA’s shareholders today do not have the capital, it appears, or the ideas to fix the city and promote development there,” said Mitchell in a repeat of statements he made last year.

“That’s it. A new investor needs to be found that has the money and the ideas. They cannot even fix, the present shareholders, the bridge to Taino Beach, for Lord’s sake.

“What was most offensive and impertinent, though, was the suggestion that there is some sort of deal with the government behind the scenes to keep the current shareholders in power.”

While speaking at the Grand Bahama Business Outlook last week, GBPA Executive Director Rupert Hayward said excessive red tape, guardrails on immigration and the watering down of the regulatory regime have significantly undermined the Hawksbill Creek Agreement.

The 99-year agreement, which was signed between American investor Wallace Groves and The Bahamas’ colonial government, designated the Hawksbill Creek area as a free-trade zone, offering investors attractive tax incentives and duty exemptions.

The deal has been altered over the years and expires in 2054.

The Davis administration has had rocky relations with the GBPA.

Since winning the September 2021 general election, Prime Minister Philip Brave Davis has on many occasions expressed frustration with GBPA and the state of Freeport.

Last year, the government sent a demand letter to GBPA asking that it pay $357 million the Davis administration says it is owed under Section 1(5) of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, which specifies that costs borne by the government for certain activities and services provided are to be reimbursed by the Port for amounts in excess of customs duties and emergency taxes collected.

The Port Authority, however, rejected the claim that it owes that sum and said it “will robustly defend against it”.

An arbitration process is currently underway.”

Now I have been warned about talking about this case because it is in arbitration, but it would seem that it is fine for the Chairman of the PLP to go against this “warning” but then we know that the PLP are infamous for “do as we say and not as we do”.

I find it amazing that as Mitchell attempts to take control of Freeport, he would use that the “reasoning” that “Freeport suffers because the GBPA’s shareholders today do not have the capital, it appears, or the ideas to fix the city and promote development there”.

I would just like to ask the question, then why is the rest of The Bahamas suffering, especially when it comes to infrastructural improvement and why?

Another funny, as told by Chairman Mitchell; “I like the prime minister enormously. He’s very accommodating when we sit down and talk about things behind closed doors.”

Mitchell said, however, that Hayward’s suggestion that there is a “behind-the-scenes agreement” between them was “impertinent.”

“What was most offensive and impertinent, though, was the suggestion that there is some sort of deal with the government behind the scenes to keep the current shareholders in power,” Mitchell said.

“Mr. Hayward says that he is friends with the prime minister’s wife and likes the prime minister. What in God’s name does ‘like’ have to do with it?”

Is this what Chairman Mitchell seems to draw this very own private conclusions of some suggested “secret deal” that he finds “impertinent” “offensive” from?; this here suggests one thing to me – mental health is an issue to be taken very seriously; where are these suggestions that has offended Chairman Mitchell?

I feel that Mitchell is playing to his audience, those that would not dare question him when he says that there is something to be found “impertinent” and “offensive; if they even knew what “impertinent” meant  -“impertinent /ɪmˈpəːtɪnənt/ adjective  – not showing proper respect; rude”; you are very welcome.

It would appear that each and every time that this issue is reintroduced and Chairman Mitchell weighs in on it, he speaks in a threatening tone what does not enough an amicable resolve to the matter.

The Bahamas deserves better because the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END

A few days ago, I highlighted the unsettling admission by our esteemed King’s Counsel and Prime Minister, the Hon. Philip Brave Davis, who confessed he is “not sure of the law when it comes to sentencing sexual predators.” This revelation is deeply concerning, especially given his position and legal background.

In a recent article titled “PM decries ‘horrific’ act against children” by The Nassau Guardian, Prime Minister Davis expressed his horror over a case where a father received a mere five-year prison sentence for molesting his three-year-old twin daughters. He stated, “Our fathers need to be caring and protective rather than predators of their children, and the full brunt of the law always should be brought to bear in circumstances such as this.” He further added that he believed the offense warranted life in prison but admitted he was unsure of the law.

While it’s commendable that Prime Minister Davis acknowledges the gravity of such heinous acts, his uncertainty about the law is alarming. If our nation’s leader is unsure about legal statutes concerning such critical issues, one must wonder about his grasp on other matters of national importance.

Fortunately, we have emerging leaders willing to address what the Prime Minister et al seems either unable or unwilling to confront. Free National Movement (FNM) Senator Michela Barnett-Ellis has called on the government to increase sentences for sexual offenses, decrying the “mixed messages” the Davis administration is sending about protecting women and girls. She referenced the same case, stating; “Five years does not feel like enough punishment for his heinous actions.” She emphasized the need to increase the maximum sentence for indecent assault, which currently stands at seven years, to send a clear message of non-tolerance for such behavior.

It appears that while the Prime Minister and his administration remain hesitant, leaders like Senator Barnett-Ellis are stepping up to advocate for necessary legal reforms. This hesitancy is reminiscent of past instances, such as when Prime Minister Davis suggested supplying women with whistles as a measure against sexual assault—a proposal that was met with widespread criticism for its inadequacy.

Beyond reactive discussions about sentencing, we must address the root causes of these crimes. What goes through the mind of a man that makes him “comfortable” sexually assaulting his three-year-old daughters? What makes a person believe it is “alright” to sexually assault minors? There must be underlying factors contributing to this behavior. Is there a growing number of individuals finding this acceptable, or has it always been prevalent, only now coming to light through increased reporting?

The Bahamas deserves better.

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

END

All Bahamians of goodwill,  gather around for yet another installment of “What Did Fred Mitchell Say This Week?”—a thrilling political soap opera where the truth is optional, contradictions are frequent, and self-righteous indignation is always on sale.

Now, last weekend, I was warned that Fred Mitchell—Foreign Affairs Minister, MP for Fix Hill, Chairman of the PLP, and self-appointed Minister of All Things Verbal—was a malignant narcissist. But, plot twist! Turns out, he might also be bipolar! No, no, not the “let’s have a serious discussion about mental health” kind, but the political kind—where one moment he’s standing on his soapbox like a street preacher, and the next, he’s the Grand Inquisitor of the Opposition.

And what was the offense this time? Oh, the usual—spreading his version of reality like a street magician trying to convince you he just pulled a rabbit out of his hat when you clearly saw him stuff it in there five minutes ago.

Scene One: The Judicial Condemnation Slip-Up

Mitchell, in his grand oratory style, boldly declared that Marvin Dames—the former National Security Minister—was judicially condemned in the Shane Gibson case! Except… minor detail… that never happened. My Dear! Turns out, he meant the Frank Smith case. But hey, same difference, right?

I mean, who among us hasn’t accused someone of being condemned by the courts, only to realize we got the entire case wrong? Just a regular day for Fred! But here’s the kicker: “The point stands,” he says. Because apparently, in Mitchell’s world, accuracy is an afterthought, and so long as the insult lands, the facts are just details.

Scene Two: The Drones That Weren’t There

Ah yes, the $17 million drone story! Mitchell & Co. have been beating this dead drone… I mean, horse… for years now, claiming that Marvin Dames spent $17 million on drones, and—surprise!—no drones exist!

And yet, no proof has ever been provided. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

But does that stop Mitchell from repeatedly using it like a battering ram? Absolutely not! Because, you see, in the world of political theater, repeating something enough times makes it true. Evidence? Who needs it! Just keep saying it louder until it sticks.

Scene Three: The “Fairness” Hypocrisy

But Mitchell isn’t done yet, folks. Oh no, we’ve got a whole act left!

Now he’s gone full “PLP for the People” mode, claiming that the FNM’s love affair with transparency and fiscal responsibility is just a scam to keep their rich friends rolling in government contracts.

The solution? Scrap transparency! Because, you know, listing the names of people who get government contracts is a security risk. I mean, why let the public know where their tax dollars are going? That’s dangerous!

And, oh, the irony—Mitchell openly admits the PLP doesn’t really care about fiscal responsibility laws. The same laws he’s attacking the FNM for allegedly not believing in.

You keeping up? Because the mental gymnastics here are Olympic level.

Finale: The Double-Tongued Hypocrisy

And after all this, after the misinformation, the contradictions, the grandstanding, Mitchell dares to say:

“When you see less going around, ask yourself the point in question: is it true?”

Yes, Fred. Excellent advice. Perhaps you should try it sometime.

Look, Bahamians deserve better than this circus. Less theatrics, more governance. Less soapboxes, more substance. And maybe—just maybe—a little less hypocrisy from the Minister of Verbal Acrobatics.

Because at the end of the day, if the only way you can win an argument is by misrepresenting facts, are you really winning at all?

END

Fred Mitchell, the ever-loyal Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), continues his now well-worn routine of warning the Bahamian public that the Free National Movement (FNM) is engaging in “nasty politics.” This would be a fair concern—if it weren’t for the fact that Mitchell himself, along with his fervent band of PLP loyalists, has already dragged Bahamian politics into the gutter with rhetoric far worse than anything they accuse the FNM of. The irony is almost poetic.

As 2025 begins, the PLP has seemingly donned its full war armor—not one of progress, unity, or even basic governance, but of hatred and division. Their political strategy appears less about solutions and more about manufacturing “battles” to justify their aggression. And leading the charge? The usual suspects, armed with baseless accusations, racial paranoia, and the usual dose of fear-mongering.

If there’s one thing the PLP has mastered over the years, it’s the art of weaponizing race to keep its base in check. Former PLP Member of Parliament Leslie Miller recently resurrected this tactic with his absurd remarks about “Project 2025,” claiming it was an FNM-led conspiracy to get rid of or suppress black Bahamians. Let that sink in: Miller, without a shred of evidence, accused the FNM—led by a Bahamian of color—of colluding with the “white man” to oppress black people.

This is nothing more than the same tired race-baiting narrative the PLP has peddled for decades, now dressed up with a modern, Trump-era twist. The story goes like this: The “wicked and evil white man” is always lurking, waiting to rob Bahamians of their future, and the only way to stop him is unwavering loyalty to the PLP. Never mind the fact that this narrative is divisive, outdated, and harmful. Never mind that it actively distracts from real issues like economic stagnation, crime, and governmental mismanagement. To the PLP, stoking racial paranoia is far more useful than governing.

Not to be outdone, Chairman Fred Mitchell has been busy playing his own twisted version of identity politics. In response to a claim made by the Member of Parliament for St. Anne’s, Mitchell saw fit to twist the discussion into racial terms.

• “Exactly what do you mean when you say ‘there is nothing good for someone that does not look like him,’ Chairman Mitchell?”
• “What do you mean by ‘when they see a man like Adrian White,’ Chairman Mitchell?”

Mitchell, who is no stranger to inflammatory rhetoric, seems to be openly suggesting that Adrian White—an FNM politician and a white Bahamian—is some sort of bogeyman to be feared. What is the message here? That Bahamians should view their fellow citizens through the lens of skin color rather than merit? That white Bahamians cannot represent or act in the best interest of the nation? If these statements had come from an FNM official, they would have been met with national outrage. But because it’s the PLP, we’re supposed to just let it slide?

The most laughable part of all this is that the PLP constantly portrays itself as the victim while being the aggressor. They feign outrage when criticized, yet have no problem unleashing the nastiest political attacks imaginable. They cry foul when challenged but are always the first to dive headfirst into mudslinging. This is not the behavior of a party that genuinely cares about the Bahamian people—it’s the behavior of a party that sees politics as a blood sport, where the goal is to destroy the opposition by any means necessary.

Let’s be clear: This is not governance. This is not leadership. This is not even effective opposition politics. This is a desperate attempt by the PLP to deflect from its failures and maintain control by sowing division. The Bahamian people deserve better than this petty, race-baiting, intellectually dishonest nonsense. If the PLP is truly worried about “nasty politics,” they should start by looking in the mirror.

Until then, their crocodile tears will fool no one.

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

END

As expected, Fred Mitchell, the self-appointed defender of the “New Day” Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), has once again graced us with his melodramatic finger-pointing. This time, he’s attempting to claim that a full-page ad in The Tribune—one allegedly targeting the Free National Movement (FNM)—is some grand act of political sabotage. Predictable, isn’t it? When all else fails, Fred’s go-to strategy is to blame the FNM.

In his characteristic bluster, Mitchell suggests that the Members of Parliament featured in the ad should sue because their images were used without permission. But let’s get real—who’s truly behind this so-called “fake ad”? Mitchell’s over-the-top accusations don’t just strain credulity; they collapse under the weight of their own absurdity.

And then there’s Mitchell’s sanctimonious diatribe about the ad’s ethical breaches, which he describes as an “unlawful tortious interference in a contractual right.” (Bravo for pulling that one out of the legal jargon hat, Fred!) Yet, he conveniently ignores the elephant in the room: the growing chorus of PLPs voicing their dissatisfaction with Hon. I. Chester Cooper. These voices aren’t coming from the FNM, Fred—they’re coming from your camp. Are you seriously unaware of the internal power plays? Or are you just playing dumb because it’s politically expedient?

Let’s examine the plausibility of Mitchell’s claims. According to him, the FNM is behind this “vicious” act, orchestrating an elaborate scheme to fool voters. Really, Fred? Is this the best deflection you could muster? Here’s a more likely scenario: the ad was placed by someone within the PLP, someone with a vested interest in propelling Coleby-Davis further up the party ranks. Perhaps it’s part of a backroom promise gone awry. If the plan failed, no problem—blame the FNM. It’s a textbook move from the PLP playbook of “nasty politics,” isn’t it?

And speaking of nasty politics, Mitchell doesn’t stop at wild accusations. He drags Dr. Dwayne Sands, FNM chairman, into the mud, rehashing old scandals and taking cheap shots. Is this your idea of elevating the political discourse, Fred? Or is this just more proof of how low the PLP is willing to sink when their own house is in disarray?

Here’s a reality check for you, Fred: your party is not the fortress of solidarity you would like us to believe. It’s more like a crumbling facade, barely holding together under the weight of its own infighting. When Prime Minister Davis called for an end to the PLP’s internal squabbles, is this the chaos he was referring to? Or is this just the latest in a long line of disasters that highlight the PLP’s utter dysfunction?

So, Fred, while you flail about trying to pin this fiasco on the FNM, maybe it’s time you turned your attention inward. The real issue isn’t the Free National Movement (FNM)—it’s the power struggles, backstabbing, and utter lack of cohesion within your own party. Your deflections are not fooling anyone, and your desperate attempts to control the narrative are as transparent as your party’s increasingly hollow promises.

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

END

Oh, Fred Mitchell—because when you need a distraction, who better to step up to the podium with ignorance and bluster disguised as gravitas? The chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) has once again graced us with his unique blend of deflection and contempt, this time targeting the Leader of the Opposition, the Honorable Michael Pintard, over his entirely valid remarks concerning the appointment of not one, but two deputy police commissioners. Yes, Fred, because what the nation really needed was another lecture from you on how to misunderstand both the law and leadership in a single breath.

Let’s start with the substance—or rather, the lack of it—on Mitchell’s part. Pintard, to his credit, delivered a thoughtful critique, clearly stating, “We are in support of the prime minister’s proposal to appoint Sr. Deputy Commissioner Andrews. We are not in support of an appointment of an additional Sr. Deputy of Police. There is no provision in the law. While there has been precedent where it has been done, there is no provision in the law for a second deputy commissioner.” Now, pause here. No provision in the law. Not exactly a trivial point, wouldn’t you say? And yet Mitchell, rather than addressing this glaring issue, chose the well-worn path of ad hominem attacks and fear mongering.

Fred; precedent is not law. I’ll repeat that slowly for the folks in the back: Precedent is not law. It’s the bureaucratic equivalent of saying, “Well, we’ve done it before, so it must be fine.” Wrong. The legal foundation for appointing a second deputy commissioner is nonexistent, and no amount of Mitchell’s hand-waving changes that. If anything, Pintard is doing his job—calling out actions that lack statutory support and questioning decisions that could undermine the credibility of the very institution tasked with upholding the law.

But Mitchell? Oh no, he’s not interested in such pesky details. Instead, he’s busy peddling the narrative that Pintard is “unstable” and “unfit to lead.” Classic PLP strategy:  When you can’t defend the policy, attack the person. Because who needs substance when you have slogans and insults, right?

And then there’s the larger issue of governance—or, in the PLP’s case, the utter lack thereof. Mitchell has the audacity to cast stones while standing in a house not just made of glass, but riddled with cracks from years of scandals, corruption, and failure. From one debacle to the next, the PLP has managed to string together a legacy of mediocrity and mismanagement, with little to show for it other than empty promises to the very working poor they claim to champion.

A quick reminder, Fred: Not every criticism is an attack. Pintard’s concerns are rooted in the law and in the optics of this appointment’s potential to undermine public confidence. But Mitchell, as always, prefers to twist this into an opportunity to sow division, relying on what he must believe to be the electorate’s short memory and low expectations. Here’s the problem: the Bahamian people are smarter than you think, Fred. They can see through this charade.

And now, let’s address the elephant in the room—or should I say, the ticking time bomb that is the PLP’s new 90-day crime-fighting plan. Yes, folks, a 90-day plan, as if crime is a temporary inconvenience that can be swept under the rug with a catchy deadline. Let’s ask the obvious question: does this shiny new plan imply that every previous initiative was an abject failure? Of course it does. And here’s the kicker: by introducing this “bold new strategy,” the PLP is effectively hanging the outgoing Commissioner of Police out to dry, hoping we’ll all forget the years of failed policies that preceded it.

Fred, if this is what stability and leadership look like to you, I’d hate to see chaos. Instead of focusing on his petty war of words with Pintard, Mitchell might want to take a good, hard look at his own party’s failures—and then, perhaps, do us all a favor and sit this one out.

Because here’s the truth: the PLP’s playbook of “Hate Through Ignorance” is wearing thin. The Bahamian people deserve better than cheap theatrics, empty slogans, and leaders who are more interested in scoring political points than solving real problems. So, Fred, the next time you want to climb your rhetorical soapbox, perhaps come armed with facts, solutions, and a little humility. Until then, maybe it’s time for you to stop talking and start listening.

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

END

At the start of 2023, the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government declared three key priorities: crime, education, and the economy. Yet, as 2024 comes to an end, we Bahamians are left wondering what progress, if any, has been achieved. Prime Minister Philip Davis, leader of the PLP, now claims that his administration’s focus next year will be on making the cost of living more bearable for the average citizen. This belated realization raises an obvious question: when did he recognize that the cost of living had become unbearable?

Was it after implementing an economic plan two years ago that failed to deliver meaningful results? Or perhaps when his government increased fees and imposed additional taxes on already struggling Bahamians? These measures have only deepened financial hardship, making the Prime Minister’s newfound concern appear disingenuous at best and negligent at worst.

Meanwhile, PLP Chairman Fred Mitchell’s recent comments on crime reflect an alarming lack of accountability. Responding to criticism in a Nassau Guardian editorial, Mitchell expressed indignation at claims that the PLP has failed to protect citizens. His rhetorical question—“What more do you expect the government to do?”—comes across as defeatist, if not dismissive.

So which is it; has the PLP given up or do they simply do not care anymore?

Mitchell’s argument appears to deflect blame for The Bahamas’ crime crisis onto external factors like U.S. drug trafficking and gun manufacturing. While these issues undeniably contribute to the problem, his framing ignores the promises his party made while in opposition, when the PLP heavily criticized the Free National Movement (FNM) government for its inability to address crime. If the PLP believed solutions were possible then, why has it failed to deliver now after three years in office?

Mitchell’s attempt to evoke the legacy of the late Sir Lynden Pindling, referencing his famous remarks on the U.S. drug war during a “Good Morning America” interview, feels like a calculated distraction. Crime in The Bahamas today extends far beyond drug-related violence. The murder rate, armed robberies, and gang violence have all surged under this administration. To pin these issues solely on external forces is both misleading and a disservice to the many Bahamians seeking genuine leadership.

The broader picture is troubling. This administration came to power on a “wave” of promises and lofty rhetoric about being a “New Day” government. However, three years later, there is little evidence of a coherent plan for addressing crime, improving education, or stabilizing the economy. Instead, the PLP appears to be floundering, scrambling to assemble policies while blaming external factors and critics for its own shortcomings, their most favorite “fall-guy” being the Free National Movement (FNM).

As Chairman Mitchell now pleads for another term for the Davis administration so that their crime initiatives can “bear fruit”, he must be reminded that you would have to first “plant the tree”.

Today, the people cannot point to one single piece of legislation implemented by this New Day government that has the intention to progressively mitigate crime.

The Bahamian people deserve better. They deserve leadership that not only acknowledges their struggles but takes decisive and effective action to resolve them. If the PLP seeks a second term, it must show tangible progress—something it has failed to deliver so far. Until then, its repeated promises and rhetorical deflections will ring hollow in the ears of a frustrated nation.

The Progressive Liberal aprty (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END