Ah yes, nothing says Labour Day quite like Brave shirts, party slogans, and a full-on PLP pep rally disguised as a tribute to the Bahamian worker. Enter Fred “Numbers Game” Mitchell, the ever-vocal Chairman of the New Day PLP, who has once again climbed the golden soapbox to deliver a message so rich in political delusion, it should come with a warning label: “May cause nausea in rational individuals.”

Apparently, according to Chairman Fred, the Free National Movement was “so shamed” by the PLP’s sheer volume of Brave-shirted disciples that they didn’t dare show up in party colours. Not because the unions themselves requested a nonpartisan show of solidarity. Not because Labour Day is supposed to honor workers. No, no. It’s because, in Fred’s world, everything is a numbers game, and the FNM just couldn’t stomach the PLP’s… math.

He’s even quoted saying it’s time to separate the “sheep from the goats, the wheat from the chaff.” One has to ask: is he describing voters or preparing for a backyard biblical cosplay? Either way, it’s clear—Fred wants every branch to become an electoral sorting facility. Skip the policies, forget the governance. Just count the sheep (and make sure they vote PLP).

Now, let’s talk about those shirts. No tribute to Sir Randol Fawkes. No mention of the actual LABOURERS being honored. Just a sea of “Brave” as if Sir Randol moonlighted as a party promoter for the PLP. Never mind that the unions asked for no political colours—a humble request promptly ignored because, of course, the PLP knows better than THE PEOPLE… and THE UNIONS… and common sense.

One can’t help but admire the PLP’s consistency. They’ve politicized everything from pot holes to power outages, and now, they’ve turned a national day of workers’ solidarity into a mini-convention. All that was missing was a conch fritter stand and a DJ shouting “PLP to the world!”

But don’t worry, Fred isn’t done. He ended his statement with a public service announcement to beware of AI-generated misinformation on social media. Ironically, he made this warning immediately after spewing misinformation of his own. The self-awareness is about as present as competent governance in this administration.

At the end of the day, while the rest of the nation marches in unity with Bahamian workers, Fred and crew are marching to the beat of their own delusion—yellow flags waving, egos inflating, and logic… well, that’s still stuck in the wet paper bag the PLP can’t seem to govern their way out of.

So, let the PLP continue to celebrate their “historic turnout” at a march they hijacked. The rest of us will be over here, busy working—for real—and preparing to rescue this country from the political circus currently in charge.

END

There’s a delightful saying: your next choice is more powerful than your last mistake—provided, of course, you actually learned something. Unfortunately, the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) seems to have missed the memo. Instead of learning, they marched right back into the same old trap: ignoring the very voices they claim to champion—THE PEOPLE.

The recent Labour Day parade in New Providence drew thousands of workers and union members—a genuine show of solidarity. But wait, here comes the PLP, not nationally colors of unity, but with party shirts adorned with Brave Davis name and battle cries of “We are ready for war.” Yes, war—the political kind, naturally, led front and center by Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis and Deputy PM Chester Cooper, turning a day meant for workers’ rights into a campaign rally.

Meanwhile, the Free National Movement (FNM) took the more respectful route, donning national colors instead of party paraphernalia, heeding labor leaders and the family of Sir Randol Fawkes—the very pioneer of Labour Day in The Bahamas. A subtle, but telling difference: one side respects history and the workers; the other treats the day like a billboard for their upcoming election.

Mr. Davis, who can only described as being politically tone deaf at this point, defended this theatrical display with a proud “I make no apology” for marching alongside workers. A noble sentiment, if only the problem wasn’t the marching with party banners and political slogans rather than simply marching with the workers with banners actually highlighting the workers themselves or the person that actually established the day.

Picture this: a child throwing stones at a plate glass window, breaking it, then insisting he never knew the stone would cause damage. That’s the PLP’s approach to Labour Day politics. The glass shattered not because they marched with workers, but because they hijacked the event to serve their own political ambitions.

The unions explicitly asked for a day focused on workers—not on “Brave Wave” and political grandstanding. But apparently, nothing says “unity” quite like politicizing the memory of Sir Randol Fawkes and turning the event into a pre-election pep rally.

So the people asked, politely, to keep politics out of it. And the PLP? They said, “No apology,” effectively telling the PEOPLE that their voices are just background noise to the party’s script.

Trust, it seems, is in short supply these days. After years of sidelining public concerns, the PLP’s response is to double down on the theatrics and political posturing—because failing to learn from mistakes is apparently their nature.

In short if politics were a sport, the PLP just scored a goal on Labour Day.

END

Abraham Lincoln, a man of towering intellect and razor wit, once opined, “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.” One wonders if Lincoln, in his transcendent foresight, was prophesying the curious spectacle now unfolding in our politics—specifically, the sight of Prime Minister Philip Davis K.C. standing, not in a courtroom, but in the august halls of Parliament, in defense of… himself.

On May 28, 2025, during his Budget Communication to Parliament for the fiscal year 2025/2026, the Prime Minister, who also dons the cap of Minister of Finance, I mean why settle for one hat when you can wear two?, confidently declared that, for the first time since Independence, his administration would not only achieve a balanced budget, but a surplus to boot.

A moment of historic grandeur? Or, perhaps, a misunderstanding of elementary economic forecasting? Let’s examine.

Let’s begin with the record. During his budget communication, Prime Minister Davis proclaimed:

“More than a balanced budget – a budget with a surplus.”

A bold assertion. Audacious even. And, at first blush, one could hardly blame his online acolytes for erupting in rapturous self-congratulation. Why, if taken at face value, it would seem the Davis administration had already achieved this surplus. The very heavens themselves might have cracked open in celebration.

But alas—language matters. And the subtle art of political rhetoric often trips over its own cleverness.

Nowhere in that original statement was it clearly presented that this budgetary “achievement” was a projection—a forecast, not a financial fait accompli. In response to the ensuing confusion, Deputy Prime Minister Chester Cooper gallantly attempted to clarify, though one suspects his efforts were about as well-received as a raincloud at Junkanoo.

Rather than acknowledge the confusion created, Prime Minister Davis doubled down with a tone bordering on sanctimony. From The Nassau Guardian, June 2025:

“They have tried to dismiss it as merely a forecast. Have they not noticed that every budget is a forecast?”

A revelation of such profundity, one would think he had discovered gravity.

Indeed, Prime Minister, the Opposition has noticed. That is precisely why they questioned the manner in which your statement was framed. The issue here is not whether budgets are forecasts—this is rudimentary economics—but that your original announcement lacked the nuance, or honesty, to make that clear.

And so we find ourselves in the theater of the absurd, where the Prime Minister, now reduced to playing both prosecutor and defense attorney, must repeatedly clarify to the public, his party, and perhaps even to himself, that his so-called “surplus” has not yet materialized.

Ironically, his supporters—those ever-loyal apostles of the “New Day”—continue to trumpet an accomplishment that, by the Prime Minister’s own belated admission, has not occurred.

What lessons are to be drawn from this rather embarrassing debacle?

Certainly not humility. Prime Minister Davis, in classic form, chose to chastise the Opposition with supercilious disdain rather than admit to a poorly worded announcement. One suspects that had the Honorable Member exercised the same caution with his phrasing as he does with his courtroom objections, this entire farce might have been avoided.

Instead, we are left with a Prime Minister whose defenders are still clinging to a fiscal fantasy, a Deputy Prime Minister whose voice was drowned out in the din of damage control, and a populace that has grown weary of being spoken at, rather than spoken to.

In sum: If Prime Minister Davis must persist in representing himself, then he should consider Lincoln’s words not as a historical footnote—but as a warning.

END

Sometimes it’s better to stay quiet and be thought to be out of touch than to keep talking and confirm it. But hey, Prime Minister Davis doesn’t do quiet. No, this morning, he decided to introduce a brand-new excuse—sorry, reason—for why his “New Day” government has done precisely nothing to implement the Freedom of Information Act.

This is starting to feel like a Netflix series nobody asked for: “FOIA: The Excuses Saga.” We had Season 1, starring PLP Chairman Fred Mitchell, who scoffed at the whole idea of giving the Bahamian people access to public information. His greatest hits included:

“Freedom of Information? I don’t think so.”

“It’s too expensive.”

“Too bureaucratic.”

“Not relevant to people’s everyday lives.”

Translation: You don’t need to know what we’re doing with your money. Just trust us. (LOL.)

And now, in Season 2, we get a new twist: Prime Minister Davis has decided that the Freedom of Information Act is… wait for it… esoteric. That’s right—esoteric. A fancy word meaning “confusing” or “only for the elite few to understand.” Kind of like his logic.

Here’s the headline from The Tribune:

“PM: FOIA implementation will not significantly increase govt. transparency.”

Wait—what?

So let’s get this straight: the Prime Minister of a democratic nation is saying that giving people access to information about how their government works… won’t make the government more transparent?

What’s next? “Fire extinguishers don’t really help with fires”? “Umbrellas don’t really stop the rain”?

Now, to be fair, Mr. Davis did toss out the usual vague political appetizer: “You will see some movement on the implementation…” But—surprise, surprise—he didn’t elaborate. Because why actually move on transparency when you can just say you’re moving?

Meanwhile, for the second straight year, the budget for FOIA implementation is $140,000. That’s less than what some ministries spend on travel. We want transparency, not a bake sale.

And then came the real kicker:

“There’s a misconception as to what the FOIA really entails. It doesn’t give unfettered access… it doesn’t make available matters that’s not already available…”

Hold on—if it doesn’t give access to anything new, and it’s too esoteric, and it’s too expensive, and it’s too bureaucratic… why does it exist at all? Why did you campaign on it?

Is the new official position of the PLP: “We promised transparency, but you wouldn’t understand it anyway”?

And if the Prime Minister is saying that FOIA wouldn’t make the government more transparent, isn’t he just admitting that this government—his government—has no intention of being transparent in the first place?

Mr. Davis, are you speaking as the leader of the PLP—the same party that has historically side-eyed accountability like it’s a scam—or as a Prime Minister who thinks Bahamians should sit in the dark while public funds vanish under the carpet like spilled tea?

Because here’s the thing: Bahamians can fix their own roofs, their own lives, their own problems—if they know what’s really going on. But when millions suddenly appear for contracts, renovations, and pet projects, and the public is told “don’t worry your pretty little heads about it,” that’s not leadership. That’s condescension wrapped in evasion, with a side of gaslight.

Transparency isn’t some boutique idea for nerds with clipboards. It’s how you show respect for the people who put you in office. And when the government keeps finding new ways to say “you don’t need to know”, it says a lot more about their priorities than any campaign slogan ever could.

So yes, Mr. Prime Minister, we’d love to hear the real reason FOIA is still on ice. Just be honest this time:
Is it incompetence?
Is it fear?
Or is it simply that transparency has always been bad for business—PLP business?

Either way, Bahamians deserve better than a “New Day” that looks suspiciously like the same Old PLP Way.

END

Fred Mitchell — chairman of the New Day Progressive Liberal Party — is upset. Not about poverty, crime, or inflation, mind you. No, he’s upset that the Organization for Responsible Governance (ORG), a watchdog group (read: people who read budgets and care about government promises), dared to point out a glaring inconsistency between what the government says it cares about and what it actually spends money on.

In a scene straight out of the PLP playbook — “Make a mess, and when someone notices, cry foul” — Mitchell lashed out at ORG, calling them part of the “chattering class,” which is rich coming from a man who’s made a career out of voicing grievances from a podium like he is auditioning for a political soap opera.

Let’s recap the facts, shall we?

• The 2025/2026 national budget allocates a measly $140,000 to the Freedom of Information Office — the same office that the Information Commissioner himself said needs $1 million just to get up and running.
• This isn’t just a line item oversight. This is a neon sign blinking: “We’re not serious about transparency.”
• The budget also skimps on funding for the Office of the Ombudsman and the Independent Commission of Investigations — institutions crucial for public accountability. You know, the stuff politicians promise before elections and hope we forget after.

Now, instead of saying, “You’re right, we should fix that,” Mitchell fires back with this gem: “Freedom of information is important, but what about fixing roofs and lifting the poor?”

Fred. Buddy. No one said you can’t fix roofs and tell people where the money’s going. It’s not an either/or. This isn’t Sophie’s Choice. It’s a budget.

You can walk and chew transparency at the same time.

And let’s not pretend the FOIA is some newfangled radical idea. This law passed in 2012. That’s over a decade ago. TikTok didn’t even exist. Yet here we are, 13 years later, and the government is treating implementation like a New Year’s resolution — noble in theory, neglected in practice.

And then, in true performative fashion, Mitchell ends with a voice note (because what’s more modern than defending government secrecy via a WhatsApp recording?) telling critics to shut up if they have never run for office.

Yes, because democracy only works if everyone keeps quiet unless they have run for parliament. That’s not democracy. That’s ego with a title.

So here’s the real problem, Fred: It’s not that people are picking on the PLP. It’s that the PLP promised transparency, accountability, and reform, and then decided that was too much work once the election was over.

Truth, transparency, and accountability are not “political conveniences.” They are the foundation of good governance. And when you gut the very tools meant to provide oversight, people are going to notice. And they are going to talk. That’s not “chattering.” That’s citizenship.

So no, Mr. Chairman, right-thinking Bahamians do not see you as a victim.

They see you — quite clearly, thanks to the little transparency we do have — as the guy who threw the rock, hid his hand, then whined when someone pointed out the broken window.

And no voice note is going to fix that.

END

Good day and welcome to Fred Mitchell’s latest midnight voice note sermon, broadcast from the Church of Deflection and Distraction, where the only consistent doctrine is avoiding the real issues. One might assume the PLP Chairman has taken on the role of the nation’s self-appointed motivational speaker — except instead of addressing rampant allegations, like say, passports being allegedly sold out the back door of Immigration, he is too busy recording audio affirmations to gaslight the public.

You would think, with accusations swirling around such a serious and potentially explosive scandal, the Chairman of the ruling party might muster a coherent statement — you know, something more substantial than accusing Bahamians of “picking apart” the government’s fairy tales. But no, we get voice notes… glorious, empty voice notes.

And speaking of tales, let’s turn to the Budget Communication — the pièce de résistance of this government’s creative writing class. We were boldly told that the country now has a balanced budget and even a surplus! Remarkable! That would be quite the feat — if it were remotely true. But alas, even that illusion is wearing thin, as the Minister of Tourism and Aviation had to gently contradict the Minister of Finance, clarifying that, well… the goal is a balanced budget. Aspirational, sure — but presenting it as an accomplished fact is about as honest as those “Bahamas for Bahamians” campaign speeches during election season.

But Fred Mitchell does not want us focusing on those contradictions. No, no — his energy is better spent lecturing the public about how wrong they are for daring to question the gospel according to the PLP. Apparently, in his eyes, if you are not nodding along like a good little foot soldier, you’re just a bitter critic who “tears everything to pieces.” Because yes, the Chairman of a democratic nation’s ruling party apparently finds freedom of speech quite annoying.

Now let’s get to the irony of the year: the same government that refuses to implement the Freedom of Information Act — because it’s too expensive, according to Fred — has no problem throwing millions into travel, vanity projects, and new communications offices to spin their message. But transparency? That’s “wasteful.” Instead, we’re told that the funds are better used for “social programs,” which would be a lovely excuse… if this administration was not already missing fiscal targets and barely delivering on the social commitments they’ve made.

At some point, one must ask: Is this government unable to walk and chew gum at the same time, or are they simply choosing not to — because too much sunlight might expose something they would rather keep in the shadows?

What’s painfully clear is this: whenever the pressure mounts, the playbook is always the same. Distract, deflect, deny. And when all else fails? Send out Fred with another voice note full of vibes.

The Bahamian people are not fools. They see the smoke, they feel the fire — and no amount of PLP pep talks, budget gymnastics, or recycled talking points can cover up the rot forever.

The people deserve better — and no voice note will change that.

END

Fred Mitchell, Chairman of the PLP, continues to publicly criticize attorney Obie Ferguson. His continued commentary exposes a deeper concern—the PLP’s troubling tendency to attach strings to every act of generosity, and worse, to expect unquestioning loyalty in return.

In his most recent remarks, Mitchell basically told Ferguson: “We gave you the prestigious title of King’s Counsel—so be grateful and stay silent.” This statement was not only for Ferguson. It reflected a wider, troubling feeling:

“We have given the people so much. They should take what we offer, be grateful, and keep quiet.”

Is that truly how the PLP views the average citizen? Are titles, contracts, and political appointments simply tools of control—offered not on merit, but on obedience?

Let us be clear: Obie Ferguson’s recent comments about the PLP sparked controversy, yes—but criticism of government is the cornerstone of democracy, not a betrayal of loyalty. Mitchell’s response, however, implies that Ferguson’s KC designation was not purely based on merit. According to Mitchell:

“He denies that [the KC title] was the result of the memorandum of understanding. He knows that is not true. When we met with him and his colleagues, before we discussed any public policy, they asked about giving him a KC. They agreed.

The King’s Counsel title, intended to recognize legal excellence, was in fact a political agreement. This revelation raises significant questions about the PLP’s process for awarding public honours.

Mitchell adds:

“We are not arguing competence here. What we are saying is, when you are speaking truth to power, Mr. Ferguson, you ought to say thank you to the PLP.”

That is not democratic governance. That is conditional allegiance.

This saga reinforces a growing perception: when the PLP gives you something, it is not free—it comes with expectations, with silence, with loyalty. And if you speak out, even truthfully, even respectfully, you risk being chastised and publicly humiliated.

The issue is not Obie Ferguson’s qualifications or his criticisms—it is the PLP’s reaction. It is the party’s willingness to politicize honours, retaliate against dissent, and remind the public that favours come at a price.

No government should expect gratitude as a substitute for accountability. No title should come with a muzzle. No citizen should be silenced for exercising their right to speak.

END

Hold on, because we’re about to take a front-row seat to the greatest magic trick in Bahamian fiscal history — where the illusion of a surplus is stronger than the actual presence of one.

Wait — wait — hold up. So let me get this straight…

The New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Government — the same folks who rode in on the unicorn of transparency and fiscal responsibility — just told us they’ve delivered the first ever budget surplus. Delivered! As in… they already brought it! Like it’s on your porch with an Amazon sticker on it.

“We’ve delivered a surplus…”

That’s what they said. “We’ve.” Past tense. Like it’s already been baked, boxed, and served. Ding-dong, the economy’s fixed!

But then, like a magician who accidentally sawed his assistant in half for real, they started walking it back. No, no — it’s not that we delivered a surplus, it’s that we will… maybe… hopefully… if all the stars align and nobody sneezes on the calculator.

Enter Exhibit A: Tribune Business, which reported that Prime Minister Davis is touting the first ever budget surplus — not for this year, oh no — for the next fiscal year, 2025/2026. Oh! So… not now. Not even close. Actually, the forecasted surplus was slashed from $448.2 million down to $75.5 million — an 83% drop! That’s not a revision — that’s a fiscal freefall with a parachute made of vibes.

And here’s the kicker: this forecast is based on the hope that revenue jumps nearly 18% next year.

Enter Exhibit B: The Banker with the Bad News Hat.

Gowon Bowe, CEO of Fidelity Bank — and not exactly a wild-eyed radical — basically says:

“Uh… guys? I’m struggling to see how y’all are going to collect $3.88 billion in revenue when you’re not even hitting your current targets.”

Translation: The math ain’t mathin’.

So let us see if we have this correct:

They implied a surplus had already been delivered — it hadn’t.

They predicted a mega-surplus — then cut it by hundreds of millions.

They’re relying on revenue increases that everyone in finance says are unrealistic.

And they’re now rebranding previously zero-rated items as tax cuts.

This is the fiscal equivalent of saying:

“We’ve built the house!”

When what you have actually done is scribble a stick-figure blueprint on a napkin, lit it on fire, and then blamed the wind.

And the most chef’s kiss part of all of this? They act like we’re crazy for questioning it! Like we didn’t just hear what they said. Like we’re the ones being unreasonable for not clapping.

Listen — nobody is saying the entire budget is garbage. Some parts may help Bahamians. But the keystone — the central narrative, the claim of historic surplus — is built on a linguistic sleight of hand, a budgetary dream board, and a prayer whispered into the Ministry of Finance’s air conditioning vent.

And we all know what happens when you pull out the keystone: the whole thing comes crashing down.

You can’t just Jedi mind trick the public:

“This is the surplus you’re looking for.”

No. We’re looking for accountability. And, maybe, a calculator that’s not powered by wishful thinking.

END

Labour Day in The Bahamas — now formally known as Randol Fawkes Labour Day — is not a gift of political patronage, but rather a solemn and enduring tribute to the Bahamian worker. It was established in 1961 through the relentless efforts of The Honorable Sir Randol Fawkes, the only elected Member of the Labour Party in the House of Assembly at the time. Fawkes successfully passed the bill to create a public holiday dedicated to the working men and women of The Bahamas — not to any political party, not to glorify a regime, but to uplift the dignity of labour itself.

This day was always intended as a unifying occasion, a celebration of the sweat and sacrifice of the average Bahamian worker. It was meant to foster solidarity among labourers, transcending divisions of race, party, or class. Yet today, we are witnessing a further distortion of that noble vision.

The PLP has shown itself to be very disrespectful by the politicization of a national legacy. Recent statements by Deputy Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), Obie Roberts, and other party figures indicate an alarming attempt to hijack the Labour Day platform for political purposes. Roberts’ call for party members to “prepare for political war” and his declaration that the PLP will launch its 2026 reelection campaign on Labour Day is not only tone-deaf — it is profoundly disrespectful to the legacy of Randol Fawkes and the working people for whom this day was intended.

It must be emphasized, as history bears out, that the PLP did not create Labour Day. The legislation was introduced and championed by Fawkes a full six years before Majority Rule was achieved in 1967. While it is historically accurate that Fawkes and Independent MP Alvin Braynen supported the PLP after the 1967 general election — thus allowing the party to form the first Black-majority government — this political alliance does not retroactively transfer the authorship or ownership of Labour Day to the PLP.

Indeed, the very renaming of the holiday in 2013 to Randol Fawkes Labour Day was an intentional act of historical correction, seeking to restore credit to the true architect of the day. And yet, in spite of this, the PLP continues to propagate the false narrative that the holiday is their domain — a “gift” from their party. Such revisionism is not only misleading, but it also threatens to erode the collective memory of a critical chapter in Bahamian labor history.

The rightful guardians of Labour Day — the trade unions — have not remained silent. In a principled stand, Trade Union Congress President Obie Ferguson announced that the TUC will not participate in the 2025 Labour Day parade, condemning the PLP’s blatant politicization of what should remain a worker-centered celebration.

Ferguson’s words strike at the heart of the issue: “Labour Day now is a political parade. That’s not what we do.” His commitment to return the focus to workers — by gathering at the House of Labour to discuss critical concerns — it is necessary.

We must not allow political pageantry to drown out the voices of those who built this country with their hands and their sacrifice. Ferguson’s stance is courageous, and it deserves commendation, not scorn, even some may now question his motives.

Labour Day is not a partisan platform. It is not a rallying point for campaign slogans, nor is it a symbolic battleground for political might. It is a day of reflection, unity, and gratitude — for the Bahamian worker, and the man who stood for them when no one else would: Sir Randol Fawkes.

To attempt to recast this national day in party colors is to desecrate its meaning. It is a betrayal of the very principles it was founded on — and those responsible should be held to account by the historical record, no matter who they may be.

In times like these, we must remember that history is not merely a tool of power, but a guardian of truth. And the truth is clear: Labour Day belongs to the people — not the PLP nor any other political organization.

END

Prime Minister Philip Davis has made it clear—he expects the Bahamian people to follow his government blindly on the sale of the Grand Lucayan resort, all while refusing to share the details of the deal. When asked whether the reported $120 million is in the bank, Davis simply said, “Wait and see, I don’t need to get into those details.”

This is deeply troubling. Davis previously scrapped the Heads of Agreement left by the FNM, claiming it was not in the best interest of The Bahamas. Now, we the people are simply asking to see whether this new agreement meets that standard. That’s not politics—it’s accountability.

Instead, the Prime Minister chastises critics and tells us to unite behind a project we know nothing about. Unity does not mean silence. Working together does not mean following blindly.

No, Mr. Prime Minister, THE PEOPLE will not close their eyes and hope for the best. We want this project to succeed—especially for Grand Bahama—but success cannot be built on secrecy. If “something is happening,” then why can’t the people know what it is?

This isn’t about political fodder—it’s about trust, transparency, and respect. Unfortunately, the PLP continues to fail in these areas. And that failure is not a coincidence—it’s a pattern.

END