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

The scenario described highlights significant governance, ethical, and reputational concerns for The Bahamas and its ruling party, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP).

The issues surrounding Sarkis Izmirlian’s legal victory over China Construction America (CCA), coupled with past allegations of misconduct in the Baha Mar dispute, have placed the PLP government under scrutiny.

First we have an issue of Governance Accountability; The ruling against CCA, particularly the court’s findings about payments to Notarc Management Group to “curry favour” with government officials, raises questions about governance under the previous Christie administration. While the PLP attempts to distance itself from these allegations by claiming no specific person in the New Day PLP government name was called in the court filings, the broader implication is that their governance practices are under fire. Governance in a democratic system demands transparency and accountability. The ruling indicates a failure to safeguard these principles during a critical national project like Baha Mar, which has long been a symbol of economic potential and political contention.

Secondly, we have, despite the millions spent, The PLP’s apparent strategy of attempting to distance itself from the fallout—claiming institutional separation from past administrations—has not resonated well. This approach could be perceived as shirking responsibility, further damaging public trust in the government. The lack of proactive measures, such as initiating an independent inquiry or addressing the reputational risks head-on, gives the impression that the party prioritizes political expediency over national interest.

Then there is the continuing problem of what can only be described as “selective governance”. The fact that the PLP only seems to “realize they are the government at their convenience” speaks to an inconsistent application of authority and responsibility. This inconsistency is emblematic of broader governance challenges, where legal and constitutional obligations are interpreted to suit political ends rather than uphold national integrity.

But we have seen these issues play out before under the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government in the Peter Nygard Scandal; where the name of a high-ranking Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government officials were actually called, being accused of receiving bribes.

The Peter Nygard controversy, which implicated members of the PLP in a web of corruption and misconduct, serves as a cautionary parallel. In both situations, the PLP’s response has centered on deflection and damage control rather than substantive accountability.

Just as the Nygard scandal revealed vulnerabilities in the PLP’s ethical framework, the renewed focus on the Baha Mar dispute exposes enduring issues of governance and integrity within the party.

The recurring themes of deflection, denial, and a lack of proactive accountability strategies are not only detrimental to the PLP but also to The Bahamas’ reputation as a stable and transparent democracy. The implications extend beyond political optics to investor confidence, international relations, and national unity.

They may not only be detrimental to county’ reputation as a stable and democratic country, but they may also have the potential to erode investor confidence. The handling of both Baha Mar and Nygard controversies suggests a governance environment where political connections may outweigh due process/democracy. This perception risks alienating foreign investors and damaging the country’s economic prospects; and the potential to erode our national reputation; The PLP’s failure to adequately address these scandals risks tarnishing The Bahamas’ international image as a well-governed nation. The consequences could be long-term and multifaceted, impacting tourism, diplomacy, and trade.

The PLP government’s approach to the fallout from Sarkis Izmirlian’s court victory and the Baha Mar dispute reflects a broader pattern of governance challenges. The parallels with the Peter Nygard controversy underscore systemic weaknesses in accountability and ethical governance within the party.

For the PLP to regain credibility and demonstrate its commitment to the national interest, it must shift from deflection to accountability. Initiating an independent investigation or Commission of Inquiry into the Baha Mar findings would signal a willingness to confront past mistakes and establish a stronger foundation for ethical governance.

In the absence of such steps, the perception that the PLP prioritizes political survival over national integrity will persist, further eroding public trust and weakening The Bahamas’ democratic institutions. This situation serves as a stark reminder that the political choices of today will define the nation’s trajectory for years to come.

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

END

Just when you think Fred Mitchell, Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), has reached the zenith of political absurdity, he manages to pull off a dazzling feat of rhetorical contortionism. This time, his target isn’t national issues or substantive policy but a conveniently fabricated grievance against the Free National Movement (FNM) and its former leader and former Prime Minister, the Hon. Dr. Hubert Minnis.

Bravo, Fred—truly, no one plays the “Blame Game Olympics” better then you and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP).

The Blame Parade: From COVID to AI Conspiracies

Mitchell claims that the former Prime Minister “personally attacked” the current PM, Philip Davis. However, where exactly is this so-called attack? Is it buried under the pile of economic mismanagement and rising crime statistics that the PLP refuses to address? Or perhaps it’s hidden in the skyrocketing electricity bills the Bahamian people have to endure while Eleuthera suffers its very own power woes without any resolution in sight?

Rather than addressing these tangible concerns, Mitchell pivots to a well-worn PLP strategy: misdirection. COVID deaths? Blame Minnis. Corruption allegations? Blame the FNM. A rising tide of crime and despair? Somehow, blame the opposition. Yet, it’s worth noting that Prime Minister Davis has made no meaningful strides in combating these challenges either. Is this what Mitchell considers “a man of the people”?

Fred Mitchell’s indignation over Minnis’s mention of corruption is laughable. The PLP’s resistance to a Commission of Inquiry into allegations involving high-ranking officials reeks of hypocrisy. If this government is so committed to transparency, why is it balking at a legitimate investigation? The PLP’s reluctance to allow sunlight on these matters speaks louder than Mitchell’s bluster.

And now we delve into the bizarre claim of “AI-generated notes.” Mitchell accuses the FNM of fabricating AI-generated narratives to twist his own words. This is rich coming from a party that seems increasingly adept at deploying distractions. Could this statement itself be a pre-emptive excuse for future revelations? The irony here is thicker than the political smog choking our national discourse.

Mitchell concludes by attempting to cast the FNM as violent and criminal—a blatant act of political projection. The real question, however, isn’t what the FNM has done, but what the PLP has failed to do. Rising poverty, spiraling energy costs, and a public service plagued by inefficiency—this is the PLP’s brand under Philip Davis. And yet, Mitchell thinks we should be comforted by the Prime Minister’s “humble heart” and Christmas platitudes. Bahamians aren’t fooled by this empty rhetoric.

So let us be clear:

1. COVID Management: The PLP criticizes Minnis for pandemic deaths but offers no evidence that their approach would have yielded better results.

2. Corruption Inquiry: The FNM has called for transparency through a Commission of Inquiry, but the PLP refuses to engage.

3. Energy Costs: Under the PLP, electricity rates have soared, burdening families and businesses alike.

4. Crime and Safety: The PLP has not demonstrated an effective strategy to curb violence, despite their grandstanding.

Fred Mitchell’s latest tirade serves as a reminder of how far political discourse has fallen under his Chairmanship. Instead of engaging in meaningful debate, he resorts to petty attacks and baseless claims. Bahamians deserve a government that addresses their concerns, not one that deflects blame with the finesse of a schoolyard bully.

So, Mr. Mitchell, the next time you feel the urge to cry foul over the FNM or conjure up AI conspiracies, perhaps take a moment to address the real issues facing our nation. After all, the Bahamas deserves better.

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

END

 If Bahamians are suffering now, why is Prime Minister Philip Davis only looking to unveil his plan to address the high cost of living in 2025, three years into his administration? Is this delay due to sheer incompetence, a lack of having a concrete plan, or a combination of both?

The Nassau Guardian recently reported that Prime Minister Philip Davis, during a Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) St. Barnabas constituency meeting, stated that his government will reveal plans to tackle the high cost of living in the New Year (2025). This announcement comes amidst growing frustration and desperation among Bahamians who have been grappling with high prices, inflation, and the rising cost of basic goods and services.

Excerpt from the article:

“The government will in the New Year divulge more about its plans to tackle the country’s high cost of living,” Prime Minister Philip Davis said.

“He conceded that despite the ‘successes’ of his administration, many people are not ‘feeling it’ because of high prices.”

This acknowledgment—that the “successes” of his government are not translating into tangible relief for citizens—raises critical questions about the administration’s preparedness, prioritization, and policy execution.

Due to the current State of Affairs, the people need assistance now and there is evidence of this growing need daily.

Great Commission Ministries, a prominent local charity, reported a 20 to 25 percent increase in requests for assistance in 2023.

Bishop Walter Hanchell, the organization’s founder, described this as “the worst” he has seen in terms of the growing need among people.

Notably, requests are no longer limited to the poor; members of the middle class are also seeking help due to the rising cost of food, housing, and utilities.

Admits all of this under the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) administration, budget cuts to social services have exacerbated the struggles of vulnerable families.

With charities like Great Commission Ministries unable to meet rising demand, government support becomes even more critical.

While the government touts ongoing reforms to the electricity sector as a solution to high power bills, these initiatives have yet to yield significant results.

Inflation has further eroded purchasing power, leaving families to struggle with stagnant wages and rising costs for essentials.

The PLP government has been in office for three years. During this time:

Minimal tangible measures have been implemented to provide immediate relief to struggling households.

The announcement of a plan for 2025 seems out of touch with the urgent needs of the population. If solutions were being actively developed, why wait until the next year to announce them?

The question of the day is now, is this due to incompetence or Lack of a Plan?

The government’s delayed response to the cost-of-living crisis suggests two possible explanations:

Lack of Preparedness; The PLP may have come into office without a clear or executable strategy to address inflation and rising living costs.

The delay in unveiling a plan could indicate a failure to prioritize the issue or mobilize the necessary resources in a timely manner.

Administrative Incompetence; If plans exist but have not been implemented, it raises questions about the government’s efficiency and competence in managing critical national issues.

The reliance on future promises rather than current action creates the perception of a reactive rather than proactive administration.

Prime Minister Davis has previously invoked the principle of helping one’s neighbor in times of need:

“If your brother does not have a cloak, give him yours.”

This moral imperative underscores the responsibility of the government to act with urgency. Delaying relief until 2025 contradicts the pressing reality that many Bahamians face today.

The failure of the PLP government to address the high cost of living over the past three years reflects either a lack of foresight or administrative inefficiency. While Prime Minister Davis highlights successes such as low unemployment and education programs, these achievements ring hollow for citizens who struggle to make ends meet. The growing reliance on charities like Great Commission Ministries signals a deepening crisis that demands immediate, not deferred, action.

If relief is only promised for 2025, then it is reasonable to conclude that the government either lacked a plan to begin with or has been slow to implement one. In either case, the cost is being borne by the Bahamian people who need help now—not in the distant future.

Supporting Documentation:

“Plans to reduce cost of living will be revealed in New Year, PM says” – The Nassau Guardian

“A growing need for assistance” – The Nassau Guardian (Bishop Walter Hanchell’s report on increased demands for aid).

The government must shift from promises to immediate action to meet the needs of its citizens, aligning rhetoric with tangible relief measures.

END

In an extraordinary display of political maneuvering, Prime Minister Philip E. Davis, K.C., has executed what many are calling a dramatic reversal on his once-enthusiastic stance regarding commissions of inquiry. While in opposition, Davis fervently advocated for commissions of inquiry as a mechanism to expose the truth, promising their establishment upon taking office. However, nearly three years into his administration, not a single such inquiry has been convened, with Davis now dismissing them as “too expensive.” This shift raises questions about his motivations and the possible convenience of abandoning what was once a cornerstone of his political rhetoric.

 Davis’s Promises in Opposition: Bold Words, Little Action

1. Calls for Accountability in Hurricane Dorian’s Aftermath (2020) 

   In June 2020, then-Opposition Leader Davis called for a commission of inquiry into the Minnis administration’s handling of Hurricane Dorian. 

 “I think we need an inquiry that is wider than this mandate (of a coroner’s inquest) as to what preparation was made in the pre-hurricane, what happened during the hurricane, and the post-hurricane recovery efforts,”; Davis declared, emphasizing the need for transparency. 

   – The implication was clear: uncovering what went wrong would help avoid future failures.

2. The Fight Against “Unjust Practices” (2019) 

   In December 2019, Davis explicitly promised to establish a commission of inquiry as soon as he came to office. His focus? Alleged misconduct in investigations targeting PLP politicians acquitted of bribery. 

      “As soon as I’m in power, I would establish a commission of inquiry to stamp out unjust practices and hold accountable anyone who was found responsible,” he pledged. 

   This, he said, would “purify the administration of criminal justice.”

3. 2012 Rallying Cry for Inquiry into Ingraham Administration.

 Davis’s history of demanding commissions dates back even further. During a rally in 2012, he vowed to establish a commission to probe the Ingraham administration’s alleged misconduct. 

  “I will give my support to the appointment within our first 100 days in office, a commission of inquiry to investigate the scandalous episodes of misconduct by the outgoing administration.”_

The Reversal: Too Expensive, Too Convenient?

Fast-forward to 2024, and the once-fiery advocate for commissions of inquiry has cooled significantly. Prime Minister Davis now dismisses such probes as prohibitively expensive. 

“We’ve examined the commission of inquiries, and it is an extremely expensive exercise. At this time, we don’t have the resources to spend on such an inquiry. Our resources [are] needed to deal with [the] challenges of our people.”_

This stark contrast between his former rhetoric and current position is striking, especially given his previous advocacy during financially challenging times, such as 2020 when the country’s coffers were under similar strain.

Political Convenience or Genuine Concern?

Is Prime Minister Philip Davis latest actions simply hypocrisy in action? 

Davis’s change of heart coincides with allegations of corruption within the police and defense forces. Critics argue that his newfound reluctance conveniently shields his administration from potential fallout. 

A commission of inquiry might shine an uncomfortable spotlight on key government figures, a risk Davis appears unwilling to take. 

The argument that inquiries are “too expensive” rings hollow to many. These commissions, proponents argue, serve as essential tools for transparency, justice, and the prevention of future misconduct. 

Supporting Documentation: A Timeline of Contradictions 

 Date                                 Event                                   Davis’s Position           

 April 2012      – Called for inquiry into Ingraham administration’s actions    – “Support within 100 days in office.”                                                      

December 2019   – Pledged inquiry into unjust investigations targeting PLPs     – “As soon as I’m in power, I would establish a commission of inquiry.”                      

June 2020       – Demanded inquiry into Hurricane Dorian response             –           “You need a holistic investigation of what went on and what went wrong.”                 

December 2023   – Declined calls for inquiry into police and defense forces   – “Extremely expensive exercise… Resources [are] needed to deal with [the] challenges.”

Prime Minister Philip Davis K.C.’s handling of the commission of inquiry issue is a textbook case of political expediency and can only be seen as a master class in political convenience. While he once championed these probes as critical tools for justice and accountability, his refusal to act now suggests a calculated effort to avoid scrutiny. The shift from bold promises to dismissive excuses not only undermines his credibility but also raises serious questions about his administration’s commitment to transparency.

Will the Bahamian people accept this reversal, or will they demand the accountability Davis once promised?

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

END