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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpt from this article;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

END

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

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

Excerpt from this article;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

END

#ASTHETIDETURNS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s break this down, shall we?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

END

“Unreasonable” _ The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) Perspective

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

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

 The Bahamas Government and URCA’s Perspective

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

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

Breaking down the Legal Framework

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

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

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

With that being said.

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

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

END

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

END

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

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

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

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

And with that, we bid adieu.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All I can say is fool me once………..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

END

#THENEWDAYOLDWAYPLP

This past week, the Bahamian people were treated to another display of confusion from the New Day, Old Way, Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government. It’s like they’re on a mission to baffle and disappoint us at every turn.

First on the agenda was the passing of the Cannabis Bill. Now, if you were able to understand it, you were left very disappointed.  But for the rest of us mere mortals, it was a mind-boggling disappointment. I mean, what did we really expect from the source of this legislation?

And then there’s the situation at Bahamas Power and Light (BPL). The government is all gung-ho about signing over 50% of the power company to some new private group that has teamed up with a foreign power company. They’re calling it a “transformation” of the power company, but please, let’s not use the word “privatization.” Because, you know, it’s not privatization if we say it isn’t, right?

What’s truly amazing is that these grand plans seem to conveniently forget about the people who will actually be doing the work to bring about this so-called “transformation.” It’s as if they believe it will magically happen without any input from the hardworking individuals who keep the lights on.

But let’s move on to the real gem of the week – Prime Minister Philip Davis K.C.’s disclosure that his government has entered into an agreement with a non-profit to potentially sue firearm dealers. Yes, you heard that right. They want to sue the National Rifle Association (NRA) for illegal guns on our streets. Because, apparently, the United States government itself has been totally incapable of holding the NRA accountable for gun violence on their own turf, just let that sink in a minute.

Now, I’m not saying this because it’s a PLP initiative. No, no. I’m saying this because it makes absolutely no sense and has the potential to cost us taxpayers a boatload of money. The gun manufacturers have the backing of the NRA, and the United States government has failed miserably in reining them in. So why on earth does our government think they can succeed where the USA has failed?

And let’s not forget the needless risks involved in this case. If the Bahamas government’s lawsuit is unsuccessful, guess who’s left holding the bag? That’s right – us taxpayers. We’ll be on the hook for our own legal fees and those of the non-profit. Talk about a fool’s errand.

Instead of wasting our hard-earned money on this misguided venture, why not invest in social programs for our youth? Especially our young men who are in desperate need of guidance and support. Let’s teach them the value of human life and provide them with anger management skills. And while we’re at it, let’s also reach out to the parents who may be struggling to deal with difficult situations.

Suing the United States is not a “Brave” move; it’s a futile one. I’d really love to know who is advising Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis on this matter. Are they convincing him that this actually makes sense? Or is he trying to prove to the United States that he’s just as “brave” as they are? Either way, it’s a clear demonstration of the PLP’s nature – a nature that fails us time and time again.

So, let’s put an end to this fool’s errand and focus on initiatives that will actually benefit our country and its people. It’s time for the PLP to step up and lead with intelligence, not confusion.

END

#THENEWDAYOLDWAYPLP

In today’s edition of the My Morning Paper, we look into the recent statements made by National Security Minister, the Hon. Wayne Munroe, and his affiliation with the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP). Upon closer examination, it becomes evident that there may be a larger issue at hand than initially perceived.

To understand the context, it is important to explore the reasons behind Mr. Munroe’s departure from the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) to join the PLP. An article from The Tribune on September 10, 2015, sheds light on this matter. In the article, Mr. Munroe explains that he aligned himself with the PLP because he believes their philosophy is more aligned with the future direction of The Bahamas.

While Mr. Munroe’s rationale for joining the PLP may seem plausible, it is worth noting that the party’s philosophy has deviated from its original principles over time. The New Day Progressive Liberal Party government, which they claim to represent, often exhibits a sense of infallibility. Any criticism directed towards them is either attributed to external factors or dismissed as a misunderstanding. The discrepancy between the party’s stated philosophies and their actual practices raises questions about their effectiveness in governing.

The issue at hand is further highlighted in a recent article from The Tribune, titled “Munroe says he always had faith in police force.” The article discusses Mr. Munroe’s shifting stance on the ability of the police to investigate themselves. Prior to assuming his role as National Security Minister, Mr. Munroe advocated for independent investigations of police-involved killings. However, after assuming office, he expressed unwavering support for the police’s ability to handle such matters, despite public skepticism.

The contrasting positions taken by Mr. Munroe raise concerns. Why should his tone drastically change now that he has the authority to effect change? Furthermore, what concrete changes has he brought about in his role as National Security Minister?

It appears that Mr. Munroe’s alignment with the PLP is based on philosophies that the party itself has already abandoned since the departure of the Dissent Eight. This group, including one individual who refused to be a “yes man” to the party leader and prime minister at the time, Sir Lynden, signifies a significant shift in the PLP’s values.

It is clear from Mr. Munroe’s statements that he has fully embraced the “new” ways of the PLP and has become a staunch supporter of their agenda. However, this raises concerns about his objectivity and independence, as he appears to be a “yes man” for the New Day government. The resemblance between the current government and the “Old PLP” cannot be ignored.

It is worth noting that the Minister of National Security should exercise caution and restraint in his public statements. More often than not, his attempts to showcase his intelligence only serve to embarrass himself and potentially undermine the credibility of the PLP. The underlying nature of the Progressive Liberal Party seems to be the root cause of their failures.

Let me end here, the affiliation of National Security Minister Wayne Munroe with the Progressive Liberal Party raises questions about the party’s values, the alignment of its members, and the effectiveness of its governance. The contradictions and inconsistencies in Mr. Munroe’s positions further highlight the need for transparency and accountability within the party.

END

#THENEWDAYOLDWAYPLP

Behold the grand spectacle of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and its unwavering devotees, who proclaim with fervor that this political powerhouse, established 71 years ago in 1953, has never faltered—a feat truly worth marveling at.

Today, the Chairman of the PLP, the indomitable Fred Mitchell, known to some as “Snagglepuss”, has unleashed his fury upon the organizers of the Vertical Blue free diving competition, staunchly defending the party’s impeccable track record.

The competition, a fixture at Dean’s Blue Hole on Long Island for the past 16 years, has been abruptly suspended due to the island’s woeful infrastructure, as lamented by Director William Trubridge.

Trubridge painted a grim picture, stating, “It is now common for utilities to have outages for the majority of the day, occasionally for weeks on end. Roads have deteriorated to the point where it is unsafe for them to be driven on. Where there were once three commercial airlines servicing the island, with a minimum of two flights a day, there is now a single inconsistent carrier that … is often booked out.”

One might have expected the New Day government to spare no effort in preserving such a prestigious event in The Bahamas, particularly given its alignment with the Blue and Orange economy initiatives outlined in the government’s manifesto. But alas, the Chairman, in his unwavering loyalty to the party and the government, chose to shield their reputation at all costs—even if it meant sacrificing the event. As always, the blame is deflected, and the PLP remains unblemished and infallible since its inception in 1953.

The Nassau Guardian reports on Mitchell’s scathing response to the canceled freedive event on Long Island, where he absolves the government of any culpability. Mitchell dismisses Trubridge’s concerns as the grievances of a failed promoter seeking to shift blame onto The Bahamas for his own shortcomings.

Trubridge’s letter cited a litany of infrastructure woes on Long Island, including power and water outages, decrepit roads, and limited flight options hindering athlete travel. Despite the significant economic contribution of the event to Long Island, Trubridge lamented the government’s lack of support and basic infrastructure upkeep.

It would have been reasonable to expect the government to address these issues, not only for the benefit of event organizers and participants but also for the residents of Long Island. Yet, Mitchell’s unwavering defense of the government’s honor persists, even as critical voices grow louder.

In a puzzling turn, Mitchell veers off course to address the case of missing American transgender woman Taylor Casey, diverting attention from the pressing issues at hand. His failure to acknowledge and address the reasons behind the event’s cancellation only underscores his unsuitability for frontline politics.

As the PLP continues to stumble due to its inherent nature, one cannot help but question the party’s leadership and its priorities. In a realm where accountability and responsibility are scarce commodities, the Progressive Liberal Party stands as a stark reminder of the perils of unchecked power and hubris.

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

End.