SVG in the "Laboratory" (or, who's funding YOUR campaign?)

Just when you thought that the yes/no campaign was heading to a predictable campaign crescendo (rallies, entertainers, candlelight marches, big crowds, etc.), PM Gonsalves has thrown a monkey wrench in the whole process. He has charged that the NDP's "no vote" campaign is being run by the "Oakes Brothers" -- CEOs of "Strategic Communications Laboratories," a shadowy outfit that helped the NDP in its 1998 election campaign.


More ominously, he questioned whether the funds to pay the Oakes Brothers' hefty fees were coming through some commitment to return SVG to the bad old days of economic citizenship, and selling passports to foreigners. Specifically, he mentioned a firm called Henley & Partners, which markets such passports exclusively in St. Kitts, and also sells them in Dominica. Apparently, Arnhim made a secret trip to St. Kitts, and the implication -- but not the allegation -- is that there were some funds exchanged there.


Within minutes of the PM's press conference, the Oakes Bros. SCL Elections website (http://www.sclelections.org/) was offline.


The NDP quickly responded that the Oakes Bros. were indeed in town and on the case. However, they claimed that the Oakes Bros. were working pro bono, and that no money changed hands. Further, they claimed that they had no contact whatsoever with Henley & Partners, who, they claimed, were seeking legal advice.


Setting aside for the moment that it would be impossible to know that someone was seeking legal advice unless you were, indeed, in contact with them (hmmmm...) the web is full of juicy and salacious info about our British visitors. Some tidbits:

NIGEL OAKES and Strategic Communications Laboratories

1. Has been quoted as saying that his companies, including Behavioural Dynamics, “use the same techniques as Aristotle and Hitler. . . We appeal to people on an emotional level to get them to agree on a functional level.”
2. Described his work as “mindbending for political purposes.”
3. Has an employee, Mark Broughton, SCL’s public affairs director, who advocated using the company to tell lies to the public, saying “sometimes the means to an end has to be recognized.”
4. Falsely stated on his website that he studied Psychology at the University College London (UCL). However, British Freedom of Information requests to UCL revealed that “Nigel Oakes never attended UCL.” After UCL confirmed that he never attended, Mr. Oakes changed the information on the website to say that he “studied Psychology.” He does not say where he studied Psychology.
5. Falsely stated that he “set up an academic working group at London University.” British Freedom of Information requests to London University revealed that this was also false.
6. Received US$2 million to “lift the deteriorating public image of Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid” in 2000. However, he shut down his operations and “quit after his public relations methods came under scrutiny.”
7. Of that US$2 million, at least $300,000 was paid in cash.
8. Claims that his consultancy fees are in the region of US$1 million
9. SCL had “annual profitability of between 9% and 15% on international turnover of $257 million (£141 million) between 1995 and 2003.”
10. Expected “15% per cent profitability on turnover of £100 million” between 2004 and 2006
11. Created and funded false NGOs and groups in Indonesia, which were paid to stress messages that favoured the president of Indonesia.
12. Created a false NGOs called the “Foundation of Independent Journalists,” which held seminars on “journalistic ethics and independence” while being paid to deliver messages favourable to the President.
13. Screened supposedly independent television commercials – which were actually secretly created by SCL – “stressing religious and ethnic harmony” that favoured his client.
14. Shortly before he fled Indonesia, he also fled Thailand in the middle of a project, although the circumstances are unclear
15. Establishes “Op Centres” which use “psy ops” (Psychological Operations). According to the SCL website, these Op Centres create “behavioural compliance.”
16. “Modules within the Opcentres can range from “Word-of Mouth Units” to “Cultural Alignment Units” and previous projects SCL have undertaken for clients include to “Design and develop a permanent military strategic communication facility capable of delivering strategic and operational psyop campaigns for a South Asian country.” and to “Design, build and install a Homeland Security Centre for an Asian country. The Opcentre can override all national radio and TV broadcasts in time of crisis.”
17. Claims to be involved in military psyops campaigns
18. Offered to sell a story of his romance with Lady Helen Windsor to the British press (LOL)
19. Was thrown out of Windsor Castle after he attempted to gate crash a party held there. (LOL 2X)

ISSUE #4: The Sir James Factor (or Anansi rides again)

James Mitchell is bored. His hotel is closed. And his US$100 million Isle de Qatre deal is in limbo – his investors a victim of the global economic crisis.

What’s a sharp, still-vibrant octogenarian, with huge reserves of national popular support to do?

Go back to politics, of course!

Like an old boxer coming out of retirement, Sir James is back in the political ring. It’s a real blast from the past. And all of a sudden, Ralphie isn’t the only Vincy politician coming up with witty catch phrases and memorable quotes. A few gems so far:

“If better can’t be done, let worse continue”

“Burn it! I want us to burn this new constitution!”

“The queen aint trouble nobody”

“Nobody touching this constitution when we vote no. We voting no, and nobody coming to interfere with it while Son Mitchell alive!”

“We are going to vote No with this constitution, and let me tell Mr. Leacock, if you get into parliament and think you are going to interfere with the constitution we have here, I coming out to deal with you, too!”

. . . and the beat goes on. Sir James, as always, is a soundbite waiting to happen.

The SVG government is positively giddy that Sir James is back. Read that again. I did not mistype. The government is claiming to be thrilled. They think that if James is back, shooting from the lip, spreading dissention in the ranks of the NDP, challenging Arnhim, dissing Eustace, and generally being his usual disruptive self, it will only weaken the opposition to the Constitutional referendum.

Sir James has already disagreed with a number of Eustace’s positions on the constitution: He thinks the NDP should not have pulled out of the drafting process. He thinks that their call for prime ministerial term limits is balderdash. He wants an even bigger parliament than the new constitution proposes, even though the NDP is calling for a smaller one. And he is strongly in favour of retaining the queen and the Privy Council, in direct contradiction with the official NDP line.

Not to mention Sir James’ constant, emasculating attacks on Senator Leacock (including asking him if he was “seeing his period(!)”). The government thinks that this infighting and sniping will push people to ignore the disjointed opposition and vote “yes” on the referendum, or, at worst “just stay home and not vote “no.”

Me? I’m not so sure.

For all of his divisiveness, the fact is that Sir James is still a big box-office draw for the NDP faithful. He’s also a warm and fuzzy reminder of their glory years in power (the corruption and mismanagement fading into distant memory). The fact is, if Sir James is speaking at an NDP meeting, more people turn up. They turn up to hear him say “vote no.”

How is it a good thing if more people are hearing the opposition message?

All the opposition needs is 34% of the vote.  That’s not hard to get. People at the opposition rallies aren’t grasping the finer points of the differences between Sir James and Arnhim. They’re coming out, and hearing “vote no.”

The intellectual dissection of Sir James’ positions don’t capture the electricity that he generates among the faithful. It’s something that Arnhim & Co. can’t do. He may be an ornery and backward old coot, but he carries the same charismatic glow that separates Ralph from the rest of his corps.

Make no mistake. Sir James is an asset to the opposition’s “no vote” campaign.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that he is an asset to the opposition, generally.  Sir James didn’t get on the boat from Bequia to defend a beloved old constitution. Far from it. We already know that – in 1979 and 1984 – he made no bones about the fact that he doesn’t like our old constitution.

For Sir James, this is about the 2010 elections.

He’s already declared that the Arnhim needs to get 51% of the vote in the referendum, or “crapaud smoke yuh pipe.” Well, guess what? No way in hell Arnhim gets 51%. Thirty-five percent? Likely. Forty percent? Possible. Fifty-one? Never in a million years.

So when Arnhim fails to meet Sir James’ standard (even if he succeeds in blocking the referendum), Sir James gets to say “if this was an election, you would’ve lost again. You guys need me back.” That will set off the infighting and drama that the ULP is hoping for.

Can Sir James lead his party to another election victory? I doubt it. I don’t see the majority of the country being swayed by his backwardness, old-timey charms and idiosyncrasies. He can pull 35%, but that only gets you back into opposition.  Vincentians have evolved a bit past Sir James particular brand of politics. Remember, the last time a Sir James-led party got the majority of the vote in SVG was 1994 – a full 15 years ago.

Sir James? Bad for the constitution’s referendum prospects. Bad for the NDP’s election prospects.