13 January, 2010

Cabinet Shuffle, Phase 1

It looks like the PM has decided that a one-time, wholesale, Cabinet reshuffle will create too much upheaval in his election year government, so he’s going to do it in small bites. Phase 1 was relatively mild, but nonetheless told many stories about the internal workings of the ULP Government as it approaches the 2010 election season. Let’s take a look, shall we?

Who’s In:
Michelle Fife (new Senator and Parliamentary Secretary)

Who’s Out:
Richard Williams (former Senator)

Who’s Demoted:
Julian Francis (former Minister of Housing)
Conrad Sayers (former Minister of State)

Who’s Promoted:
Sabato Caesar (new Minister of Housing)

Who’s Soon-To-Be-Out
Rochelle Forde (Senator and Deputy Speaker of the House)

Here’s my take on what it all means:

Story #1 – The Rise of Fife: The first big story is the almost overnight emergence of Michelle Fife as an apparent ULP candidate in 2010.  Ms. Fife is a 20something year old lawyer who was born in England to Vincentian parents and was once a Miss SVG Beauty Queen “many years and many pounds ago” (her words, not mine). She made a little splash during the referendum campaign as the obligatory “young female pit bull” role that the NDP filled with the Vynette Frederick/Anesia Baptiste combo. Before that, to the best of my knowledge, she was only known in religious circles as a pious and passionate young preacher, who regularly appears on Star FM’s Sunday morning religious programming. She is also a Crown Counsel at the Attorney General’s Chambers.

Sources say that Rene Baptiste, the incumbent in West Kingstown (and the incumbent overweight female lawyer in the ULP) has been showing Michelle around to her constituents, so it seems like the ULP plans on running her there. What this means for Ambassador Ellsworth John, who has been mounting a not-so-quiet campaign to be the West Kingstown candidate, remains to be seen.

The ULP won West Kingstown last election by a handful of votes, and “no” beat “yes” in the referendum there by over 1,000. Whether a young, inexperienced candidate can turn it around is a bit of a gamble from the ULP camp. They’ll have a lot of ground to make up in convincing West Kingstowners that Michelle Fife is worth their vote. Of course, the NDP’s declared candidate, Daniel Cummings, is probably the opposition’s least attractive offering – a bitter, angry man with a long list of vendettas, a short list of ideas, and no real affection from constituents. Political biases aside, I am firmly opposed to angry arrogant men taking office. They only get angrier and arrogant-er as the years go by. That's never good for their constituents.

Story #2 – The Fall of Francis: To hear Ralph tell it, removing Julian from the Ministry of Housing was designed to free him up to manage the ULP down the stretch run. Francis is a legendary organiser and mobiliser of the party faithful, so the Comrade’s explanation may be true. The ULP certainly needs a full-time manager of party affairs at this critical time. But to me, this sounds like more like Julian’s latest demotion. Last election, Julian Francis was ULP party chairman, Minister of Works, a senator, and a candidate for East Kingstown. Since then, he’s lost the ministry of works, lost the ministry of housing, lost his Ministerial salary, lost his election in East Kingstown, and organised the government’s losing effort in the Referendum.

Maybe he’s being asked to focus on his core strengths. But it smells like punishment. Francis, for all his abrasive demeanor, was one of the hardest-working Ministers in government. Housing and Infrastructure have been two of the ULP’s major successes in government. Of all the people who need to go, why him?

And if you’re freeing him up to manage the party’s reelection efforts, why keep him in the senate at all? Why not simply put him to run the party?

All that being said, a focused Francis is a major strategic bonus to the ULP. If he is focused, rather than disgruntled, he'll whip the party machinery into fighting shape in time for the silly season.


Story #3 – Youth Movement, Redux: The ULP’s first youth movement in Parliament was something of a flop. When the government took power, it announced, to much well-deserved acclaim, the nomination of 3 young people to the Senate – Richard Williams, Ronnie Marks, and Rochelle Forde. It was presumed at the time that the “3 Rs” were earmarked for representative politics in the next elections, presumably in West St. George, East St. George, and Marriaqua.

Alas, Ronnie and Richard are now gone, and Rochelle is soon to go. None of them appear to be in the government’s 2010 election plans.

Now, I think they all did pretty well as senators. When I tuned in to debates, they all made sense, and Richard Williams was sometimes particularly good. Rochelle Forde also had some sparkling moments. But, as far as their secondary role as the party’s next generation of candidates, they flamed out.

The ULP has dipped back into its inexhaustible reserves of bright young people to now name Michelle Fife and Saboto Caesar (How many young lawyers do the ULP plan on naming to the Senate anyway? Since 2001, we’ve had Ronnie, Richard, Rochelle, Saboto and Michelle. Then we have Ralph and Rene as elected lawyers on the ULP side and Godwin Friday on the NDP side. Don’t forget Linton Lewis as a NDP candidate too. Jeez.)

Saboto is clearly gonna be a candidate. And it doesn’t make sense to name Michelle now unless she’s gonna be one too. That’s two under-30 candidates on the ballot so far for the ULP, and one (Vynette Fredrick) for the NDP. Young Hans King seems to be set as a ULP candidate in East Kingstown as well. So the youth movement continues, but the cast of characters has changed.

Vynette is an unelectable windbag, Michelle is a virtual unknown, Hans is running against the Leader of the Opposition, and Saboto’s stronghold constituency voted “no” by a 195 vote margin in the Referendum. I hope their appearances on the national scene aren’t as brief as Ronnie, Richard and Rochelle. And I hope that the “3 Rs” stay in the mix for future elections as not-so-young political veterans. They are bright and disciplined people who could make a contribution.

Story #4 – The Mystery Senator: Comrade says that Rochelle is being eased out of the Senate in coming months for a soon-to-be-announced individual who had some last minute business to wrap up. Who is this guy/gal? The reliable sources are silent. In a country where there are no secrets, this one is currently under wraps.

But I don’t think this is about wrapping up business. I think this is more of the incremental approach that the ULP is taking to its reshuffle. Dripping out a few names at a time has the benefit of being less jarring to observers. There are those who think a jarring signal should have been sent, and others who think that such a signal would’ve looked like panic. Clearly, we’re gonna get a couple new names every 8-10 weeks.

Story #5 – Late Year Elections: In case you didn’t already know, it doesn’t look like the ULP is calling an election any time soon. In dragging out the reshuffle over the next few months, it seems obvious that Comrade has a 12-month calendar in mind, not a surprise snap election plan. He called his 2005 elections in December and the Referendum vote in November. Look for the next poll around those same months.

Story #6 – Fresh vs. Stale, or Green vs. Ripe?: It seems from this initial move that the ULP is going to run a slate dominated by first-time candidates, many of them young, in the next elections. The NDP, on the other hand, is largely going with old party stalwarts who’ve run (and lost) in the past. I have no idea how the old/new image is gonna play out over the course of the elections. But it’ll be interesting…




7 comments:

  1. Wow Patriot what's with all the over weight references, for Renee especially? And I am not too sure about the "young female pit bull" reference either. Nope not liking the reference to a female dog, at all.

    Anyways, I am wondering what makes a person eligible for holding a Senatorial seat and becoming a member of parliament?

    I am not so sure about your theory on the negative impact of arrogant men on their constituents. After all, North Central Windward seems to be thriving. ;-)

    Seriously, what qualifies an individual for leadership position in St. Vincent's ruling house? I know with Vynnette Frederick she would have been involved student representation and politics at Cave Hill and so would have proven her mettle as a leader, especially in 2001. I am not so sure about the two young senators for the ULP.
    Sigh. But what do I know of these things.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Empath. Happy New Year!

    I take the point with the Rene reference. That was probably over the line. Sometimes things sound better (or funnier) in your head than they do in print. The weight reference re: Ms. Fife is one she constantly makes herself. I heard her three times during the referendum campaign, and she said it twice. Seems to be a catch phrase of hers.

    The "pit bull" reference was in no way meant to be sexist. Its a common phrase in political-speak, to have someone be your "pit bull" or "attack dog." They are the ones who go further than the leader can/should/is willing to go in attacking a person/position or making certain points. E.G. Lynch, for example, is the NDP's "attack dog." In the referendum, Anesia and Vynette filled that role for the NDP, while Michelle did it for the ULP. The sexism may have been in the "coincidence" that these roles were all filled by women, but that wasn't my call. If I offended, I honestly apologise.

    Now, re: eligibility/qualifications for Senatorial appointment.

    According to the constitution, all you need to be is 21, living in SVG for a year, and literate. That's a pretty low bar. After that, anything goes.

    In SVG, senators have basically been used for purely political purposes. Either as a launching pad for new candidates or as a consolation prize for defeated candidates. I think every current senator fits in one of those two categories.

    I've always thought that senators should be people who have particular skills that would be useful to governance, even if they are not the most "electable" people, or don't have the stomach for representational politics. Say, for example, some brilliant public heath administrator.. or economist... or engineer... or political scientist, who may be a bit to nerdy or unfriendly or unknown to be a good candidate. You could bring them into the house (through the back door) to make their contribution to nation-building, even if they are unelectable.

    Too often we get the most popular guy/girl in parliament, while other people who could make a meaningful contribution are left out. The idea in the rejected constitution for 10 senators proportionally elected wouldve been a good way to bring in more talent... alas.

    On to your other comments:

    1. It's not just "arrogant", its "angry and arrogant" -- that's the dangerous combo. Almost all politicians have some degree of arrogance. Thats a shame, but it is what it is. The problem is when its combined with arrogance. That guy up in north central windward is pretty full of himself, but he's not an angry guy imho. Pretty jovial, actually.

    2. Saboto has held a number of leadership positions in youth organisations and rural organisations out in Diamond village. As far as Ms. Fife, i dunno. I think maybe within church circles she's held some. But I really don't know much about her.

    But why do senators have to "prove their mettle as a leader?" What are they leading in the senate? They are really just contributing to the quality of the parliamentary debate, offering ideas. Maybe they should just prove their mettle as thinkers, debaters and "attack dogs", eh? Just a thought...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ah...Patriot, the 'quality' of any senator's contribution to the debate in parliament is relative, all things considered. Senators do not have much meaning for us outside of Westminster tradition.

    My statement about proving their mettle was in response to yours re: Vynnette being an 'unelectable windbag,' and the fact that you have acknowledged that both Saboto and Michelle are being primed for candidacy in the next election. Hence the question; What qualifies a person for senatorial seat in the House and then for them being made ministers and parliamentary secretaries? These positions, especially the one that Saboto assumes, require a level of leadership and initiative, no? If not then it may be easily concluded that these positions serve no other purpose but the will of the incumbent and as such are a unnecessary burden on the tax payers. (Hint, hint, we want to vote for our own senators in a true Republican system).

    I do agree with you though, the bar that is set in the constitution is pretty low.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Empath,

    Saboto's position clearly requires leadership and initiative. But that is the Ministerial portion of his position. Simply being a Senator requires skills, but leadership, imho, need not be one of them. What do senators do? They debate. That's it. Now I take your point if you're talking about them being made Ministers. But not all Senators are ministers. In fact, according to our constitution, only two senators can become ministers (Section 51(4) "...Provided that not more than two Ministers shall be appointed from among the Senators.")

    Vynette probably isn't unelectable. But as she exists today, she is unelectable on her own merits, imho. That doesn't mean that she can't be swept to victory with other "unelectables" in an anti-ulp backlash. But it means that, on her own, i don't see her as representative material. (Of course, I don't see Conrad Sayers, Clayton Burgin, Glen Beache, Selmon Walters, Godwin Friday and Terrance Ollivierre as representative material either, and they all got elected).

    The role that Vynette has right now is closer to Lynch than to Arnhim. She rabble-rouses. Its a waste of her talents, and it makes her less relevant in serious discussions.

    Last point: I think we're too small for elected senators. Lets look at the USA, for example: They have 435 members of congress, plus 100 senators. So they create 435 "constituencies" for congresspersons and 50 separate constituencies (the states) for senators. Every state gets two.

    Work it through for SVG. Are we gonna create separate constituencies for senators to be elected? Maybe one for each of our six parishes? Or will they be elected nationally?

    Either way, the senator immediately becomes more powerful than any elected member to a constituency. Why? because they got more votes! The guy/gal who is elected senator for the Parish of Charlotte could get 15,000 votes, but Ralph Gonsalves wouldn't get more than 3,000 for North Central. Worse, if elected nationally, Senator Leacock, for example could get 40,000 votes, while Arnhim would get 2,500. Who's gonna have the moral authority to call the shots?

    When you have elected senators, you need an elected president, who runs nationally, and holds executive power. In other words, you need the USA system. And I'm not convinced of the merits of that system in a small developing country.

    I think, as I said before, that senators should be skilled people who could add to governance, even if not electable. Like Vynette :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. The US system is not the only system and yes I am lobbying for an elected presidency with a senatorial system that suits our needs. Not a cut and paste from the US system nor a combination of Westminster-Republicanism like what the proposed bill had. A republican system with true proportional representation (not part first past the post and part proportional) could, imho, better serve the interests of the people, with a constituency council with its own finances/local government.

    Again, I am not sure I follow your reasoning on the un-elect-ability of Vynette. She is the party PRO with a strong youth appeal and a finger on the pulse of the nation, especially with the younger people. I not swearing for no political aspirant, but imho when it comes to representation, adding to governance and elect-ability, I would take 1 Vynnette Frederick over a Michelle Fife and Saboto Caesar any day, and this is because I have seen all three in action. Just saying.

    Sigh...I not going to clutter your comments space anymore Patriot.

    Peace

    ReplyDelete
  6. Empath,

    PLEASE continue to "clutter" my comments space! You are the yin to by yang! I genuinely enjoy our civil disagreements and discussions :) One day I'll even tell you who my favourite black superhero is (kinda obscure)

    ReplyDelete
  7. They are not overweight!....check any BMI chart and it will show you, they are passed being overweight, they are "obese".

    ReplyDelete