Arnhim, the Estimates, and Haiti

This will be a brief post. I hope to do a fuller vincypatriot analysis of the Estimates & Budget when its all over. But I want to post this while I'm still angry about it.

According to Kenton Chance's always-excellent "I-Witness News" Blog (Tell me again why SVG can't have a daily newspaper?), Leader of the Opposition Arnhim Eustace had this little nugget to offer on the Government's Budget Estimates:

“I regard these estimates something like a pack of cards from which a building in built. In terms of revenue, it is not there and it will collapse much like the buildings in Haiti.”

Excuse me... WHAT?!?

(See the full article here: "Estimates will crumble like Haiti buildings: St. Vincent opposition leader" An earlier article on the Estimates is here: "St. Vincent PM unveils EC$913M budget.")

On what planet is this an appropriate comment? "Too soon" does not even begin to capture the inappropriateness of that statement. Disagree with the estimates all you want. It's your job, to some degree. And you may even have valid points and disagreements. But how the HELL can you compare budget estimates in any way to what is still happening in Haiti?

No one knows for sure the death toll to date, but we're talking in the neighbourhood of 200,000 (See: "'Reasonable assumption' that nearly 200,000 dead after Haiti earthquake: U.S. general"). That's more than every citizen of SVG, plus the population of Antigua & Barbuda (or Dominica, if you like). Up to today, aa week after the 1st quake, aftershocks measuring 6.1 were still hitting the country ("Strong aftershock rattles Haitians"). Corpses are still being pulled from the rubble. I myself have Haitian friends that I have not heard from, and have no idea if they're dead or alive. 

I find Eustace's comments profoundly, appalling, insulting and unconscionable. 

Show a little compassion for your Caribbean neighbours and the scale of the human tragedy. The whole world is captivated, expressing condolences, and trying to help. The assistance pledged and money required far outstrips SVG's little budgetary drama. It is a Caribbean catastrophe unparalleled in modern history. It is still unfolding. And Eustace thinks he can use it to score cheap political points???

I wonder how people would have responded 9 years ago (or even today), if Eustace had said "In terms of revenue, it is not there and it will collapse much like the Twin Towers on 9/11." How quickly would we have been calling for his head?

He must apologise. I am genuinely appalled at his insensitivity.

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…

The most beautiful place on earth

I took a plane home instead of the usual boat ride. Gives you a different perspective. How lucky are we? (click to enlarge)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Licks like peas! (this is a loooong post)

Sometimes, as a little boy, you get a spanking. Daddy puts you over his knee and administers a few staccato smacks to convey his displeasure. It hurts, but not too bad. Other times, mummy is waiting at the door with a supple guava branch switch, and the blows rain down from all angles, and you are running, and covering, and hiding, and crying, and wondering what the hell happened, and why is mummy so vex.

Politically, last week’s “no” vote, was definitely the latter. A real "cut ass."

56% to 43% is as resounding as it gets in SVG. Don’t let anybody tell you any different. As far as I know, the only time more Vincentians agreed on anything in a voting booth is when the NDP won all 15 seats in the country. The 12-3 ULP landslide of 2001 was also a 56% majority.

This was a beating.

Now, in the last days of the referendum campaign, I could see that the “yes” was not going to get the required 67% of the vote. But I was certain that they would get the majority of the votes! In fact, if you asked me on the eve of the election, you could have gotten me to predict something in the range of 59% - 62% “yes.”

Just goes to show how little I know.

Maybe it was the Busy Signal show – the biggest crowd in SVG I’ve ever seen. Maybe it was another huge crowd the next day at Rabbacca. Maybe it was the fact that everything that the “no” voters said sounded so angry, and so bitter, and so unrelated to the merits of the constitution, which, in my opinion, remains a pretty good document. I dunno. But I clearly misread the mood of Vincentians.

But I’m not alone in that misreading. If the government thought that 43% was even possible, no way they go through with this referendum. They must have assumed that their floor was something in the mid-50s, with a ceiling in the mid-60s. Otherwise, why even try? And throughout their campaign, they remained resolutely on the high ground, extolling the virtues of the constitution and resisting the mudslinging from the other side. (The only possible exception to this was the Oakes Bros./SCL/passport selling revelations. But I think that was relevant to the constitutional debate as well). You only maintain the high ground if you’re sure that you’re winning or you’re sure that you’ve already lost. I gotta think that they were feeling pretty good about themselves, up until the last minute.

I waited to type this post, first because I was in shock, and second, because I wanted to see the data. I’ve studied it. It aint pretty. Let’s analyse, shall we?

Question #1: What does this “no” vote mean?

This is the $6 million question. The easiest (and wrongest) answer is: “it means that the people of SVG are fully satisfied with their present constitution.” Problem with that answer is that only one side was even talking about the constitution. The other side made this a referendum on the government, no matter what the question on the ballot paper said. In many ways, both sides were talking past each other.

So does the “no” vote mean that Vincentians are dissatisfied with the government? Some of it clearly means exactly that. Many of those who voted “no” were voting against Ralph. Maybe even most of them. But some were also voting against getting rid of the queen. Some were voting out of fear of change. Some were voting against Hugo Chavez (don’t ask). How many? I don’t know. And neither do you.

Was it simply a general expression of dissatisfaction in a rough economic period? Was it a specific attempt to send the ULP a message? Was it a harbinger of the next general election? I don’t know. And I suspect no one will know for sure until we can look back with the benefit of a few years’ hindsight. Sure, everyone is spinning it for their own purposes, but its all hopeful spinning. We’re all flying blind here. This has never happened before in SVG.

Question #2: Will some of the “good ideas” be implemented legislatively?

The “no” voters tried to deflate many of the innovations in the new constitution by saying “you can do that through regular legislation.” So whenever someone said Integrity Commission, Human Rights Commission, Ombudsman, gay marriage, etc., their rejoinder was “big deal! You can do that through regular legislation!” (of course, other things that could be done through regular legislation – details of local gov’t, details of constituency funding, details of land compensation, etc. – the “no” voters wanted included in the constitution, but I digress).

So the question now is: What chance is there that these things will become part of our regular laws?

My guess? Somewhere between slim and none. The problem with regular legislation is that new administrations invariably alter it. NDP passes a law selling passports? ULP abolishes it? NDP passes “greedy bill?” ULP abolishes it. Old Labour Party passed a law on local government? NDP gutted it. NDP passes law on education? ULP amends it. And so on.

So why would I, as an incumbent government, pass a law that will constrain me, that can easily be modified when I leave? Especially when I now have a great excuse not to pass such laws – “What was that? You want an integrity commission? Well, so did we, but that concept was overwhelmingly rejected by the Vincentian people in Nov. 2009.” And who will we, the voters, be, to tell them no? We did vote against it! Similarly, you can kiss reduced powers of the Prime Minister goodbye. When next the PM handpicks some top civil servant, his response to the hue and cry will be “I wanted to give up this power, but the Vincentian people told me that they trust the PM to use it effectively.” I can see it now…

My gut tells me that the reform most likely to be implemented is the two new constituencies. That is something else that can be done with just a parliamentary majority. If I’m the ULP right now, back against the wall, I’m carving out a couple new safe seats. (And for all those who thought that the new constitution said the new boundaries commission couldn’t be challenged in court but the old one could – go ahead and try.)

(Allow me to digress again: did anyone notice that 2,390 people voted in the Northern Grenadines and 1,506 voted in the Southern? For a total of 3,896 people? Am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that a Grenadines voter’s vote counts for twice as much as a mainlander? More people voted in North Windward, East St. George, East Kingstown, and South Leeward than did those in both Grenadines seats combined. Yet they only get to pick one representative, and the Grenadines pick two. Put another way, 1,200 votes in the Southern Grenadines is a landslide victory. Same amount in East St. George is a landslide defeat. Mainland votes are very diluted compared to Grenadines votes. It’s also why it’s so easy for the NDP to form a government with less than a majority of the popular vote. 3,000 NDP votes get you two seats in the Grenadines. It gets you one on the mainland. Making the Grenadines two seats was a crude and cynical political ploy unsupported by any demographic data. Glad I got that off my chest, lol)

Question #3: What does this mean for the 2010 elections?

The easiest (and wrongest) answer is that it means that the NDP will win 13 seats to the ULP’s 2, because the “no” vote was in the majority in 13 of the 15 constituencies. The second easiest (and second wrongest) answer is that it means nothing, that “ULP voters” stayed home, and that the election is a different kettle of fish.

Lets look at the numbers, shall we?

29,019 people voted “no.” Twenty-nine thousand votes aint gonna win you a “real” election in SVG. In 2005, the winners got 32,006. In 2001, they got 32,925. In 2005, the losers got 25,653 – only 3,336 less than the “no” vote got last week.

And, keep in mind, that 6,690 new voters have registered between 2005 and now.

In short, if every single “no” goes to the polls and votes NDP in 2010, that doesn’t get them a win. They probably need to find another 4,000 votes on top of that.

Of course, its easier to find 4,000 votes than it is to find 10,500, which is what the ULP will probably need to hold on to office. Because if 29,000 votes don’t win an election, 22,500 isn’t looking so promising either.

But the excuse that “ULP voters didn’t come out”  is just that – an excuse. NDP support increased from 2001 to 2005 by 1,809 votes, while ULP fell by 919. You can say that 919 voters stayed home. I’ll buy that. But you can’t tell me that 9,500 voters stayed home. If that many of "your supporters" stayed home, they don’t support you anymore.

I agree that voter turnout was low. In 2001, 58,398 people voted. In 2005, 57,958 went to the polls – a slight dip of 440 (even though voter registration increased). In the referendum, 52,156 voted. That’s 5,802 less than voted in 2005, and 6,242 less than 2001 (not counting the 6,690 new voters who’ve registered).

Here’s where the ULP “apathetic voter” argument gets a little shaky: In the referendum, 6,242 less people voted (compared to 2001) and “yes” got 6,526 votes less than “no.” Almost the same number, eh? But are you telling me that EVERYONE who stated home from the referendum is a ULP supporter?!? And even if that’s true, odds are that the 6,690 new voters since the last election are probably more pro-NDP than pro-ULP, because new voters tend to be more pro-opposition than pro-incumbent.

So, for the next election, out of a pool of about 13,000 voters (stay-at-homes plus new registrants), the ULP needs about 70% of them to vote incumbent. That’s a tall order.

I will, however, accept that the low turn-out suggests that more of those who stayed home were ULP fans than NDP fans. That seems logical. Opposition voters are always more passionate and eager to stick it in the eye of the incumbents. So I can accept that the ULP will be more competitive in the general elections than the “yes” vote was in the referendum.

Where will they compete? If I accept that ULP voters did not show up, and that they will show up in an election, I have to look at constituencies where “yes” got a percentage in the mid- to high- 40s.  Stay-at-homes could turn that around. Immediately, then, I would concede East Kingstown (38% yes), Central Kingstown (35%), West Kingstown (35), South Leeward (38), North Leeward (39), Northern Grenadines (15) and Southern Grenadines (31) – it would be a whole lot of reenergized ULP supporters to turn that around.

But that’s only seven seats. Seven seats don’t win you an election in SVG.

(another aside: did anyone else notice that Arnhim Eustace's East Kingstown Seat got the smallest referendum "bounce" out of the three Kingstown seats?)

ULP’s “stay at home” referendum voters could make a difference in North Windward (48% yes), South Central Windward (46%), Marriaqua (49%), East St. George (44%), West St. George (44%), and Central Leeward (45%). Of course, the ULP would be counting on North Central Windward (74% yes) and South Windward (52%), as “safe” seats.

(yet another aside: although South Windward was only one of two seats that went "yes," did you notice that, in real numbers, it experienced the biggest swing towards the "no"/NDP side? South Windward was actually the seat with the biggest slippage)

So, if everything broke in the ULP’s favour in the next 12 months, and they got their apathetic voters energised, they’re looking at an 8-7 win. But that, too, is a tall order.

The next year is gonna be interesting.

Question #4: Is constitutional reform in SVG dead?

Yep. Deader than dead. Stick a fork in it. We won’t be reforming our constitution until the Privy Council kicks us out. Or the British end the monarchy. Or gay couples are getting married on Young Island. This is the one we’re stuck with.

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.

ISSUE #3: Why Vote "No"? (or, cutting off your nose to spite your face)

This is not an argument for Yes or No based on any particular issue. It's a practical question regarding choices and options.

The debate over what should and should not be in the proposed New Constitution is over. We have a bill. Two-thirds of the Parliament have voted for it. The public will be voting on it in November.

As such, if we're voting, we have ONLY TWO CHOICES: Either we vote yes and get the new constitution, or we vote no and keep the old one. Pick one – old constitution or new constitution. There is no third option on Nov. 25th.

So, here is my question: Are those voting "no" saying that the new constitution is WORSE than the current one? It's not about what is the best, most ideal, most perfect Constitution. It's not about your personal wish-list for constitutional provisions. The perfect constitution is not on the ballot on Nov. 25. So, the question is, which option is better?

I've heard opposition members applaud various provisions in the new Constitution, but still say that they are voting "no". Why? Is there something in the new Constitution that is worse that what exists in the old one? Or is it just that they don't think it goes far enough? Because "not going far enough" doesn't seem to be a reason to vote "no," not if you see overall improvement. If the new Constitution makes "one small step" instead of "one giant leap," shouldn't you, at this point, support the small step?

What am I missing?