Ministry: ‘We Did Seek Feedback From Unions’

February 4, 2013

[Updated] The Ministry of Home Affairs moved to clarify recent reports that it had not consulted with the unions regarding its recent decision to eliminate Term Limits.

Last week Home Affairs Minister Michael Fahy confirmed that Government will eliminate the Term Limit Policy, which previously restricted work permit holders for working on the island for longer than 6 years without a waiver or exemption.

A statement from the Ministry said, “The public should know that the Ministry did seek feedback from the unions via the Bermuda Trade Union Congress [BTUC], whose representatives were appointed to the Work Permit Stakeholder Group.

“And with respect to recent claims by the unions as it relates to consultation, the public should know that Mr. Chris Furbert of the BIU and Mr. Anthony Wolffe, a BPSU representative, both represent the BTUC on the Work Permit Stakeholder Group.

“The public will also be aware that Mr. Wendall “Shine” Hayward [who according to Ministry records] is the President of the BTUC.

“The Ministry today released a copy of the email correspondence sent to the stakeholders [below]. Members of the public and the media will note that both BTUC representatives as well as the President received a copy of the document.

“And the Ministry can confirm, that the BTUC is the only group that did not respond,” the statement concluded.

Update 9.59am: Bernews questioned via email last night whether it was permissible to post the actual email they provided to the media on the website – was told yes “go ahead” via email — however this morning a request has been made to remove it, which has been done.

Read More About

Category: All, News, Politics

Comments (110)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Articles that link to this one:

  1. BIU President: ‘Minister Is Misleading The Public’ | | February 5, 2013
  1. St.D says:

    Interesting. Perhaps the unions are not used to being held to a deadline.

    • Black Soil says:

      The BIU don’t know what accountability is all about. They are a world unto themselves.

      • Louise S says:

        This is a hard one to swallow OBA Cannioner & Fahy election platform stated 2 years and now term limits are completely scrapped? I voted for the wrong people. So Sorry. Won’t happen again, I promise. Right now I take my chances with the BIU (although not a member) they represent Bermudians 1st. OBA represent themselves and $$$$ they are truly the Republicans of Bermuda. ANd stop comparing the Bermudian leader to President OBama. —

        • Building a better Bermuda says:

          The union represents themselves, not professional Bermudians. As for what the OBA promised, they promised a review, what they found when they got into office was that a review had been done by the previous administration, it recommended the term limit policy be scrapped as it did nothing to protect bermudian jobs. So their review was short, the work was already done, and the choice was made to scrap the term limits all together, why beat around the bush. The unions were given the chance to respond, if they can’t respond to an email in anyway in a week and then lie to the public that they weren’t consulted, perhaps they should try treating the public with a little more respect if they want us to respect them.

          • Staying focus says:

            @Building a better Bermuda:

            This review was not complete as steps needed to be taken and revised to ensure that the work permit policy was air-tight to avoid Employers from circumventing and dodging the system. The current policy is not air-tight and may Employers are not honest in all situations. Folks only want to ensure that Bermudians will be taken care of first. Too long Bermudians are pushed aside for non-Bermudians in jobs situations, and this includes the semi-skills, skill and professional jobs categories. This is not good and the rush by the OBA suggest they do not care for the average Bermudian and only a selected few. OBA are falling down on transparency and honesty.

            • Ray Lewis says:

              Yawn…here’s the deal. Lived in Bermuda 5 years, 6 Bermudians in my team, 2 kids and a wife, concerned I can’t plan with uncertainties of term limits, looking to go back to New York, likely 4 or 5 of Bermudian jobs would go if I did (as would 2 non-Bermudians). Why? Because I control the relationships, and one day I hope my senior guy (Bermudian) will do the same, but I’m 49, so not yet. Now I could have applied for an exemption to term, but this gives us all of us stability, so we are staying – it keeps families happy, keeps us spending in stores and restaurants, using taxis and ferries, paying for schools and home help. Now you tell me, how isn’t this progress?

              • Renee Webb says:

                It will also keep the Bermudians on your team from advancing. What would be your incentive for ensuring that a Bermudian successor in trained and available to replace you, having your family secure and all of you here under the new policy would be paramount.?

            • Verbal Kint says:


    • Sorry Sir says:

      Usually, Furbert is too busy reading the news to respond whoever is talking about him. That’s why he didn’t see it. He’s rather quiet today. Probably busy reading the backlog of emails sitting there from neglect.

  2. O.B. says:

    LOL doesn’t the union ever get tired of being wrong?

  3. swing voter says:

    The Term limits policy was a misguided and clumsy approach to ‘fixing’ a problem that would not have been an issue if blue collar workers were not imported for the jobs that young adults living at home used to do. Our immigration department are partially to blame. One the flip side, If you have 3 kids by the age of 23years old, no husband, and only a basic high school education, the only job you can do is only worth $15/hr ….between our immigration department rubber stamping work permits, and our young adults making bad decisions, its no wonder we’re spinning our wheels on this issue

  4. GreenMAN says:

    If I am correct there is a governmental department that does long-term impact assesments for the island. that is NOT included on this list and really should be. OBA please make sure you look include them in your planning!

  5. pastabasta.. says:

    Okay.. Everybody inundate these email addressess with spam!!!!!!! LMAO

  6. Time Shall Tell says:

    So what happened to the NOT for media consumption & shared in confidence part???

    • Bermy Gooner says:

      Someone has to highlight the lies of the BIU/PLP…

    • Justine says:

      they only shared the email, NOT the report that was attached

    • Building a better Bermuda says:

      As the sender, they can choose to null that, they didn’t share the response as that would have been for the respondent to null… Oh wait, there wasn’t a response.

  7. Cboradman says:

    Well Mr. Furbet you now look bad, there was consultation asking your imput an e-mail sent to you. How come you didn’t respond being it was noted (important :High) or did you just ignore it or are you just stirring up trouble. I wonder?

  8. pebblebeach says:

    A point of clarity…Shine Hayward was not asked to respond to this e-mail…he was given a copy out of courtesy as the “cc” indicated…in general practice, and for sake of the e-mail, the “to” recipients are the folks that one would expect a response from…not the folks copied out of courtesy….we never respond unless we are the recipient in our business practice…I’m Just Saying…

    • Brad says:

      You “can just say” all you want but if, as a recipient of an important email like this (whether cc’d or delivered by carrier pigeon) you have an opinion or feel strongly about the subject matter, you are an idiot not to respond or even acknowledge receipt.

      Stop knit-picking. These guys clearly have egg on their hate-spewing and spitting faces.


      • You know the most sickening damn thing about your comments and others,is that some of you are so concerned about whether or not the unions got notification or not,or if they responded or not.

        The real issue is Bermudians are being screwed big time by a government that clearly dont have our best interest at heart.if they relax the term limits with clauses that suited the International sector,most Bermudians would be in favor but to totally do away with it straight across the board all at once,this is a disaster.

        Minister Fahy just as you has push through with this expediciously I hope you do the same in getting rid of some of these foreigners working in jobs that dont need know college degree,like restaurants,hotel,bakeries,drivers,construction and others.I am sick and tired of the BS that comes from you people and I for one demand you prove your worth as Bermudians are tired of the crap and before to long you will create an enviroment amongst the people that you will not be able to control.then lets see who will have egg on its face,with all your broken promises.

        • Family Man says:

          “… getting rid of some of these foreigners working in jobs that dont need know college degree …”

          Its sad when English is your first language …

          • Zombie Apocalypse says:

            Mr Santucci must be talking about foreigners who were granted work permits under the PLP government, and got those permits during the time that the PLP term limit policy was in place. It sounds like he’s being critical of the failure of the PLP to properly oversee the dept of immigration. I wonder if he even realises this?

        • bs says:

          Work permits granted by the PLP gvmt no doubt. Had they put appropriate education and training at the forefront of their agenda creating hard working, punctual, law abiding workers there wouldn’t have been a need to import blue collar workers.

          The US have the Mexicans working low end jobs, the UK has eastern europeans and africans working the low end jobs, Bermuda has similar but at least we get to say who comes and goes.

        • Building a better Bermuda says:

          Perhaps you missed the analysis of the policy where the previous administration was told that the term limit wasn’t in fact protecting bermudian jobs.
          It is the responsibility of us to protect our jobs by being:
          1 – qualified to meet the job
          2 – professional in all aspects to how we do our job
          3 – interested in always trying to expand our experience, i.e. expanding our knowledge through continuing education, certifications and courses
          4 – productive to the best of our abilities and circumstances, those that are successful don’t limit themselves to the 9 – 5, 1 hour lunch, 15 minute coffee breaks schedule, but get the work done in the time it is needed to be done, within reason.

          Simply being bermudian isn’t enough of a qualification in the demanding international job market, I wouldn’t hire myself if that was my attitude.

        • Staying focus says:

          @ Mr. D Santucci,,

          WELL SAID MR SANTUCCI, Well said.

          I believe you are correct, we are getting screwed by the OBA big time, and it will continue. THe people are slowing realizing that they put their Xs in the wrong boxes. The OBA do not care about the average worker, only a selected few and their core support base. The OBA has sold the birthright away of the born Bermudian. A Party that promised Change and Transparency yet has failed to show it !!

      • I'm Just Sayin' says:

        @Brad you obviously do not understand email protocol.

        • Bermy Gooner says:

          Chris Furbert’s email address was in the TO column (when Bernews had the email posted)…so maybe Mr. Furbert doesn’t understand “email protocol.”

  9. LaVerne Furbert says:

    As usual, the Minister is providing the country with half-truths.

    • O.B. says:

      Of course he is. What’s the union’s story this time?

    • Family Man says:

      Its a good thing Verne’s here to tell us the “real” truth.

      We’re waiting …

    • blankman says:

      LaVere, we’re waiting – what are you claiming is the full story?

    • 1minute says:

      Hey everybody, the Government is wrong, because LaVerne says they are. No explanation needed…

    • T. Pitty says:

      They don’t know the truth it it hit them between their eyes. They only know money and more money. Their gods are the almighty dollar not people

  10. Amazed says:

    I note the dates and this 5 day deadline is clearly not reasonable for any organisation on such an important subject. I note also the comment “given the finality of the consideration” which implies that the decision had already been made. The Premier has now confirmed this with his statement that he believed that proper consultation had already taken place “years ago”. Clearly this was not a genuine attempt to get any input from the unions. What happened to the public consultation? What was the rush?

    • Bermy Gooner says:

      Every other party was able to respond in a timely manner…

      • Staying focus says:

        @ Bermy Gooner,
        Every other party was able to provide an answer, because there was prior disscusions with them before the election. There was no discussion with the Unions prior to the election. Dialogue and verbal interaction are key factors in the consultation process. THis is not good enough if the OBA wants to work with Unions in Bermuda. He seems to be overlooking the Bermudian worker, favouring only the Overseas workers. This is not a good step by the OBA whom preached they will do things differently and Change.

        • I'm Just Sayin' says:

          I see no mention that every otherparty responded.

          • Bermy Gooner says:

            “And the Ministry can confirm, that the BTUC is the only group that did not respond,” the statement concluded

        • Verbal Kint says:


      • Claudio says:

        Actually for such an important issue like term limits this should have been discussed to death and the Union position should have been cemented.

        I would understand if they had to give notice within 24 hrs but 5 days? 1 work week for an important topic with a Minister? C’mon son!

        Term limits is not an issue that has suddenly popped up on the radar.

        People need to stop making excuses.

        Based on what I have seen thus far it appears that the Ministry tried to reach out to the Unions. Thus far, it seems that they were consulted.

        • Zombie Apocalypse says:

          If it’s such an important issue why didn’t Shine respond?

    • Sandgrownan says:

      The rush was to remove a damaging and incredibly stupid piece of policy quicky. They have a lot of work to do to recover from the damage caused by the failure that was the PLP.

    • alicia says:

      If it was an issue with the deadline then they simply had to respond asking for more time for their review and input to be completed. Any reasonable person would have granted a reasonable extension on this. Their lack of response indicates acceptance

  11. Staying focus says:

    An Email or written letter is not a form of Consultation, is is merely a first step to invite persons to the process. Consultation should involve verbal interaction and discussion with all stakeholders. This was not the case, and the OBA have failed once again to suggest that consultation was indeed done. The responds time was also extremely limited to Unions, and this is not good enough. Mr Fahy needs to undersand what the Consultation process involves. This letter merely proves he failed to fully engage in the Consultation process with Unions.

    • Zombie Apocalypse says:

      No, this email proves the union was in fact asked for its opinions, and that it in fact failed to present them.

      • Tell the Truth says:

        Agreed, and normally accepted BUSINESS practice is for the recipient to request additional time they cannot respond by the deadline.

      • Who feels it knows it! says:

        Who are you kidding…intentions were clear and seeking opinions was a courtesy! This important business shouldn’t have been conducted over email. Clearly the Minister was not looking to “hear” anyone on this matter…decision made and pushed through. Don’t be so fooled!

        • Mad Dawg says:

          If it was so important, why didn’t Shine bother to reply?

    • whatever says:

      OMG it’s not like the topic just arose last Wednesday! Check the links below from October.

      I can see at least one union member in both of these pictures.

      The first link shows everyone that was on the email list sent on the 23rd (it’s the Work Permit Stakeholder Group). They’ve been talking about this for MONTHS and the process was started with the PLP!!!

      And the second link is to the public forum. No one showed up.

      We don’t have time to form a committee to talk about thinking about possibly taking some action in the nearish to distant future about potentially fixing things. We need to act.

    • Argosy says:

      Having “verbal interaction and discussion” and a “consultation process” with the BIU are mutually exclusive.

      Meaning, a total and complete waste of time. Just ask Stevadoring Services.

    • Verbal Kint says:


  12. god1st says:

    @ Bermy gooner THe UBP lied kettle nose

  13. Justine says:

    BIU/BTUC – all very quick to jump up and down on anything it doesn’t like.

    Maybe this Government will finally jump up and down over BIU’s failures to meet its Accounting requirements???

  14. Wahoo says:

    If the Union felt there was not enough time to respond to the Minister’s request for comments, then the union should have simply asked for more time to respond.

    Had the Union asked for more time and the Minister refused, then the Union and the above critics of the Minister would have a valid complaint.

    But when every other party that was asked for comments was able to provide comments within the requested time period, and the union neither replied nor even asked for more time to respond, then the Union has no grounds for complaint.

    I have a lot of sympathy for the plight of the working class and I believe strongly in the need for Unions. But if Union leaders fail to even ask for more time to respond on an issue they feel strongly about, then they have fundamentally failed to do their job properly and their membership should make them accountable for such failure.

    In the business world, a corporate officer that so fundamentally failed to properly do his job would be fired.

    The failure here is not the Minister’s; the failure here is that of the Union leaders who simply failed to do their job.

  15. bermuda boy says:

    Stop kissing Chris Furbert’s A*s The union is not your friend, that’s why they are making so much noise now. LET THE STRIKE or MOAN about your policies. Who cares.

  16. Islander says:

    Chris Furbert feels he doesn’t have to respond to anybody but himself – everybody else is beneath him… kinda reminds one of EBrown and Laverne, take a smoke break as it seems that all you have to do besides jumping before the cart.

  17. Verbal Kint says:

    Here’s my theory. LaVerne works for the BIU, right. I think she was supposed to be screening Chris Furbert’s e-mails, but got busy posting comments online and Chris never got the message. :)

  18. jt says:

    Yet another example of how Union administration is failing its members.

  19. LaVerne Furbert says:

    If the Minister is going by the PLP’s Policy document, which is what the Minister is saying they are doing, then they would be agreeing to the 10 year term limit for work permit holders.

  20. Pastor Syl Hayward says:

    @ Duane Santucci: All those non-Bermudians “working in jobs that dont need know (sic) college degree,like restaurants,hotel,bakeries,drivers,construction and others” were given work permits under the PLP government. In fact, according to some sources, more of those sort of work permits were approved during the PLP’s remit than ever before. Interesting that you only see fit now to start complaining.

  21. Staying focus says:

    The OBA are falling off track, and this is putting Bermuda in a bad position. It is likely that as we look back a few months time folks would see the error of the OBA’s decisions and its impact upon Bermuda. Quick to the punch does not always end with good long-term results. Its going get rocky and OBA will be left spinning in the dark.

  22. Bobmarlin says:

    The BIU will do anything to work against the OBA.
    No matter what the OBA do the BIU/PLP will be critical.They will stop at nothing to get the PLP into govt.Even if it means further crippling Bermuda.
    OBA,keep doing the work of the people.The people know the state that the PLP left the country in.Everyone with common sense,is behind any govt trying to better the lot of its people!

  23. LaVerne Furbert says:

    As I said, the “policy document” that Minister Fahy is talking about is the same “policy document” produced by PLP Minister Minors. That policy document included the rationale for keeping term limits. In my opinion Senator Fahy needs to now produce another “policy document” which gives the rationale why term limits should be removed.

    But, you all are so much anti-Chris Furbert and the unions(all of them) that you can’t see the forest for the trees.

    Michael Fahy must go. He is inept and incompetent. What you all should be asking is why is so anxious to remove term limits.

    Pastor Syl, you need to stop!! How many “Bermudians” (including the Minister) do we now have on our island as a result of the UBP’s flawed work permit policy? Don’t let your brother’s distain for former Premier Dr. Brown cloud your reasoning power.

    The PLP came to power 14 years ago. Michael Fahy is 30+. Get a grip of yourself Pastor Syl!! We all know that Bermuda will always need migrant workers. They always have and always will. Remember the slaves that they imported??

    • You CANNOT seriously be trying to imply that Mr. Fahy is in ANY way not as qualified or competent as former Minister Minors???? This is laughable at best!!! You need to start trimming your own trees for your forest is severely overgrown!!

      Let’s make something clear here as well….ALL “bermudians” here in Bermuda are descendants of people who emigrated here from somewhere else….and that means you too Laverne. This island is no more “yours” than it is someone else’s. You need to get over yourself already.

      Your supposed question about the rationale behind the abolition of term limits….has been answered OVER AND OVER again!!! Seriously…term limits did ABSOLUTELY nothing to protect Bermudians and only served to alienate the very businesses that we need!! It’s NOT rocket science Laverne….again, get over yourself and stop arguing just for the sake of being argumentative!!!

    • Mad Dawg says:

      I can rmember the appointing doormen, waitresses, and beauticians as ministers.

  24. Bobmarlin says:

    The PLP put Bermudians out of work!
    The OBA is trying to create jobs for Bermudians!

  25. J Starling says:

    Bernews, did the OBA give any particular reason for backtracking on their original decision to release the full email to you?

    Also, do you know if they will be releasing a copy of the paper that they had sent as an attachment?

    • Bernews says:

      The reason given was “out of respect for those included in the email.” We don’t know if they will release a copy of the actual paper…

      • J Starling says:

        I can understand that I guess. Just not sure why they released it in the first place in that case.

        Either they didn’t think (which makes them incompetent) or, um, I’ve got nothing…

        Would they let you post the contents of the email as opposed to the names part?

        • Staying focus says:

          Thanks J Starling for asking that question, looks like more to this than meets the eye. Mr Fahy seems to playing a real quick game of attempting to cover his butt, and lying his way thur the process. He failed to consult with the Unions as it should be done. OBA fans get over the fact your OBA is not Right and Truthfuls as you would love to believe.

        • Mad Dawg says:

          J Starling, how are things in Scotland? Since we’re way off topic. How’s the weather?

          • J Starling says:

            First point – Irrelevant to me, or anyone else, making observations or comments.

            Second point – I’m in Bermuda. If you want to join me at the Throne Speech on Friday feel free to do so.

            Third point – How’s my comments off topic? I’m speaking directly on the topic, and directly to a comment in the body of the original text, not necessarily the thread of comments above, which may or may not be off-topic, and mine on-topic.

            Fourth point – No idea how the weather is there, but if you’re interested I suggest you google it. My guess is frosty in the mornings, grey drizzle during the day.

            • Mad Dawg says:

              The topic is whether or not the government asked the unions for feedback on the issue. The answer to that question, it turns out, is yes. You appear to have strayed into a new topic, about whether or not a private government email plus attachments should be made public.

              Anyway, nice of you to spend some time back here.

        • Bermy Gooner says:

          It is pretty obvious that they released it to counter the lies from the BIU/PLP camp…you either have to be stupid or incompetent not to understand that fact…

          • J Starling says:

            I never disputed that. My dispute was why did they okay it’s release only to subsequently retract it?

            Either they were incompetent or stupid in releasing the full email (as in the email distribution list and addresses also included).

            My own feeling is that they thought the gains outweighed the costs, but if you’re going to release it in the first place, then own it, and don’t retract it. They just compounded the costs involved.

            Ergo, incompetent or stupid.

            • Edmund Wells says:

              Mr. Starling-

              In fairness, there is a third possibility for the retraction- that while this email was clear and unambiguous, Government may have realized that making it public sets a precedent that might cause issues in the future.

              An error to have not thought about this prior to releasing it, but an appropriate action to withdraw it upon coming to that realization.


              • J Starling says:

                Fair enough, and good point, but surely that could fall under the ‘incompetent’ column?

                • Bermy Gooner says:

                  I challenge you to show me where you ever used such strong language (i.e. stupid and incompetent) when describing the actions of the previous administration. I mean you have no problem of labeling this Government with such labels over the posting a damned email.

                  Also, show me where in any of your posts that you have lambasted the PLP for the use of negative racial rhetoric.


                • Verbal Kint says:

                  That falls under the human error column. Not answering the e-mail falls under the incompetent coumn. My opinion. Matters not. We’re debating WORDS again.

                • Edmund Wells says:

                  Mr. Starling-

                  Not sure.

                  Incompetent means lacking the knowledge to complete a task, or being ineffective at completing a task.

                  An error is a single mistake in completing a task.

                  A competent person can make an error, but it’s not until they’ve made many errors that they can truly earn the incompetent label.


        • Bermy Gooner says:

          So you are more worried about the posting and taking down of the email as opposed to the Union not providing a response and then playing victim? Interestinfg approach for an independent thinker…

          • J Starling says:

            Um, no. I only commented on this aspect as I found it odd that the Government retracted the comment. Since then I’ve replied to people like you, which has made it much more of an issue than I intended it to be.

            I think that the OBA broke their promise of a two-year suspension and thorough review, and have written on that in various places.

            I also question how much of a substantive review they could conduct within three business days of soliciting a review from key stakeholders, and one day to analyse these responses.

            I also think the policy review should be made public, and without seeing it I find it hard to accept the review/consultation was thorough.

            The OBA campaigned not only on a two-year suspension and review, but also for transparency. I’m trying to hold them accountable to themselves.

  26. M.R. says:

    To be honest, whether the policy was actually suspended for two years or out right abolished, it’s the same thing. Think about it.

    If in two years time, it hasn’t worked, well then, it’s time to review anyway.

    I think the PLP needs to honestly recognise that “ok that policy failed”. I don’t think there’s anything wrong in admitting that. They just have to stop believing that they should own the Govt. (like the UBP did in 1998) and stop being so damn angry all the time.

  27. M.R. says:

    J Starling, that doesn’t make them incompetent. if you think that’s the test for incompetency, then I’d hate to see what you think about everyday life.

    Politicians aren’t perfect. Give it a break. Stop geeking out on this stuff and enjoy a bit of life, k?

    • J Starling says:

      Well, either they knew people would have a problem with them publishing the email or they didn’t.

      If they didn’t, then I think that’s pretty incompetent of them.

      If they did, then I think that’s pretty stupid of them.

      So, they’re either stupid or incompetent.

      Your pick.

      We’re not talking about your average citizen here, we’re talking about the Government.

      • Bermy Gooner says:

        For a supposed independent thinker, you sure are biased…

        • J Starling says:

          I have political opinions. I voice them.

          I encourage everyone to have the courage of their convictions, to stand up for what they believe in, point out when the emperor’s new cloths are his birthday suit, and generally be actively engaged in the political process.

          I treated the PLP (even when a member) in exactly the same manner. Why should I treat the OBA any differently?

          True, I considered the PLP too right-wing, and I see the OBA as even further to the right, so I’m sure I’ll be even more ideologically critical of the OBA, so yes, I have a bias in that regards.

          Independent thinker means I stand on my ideological bias and critique accordingly. Not shut up just because the OBA’s in power. It’s those who claim no bias who are being disingenuous.

    • Staying focus says:

      STOP DEFENDING THE OBA, looks like the OBA fans defend, defend, defend, the wrong doings of the OBA daily. Yet OBA said they would do things differently. The contends of the letter might just open the OBA up to look incompetent and so they have shut it down. The OBA are spinning on this one. Quick to the draw, and Quick to failure.

      • Bermy Gooner says:

        Aren’t you just their mirror opposite (i.e. defend the PLP no matter what the topic or issue)?

      • Verbal Kint says:


  28. M.R. says:

    Then i’d say you’re investing a little too much in the idea of a perfect Govt. If that’s the case, I hope you find what you’re looking for cuz both parties have a deficit or two.

    • J Starling says:

      It’s because no ‘perfect’ government exists that I’m criticising, in the hope of them becoming closer to a ‘perfect’ government.

      Nonetheless, what I’m highlighting here is not simply an imperfection of reality, but either gross incompetency or gross stupidity. Again, your pick.

      • Bermy Gooner says:

        Ever since the OBA has been in power your blogs have been highly critical on every move made by the OBA while some early actions definitely deserve it not all do. I mean, on your site, you have lambasted Sal’s blog as being racist but promote BoP as a reasonable site (except for the fact that it continually wished violence on sector of the society because they didn’t look like them). You even claimed that the election of the OBA will further embolden the white community to continue and spread racism. If you can’t (and I know you know) tell that is a disgusting broad brush, stereotyping type of comment well then your bias is even greater than I first thought. In 14 years of having to put up with numerous racist, divisive and downright disgusting comments from some elements of the PLP camp you stayed either ominously silent or justified in some roundabout way. Beginning to see the bias (I know you know it is there)?

        Some bloggers labeled the PLP as stupid and incompetent (and some policies/actions completely justified it and some not) and you reacted by labeling these people with all sorts of convenient labels and character assasinations. But already on here and your website you have labeled the OBA stupid and incompetent several times, despite only bein gin power for just over a month. So I ask where was this strong language prior to December 17 2012 when the former administration did act in ways that can easily be construed as either incompetent and/or stupid?

        Your posts and rebuttals to others portray you as some sort of “holier than thou” person who believes that their opinion is that much more valuable than any others (but yet, from what I believe, you support a Communist type political/social system). You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to misrepresent yourself as you do on a daily basis. You are not an independent thinker, point blank. Before you start one your long spiels as how I am wrong, just please answer the question as to why you don’t use the same type of vitriol and aggressive approach prior to December 17 2012?

        • J Starling says:

          Yes, I am a socialist/communist, but I do not advocate for State communism, such as the Soviets or other Communist states, which I regard as fascist. Just because they use the name ‘communist’ doesn’t make them communist. That’s like arguing hot dogs are actually made of dogs because they use the name ‘dog’. I am a democratic socialist, close to council communism, if you want to research it…

          I was equally critical of the PLP and was equally accused by PLPers as biased and a supporter to the UBP/OBA over time.

          I argued frequently with the BermyOnionPatch blog, so not sure what you’re going on about there.

          And you seem to have misread or misunderstood my comments regarding structural racism and an emboldened Whiteness.

          Holier than thou, lol. Look in the mirror my friend…

          • Bermy Gooner says:

            From a January 2011 post:

            “This site is a bit hard to characterise, but I would say it voices the line of thinking of a faction within the PLP broad church, even if it is highly critical (and often with good reason imho) of the PLP itself.”

            So you think that advocating hate and violence against others is “often with good reason?” If it wasn’t a PLP thinking website you would not have such a hard time “characterising it” now would you? Then in the same breath place a label on Sal’s blog (which I tend to agree with, your label that is) as being just downright nasty?

          • Mad Dawg says:

            J Starling, I guess you would agree that the union reps who failed to respond to Minister Fahy’s email were also guilty of either gross incompetence or gross stupidity?

      • Edmund Wells says:

        Mr. Starling-

        It appears that Government had a change of thinking with regard to making the email public, but I’m not sure that gets as far as “gross incompetency” or “gross stupidity”.

        But the email disclosure is a small side show relative to the main issue. As this story has evolved, it has become clear that the unions were given every opportunity to be heard. Whether through “gross incompetency”, “gross stupidity”, or simple inaction, they squandered those opportunities.

        But, disagreeing with the conclusion reached, or embarrassed, or both, they attempt to blame Minister Fahy for their failure, and not take responsibility for their own actions and inaction. Their supporters on this site and elsewhere help promote this misdirection.

        Typical of the prior government- no acceptance of accountability, and the fervent belief that it’s always someone else’s fault. One of the reasons why they’re the prior, and not the current government.

        And their supporters still, apparently, haven’t figured that out.


        • J Starling says:

          I understand they had a change of thinking. I’m questioning why that occurred. If, as alleged, it was because they were asked to remove the names of others that where shown on the email, then it says to me they were incompetent in not realising that would be the case in the first place, or stupid in risking it (thinking the pros outweighed the costs).

          Not sure how else to phrase it.

          I agree it is a side show. But I also agree that the Government’s attempt to focus on the unions non-response is also a side-show. Fact is, they broke a key election promise (two-year suspension and review), and they’re desperately trying to distract attention from that.

          • Edmund Wells says:

            Mr. Starling-

            Not sure about your last paragraph. They did promise to suspend term limits immediately; the pratical effect of immediate elimination vs. a two year wait is nil, or even slightly favorable (less uncertainty for IB). But either way, it is a broken election pledge, and should be identified as such. Parentheically, Minister Fahy hinted at the action on Monday, Jan 21st news conference, and no one picked up on it.

            But the desperation, to me, is not on the Government’s side, but rather, on the union’s side. I believe the unions, and especially union management, are deeply embarrased by the elimination of term limits while fully engaged in the review process, and fear that the rank and file will question their ability to stand up to Government. I believe that fear of appearing powerless underlies the strident “We weren’t consulted!!” claims, which appear unsupported by the facts. Because if they are in fact powerless, then the union will need new, less powerless leaders.

            Just a theory.


  29. Glenn Chase says:

    All of the things said and done thus far, regarding the OBA, are smokescreens/distractions from their ultimate goal; to re-establish control in every sense. A question I would like to have answered is that during the Election campaign, they pledged to expand the voter base; how do they intend on doing that? Is it by extending voting rights to current/future PRC holders?