Agard_Mottley

Christ Church West Going South

Dr. Jerome Walcott, General Secretary

Dr. Jerome Walcott, General Secretary

There is the popular cliché – you should never let a good crisis go to waste. When leader of the Opposition Mia Mottley was forced to withdraw from running for the Chairmanship of the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) in 2011,

[…]

she was bold to say then that her political party needed to democratize the process of selecting delegates – see Mia Mottley Accuses The Barbados Labour Party Of Reducing The Rights Of Women And Young People And Announces Her Withdrawal From the Race To Contest Chairmanship. Mia Mottley was again installed as the leader of the Opposition in 2013, and presumably control of the BLP, yet Barbadians have seen no inclination by her that she intends to usher in reform by amending the BLP constitution to reflect her views during the pre 2011 period.

Barbadians understand that in the current landscape a strong BLP, therefore a strong Opposition, is important to championing the cause of democracy under our system of government. We suffered through the Thompson/Mascoll conflict and appreciate how political party conflict has the potential to unsettled the country. Unlike many BU is not caught up (to use Bishop Wilfred’s words) in BLP or DLP rhetoric. BU subscribes to the view that in the same way the best performing organizations map strategy and execute to maintain competitiveness in response to the environment in which it operates, so too a country has to constantly modify how it wants to be governed given the changing landscape. We currently rely on a political system that is responsible for foisting candidates on the people for selection. There is enough evidence to show that it is a system easy to manipulate by those with agendas which often run counter to those of the PEOPLE. We need to make it better.

The unfolding conflict in the Christ Church West constituency which sees elected candidate Dr. Maria Agard pitted against her Executive and Party is interesting. It is obvious Agard is not highly regarded by Mottley and there is an orchestrated effort to deselect Agard from running in the next general election. It is obvious to BU she has not performed any worse than other candidates on the BLP side.

Why does Mottley want to jettison Agard? Why is Dr. Agard not being defended by others in the party? Are they waiting for the right moment to give Mottley the boot, again?

Several BU sources have confirmed at a recently held BLP Executive meeting Dr. Agard was given instructions to avoid issuing statements to the media. We will have to wait to see if she complies with the gag order.  What is evident if we listen to pollster Peter Wickham and others who have unrestricted access to the media space, there is an orchestrated attempt to trivialize Agard’s concerns. How the hell does Wickham know Jerome Walcott’s political future  unless he has intimate knowledge? His agenda was exposed by Bishop Wilfred Wood who took him to task on talk radio this week. Another source advised BU that Nation newspaper political columnist and Sunday Sun Editor Albert Brandford and Carol Martindale will publish a feature in tomorrow’s Sunday Sun to show Walcott is the preferred candidate for the Christ Church West (we wait to read tomorrow’s issue to confirm).  We hope we are wrong because if true it will confirm what we already know.

One of the distinguishing features of a leader of men and women is the ability to get them to share in your vision.  If differences exist an effective leader will find a practical way to resolve in the best interest of the whole. Ever since Mia Mottley assumed the leadership of the BLP it has become a fractious affair. Barbadians deserve to know what Mottley has against Agard in much the same way we deserve to know what Arthur has against Mia. The feeble mutterings by her acolytes that Agard has not performed as member of Christ Church West is bullshit.

.

Tags: , ,

85 Comments on “Christ Church West Going South”

  1. ac October 18, 2015 at 9:29 AM #

    Sir i suggest you leave well alone,
    Procrastination is not a poor sign of leadership, It is a diplomatic approach well best applied especially for proper governance whereby taking into account the laws and guidelines that govern a nation under its Constitutions to all of society
    Unlike Mia leadership which is well known and demonstrated through use of undiplomatic policies lending themselves to feeble street marches and yardfowl gimmicks

    Like

  2. Artaxerxes October 18, 2015 at 10:45 AM #

    “It is a diplomatic approach well best applied especially for proper governance whereby taking into account the laws and guidelines that govern a nation under its Constitutions to all of society…”

    By making the comment “proper governance whereby taking into account the laws and guidelines that govern a nation under its Constitutions to all of society…” you have FINALLY admitted that one cannot conduct a comparative analysis of the leadership abilities of a Prime Minister with that of an Opposition Leader.

    There are TWO MAIN aspects of the PM’s leadership, i.e. the ability to effectively lead his ministers and being capable of leading the country. The OL main objective is to oppose, as was done by ALL oppositions in Barbados.

    “Unlike Mia leadership which is well known and demonstrated through use of undiplomatic policies lending themselves to feeble street marches and yardfowl gimmicks..”

    You have once again ADMITTED that Mottley is doing what an Opposition Leader is supposed to do, that is to OPPOSE. By mentioning “the use of undiplomatic policies,” perhaps you would care to tell us what laws she has broken. There is no written rule that say an Opposition Leader has to be “diplomatic” in her/his approach, as long they oppose within the confines of the law.

    The “feeble street marches” served their purposes.

    Her “yard-fowl gimmicks” could be compared to the “information” Thompson said he had in his possession relative to the “SECRET DEAL” the BLP (while in Opposition) made with the IMF. Or Sinckler telling constituents at a constituency branch meeting that the BLP held a “SECRET MEETING” at which they discussed plans to retrench over 10,000 public sector employees. Or Stuart reassuring public sector employees that NOT ONE of them will be sent home and telling Barbadians tertiary level education WILL REMIAN FREE.

    All of the above are “yard-fowl gimmicks.” Unfortunately, these gimmicks only served to show that Thompson, Sinckler and Stuart were all LIARS.

    Now compare the Mottley’s CAHILL “yard-fowl gimmick,” which brought together Barbadians to form special interest groups to question the transparency of this project. Active research was undertaken by Barbadians, which subsequently revealed that CAHILL is a scam. BU must be congratulated for providing the forum (unlike the traditional media) where this issue could be thoroughly discussed and documents presented for our perusal.

    It is against a background such as this that you have to judge Mottley’s ability to effectively deliver her message.

    Like

  3. Artaxerxes October 18, 2015 at 10:48 AM #

    And I dun wid you and dat, becausen Fruendel Stuart will go down in history as the worst PM Barbados ever had.

    Like

  4. ac October 18, 2015 at 2:43 PM #

    Yes i have admitted that MIA misleads and over reaches the peripheral instead of closely looking and underscore all the FACTS necessary before forming yardfowl conclusion.
    It was in the case of Clico where her emphasis was to call on govt to pay back the Clico policyholders with taxpayers money
    While not underscoring that the money needed to payback (i ) comes from taxpayers who had no interest in CLICO would only serves as a punishment to them
    SO glad you have reached the end of your rope
    BUT just a Friendly reminder
    On the battle field of life ,The winner is always the last person standing, YOU be the Judge

    Like

  5. Artaxerxes October 18, 2015 at 11:16 PM #

    “It was in the case of Clico where her emphasis was to call on govt to pay back the Clico policyholders with taxpayers money. While not underscoring that the money needed to payback (i ) comes from taxpayers who had no interest in CLICO would only serves as a punishment to them…”

    You know you are political yard-fowls who just writes a lot of shiitey political rhetorical generalized statements without bringing to the fore any information to substantiate your drivel.

    Your beloved David Thompson is the first one who promised to repay the CLICO policy holders. He assured the Eastern Caribbean countries that Barbados would help them as well, but maintained that Barbados must be attended to first, before attempting to assist the other countries. Perhaps Mottley was calling your party’s bluff.

    Your folly, political blindness and attempt to “be the last people standing,” may have caused you to interpret Mottley’s call for government to pay CLICO policy holders (or Thompson’s promises), to mean that “taxpayers’ money” would be used.

    If anyone in the consortium were smart and used their ability to think rationally, they would reason that CLICO is a business and obviously it would have assets, which could have been sold to satisfy policy holders’ claims.
    At that time, CLICO’s assets were reported to be valued at $441M and the Barbados government had to look for approximately $76M to settle policy holders, which could have been attained if these assets were realized.

    OF INTEREST TO YOU, (IN CASE YOU FORGOT), DID NOT THE $10M Thompson gave CLICO in 2009 “come from taxpayers who had no interest in CLICO would only serve as a punishment to them….?”

    In October 2014, Sinckler revealed that cabinet “gave the nod to a restructuring plan prepared by the company’s judicial managers Deloitte Consulting.” He further stated that “Under the plan it is envisaged that all policyholders with traditional insurance policies, such as life, health and pension plans, will receive the full value of their policies with the SUPPORT of the Government.” [Barbados Today, October 28, 2014]

    Hmmmmm, I guess that support came from the DLP’s bank account and not taxpayers.

    LIKEWISE TO YOU, just a Friendly reminder, On the battle field of life, The winner is (not only) always the last person standing, but the one skilled in the ART OF WAR…… YOU be the Judge….”

    Like

  6. ac October 19, 2015 at 6:28 AM #

    Spin this all you want , DT is dead can no longer lead or mislead
    The Fact /s pertaining to Mia ability to deliver any valuable solutions have been soured and dismissed as trivia and never seen the light of day.
    Sir for the same reason that what you perceived as soluble and easy to dissolve by the wave of a finger to give relief to a complicated problem whereby govt can willy nilly seized the assets of a private company to do at will in effort to satisfy a complex problem is asinine
    Most notably Mia has now gone silent after making the outrageous solutions to the Clico policyholders and not saying a word while govt take steps to reimburse/compensate in the most appropriate and legal way the Clico policyholders .
    In this case the loudest wheel did get the grease as Mia mislead and garnish support for the Clico problem in her usual rumbustious manner but as usual for Mia it was not enough grease to stop the wheel from falling off,

    Like

  7. Artaxerxes October 19, 2015 at 10:06 AM #

    @ AC

    This is pure shiite you wrote, it is composed of incoherent generalized statements. You have a way of writing things that, in actuality, DO NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUES.

    Thompson being dead does NOT negate the fact that this DLP government GAVE CLICO $10M, which CAME “FROM TAXPAYERS who had no interest in CLICO (and) only served as a punishment to them.”

    I mentioned this against the background of your comment re: Mottley wanted the same government to pay CLICO policy holders from taxpayers. THIS IS THE ISSUE YOU SHOULD ADDRESS, rather than using so many “FANCY WORDS” to write shiite.

    Additionally, you have not PRESENTED any EVIDENCE to SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ACCUSATIONS relative to Mottley “making the outrageous solutions to the Clico policyholders” or that her suggestions were NOT “the most appropriate and legal way the Clico policyholders” as well.

    You have the opportunity to SILENCE ME on the issue “once and for all,” PRESENT to BU what were Mottley’s suggestions and DESCRIBE their OUTRAGEOUSNESS, this is a SIMPLE TASK.

    Unlike you, I ALWAYS PRESENT PROOF to SUBSTANTIATE what I write.

    Perhaps you should do LIKEWISE. STOP WRITING the GENERALIZED POLITICAL RHETORIC and BRING SUBSTANTIATED FACTS to PROVE what you wrote.

    Like

  8. ac October 19, 2015 at 10:16 AM #

    Let’s see what Mia brings tomorrow as supporting facts or providing evidence that would determine the credibility if govt in the Cahill issue.
    I would bet that it would be her credibility the one that would be left battered bruised and stained

    Like

  9. Artaxerxes October 19, 2015 at 10:16 AM #

    “The Fact /s pertaining to Mia ability to deliver any valuable solutions have been soured and dismissed as trivia and never seen the light of day.”

    I must remind the consortium that Thompson dismissed Mottley’s suggestion that CLICO should be PLACED UNDER Judicial Management. Similarly to you, he probably thought she was “making outrageous solutions to the Clico policyholders.”

    Subsequently, this same DLP administration established an Oversight Committee, which also SUGGESTED that CLICO be placed under Judicial Management. As you know, Deloitte was appointed as JM.

    Hence, this action proves your comments re: “The Fact /s pertaining to Mia ability to deliver any valuable solutions have been soured and dismissed as trivia and never seen the light of day,” are not only erroneous, but pure shiite as well.

    I suggest you forget this CLICO thing, yuh.

    Like

  10. LT.HORATIO CAINE. October 20, 2015 at 8:15 PM #

    Dr. Agard let me make something very clear to you and the others clamoring for this decriminalizing of marijuana i will never support your call. Honestly i like you as a politician and i am one who will strongly defend you on your current situation, i am aware that you have only called for discussion, but i will draw the line on this marijuana issue it will always be the saying of a resounding NO to drugs for me.I part company with anyone who pander to this notion that the decriminalizing marijuana will be a step in the right direction, from the perspective of law enforcement the law needs to remain as it is.I will say no more.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: