Jeff_column

The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – Novel Political Realities

Jeff Cumberbatch - New Chairman of the FTC

Jeff Cumberbatch – New Chairman of the FTC

BU shares the Jeff Cumberbatch Barbados Advocate column – Senior Lecturer in law at the University of the West Indies since 1983, a Columnist with the Barbados Advocate

[…]

Musings: Novel political realities
11/8/2015

TWO recent events on the local partisan political scene would appear to lend some credence to the view that we are indeed living in a radically different era from that which obtained in the relatively recent past. Premier between these must be the reported appointment of former Barbados Labour Party Prime Minister, Mr. Owen Arthur MP [Ind. – St. Peter] as the chairman of Council of Economic Advisors to the current governing Democratic Labour Party administration. From one perspective, this engagement that has remained undisputed by either party in the public domain for what is now a substantial period, evidences a political maturity not hitherto seen in the local political culture, but one that is frequently observed in more mature democracies where the incentive to serve the national interest outweighs mere partisan alliance.

Thus, without forsaking their political allegiance to one group, some members of the political class find it possible, once requested, to serve willingly in an administration controlled by their political opponents.

This seems to be par for the course in the US where, from the earliest days of the Union, Presidents have appointed members of a party philosophy antithetical to his to serve in some rather significant posts. Current President Barack Obama, a Democrat, would seem to have outdone his predecessors in office in this context, having appointed no fewer than 17 Republicans to important political posts, ranging from Secretary of Defence (twice), through Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to Secretary of Transportation.

In less recent times, the Republican Robert McNamara served as Secretary of Defence in the Cabinets of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, both Democratic presidents. Remarkably, he had as company at one time or another in both Cabinets, his Republican Party colleagues; the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Advisor to the President!

Comparatively speaking, this would have been the local equivalent of appointing Mr. Arthur not merely as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, but rather as either Minister of Home Affairs [National Security] or as Minister of Finance. The unlikelihood of such an event, even given the fact that Mr. Arthur is no longer aligned with the Opposition party in Parliament, might speak volumes about the brand of politics we practice locally. Indeed, there are unsurprising reports that this particular overture has not gone down well with some members of the DLP whom, one would think, would have little or nothing to lose in the entire affair. Ours, however, is a culture that champions rather the constancy of a party supporter truthfully to boast, “I is a BLP/DLP till ah dead.”
While the reality across the pond in the UK more closely approximates ours than that in the US, in 1931 when Ramsay McDonald became Prime Minister with the collapse of the Labour Government, his first Cabinet nonetheless included two Labourites as Chancellor of the Exchequer [Minister of Finance] and as Secretary of the then Dominions. To appreciate more keenly the enormity of this locally, try to wrap your minds around Mr. Chris Sinckler being asked to stay on as Finance Minister in an incoming BLP administration.

In light of the present peculiar political affiliation of Mr. Arthur, I would be loath to suggest that the proposed appointment is a happy harbinger of future bi-partisanship, although I am yet to be persuaded that this may not be “a consummation devoutly wished for” by the discerning electorate, given the most recent election results.

What it does seem to suggest more clearly, however, is that in much the same way that a former Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago has argued, “politics possesses a morality of its own”, it may be that it also bears its own internal logic, a form of reasoning that would permit the governing administration to appoint as a technical economic advisor one whom it has unflatteringly referred to on previous occasions as “yesterday’s man” and categorised as “past his sell-by date”. It is equally surprising that Mr. Arthur would deign to offer his skills as an economist to what he once considered “a bunch of wild boys” for them to dictate and enact policy from “a poor-rakey parliament”. Partisan politics is not at all a quick study for many.

The second event is no less ahistorical in the local political culture. I have often argued that the Shakespearean phrase “uneasy lies the head that wears the crown” applies with most force to the post of an Opposition leader. Possessing none of the constitutional allurements that are available to a Prime Minister to reward faithful members or to withhold or even withdraw as punishment from the seemingly mutinous, the Opposition leader must tread a fine line between apparent authority and yet be ever solicitous of the loyalty of his or her members.

It may be that this task of management becomes even more onerous as a general election approaches, especially one in which that party sniffs a popular advantage. It is then that the leader must attempt publicly to maintain that delicate balance in what would have by then become transformed into a litmus test for national leadership.

In this context, what has become known as “the Agard affair” concerning the public nature of the current impasse among the sitting member of Parliament for the Christ Church West constituency, Dr. Maria Agard, Ms. Mia Mottley, Opposition Leader, and the members of the constituency branch executive, must present a thorny and novel problem for Ms. Mottley at this stage.

I am tempted to comment that its ultimate resolution is none of my business and, perhaps it is not but, as a keen student of the law relating to governance, I am intrigued by this imminent clash of local political convention, of the Constitutional text that recognises not parties but members only who do or do not support that member of the House of Assembly who, in the Governor General’s judgement is best able to command the confidence of a majority of members of the House, and of the provisions of the BLP constitution that stipulate, I imagine, a clear procedure for the selection (and possible de-selection as obtains elsewhere) of electoral candidates. I have not seen it.

To the extent that this last-mentioned document does not do so, the party might be forced either to apply some version of the doctrine of necessity to cater for this unforeseen eventuality or to pray in aid some binding convention hallowed by notoriety and long practice. Alas, either solution is likely to prove unsatisfactory to some. As they say, “Film at eleven.”

Tags:

103 Comments on “The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – Novel Political Realities”

  1. Caswell Franklyn November 9, 2015 at 6:55 AM #

    I can’t believe this; ac just made sense.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Like

  2. David November 9, 2015 at 8:29 AM #

    @Caswell

    In theory/principle citizens should hold the right to vote sacred however in the more practical view people will naturally disengage if the perceive the systems establishment is not working for them, this is when leadership is required to bridge the gap. To say people should vote full stop is analogous to saying people should not commit murder therefore forget about prevention measures. It is not so simplistic.

    Like

  3. ac November 9, 2015 at 9:14 AM #

    Well in that case the best alternative would be. to generate a concerted interest from amongst the collective individuals who void their vote as protest
    For certainly there will be grass roots support starting with civic meetings or small groups within the community
    Establishing a formula with a “community”based presence is crucial

    Like

  4. William Skinner November 9, 2015 at 9:25 AM #

    @ David
    “We are in a sorry state, many have disengaged from the political process, like you. It is reflected in the increasing numbers who are staying away from the polls.”
    I am sorry but you have missed my point. Far from being disengaged, I am more engaged than I perhaps have ever been, it is just tat I don’t engage in non-productive BLP/DLP family squabbles . I will never promote not voting because as ac and Caswell Franklyn have stated , doing so makes the same BLP/DLP get way with political murder. There are many reasons why independent thinkers vote and the human mind is so complex, it is always difficult to identify one common reason or answer. I have been very careful to publicly state that in my humble opinion, both parties have done equally well and equally badly. They are six of one and half dozen of the other. The failure of progressive thinkers to mount a serious challenge to the BLP/DLP, is a reflection of the tremendous entrenchment of these two parties and the unfortunate truth , that many of our most progressive thinkers are already in their collective pockets. However, I am absolutely clear as to why these two parties have such loyal die hards. After all they have controlled the political landscape for well over a half century and the diet has been consistent ! We are what we eat, my friend.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. ac November 9, 2015 at 11:11 AM #

    Looking for perfection within the system is an impossibility it is like searching for a needle in a haystack
    Most of the time the problems that govts are criticised for were mandated by the populace
    Hence prior to elections politicians listen to the pundits b
    but on election gets caught up in the reality and understanding of knowing who call the shots
    Take for example the latest stalemate in the blp.The leader made a promise and even with the help of the mechanisms afforded for quick resolve she is hardpressed to make a decision

    Like

  6. David November 9, 2015 at 11:21 AM #

    @William

    The problem should not be located with the political party. It has to be how we hold the party accountable. The current design will continue to see voters doing so to satisfy their civic duty which makes a nonsense of our governance system. This is why intelligent people, even independents continue to exercise their right to withhold the vote as a former of protest. This is a worrying trend across the reason which means it is systemic.

    Like

  7. William Skinner November 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM #

    @ David,
    The current discussion re: Arthur becoming a lead advisor to the government is instructive. Jeff Cumberbatch wrote a balanced and enlightened article. It was immediately pounced upon by those who only see the society through BLP/DLP eyes. Hence discussion about an attempt at political maturity quickly degenerated into the usual political platform BLP/DLP rhetoric.

    Like

  8. David November 9, 2015 at 12:31 PM #

    Forgive the errors William, predictive text.

    Like

  9. David November 9, 2015 at 12:35 PM #

    @William

    Doesn’t it say more about those who hold independent and more enlightening positions? Why do we allow our voices to be swamped by the party faithful?

    Like

  10. Artaxerxes November 9, 2015 at 12:53 PM #

    @ Skinner

    @ Skinner

    Sometimes people, by the comments they make, often “spin” a situation to suit their political bias. You must agree that “Arthur becoming a lead advisor to the government” is a POLITICAL ISSUE and will be dealt with accordingly. This will not be viewed by some people as “an attempt at political maturity,” especially after all that has been said about Arthur by the same individuals who are now trying to “court” him. You have to accept this fact.

    In my opinion “political maturity” is the ability of “A” to acknowledge an understanding of how “B” thinks, since “A” was previously been in a similar position. It’s about two sides not being divided by “mutual mistrust” thereby providing an environment where the entire population could work in unison for the development of the country.

    “Political maturity” could have been exhibited after the 2008 elections when Arthur offered to work with the government to address the issues resulting from the effects of the recession.
    “Political maturity” could also be exercised during the period when Thompson was sick, or when Mottley suggested the formation of an “eminent group” (an idea Arthur dismissed) to deal with economic policy.
    “Political maturity” is the ability to accept ideas from those are willing to offer, and not dismiss them as “doom and gloom.”
    “Political maturity” is the ability to admit when you are wrong rather continuing along the same path hoping for different results.

    You may accuse me as one “who only see the society through BLP/DLP eyes” and “quickly degenerated (the idea) into the usual political platform BLP/DLP rhetoric.”

    However, when I take all the (political and non-political) variables pertaining to this issue into consideration (and we HAVE TO factor then into this equation), it reeks of “political opportunism” to me.

    Additionally, I find it very hypocritical for people to cuss a man, calling it “political strategy” and subsequently wanting to embrace him, citing “political maturity.” Why would you want the help of the man you said was responsible for the “mess” in which you now find yourself, and try HARDER to CONVINCE us that this gesture “is instructive?”

    This is a perfect example of “spinning a situation to suit a political agenda.” But, similarly to how a jester plays a fool, politicians always play politics.

    As you wrote, and truthfully so: “After all they have controlled the political landscape for well over a half century and the diet has been consistent! We are what we eat, my friend.”

    Hence, these political implications provide an adequate platform for the “BLP/DLP rhetoric.”

    Liked by 1 person

  11. William Skinner November 9, 2015 at 1:44 PM #

    @ Artaxerxes,
    I cannot fault your reasoning. However, I have never taken criticism of the BLP/DLP toward each other seriously because they have no deep philosophical or ideological differences. Hence my position that they have both done equally well and equally badly. You are quite free to recite all the negatives they have directed at each other for the last fifty plus years. If there is a glimmer of hope in reaching mutual and mature governance , I have no choice but to , at least, hope it is the interest of our country. This development may very well change a bit of the “diet” I referred to in a previous post. Furthermore, it could very well be argued that there is a slight possibility that both Arthur and his critics in the DLP have now evolved and are striking a note of mutual respect. I cannot as a patriotic citizen seriously ignored this point of view.

    Like

  12. William Skinner November 9, 2015 at 1:55 PM #

    @ David,
    I do not think that independent voices are “swamped” by the party faithful. In attempting to understand the support , we cannot avoid the historical context of the support. This support of DLP goes back to Errol Barrow and the BLP goes back to Sir Grantley Adams. The roots are very deep and have spread thousand of miles. As one who experienced the depth of the BLPDLP first hand, I can tell you that it will take a monumental effort to even shake the roots far less uproot the tree. It is therefore no accident that independent thinkers either join them or simply give up. However there are many citizens who make contributions outside of the political party system in order to compensate. They are still helping in development away from Roebuck and George Streets. BU is a good example of citizen involvement and I salute you and BU for your sterling efforts.

    Like

  13. ac November 9, 2015 at 2:03 PM #

    Well i believe there is hope for a political system to emerge to put country .
    It just a matter of time and would happen when the older generation of diehards and political opportunist make their final bow on earths stage
    If after fifty years of iron fist rule in cuba a new transition can start to emerge then it is not far fetched that with a newer generation on the horizon with an idealistic vision. and better ideas a similar transition can not emerge.
    The idea that not voting is an exit strategy for change is foolhardy
    When one listen to the diehards strong opposition to OSA accepting or govt requesting the answer is plain as daylight why society keep going through the political revolving door
    Until these die hards go nothing would change

    Like

  14. millertheanunnaki November 9, 2015 at 2:50 PM #

    @ ac November 9, 2015 at 2:03 PM
    “When one listen to the diehards strong opposition to OSA accepting or govt requesting the answer is plain as daylight why society keep going through the political revolving door
    Until these die hards go nothing would change.”

    I guess these die hards” include yourself. You are just on die-hard hypocrite who is prepared to conveniently jump off any ship sailing on a sea of principles and decency.

    We just cannot understand why you would want OSA to ‘advise’ your administration on matters economic. Yet this same administration continues to give the impression it is doing fine on sustained recovery of the tourism industry thanks solely to its managerial competence.

    Wouldn’t such sterling support of OSA joining the economic advisory team require you to ditch your unswerving antagonism to OSA’s much touted privatization programme including the GAIA?
    Would you be prepared to back the same OSA when he calls (as he must) for the dismissal of the current Governor of the Central Bank or the removal of Quisling Darcy Boyce from that strategic ministerial position vital to the economic recovery of Barbados à la OSA the paro economist?

    Like the memory of an elephant we can clearly recall when OSA ousted Ms Mottley for the post of the LOO. We can recall you constant harangues of the then maligned drunkard OSA and his 14 years of misrule, squandermania and corruption. We also clearly recall your unswerving support for the ‘victim’ Mottley just because she was a ‘bright intelligent articulate’ woman with her heart in the right place fighting in a man’s world of political evil.
    Why don’t you go back bashing OSA and his 14 years of misrule and corruption that forced Barbados to the cliff of economic collapse? At least you sounded more convincing then.

    Now you are asking him to do the final tipping. Is OSA now to be referred to as the Rt. Hon Reverend Arthur as he conducts the final burial rites for the Barbados economy?

    Like

  15. Well Well & Consequences November 9, 2015 at 4:07 PM #

    The problems have always been and will always be rooted in the stench of party politics. 50 years of political independence and the only progress to be shown is an accumulation of yardfowls. I think those who refuse to involve themselves in the voting process have all come to the realization that they are supposed to be voting for people to effectively manage the country to the best of their ability in the best interest of the population…. and not….because they are diehard anything, given a job for some dirty work, a couple hundred dollars, 2 cans of corned beef a bottle of rum, or some fair promise so they can go on the blogs and prove that yardfowls are useless idiots, that is what has been defeating and will continue to defeat the whole purpose.

    Progress can never be achieved under those conditions.

    Like

  16. Well Well & Consequences November 9, 2015 at 4:10 PM #

    Did I mention that politicians endorse and condone yardfowlism…..I rose by any other name will still leave a stench.

    Like

  17. ac November 9, 2015 at 6:16 PM #

    @ miller go ahead use all kinds of hypothetical conclusions to justify your brand of yardfowlism
    What i am saying and most visionaries are seeing is a brand of intellectual commonsense makinf its way on the horizon inclusive and which requires a unique quality of intellectualism that cannot be measured with a yardfowl measuring stick.
    Going by your critique of what i have said in political “speak” about OSA gives enough reason to conclude that barbados with your type of mentality would remain chained from everlasting to everlasting in political mire
    However the only hope to come would be when you and other old political farts leave this earth
    Exactly what has happened in Cuba presently all the old die hards have gone to the great beyond which made way and gave rebirth to an island once crippled with political animosity and hatred having no room for compromise
    Finally it happened a younger generation of visionaries took up the mantle and cleared the way ringing out the old and ushering in a new day for cuba,
    As for ac i am an eternal optimistic steering clear of pessimistic views for surely they are vexations to the soul

    Like

  18. millertheanunnaki November 9, 2015 at 6:58 PM #

    @ ac November 9, 2015 at 6:16 PM

    What the hell have you just said there?
    Can we conclude this is a confession for forgiveness and a plea of contriteness for all the nasty things you used to say about OSA? Are you saying they were all lies and deceit on your part?
    Can’t you see you are committing the same sin with regard to MAM? Isn’t she also deserving of your respect and a cessation of the lies and false innuendo you continue to level at her?

    After all, it is MAM who has been holding out an olive branch regarding the management of the economy for a long time now and was the first elected political official to agree to the setting up of an ‘Eminent Persons’ group (with OSA the lead advisor) to save the economy from further slide.

    A proposal that was “punished with laughter” by those eminent persons of outstanding competence and acumen making up the Cabinet.

    Now what do we have here today but a cabinet of clowns crying out for help from the same subject of their previous derision.

    “He who laughs last, laughs best.”

    Like

  19. millertheanunnaki November 9, 2015 at 8:01 PM #

    @ ac November 9, 2015 at 6:16 PM
    “However the only hope to come would be when you and other old political farts leave this earth…”

    Would you call also the person who commissioned the writing of the following commitment to the people of Barbados ‘an old political fart ready to leave this earth’?

    “Barbados is not only about
    what more Government can
    do, but about what we can do
    together. We must all work
    together to move our country
    forward.”

    We can guarantee you a place in political heaven if you were to identify the source the above ‘patriotic’ call to the people of Barbados including you ac.

    Like

  20. Artaxerxes November 9, 2015 at 10:27 PM #

    @ ac

    Look leh we put to bed all the shiite talk. You were the most harshest and vile critics of Owen Arthur in this BU forum. You followed the DLP’s lead and endorsed the party’s admonishment of Arthur because it suited your political purpose at the time. You ridiculed Arthur’s “politics of inclusion” but now want us to accept the DEMS’ version on “inclusion.”

    All of a sudden, just because the DLP is toying with the idea of asking him to be government’s economic advisor, you have automatically switched, praising Arthur, all in an effort to suit your party’s political agenda and because it is political expedient for you to do so. You ridiculed Arthur’s “politics of inclusion,” but now want us to accept the DEMS’ version on “inclusion.”

    AC, wunnuh ain’t genuine at all, it’s about playing politics, and you are prepared to say anything to satisfy the DLP’s political agenda. I bet if the DEMS were to revert to cussing Arthur again, you would be the first DLP yard-fowl to log on to BU to “re-endorse” those criticisms.

    None ah wunnah ent care nutten ‘bout Arthur, it’s all about trying to change the perception the majority of Barbadians now have of the DLP.

    Essentially, you are now implying that all the criticisms you leveled at Arthur were all lies and deceit.

    HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SHAME.

    Like

  21. ac November 9, 2015 at 11:15 PM #

    Artexeres oh no!lol u did not call me hypocrite wuh good grief one of my comments most certainly stated in no uncertain terms ac makes no apologies or offers no retraction to past statements made about OSA
    The only difference coming on my behalf in reference to the economic advisor replacment is that anyone who have any substantive knoweldge or expertise beneficial to barbados ac is willing to givethe benefit of doubt regardless of my past castigation of their shortcomings
    Now what more can anyone ask of a patriot whose only interest is the security of barbados
    Now you tell me artexeres What more? i rest my case

    Like

  22. Hants November 10, 2015 at 12:08 AM #

    Politics in Babadus is intriguing.

    Pages 10 and 11 in BarbadosToday.

    Like

  23. millertheanunnaki November 10, 2015 at 12:40 AM #

    @ ac November 9, 2015 at 11:15 PM
    “The only difference coming on my behalf in reference to the economic advisor replacment is that anyone who have any substantive knoweldge or expertise beneficial to barbados ac is willing to givethe benefit of doubt regardless of my past castigation of their shortcomings..”

    Oh no, ac the mother of hypocrisy, are you really that forgiving and inclusively understanding? If so let us put you to the test.

    Why not offer the position to Dr. Clyde Mascoll? Why not stretch out a hardwood branch of forgiveness and like a true prodigal son welcome him back into the foal with open arms despite he might be smelling of porcine faeces of a BLP odour?

    For one, Dr Mascoll’s arch enemy and nemesis in the DLP is one of those “political old farts” who have left this earth and is now part of the eternal ether.
    In addition, the still relatively young and energetic Mascoll has been well schooled under the tutelage of OSA as the former “co-leader” in the management of the economy.
    Moreover, he Dr. Teets Malik Mascoll, is not a sitting member of Parliament and can freely devote his time as chief economic advisor to the government without the burden of parliamentary responsibilities and conflict of political interests.

    Don’t you think OSA in all fairness and decency should resign from Parliament ( in true Westminster style) were he to accept such a crucially sensitive position? You must remember that OSA- despite sitting as an “Independent”- does not form part of the government and is still seen Constitutionally as part of the Opposition in Parliament.

    He is also a member of the HoA elected by the people of St. Peter under a BLP banner. Therefore, Westminster decency dictates he seeks the prior support of the people whom he pretends to represent in Parliament to back him in such a volte-face move to “advise” the ruling DLP administration.
    An administration, by the way, that blatantly destroyed his political ambition to become a phoenix of a Prime Minister in 2013 and which buried the spent force once and for all.

    What can a duppy Prime Minister do to save Barbados that he hasn’t done or said? Claire Cowan and her psychic Cindy could possibly do a better job for Stuart and Sinckler.

    Like

  24. Well Well & Consequences November 10, 2015 at 2:47 AM #

    There goes AC having to eat all her nasty words….lol

    Like

  25. David November 10, 2015 at 3:48 AM #

    You are correct and this is why the Court is there, to provide a final interpretation.

    Like

  26. balance November 10, 2015 at 5:57 AM #

    Artaxerxes July 29, 2014 at 11:40 PM #

    “The public statement by Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler that he is willing to endorse former Prime Minister Owen Arthur serving on an advisory committee of government has come as a surprise to BU.”

    Ever since the DLP formed the government in 2008, Owen Arthur has been subjected to a complete derogative character assassination, led by none other than this same Chris Sinckler. David Thompson suggested he was pass his “sell by” date; Stuart told Arthur he was a broken man, and all DLP candidates accused him of corruption, “raping the treasury”, stealing campaign funds, selling land to foreigners, allowing Guyanese to reside in Barbados illegally, and cost over-runs, just to mention a few.

    Prior to Arthur’s resignation from the BLP, members of the DLP had no use for him, as he was, in their opinion, responsible for every negative fall-out Barbados has experienced as a result of the current recession, and was not the “economic guru” or “economic savior”, as many made him out to be. Hence, they were never willing to listen to his advice, and he was often shot down by Sinckler, when attempting to offer advice or recommendations.

    Just recall the 2008 and 2013 election campaigns, the DLP strategically targeted Arthur’s character by constantly highlighting him and being a tyrannical power-hungry thief, who could not wait to become PM once more so he could rape the treasury.

    Although I am no fan of Arthur, I would hate to see him run like a dog with his tail between his legs and into the open arms of the DLP, after all the accusations of corruption, to work alongside the same Sinckler, whose venomous attacks he had to endure.

    The DLP seems to think Arthur has been recycled, and now has a new “sell by” date.


    Like

    17

    3

    Rate This

    Artaxerxes July 30, 2014 at 12:02 AM #

    We are giving our opinions on the whole Owen Arthur affair, but some thought must be given to the most important people who are intimately involved in this scenario…………… the constituents of St. Peter.
    Did Arthur consult with his constituents (as Hammie La did) before deciding to resign and sit in parliament as an independent or was he thinking of himself only?
    Since he was elected on a BLP ticket, what are the feelings of those who elected him, do they prefer if he had resigned completely causing a by-election, so as to enable them to elect a candidate of their choice?

    Perhaps if Arthur were to accept his new found friends DLP, he should resigned from parliament and accept any consultancy position the DLP may offer him. Also, the DLP is cognizant of the knighthood Arthur gave Sandiford for his economic policies during the early 1990s. After his resignation from the BLP, the DLP is now recognizing Arthur for his handling of the economy and prime ministerial experience during his 14 years at the helm of government.
    As such, knowing how politicians operate, will we be hearing “Rise Sir Owen Arthur” during the Independence awards?


    Like

    10

    3

    Rate This
    Worth re-publishing with your permission Arta

    Like

  27. Well Well & Consequences November 10, 2015 at 6:25 AM #

    Can anyone say, dogs returning to their vomit…lol

    Like

  28. Donna November 10, 2015 at 11:49 AM #

    Who can continue to take politicians seriously?

    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: