Lowering the bar – The PLP and public speaking

By Kim Swan, Opposition Leader

July 5, 2010

The Progressive Labour Party Government is lowering the standards of public discourse with their intemperate, infantile attacks on those who dare question their handling of public issues.

It has been happening with increasing frequency and it must stop for the sake of community standards and morale.

In the past couple of weeks we have seen Government ministers use inflammatory language when challenged to explain government policy and actions.
They have hurled racist taunts at members of my party asking questions about government policy and performance.

And just last week, we heard that a minister tore up a letter from the Mayor of Hamilton and sent it back to him in an envelope with a ‘return to sender’ stamp.
This kind of behaviour is just childish and absolutely unacceptable for a minister of the Bermuda government. It distracts public attention and does nothing to further productive government.

Our concern is that no one in the Government is exerting the discipline or setting a better example for ministers. Indeed, we see the Premier as the provocateur-in-chief. As a result there is no accountability for bad behaviour, no one to rap knuckles or even fire ministers for setting a bad example.

Bermuda is better than the in-your-face combativeness this Government’s ministers. We don’t want Bermuda defined by it. We’re better than that, much better.

Consequences and truth in public spending

By Kim Swan, Opposition Leader

July 1, 2010

What do the following people have in common?

Seniors who’ve had their pension benefits frozen by the Finance Minister.
Students who’ve been told by Senator David Burch that the Government is cutting back their summer jobs programme.
Teachers trying to raise money to cover Government cancellation of a $60,000 summer programme that helps 45 children with learning disabilities.
Ag and Fish workers fighting Government for overtime pay as they prepare the Ag Show?

Each of these groups has come face to face with the consequences of Government’s reckless, uncontrolled spending. It is the outfall of stories that you’ve read about over the years, from the construction of a secondary school costing $60 million more than planned, a Dockyard pier $30 million over budget, $100 million a year for consultants, government ministers racking up huge travel expenses… The list goes on.

Just when the Government needs to step forward to help people who are struggling to get by – and there are many – it has nothing to offer because its cupboard is bare. There is no money for summer jobs, no money for overtime, no money for counter-cyclical spending to soften the impact of a weakening economy, and people are hurting because of it.

We have long warned against this failure to plan, to prepare for a rainy day. We have invoked the Biblical parable of using the fat years to prepare for the lean years. We have railed against the culture of self-indulgence that has put the interests of ministers, their friends and consultants before those of everyday people. We have argued strenuously to get a grip on wasteful spending that has drained tens of millions of dollars from the public purse.

We have never let up our criticism even though it has caused many in the community to see us as unduly negative. We have done so because it is very important to carefully plan and prudently manage the people’s money so government does not let them down when they need help.

The government has not done this and we see it as a betrayal of the pact that exists between a government and the people who elect it.
The kicker in this is that when we challenge government ministers to explain their spending and blown budgets we are met with racial taunts. This is happening more and more and on the few occasions explanations are given the refrain is that it is all because of the international downturn.

Don’t believe it for a moment. Don’t be misled. Government’s inability to help people today is a consequence of its failure to prepare for this rainy day. The cancelation of a summer programme that helps children with learning disabilities has nothing to do with the “economic downturn.”

The gap between this kind of spin and reality is indicative of a massive gap between a government that has put itself first and the people second. It’s not good enough and people must call the government on it.

My colleagues and I have spent a lot of time lately knocking on doors, listening to the concerns of people from all walks of life and I can say that the anxieties across the island are real and deep. More people are hurting than I can ever remember.

It is a shame, a crying shame that their government is not there to help them. But that is the price for loose spending. It has bankrupted this island’s ability to support people when they need it most.

It is time for change. Bermuda can’t continue down this path.

Seniors are being let down by government

By Louise Jackson, MBE, JP, MP, Shadow Minister for Health Seniors

June 30, 2010

The PLP Government has misspent, overspent and recklessly spent the of the public purse. They have been in it for themselves and their friends from the start. They have flourished, their friends have flourished with no regard to responsible financial planning or cost controls; no regard for setting dollars aside for a rainy day, which we know always comes.

Bermuda’s seniors should know thpeople’s money for years. Now, just when people need support in tough times, the government has nothing to offer but an empty cupboard.

The decision to freeze pension benefits is one more indictment of the Government’s managementis one thing: the freeze on pension benefits is a consequence of Government’s careless handling of the public purse. It is the end point of a school costing $60 million more than the original estimate, a Dockyard pier costing $30 million more than planned, Government ministers racking up huge travel bills, a court building costing millions of dollars more every time the minister gives a “progress report” and more than $100 million a year going to consultants… the list
goes on.

Earlier this week, our Shadow Finance Minister E.T. (Bob) Richards said: “There is no culture of cost control in this government.” He is right and seniors are just the latest group to pay a price for it.

As a Shadow Minister responsible for seniors, I can tell you that more seniors are under pressure as never before. They need all the support they can get because the cost of living on this island never gives them a break.

It is my view that a compassionate government would understand the pressures people are under and be ready to be there for them when times get tough. This is one of those times but this Government is not there for them. And its long-term irresponsible management of the public’s money is the reason.

Parental responsibility legislation too long in coming

By Kim Swan, JP, MP, United Bermuda Party Leader

June 28, 2010

The proposed parental responsibility legislation has come very late in the day and stands as testament to this government’s inattention to obvious and growing social problems in the community.

The former United Bermuda Party Government in 1998 tabled parental responsibility legislation because it recognized the need to address an emerging problem. Unfortunately the PLP election victory of 1998 was followed by 12 years of neglect in this crucially important aspect of island life.

The proposed legislation is the government’s belated effort to lasso the horse after it has left the barn. It is symptomatic of a larger failure to use their time in office to focus on the needs and challenges faced by working families.

That being said, there is real concern across the island that significant numbers of young Bermudians are growing up disconnected from life values that would normally be instilled in the embrace of a healthy family and a caring community.

While there are precedents in other jurisdictions for the measures contained in the Bill, the challenge for Bermuda is not simply to pass such legislation but to make sure we have systems in place that can make it work as intended.

The UBP will therefore study the operational implications of the Bill very closely in the days ahead.

This is extremely important because the legislation expands like never before the authority of the state to intervene in the most sacred of relationships - that between parent and child. And so our first concern is to make sure Bermuda has the capacity, the systems, the personnel and the compassion to make these unprecedented powers work for the benefit of our young people and their families.

No one should be above the law

By Kim Swan, JP, MP, United Bermuda Party Leader

June 28, 2010

One of the foundations of democracy is the rule of law for all, no exceptions.

News the Premier has carved out a special exemption from Customs inspections of his mail runs counter to this vital principle and stands as one more example of why this Premier is so wrong for Bermuda.

But it is not just the fact that he browbeat Customs into giving him something akin to diplomatic status, but also that he intimidated Customs officials when he learned his mail had been inspected, as they had done for all his predecessors.

What is so different about Dr. Brown than any other Premier in our history? Why the special treatment now?
Our view of this totally unnecessary controversy is that we cannot have one set of rules for Dr. Brown and another set of rules for everyone else.

That’s not the way healthy societies work, though it is very much the way healthy dictatorships work.
No should be above the law.
On that point, we have to question Finance Minister Paula Cox’s role since the Finance Minister is responsible for setting policy for
HM Customs.

Has the Minister established a policy that the Premier or any of her colleagues will be treated by Customs differently than past premiers and past members of Cabinet?

More specifically, we would like to know who made the policy that the Premier’s mail could only be opened in his presence. Did the Minister of Finance approve this special treatment?

From our vantage, this appears to be another cog-in-the-wheel moment for the Finance Minister, bringing to the fore once again her reluctance to say no to colleagues on matters of principle.

Doing the right thing – deleting Burch’s words from the record

By The United Bermuda Party

June 23, 2010

Earlier today, Acting Senate President Dr. Walwyn Hughes ruled that inflammatory remarks made last week by Government Senate Leader David Burch be removed from the official record. His decision followed Senate Opposition Leader Michael Dunkley’s request for a ruling on the remarks. Sen. Dunkley cited Rule 48a of the Rules of Debate which prohibits members from using “offensive or insulting words against the character or proceedings of either House or against particular parties or Members of either House.”

The following remarks on the situation are by Mr. Kim Swan, United Bermuda Party Leader:

We are pleased the Senate did the right thing by striking Senator Burch's offensive accusations from the record.

It is increasingly clear to us that Government ministers are trying to distract public attention from the Government's poor performance by making sometimes outrageous, sometimes inflammatory statements under the protection of Parliamentary privilege. They are practicing the politics of distraction at a time when Bermuda needs constructive thinking and real commitment to solving the issues of the day.

Senator Burch's words and those of his Cabinet colleagues in the House of Assembly last Friday have now preoccupied public thinking for a week at a time Bermuda continues to face huge challenges in virtually every sector of public life. Bermudians have to look at the conduct of these ministers and ask themselves 'Is this what Bermuda needs?' We think not."

Sousa becomes UBP’s Warwick West candidate

By The United Bermuda Party

June 23, 2010

Mr. Jeff Sousa has won election to stand as the United Bermuda’s Party’s adopted candidate for Warwick West, Constituency 28. Mr. Sousa was declared the winner by Branch Chairman Mr. Kim White before a crowd of nearly 150 party members and residents in St. Mary’s Church Hall. After thanking the crowd, his supporters and family, Mr. Sousa said: “I am humbled by your support and I promise you that I will work for Warwick West, Bermuda and you. I will not let you down.” The vote followed speeches by Mr. Sousa and fellow candidates Senator Jeanne Atherden and Mr. Roderick Simons, who was a 2007 candidate for the party in Warwick Constituency 26. The candidates also fielded questions from the floor. Mr. Sousa’s speech focused on his family’s roots in Warwick, the importance of working with and mentoring young people and the need for people of all ages to step forward to make a positive difference in the life of the island. Mr. Sousa expressed particular concern about Bermuda’s crime and the need to protect the environment. “I will continue to work hard to achieve our dream of a Bermuda where the word Bermudian is used – not black Bermudian, not white Bermuda, just Bermudian.” He said. “I believe in one love, one Bermuda.” Mr. Sousa, the former United Bermuda Party chairman, stepped down from that post last month to become a candidate for adoption by the Warwick West Branch.

Kudos to Mr. Trevor Moniz

By Opposition Leader Mr. Kim Swan, JP, MP

June 16, 2010

The Government’s extension of the land licence compliance deadline is a victory for common sense, the hard work of our Shadow Attorney General Mr. Trevor Moniz and our colleagues in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Moniz has been pressing the case for months that the legislation was confusing, discriminatory, punitive and very costly for families in the midst of protracted recession.

He tabled a motion in May calling for an extension of the deadline and a review of the law, which requires Bermudians married to non-Bermudians, in a broad variety of circumstances, to get a $1,375 licence for each home they own.

When that motion was debated last Friday, the Government indicated it was re-thinking the June 22nd deadline. Yesterday’s announcement vindicates our concerns with the Bill.

On that point, we urge the Government to use the next few months to work with the Opposition and the Bermuda Bar Council to bring some balance to the legislation. The original intent of the Bill, again first raised by Mr. Moniz in 1999 through Parliamentary questions, was to address the problem of fronting, whereby a non-Bermudian gains an unlawful interest in land by using a local “front”.

In 2007, the Government outlawed Bermudians married to non-Bermudians from having more than one property.

This was the first step in a Government response to the problem of fronting. At each step, however, Mr. Moniz has described the Government’s response as an over-reach – misguided in penalizing the wrong people, repugnant in its discriminatory qualities and heavy-handed in its million dollar fines.

I consider Minister Burch’s personal attack on Mr. Moniz, our colleague Mr. John Barritt and Mr. Mark Pettingill to be beneath contempt. His words were not just inflammatory but they also distract from the public issue and represent a kind of gutter politics that serves no purpose but to bring Parliament into disrepute.

Senator Burch appears to feel he has license to make disrespectful comments about people whose politics are at odds with his. It is negative leadership and it does nothing to uplift Bermuda.

On stewardship and debt

By Mr. E.T. (Bob) Richards, Shadow Minister of Finance

June 8, 2010

We believe that the entire process of government is an exercise in stewardship. The term stewardship refers to a responsibility to take care of something owned by someone else. Fiscal stewardship refers to the practice of making sure that current spending programmes and tax policies are affordable and sustainable over time.

The issuing of government debt is an integral part of government’s stewardship responsibility for the common wealth, which is the wealth of a country common to all of us taxpayers. Some people call this common wealth the public purse.
How effective, how affordable, how sustainable has the Government’s stewardship of the public purse been?

Most Bermudians know by now that public debt has soared to unprecedented levels under Finance Minister Paul Cox. Consider just three statistics on this point:

Government debt is approximately $1 billion, though it can be argued that off balance sheet debt can take overall debt to $2 billion.
The Government has spent $200 million more in each of the past three years than it took in.
Government debt for every newborn Bermudian is estimated to run this year to $19,305; in 1998 that debt was $3,326.

Bermuda a debtor nation

These statistics are just the tip of the iceberg. The cold truth is the government has turned Bermuda into a debtor nation like never before, making it vulnerable in a harsh, unforgiving and ever ruthless world.

So what is being done? What steps are being taken to reduce the risks that now threaten Bermuda?
Well, the Ministry of Finance says it is considering issuing more debt through an intermediate maturity bond that will lock in current low interest rates.
One of the major elements of a bond issue is its size. The issue has to be large enough to ensure a “liquid after-market” in which investors are confident they will have a market for buying and selling the bonds before their maturity date. In the past, Bermuda faced challenges in floating a bond because the issues were not big enough to attract interest in major markets. Amazingly, we didn’t owe enough money for the big time
Well that’s one problem Bermuda no longer has. We certainly now have accumulated enough debt to make a bond issue viable.

But of course gaining access the debtors’ club is like checking into the famous Hotel California where you “can check out anytime you like, but… never leave.”
The Bermuda Government has traditionally used mostly floating rate bank debt, where interest rates float up and down depending on market conditions. They are now thinking about issuing a $500 million intermediate term bond of, maybe, 5-7 years maturity, supposedly to lock in prevailing low rates.
Currently the cost of floating debt is very cheap, but to fix your borrowing costs for a longer period of time, the market will make you pay a premium. Under current market conditions, there is a very high extra cost to locking in borrowing for a fixed term versus floating debt.

So the government’s desire to lock in low interest rates will, ironically, cost the Bermudian taxpayer more money. Currently the difference between floating rate debt and fixed 5-year debt for an A credit is about 2.5%.

Let’s apply that rate to $500 million. A 2.5% rate spread means a bond issue will cost the people of Bermuda an extra $12.5 million in interest per year. So in the debtors’ club there are no easy or free choices. The choices are to:

Continue borrowing at low floating rates but risk the uncertainty of future interest rate increases, credit shortages and availability of future credit flow; or to
Issue an intermediate bond and pay the premium demanded by the market for the extra risk in a longer term commitment.

Let us not forget that the bond issue will cover about half of government debt, the other half will still be mainly in floating rate debt and subject to the same interest rate uncertainties I just mentioned.

So, even if the government successfully issues a $500 million, 5-year fixed rate bond, what happens in five years when the bond matures? How will we repay it then? It is highly unlikely the Government of Bermuda will have saved up $500 million to repay this bond in five years.

The answer is that it will have to be refinanced with a new set of debt. But how do we know what the economic conditions will be in five years? Perhaps they will be very bad and it will be difficult or impossible to refinance.

Does the Finance Minister just hope that Bermuda’s economy will miraculously rebound and that we will have the $500 million in hand in five years? Or does the Minister just hope that by luck refinancing conditions will be favourable?

The need for a plan

As we have already seen, planning finances on hope is not proper stewardship of the common wealth. A proper financial plan for Bermuda’s outstanding debt should involve “laddering” the debt. Instead of having half the debt on a floating rate basis and the other half on a 5-year basis, a laddered approach involves spreading the maturities of Bermuda’s debt obligations evenly between floating rates on the short end and up to, say, seven years on the long end, in 5-6 steps, like steps of a ladder.

This way the government doesn’t have to predict which way interest rates are going to move. Instead, it can balance the uncertainties and risks of floating rate debt against plumping for a single refinancing date sometime in the future.
In the debtors’ club, Gross Debt is often used as a benchmark of a country’s indebtedness, but we here in Bermuda have paid scant attention to Gross Debt because it includes unfunded pension liabilities.

According to figures released by the government in January, Bermuda’s unfunded pension liabilities exceeded $572 million. If you add that to the $1.25 billion in authorized debt you get a Gross Debt of $1.8 billion. That is 30% of Bermuda’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

If you add the proposed new hospital, costing let’s say $500 million, Gross Debt would be $2.3 billion. That is a 39% Gross Debt of GDP ratio. USA’s Gross Debt is 90% of GDP.

But let’s look at these figures another way: Gross debt per person in the United States is $42,208. Gross debt per person in Bermuda is $36,179, or 86% of the US level.
In other words, we are just 14% below America in spite of the fact that Bermuda fights no wars, puts no men in space, did not invent the Internet, gives insignificant amounts of aid to poor nations and has no diplomatic corps. And let’s not forget that unlike the United States Bermuda cannot create its own money. We must earn it!

Within this context, Bermudians should ask what these figures say about the effectiveness and sustainability of this government’s stewardship of the common wealth. Are we safer? Are we stronger because of it?

I put it to you that the Minister of Finance and her Government have presided over a dangerous deterioration in our fiscal strength. They have mishandled and continue to mishandle their sacred duty as stewards of the common wealth. This may not be clear to the man on the street but we are – all of us – more vulnerable because of it.

Auditor General investigation needed

By John Barritt, Shadow Minister of Legislative and Parliamentary Reform

June 10, 2010

The Office of the Speaker of the House this week confirmed the government is refusing to answer our Parliamentary questions on the $800,000 review of the municipalities.

The Speaker also rejected a bid to resubmit the questions, which were first asked some four months ago, citing a House of Assembly rule prohibiting questions in the same session which the government has already refused to answer.

These were straightforward questions seeking details on a contract of great public interest. They asked for the identities of the firms that submitted bids, their cost estimates as well as additional details about the winning bid, from proposed services to the estimated number of hours to complete the contract.

The government has given no reasons for refusing to answer our questions. Its refusal raises more questions about the integrity of the tender system for government contracts and the expenditure of public money.

Under these circumstances, we have no other option but to call on the Auditor General to investigate the matter much as was done for government contracts involving the Berkeley Institute, Coco Reef and faith-based tourism, and much as the Auditor General is currently doing with respect to the construction of the new TCD offices and the Heritage Wharf at Dockyard.

We make this call public and frame it in terms of a request, with awareness that the Auditor General is not subject to control of anyone under the Bermuda Constitution Order.

We also make this call because we believe the public has a right to know about government contracts that entail significant spending and especially when they connect to controversial matters such as the proposed takeover of the municipalities.

When truth and party collide

By Mr. Kim Swan, JP, MP, United Bermuda Party Leader

June 8, 2010

There is no doubt in my mind that Senator Marc Bean was speaking truthfully last Wednesday in the Senate when he said the PLP government had so completely failed to improve the education system that “I give my Government a triple F.”

For my colleagues in the Senate Chamber, these words were clearly and genuinely expressed by the Senator as a true judgment on the Government’s performance.

Persistent high drop-out rates, the failure to reform the system years after it was judged to be on the brink of a meltdown are facts and concerns that fed Senator Bean’s statement as well as reflected the judgment of many, many Bermudians.

The United Bermuda Party has been equally strong in its criticism of the Government’s dithering effort to reform the system, but sometimes it takes an insider who has nothing to gain (but a clear conscience) and much to lose by speaking out.

So we applaud Sen. Bean for his honest assessment of the PLP government’s incredibly disappointing performance in education.

Having spoken so freely on the matter last week, his abject apology this morning must have been difficult to swallow. But my colleagues in the Senate got a sense of the strong arms that forced his apology last Wednesday when the Premier entered the Senate Chamber to glower at the Senator Bean during his speech.

The subsequent wording of the apology was a classic flip by the spinmeisters in the Cabinet Office, who tried to attribute the PLP failure to properly educate children to the UBP.

Even after 12 years in power they’re still looking to blame the UBP for their shortcomings.

Some day this Government has to stand up and take ownership for its actions. It would be a good thing: sending a signal of responsibility and accountability to the community, particularly to young Bermudians.

It’s about leadership by example. That’s what really missing.

Party chairman steps down to become election candidate

By Mr. Kim Swan, JP, MP, United Bermuda Party Leader

June 4, 2010

Mr. Jeff Sousa is standing down as Chairman of the United Bermuda Party to become an Approved Candidate for Warwick West, Constituency 28. This is in keeping with his aim to become the party's Adopted Candidate for the constituency.

As party leader, I thank Jeff for his hard work and reliable presence during his tenure as party Chairman. On a personal note, I was impressed by his commitment, his outgoing personality and forthright approach to matters. He has been a pleasure to work with.

The UBP constitution, outside of an Annual General Meeting, requires a new chairman to be drawn from the members of the Party’s Central Executive. The Central Executive will meet shortly to proceed on a replacement for Mr. Sousa.

Heroes Committee should be drawn from the community

By Senator Jeanne Atherden, Shadow Minister of Community & Cultural Affairs

June 2, 2010

We are pleased the Culture Minister has finally issued the criteria for the selection of national heroes.

It comes more than two years after the Government said it was working on such criteria, so we say better late than never.

We hope the criteria will be used to facilitate the selection of Bermudians whose good deeds will help us spread awareness and generate appreciation of great people who made positive and influential contributions to Bermuda.

Our one concern with the Minister’s proposal relates to the composition of the National Heroes Parliamentary Selection Committee. From the outset, we said the promotion of national pride and the achievements of outstanding Bermudians ought not to be part of partisan politics. We were very clear from the start of this initiative back in 2007 that it be a community-based exercise, not a politically controlled operation.

In September 2007, we said:

“We believe these decisions ought to be made by people chosen from the community, not because of their politics, but on the basis of their good judgment and, perhaps, their knowledge of history. The Government ought to appoint such a group and turn the job over to [the group’s] members.

“The Government’s involvement ought to be no greater than having the right to suggest names of those they believe should be honoured. Other interested people and organisations in the community should have the same right, so that the results can truly be said to be rooted in the community, rich in diversity as it is.”

The Minister’s plan to appoint a committee of politicians to select national heroes going forward runs counter to our position. Indeed, it seems to run counter to former Culture Minister’s plan, which was in line with our proposal.

In January 2009, then Minister the Hon. Dale Butler circulated a proposed plan in which the selection committee would be “comprised of five members reflective of Bermuda’s history, culture and ethnicity (appointed by the minister) for a three-year term to manage the process of naming public properties and recognizing national heroes.”

So we disagree with the current Minister’s plan to appoint nothing but MPs and Senators to the selection committee, with its tilt to Government control of the process. This is an unfortunate development but reflects the government’s deep-seated desire to control everything and a general lack of trust in people outside of its immediate circle of control.

Experience has shown time and again that this Government will do what it wants regardless of what others think.

So the challenge for us in the United Bermuda Party is to strike a balance between our original position, the Government’s political plan and our desire not to impede progress on the naming and celebration of national heroes, which has been stalled for no good reason for more than two years now.

In an effort to de-politicize the selection committee, we recommend the addition of two more individuals to its proposed ranks; individuals drawn from the community who reflect the attributes touched on in our original recommendations. In addition, we believe these two appointments should be made by the Governor, not the government.

It is a shame the Government does not trust the good sense of the community to do this kind of work. By agreeing to add two people from the community to the proposed committee, the partisan political component within the process can at least be diminished.

Tourism results are simply not good enough

By Senator Michael Dunkley, Shadow Minister for Public Safety

May 30, 2010

No one should buy the excuse that bad weather is the reason first quarter air arrivals came in at catastrophically low levels; this time 10% below those for 2009, which was the start of one of the worst years in modern tourism.

The failure to attract sufficient numbers of visitors to Bermuda is unique to this Government – preceding bad weather, recession, even volcanoes.

Bad weather is a feature of every winter, both here and abroad.

We note the 10-page statistical report on first quarter results did not state the number of vacationers who cancelled their Bermuda trips because of bad weather even though this was the key to explaining why arrivals are down again. All the report could say on this point was that “Many visitors had to cancel their trips to the island resulting in a decline of 10% in air arrivals during this period.”

Forgive me for being skeptical about this pivotal sentence in the minister’s report. He has made a career of putting spin before truth and that, sadly, is what we and many others in community think when he speaks.

The Premier on Friday criticized the Opposition for being negative, but he has given us little to be positive about in tourism if you judge the success of the industry by the numbers of visitors we attract.

On a positive note, we could say that he has tried to compensate for the failure to attract air visitors by pumping up cruise ship visitor numbers. A cruise visitor, he said on Friday, is better than no air visitor. Okay, sure, we’ll give him that, but it’s no solution unless he has thrown in the towel on air visitors. And it appears he has, given that his Government has tolerated crushingly low air arrivals for seven years now.

And the figures are even worse than presented. We calculate that up to 50% of the air arrivals in the first quarter for 2010 were people coming to Bermuda either for business or to visit with friends and family.

These are not the people that Bermuda Tourism spends millions of dollars to attract. Tourism’s money is spent on attracting vacationers and that is where a hard look is needed: Are we getting the biggest bang for the buck? Are we focusing as tightly as we can on the most promising markets? And are we closing the deal as effectively as we can?

It is disappointing for Bermuda that we have not done better under this minister. Partisanship aside, we need the tourism part of our economy working better and it hasn’t happened. Although we have picked up signals that Bermuda’s marketing has got better than it was, its performance remains far below the commitment of our taxpayer dollars.

There are solutions. We have long called for the establishment of a tourism authority to bring professional leadership to the fore for Bermuda Tourism, as well as accountability. People have to be held responsible for the performance of tourism. We don’t have that now, otherwise the Premier would be out of a job.

We need to re-establish a sales force in the US northeast to drive business to our shores. While the second quarter this year shows relatively positive signs, the third and fourth quarters look weak. Now is the time to step on the gas to generate as much business as possible.

And we should never forget that we have much that is good to work with: Bermuda remains a unique physical and cultural destination that today still offers vacationers a great vacation. Sure we can improve on nightlife – and the government should be bending over backwards to work with the local businesses to make it happen – but visitor satisfaction survey results are very positive and stand as an indication that hoteliers and support services are doing a good job.

We just have to get the people here and it hasn’t happened under this minister, for years. Bermuda deserves better.

Let’s work together on the crime challenge

By United Bermuda Party Leader Kim Swan and Senator Michael Dunkley, Shadow Minister for Public Safety

May 30, 2010

We are seriously concerned that many Bermudians when they heard about Friday’s shooting murder took note and went about their business. On the surface that is what one expects people to do because they have lives to live and they must get on with things.

But we suspect that the shock of what is happening on our streets is no longer shocking to the community. People are getting used to it. Shootings are becoming part of our way of life and the culture of safety that has always prevailed in this country – the culture that made Bermuda a better place to live and raise families – is beginning to disappear.

This development, however understandable, is as dangerous a threat to our way of life as the shootings themselves. We have to fight what we perceive as a creeping sense of resignation about the crime situation. We have to fight it because our future depends on it.

The United Bermuda Party is not going to roll over and go along with the acceptance and decline. And we feel there are many like us who are ready to step forward and fight for a better Bermuda.

We appreciate the Police are working hard to get a grip on the situation but the fact is that nothing has changed on the streets. Gangs are flourishing and the shootings continue.

One of the biggest challenges in Bermuda today is overcoming the divides in our politics, where ideas proposed by one group are rejected outright by the other side or don’t even register with them because they come from the other camp. Good ideas don’t get pursued because of who they come from, merits be damned.

The complexity and depth of our social problems manifested by the shootings require community engagement and cooperation the likes of which we have never seen. It means breaking political taboos – such as political parties working hand in hand to solve a challenge that threatens all of us together as Bermudians.

That simple reality – our existence as the people of Bermuda – is something we should carry at the forefront of our thinking. It is a reality that ties us all together, regardless of background, and offers the one defining commonality upon which much that is good can grow.

We cannot forget it, and so regardless of political stripe, we are all Bermudians first and it behooves us to work together to solve common challenges.

It is also up to us as political leaders to set the tone and take the action that demonstrates how we can martial the common bonds to advance solutions that work for all of us as Bermudians. This is about showing leadership.

There is no better opportunity to find this better way of conducting the people’s business than today’s terrible crime situation, which we believe is the most serious threat to Bermuda’s way of life since the Second World War.

On Friday in the House of Assembly, there appeared to be budding recognition that the island needs to pool its resources to address the crime situation. Members of Parliament from both sides of the House touched on the need for joint deliberation and joint action.

And why not? Why not signal to the community that the political leaders of Bermuda are joined in purpose for solutions to this perplexing challenge of gang-related violent crime.

To set the table, we are in favour of a Joint Select Committee from both the House and the Senate. We want it to be a forum to receive and consider all good ideas, including our own proposal for Operation Ceasefire, which brings to bear on gangs the strong arm of the police and the compelling and compassionate force of community support. We also would like consideration of a Peace Summit as proposed us and the Emperial Group where community-based organizations such as Rise Above and the churches can put forward their ideas and views.

This is an opportunity to break the partisan divide, to join hands, and show Bermuda that it’s political leaders can work together to solve big problems. It’s about putting country first, not party first, country first. We want to get Bermuda working again, and this is a good place to start.

Erwin Adderley – Candidate for Pembroke West, Constituency 19

Mr. Erwin Adderley was introduced as the United Bermuda Party’s adopted candidate for Pembroke West, Constituency 19, on Thursday, May 20 at Admiralty House. UBP leader Mr. Kim Swan spoke of Mr. Adderley’s his life-long roots in Pembroke, his extensive governmental, political and business experience and his commitment to serving the people of the community. Mr. Adderley said he was returning to politics because he was concerned with the direction Bermuda was heading. He said he intended to restore stronger communication between the people and their elected representative and to help fashion national solutions to longstanding problems.

May 20, 2010

The following is the text of a Pembroke West newsletter announcing Mr. Adderley’s return to politics:

ERWIN ADDERLEY is back as the United Bermuda Party representative for Pembroke West, Constituency 19. Erwin was first elected to Parliament in a 1997 by-election, replacing Dr. David Dyer as the UBP representative in the then dual seat constituency of Pembroke West, which today is made up primarily of constituencies 19 and 20. Erwin won again in 1998 and represented the constituency for five years.

In the 2003 General Election – the first held under single seat constituencies – Erwin decided not to run in either 19 or 20 but chose instead to contest constituency 18, where the Adderley family home is located. That bid did not succeed and Erwin left day-to-day politics to concentrate on running Erwin P. Adderley Associates Ltd., his successful planning, design and development consultancy business.

But Erwin did not retire from politics. He remained keenly interested in the affairs of Bermuda and those of Pembroke West, where he has lived since 2005 when he moved back to the family home at 7 North Court Avenue.

Erwin has remained in touch with people because of his deep roots in the community and because he believes people need a representative they can count on, who can speak clearly and forcefully for their concerns and to fight for them when necessary.

Erwin also decided to get back to Parliament because he is deeply concerned about the direction Bermuda is heading with unchecked violent crime, the continuing failure to reform education, the collapse of our tourism industry and the massive growth in public debt.

He knows many people are equally concerned with this downward turn for Bermuda and wants to make sure government reverses it through positive, effective policies.

But it all begins in the constituency where Erwin believes a Member of Parliament’s first duty is to the people he or she represents – staying in touch, keeping an ear to the ground and being available at all times. To that end, Erwin will re-institute monthly “Saturday morning clinics” to give constituents a fixed time and place to discuss what’s on their minds. He also intends to bring a stronger focus to the needs of Pembroke West through close work with local activists on specific plans to meet social needs and advance community projects.

Erwin comes to us with a wealth of knowledge and experience as:

A former Director of Planning for the Government of Bermuda for 22 years
A Parliamentarian for 6 years, including service as Minister of Transportation
A life-long member of the Pembroke community, and
A family man married to Nathalie with two step children and four grandchildren.

You can trust Erwin. Call him anytime at 296 7715.

A threat to free speech

By Trevor Moniz, JP, MP, United Bermuda Party Deputy Leader

May 17, 2010

We have grave concerns and reservations about the Media Council Act as tabled in the House of Assembly by the Government.

The legislation, if approved as drafted, would position government to shut down reportage and opinion on any subject; in effect suppressing what people hear, say, read or write.

As such, the proposed legislation constitutes a threat to free speech in Bermuda. All Bermuda should be alarmed that their government could put forward such a dangerous plan.

We support the concept of a media council, but believe it should be self-regulating and governed by a clearly established set of principles.

On the planned dissolution of CURE

By Kim Swan, United Bermuda Party Leader

May 16, 2010

We support any endeavour to eliminate racial discrimination. But we don't feel the Government's words on this matter satisfactorily flesh out its plan.

All we know is that it intends to roll the functions of CURE into the Human Rights Commission, which is itself to be reformed. We will keep an eye on this work keeping in mind the Government has spent more time and effort politicizing race relations than improving them.

Whatever the result, this is a good opportunity to remind people and especially the Government that the best way to deal with historic inequities is to give our children the best possible education.

The Government's efforts at education reform three years after the system was identified as being in crisis have been extremely disappointing. That is where the real work lies. That is where the promise and the opportunity exist to fundamentally change our society for the better. As long as we continue to graduate students without the basic skills to succeed in our economy, the further we will be from righting historic inequities.

Get on with it

By Senator Jeanne Atherden, Shadow Community and Cultural Affairs Minister

May 16, 2010

It is strange to us that we are celebrating the same hero over and over again. National Heroes Day is about more than one person, regardless of how great her contributions were toward a better Bermuda.

The reason we're celebrating Dame Lois for a third time in a row is because the Government has not moved on our recommendation to develop criteria for the selection of more national heroes by a non-partisan committee. It is, once again, an example of a minister dropping of the ball on what needs to be done.

We say: Get the criteria developed and select another national hero. The whole point of the exercise was to spread awareness and to generate appreciation of great people who made positive and influential contributions to Bermuda.There are so many great and interesting Bermudians to celebrate. Each year that passes without selecting one to be a National Hero is an opportunity lost to build and strengthen national pride.

Get on with it. Let's add to our pride in Bermuda.

Spinning in air

By Kim Swan, United Bermuda Party leader and Shadow Minister for Transportation

May 11, 2010

The Premier left Bermuda in a rush on Sunday to “save Bermuda’s aircraft registry.”

On the basis of his statement to the House of Assembly on Friday, the public was left with the impression his rescue mission was to protect Bermuda from a United Kingdom threat against “millions of dollars” in revenues the registry raises here each year.

Unfortunately this was one more use of spin by the Premier; this time to deflect attention from the Government’s failure to sufficiently staff the registry.

Here’s what we know:

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) audited the Bermuda Department of Civil Aviation in February 2009 and concluded Bermuda did not have a sufficient number of technical staff to effectively fulfill its safety oversight responsibilities.

Those responsibilities include personnel licensing, aircraft operations, air worthiness, navigation services and aerodromes. And while these specific responsibilities devolve to the country of domicile – in this particular case Russia – Bermuda retains oversight responsibilities.

Bermuda’s air registry duties have grown significantly in recent years while staffing has not kept pace. Records show 140 planes registered in 2003. Today there are more than 500 planes on the register. Despite this growth, staff numbers at the Department of Civil Aviation in the safety and regulatory area have remained relatively stagnant. In 2004 there were 10 people on staff, in 2009/10 there were 11, with the Government budgeting one more for this year.

The lack of oversight capacity is the nub of the UK Government’s concerns given that it has contingent liability for Bermuda’s international obligations.

The Bermuda Government may have tried to cover staff shortfalls through additional outsourcing but this has clearly not satisfied UK concerns for the Department of Civil Aviation to employ more rigorous oversight capacity.

This matter echoes a similar situation in 2007 when an International Monetary Authority audit found the Bermuda Government had not implemented recommendations from a 2003 IMF audit in 2003. We don’t know if the failure to move on the ICAO audit findings is due to complacency, indifference or expenditure. We do know the situation is unacceptable given the potential reputational consequences for Bermuda.

As Minister of Transportation, Dr. Brown is responsible for the failure to make sure BDCA staffing kept pace with the growth of the aircraft registry. That he did so in the face of ICAO findings is inexcusable.

Get back to the real business of the people

By Trevor Moniz, Deputy Leader, United Bermuda Party

May 11, 2010

The United Bermuda Party expects the Premier to focus his government’s attention on pressing national concerns such as gun violence and economic dislocation and to drop his push for gaming.

There is obviously no parliamentary support or popular groundswell of support for the gaming initiative at this time, let alone for a referendum on the matter.

We were astounded by the turn of events on Friday when it became clear the Premier’s promotion of casinos for Bermuda had meagre support from his own government.

It is incredible to us that this issue – powered by a significant investment in time, money and political capital – remained at the top of the Government’s agenda with the island facing what we consider to be the most serious of threats to our way of life – the onslaught of gang-related gun violence.

How this initiative made it to the House of Assembly without the support of a majority of MPs and Cabinet ministers raises serious questions about the integrity of the decision-making process within the PLP caucus and the Cabinet.

Most of the Government MPs who spoke against gaming did so under the cover of the UBP position, which gave them the numbers to successfully oppose the Premier. Finance Minister Paula Cox has received kudos from her colleagues for her “pivotal”, “most important” speech, but for all her so-called boldness we are left wondering where she and her colleagues were when this matter was moved forward at the Cabinet table.

Whatever the case, the gaming issue underscored the fact that there is an obvious split in the Government.

To return to our first point: The House of Assembly made clear where it stands on gaming. There is no significant support for it and so we will assume the matter is settled. We are sure the Premier saw that on Friday, but we remain concerned that he didn’t simply say to the House: “That’s it. Let’s move on to more important matters.”

We look forward to hearing him make that statement.

Smother with 24/7 surveillance

By Sen. Michael Dunkley, Shadow Minister for Public Safety

May 7, 2010

Wednesday night’s murder of a man shot in a Midland Heights home – the same home that was at the centre of a Supreme Court trial – is tantamount to an attack on Bermuda’s criminal justice system.

The United Bermuda Party is alarmed by this latest turn in the downward spiral of public safety – a crisis that constitutes the gravest of threats to the island.

The situation underscores our longstanding calls for stronger Police presence and reform of the criminal justice system.

Gun violence poses an immediate and urgent threat to the economy and our way of life. There is a pressing need to restore the sense of deterrence in the streets that is essential for law and order to prevail.

The Government must provide the Police with all the funding, manpower and support necessary to get on top of the situation. At the very least the Police need funding to support all overtime operations. The BPS budget remains below what it was two years ago when gun violence began to flare out of control. This says to us that the Government remains one step behind the times.

We know the Police are aware of the ringleaders and perpetrators through its Prolific Priority Offenders system. With knowledge of their whereabouts, it is time to monitor these people 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

If you are being watched it is unlikely you are going to break laws.

This is a standard policing tactic worldwide. The only thing that prevents Bermuda’s Police Service from implementing blanket surveillance is manpower and funding support, which brings us back to government.

On a final point, we understand the community’s frustration with the lack of success in apprehending and convicting criminals. There needs to be the strongest focus on the part of government to bring about reforms for better detection of crime, effective prosecution of criminals and enhanced rehabilitation to reduce re-offending.

Allan Marshall - Candidate for Hamilton South, Constituency 7

The following are talk points by United Bermuda Party Leader Mr. Kim Swan and Mr. Allan Marshall, who was announced as the United Bermuda Party candidate for Hamilton South, at John Smith's Bay, May 4, 2010

May 5, 2010

Mr. Kim Swan, JP, MP

This is a proud day for the United Bermuda Party; proud because I am standing with our adopted candidate for Hamilton South, Mr. Allan Marshall.

Mr. Marshall is a big addition to the UBP team.

He brings with him business skills, experience and good character. And he shares with us a love for Bermuda and a commitment to making sure this island stays strong.

Allan has been a banker who has worked both here and abroad.

He has been an entrepreneur who built a company from a dream, creating jobs and a product people trust.

He is a financial manager who has worked for some of the most highly respected companies on the island, both local and international.

He has broad government experience having served on a variety of public boards as well as being a Member of Parliament from 1998 to 2003 and a Senator before that.

Mr. Marshall is a family man who stands for the values and beliefs we need more in our public life, such as honesty, integrity, selflessness and public service.

In short, Allan Marshall is a man whom the people of Constituency 7 can trust to work for them, to represent their views and concerns.

You can trust Allan Marshall. He won't let you down.

Mr. Allan Marshall

Thank you Kim.

I decided to run for office again because I have serious concerns about the direction the island is heading under this government.

I am concerned because I see continuing failure to improve education.

I see runaway public debt that has grown fivefold since 1998.

I see it in a crime scene that threatens our way of life, and in the collapse of our tourism industry.

And I see it in our faltering and increasingly vulnerable economy.

I have watched this government closely and do not believe they are providing positive, effective leadership. The fact is that under this government Bermuda is not progressing as it should.

As a father, a husband and a Bermudian who is deeply concerned for the preservation of our safety and our prosperity, I feel duty bound to step forward.

We need change in Bermuda.

I do so under the banner of the United Bermuda Party because I believe it can do better for Bermuda.

I have watched and worked closely with many in the UBP and believe they have the experience, the skills, the steady hands and the commitment to bring about the change Bermuda needs.

I have listened to what they have to say and I support the party in its calls for

Strong and effective law and order
education reform that makes a difference in the classroom
rescuing tourism
steady, realistic economic management, and
reforming government to make it more open, more accountable; to make it work for the people.

We can do better, and I believe the UBP can do it. I believe it can make Bermuda work again.

As for the people of Hamilton South, I pledge to serve them and not let them down. I pledge to be available to them when they need me and to do my best to represent their views in the House of Assembly and at the Cabinet table.

For those who would like to speak with me I am available at 335-8704. My email is admarshall@ibl.bm

Thank you.

On gaming in Bermuda

By Kim Swan, JP, MP, United Bermuda Party Leader

May 5, 2010

Our caucus has carefully considered the pros and cons of gaming in Bermuda after reviewing the PLP Government’s Green Paper on the subject, holding public meetings and talking with people on doorsteps across the island. Our position is that we do not believe gaming as pushed by the PLP Government is in the best interests of Bermuda or its people.

We appreciate the difficult financial position the hotel industry is in – and have spoken many times of actions needed to help hotels – but even the strongest supporters recognize that casino gambling is not a panacea for the challenges facing the industry. Much hard work needs to be done to improve tourism in Bermuda and we will be happy to work with the hospitality sector to do whatever is necessary to restore it to health. This must be the focus.

But we do not believe the small potential benefits of gambling cited by the Government out-weigh the substantial risks to the social fabric and the economic integrity of our island.

Nonetheless, our members will be listening and participating in the debate on the Green Paper as members voice their views. The Green Paper is, after all, a discussion paper. Government then sets out its position in a White Paper, which follows after a reasonable period of reflection and consideration of the widespread discussion this exercise produces, taking into account the various views expressed.

This is a national issue and our position, ultimately, is that it should be decided by the entire community. The one way people can truly participate is by way of a referendum. Holding referenda on matters of national importance is a fundamental plank in our platform of better governance for Bermuda.

When politics preceded public safety

By Senator Michael Dunkley, Shadow Minister for Public Safety

April 28, 2010

The Commissioner announced a raft of hiring initiatives including a dozen UK officers trained in the use of firearms, an assistant commissioner from overseas with expertise in gangs, more support staff to boost analytical capabilities and case review work, as well as agreements for FBI training and information sharing.

Alongside the Police Commissioner was Public Safety Minister David Burch, who announced that “Government House, Government and the Bermuda Police Service are united in our approach and effort to combat the escalation in crime…”

The Government, he said, had approved and earmarked $1 million to make the Commissioner’s plan happen.

Hallelujah! Finally!

It wasn’t always this way.

Just a few years ago when violent crime was bubbling out of control and the roots of gun violence were spreading into communities across the island, the Premier and his Public Safety Minister were waging political war against the Governor over operational control of the Police.

It started with a June 2007 speech when Col. Burch advised the Senate he had invited the Governor “to delegate his authority and responsibility for the Police to the Minister with responsibility for Public Safety… I am not content to perpetuate this bizarre relationship which in effect renders the Minister powerless.”

This announcement came on the heels of a threat by the Premier to “suspend further business” with the Governor because of a leaked Police file on a Bermuda Housing Corporation corruption investigation.

This was the start of a so-called “constitutional battle” that continued for the rest of the year and beyond with reports of the government not attending weekly meetings on Police matters with the Governor and the Poice Commissioner.

Maybe it was all a tactic to divert attention from questions about the integrity of the government in the BHC scandal. Or maybe it was a convenient issue to advance its independence agenda. Who knows.

What I do know is that the posturing began when crime was spinning out of control and the shape of things to come was becoming all too clear. Here’s is a brief summary of what was happening at the time:

Violent crime rates had climbed to the highest levels since 1999.
The last quarter of 2006 had been the most violent on record
Robbery rates were the highest in ten years, and
Burglaries were occurring at twice the rate they were in 2000
Gun related incidents and gang violence was on the rise.

Beneath the weight of these statistics and trends the government continued its stand-off with Government House saying it had no control, no influence on crime-fighting.

This was nonsense and in September 2007 I said so while identifying the many the tools the government had to make sure the Police had the resources to get the job done. These tools included control of the budget for all police operations – from manpower, to training, to equipment.

It also included the power to consult and persuade.

“That’s the power any minister can bring to bear when he sits across the table from the Commissioner of Police or the Governor,” I said. “It’s the power to articulate exactly what the government, elected by the people, wants. This power can be significant.”

We urged Col. Burch to “stop playing constitutional games. Get down to the business of doing what is necessary to provide people with a safe environment…”

Our concerns about the government’s commitment to fighting crime did not go away. In February 2009 we were shocked to learn that the government had actually cut the Police budget by 4% to $60.5 million, $9 million less than what was spent in the 2007/08 fiscal year. In the face of a crime wave, the government was cutting back on its commitment to public safety.

What followed in 2009 and into this year is known to all: 135 shooting incidents, 30 people shot, 8 dead.

In December 2009 Minister Burch finally backed down from his demand for control of the Police Service saying: “I do not give a monkey’s who is in charge of operational control for the Police.”

That was good news at last and, we hope, the start of a healthy working relationship that was always there to be worked for the safety of all.

And so it was good to see the minister alongside the Police Commissioner last week. But there was a time when he and his government put politics before public safety and we are playing catch-up because of it.

Roban’s code words one more example of Government’s negative leadership

By Kim Swan, JP, MP, United Bermuda Party Leader

April 23, 2010

Bermuda needs the best type of leadership if we are to provide our children with positive role models and uplift people to work more effectively with each other.

My colleagues and I have been critical of the government for negative leadership that continually sets the wrong tone and wrong example for young and old alike.

In recent weeks, we have heard an upswing in name-calling and caustic attacks on people who disagree with government decisions. More broadly, we have been critical of the government for its “double-standard” budget which imposed $100 million in new taxes on the community while doing nothing to restrain its own spending.

This week, we heard one more example of negative leadership.

Health Minister Walter Roban was on television saying my colleague Mrs. Louise Jackson was “confused” on the issue of FutureCare.

We consider his words to be code invoking the worst kind of age bias stereotyping. This not the first time the Minister has used the term and while we gave him the benefit of the doubt before, the reuse of it confirms that Minister Walter Roban is a practitioner of ageism.

The Minister’s coded language is not just insulting but also contains a message of prejudice that our society should regard as intolerable. Moreover, as Minister of Health overseeing the care of the elderly across the island, Mr. Roban’s offense is even more unacceptable.

Intemperate, harsh language, which has been coming from all ranks of the government, must cease. It intimidates people, inhibits the free-flow of ideas and hurts public morale.

For the record, Mr. Roban was attacking Mrs. Jackson’s statement that FutureCare could cost Bermuda up to $1 billion a year. That is the number we calculated based on healthcare cost and population trends over the next 20 years. Here are the components behind that calculation:

Seniors are a steadily increasing proportion of Bermuda’s population, growing from a projected 8,313 seniors in 2010 to 14,500 in 2030.

Younger workers—who will shoulder the burden of higher taxes and premiums in the future—are a steadily decreasing proportion of the population.

Healthcare cost inflation has been running double to triple the inflation rate. HIP premiums doubled in the last six years from $108 per month in 2003 to $208 in 2009—an increase of more than 15 percent each year.

The graph illustrates the potential cost scenario for FutureCare in its present form if current trends continue.

We based the graph on three assumptions:

The growth in healthcare costs in Bermuda will increase at about 8 percent annually.

The 65-and-over population in Bermuda will grow at the rates projected by the government Department of Statistics between 2010 and 2030.

$1,200 per month per senior in 2009 is a realistic premium estimate for major medical comprehensive healthcare, given both current experiences in the private sector and comments attributed to government’s consulting FutureCare actuary.

People may take issue with the individual assumptions, but the combination of factors noted above leads us to conclude that FutureCare in its current form is unsustainable and unaffordable.

Indeed, we note that Health officials this week did not take issue with our cost assumptions and projection.

The issues surrounding FutureCare are serious – from its discriminatory rollout to its sustainability over time. We urge the Minister and his colleagues to focus on these issues and stop the name-calling. Put Bermuda first, stop the negative politics.

‘We would do better’

A summary report of the United Bermuda Town Hall meeting at St. Mary’s Church in Warwick

April 20, 2010

Bermuda would be living within its means under a United Bermuda Party Government, Shadow Finance Minister E.T. (Bob) Richards told a public meeting on Monday night.

Mushrooming public debt – now costing taxpayers $40 million a year in interest payments alone – had been fuelled by careless spending, lack of cost controls on public projects and a lack of respect for the public purse.

“If the sun came up and I was Finance Minister, I guarantee you this country would live within its means,” Mr. Richards told 85 people at St. Mary’s Church Hall in Warwick.

Mr. Richards was joined by Shadow Minister for Public Safety Minister, Sen. Michael Dunkley, and Shadow Health Minister Louise Jackson.

In his review of the economy, Mr. Richards focused on Bermuda’s increasing economic vulnerability. The collapse of tourism, the end of a construction boom, recessionary pressures had left Bermuda a one-horse economy, relying almost totally on international business to pay its bills.

This was an unacceptably risky situation.

“If you’ve got 100 horses and one of them gets lame you can use all the healthy ones to pay off debt,” he said. “But if you’ve only got one horse and it turns lame, how can you pay off your debts, how can you pay for anything? That’s where we are. We have to be very careful.”

Mr. Richards was critical of the government’s often antagonistic relationship with international business, which he considered irresponsible and unwise.

“It would be a really good idea for government to feed and nurture that horse rather than to whip it,” he said.

Senator Dunkley, in addressing public safety concerns, said the government had been slow to react as crime surged and morphed from bladed weapons to guns and from gang fights to drive-by shootings and assassinations.

The United Bermuda Party’s aggressive anti-crime platform in 2007 – which focused on better detection crime, more effective prosecution and enhanced rehabilitation to reduce re-offending – was trashedby the government as ‘draconian.

“But I believe that if the government had used some of our ideas we would be better off today,” the Senator said.

“There’s been a lack of action and little proactive work. We have emergency meetings after the fact and announcements of tough action to follow – legislation, strict enforcement of the law, more Police on the streets – and they are nothing more than a demonstration of a disconnection.”

The times have been changing, Sen. Dunkley said. Some young people were living in a world where they have no respect for their families, no respect for their community, no fear of Police, no fear of consequences, weapons are carried and retaliation is the norm.

Senator Dunkley said the United Bermuda Party had been speaking about law and order regularly in recent years, always putting forward suggestions to strengthen Police performance and improve the criminal justice system.

He said he and his colleagues will continue to introduce ideas and make recommendations to strengthen law and order and hope for young people caught up in the cycle of gang life and violence.

“The clock never stops ticking and we’ve been wasting time, valuable time while the threat against our way of life grows,” he said.

Mrs. Jackson expressed her concern that many public health programmes were badly managed. The United Bermuda Party, she said, would bring sharper focus to the delivery of services, more prudent spending and less reliance on health consultants who were costing Bermuda taxpayers millions of dollars every year.

The UBP, she said, had serious well-publicized concerns about FutureCare and said the programme could be better managed. UBP criticisms had been geared to ensure the programme was open, fair and affordable for seniors, as well as sustainable for the country. The Government had defended its handling of the programme, but the questions and concerns kept coming.

Mrs. Jackson said her latest concern was that doctors submitting FutureCare claims had not been paid, with outstanding claims totaling more than $970,000.

April 18th road death

Kim Swan, Opposition Leader:

April 18, 2010

We are deeply saddened to learn yet another person has lost his life on Bermuda's roads.

Whilst we await the details on the nature of this particular crash, we feel for the family of the latest victim and take this opportunity to say once again that more must be done to improve road safety and, in particular, to curb the behaviours that contribute to and tolerate drunk driving.

Personally, I am all too aware of the terror of being involved in a serious late-night road accident and narrowly escaping with your life at the hands of drunk driver. We must have zero tolerance for driving while impaired.

Drunk drivers are partly the product of a ‘happy hour’ society that does too little to emphasize responsible behaviour and the harm done by drunk drivers. We support the work of CADA but the public needs to be reminded more regularly about safe driving habits and not letting friends drive drunk.

In addition, the Police have the means and manpower to clamp down on drunk driving. It would take very little to signal to the community that drink driving will not be tolerated through irregular, well-publicized roadside checks.

But this is just one side of the road safety issue. The United Bermuda Party has been long calling for comprehensive road safety measures that we know can reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road.

These include better road lighting through the use of solar-powered lights, cats eyes on centre lines, traffic-calming measures such as speed bumps, speed cameras and the fast-tracking of random roadside breathalyzer testing.

Bermuda must become a zero tolerance jurisdiction when it comes to driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. All it takes is willpower for concrete steps and the compassion for the terrible losses suffered at the hands of drunk drivers.

On behalf of my colleagues within the United Bermuda Party our prayers go out to the family of the deceased.

Easter Shootings Press Conference statements

Kim Swan, Opposition Leader:

April 7, 2010

Thank you for coming today

Bermuda faces a crisis today as serious as any in its long history.

The rise of gun violence is a direct and immediate threat to the Bermudian way of life.

In a short period of time we have gone from a relatively safe and peaceful place to live to one where a man is gunned down in front of his children, and where young people cannot gather without fears that bullets will be fired.

In 2009 there were 92 reported firearm incidents with 17 people shot. That’s one shooting incident every four days.

This year, we’ve had 43 firearm incidents and 13 people shot with three dead. That’s close to one shooting incident every two days.

As political leaders, we understand the anxiety gripping the island. We also understand the community’s need for assurance that we have a grip on the gang situation; that we can come down hard on the hard core and that things will get better.

As of today, I don’t think there is anybody who can credibly say we have that grip.

My colleagues and I are optimistic the situation can be turned, but it will require smart, innovative thinking; commitment that provides police with the tools they need and leadership that can mobilize the community effort needed to disrupt gang activity and stop the violence.

We nevertheless remain deeply concerned that this government is not strong when it comes to law and order.

It has been soft on crime and it has not worked, clearly. Their actions and decisions have not helped:

When gang violence was ramping up, they used public safety to advance their independence agenda; refusing for months to sit with the governor to discuss policing issues. This showed the government to be more interested in politics than policing; more committed to politics than good governance. It continues today.
As violent crime reached unprecedented levels in late 2006 and 2007, they cut the Police budget. Despite everything that has transpired since, the Police budget remains below what it was in 2007.
For years they kept Police manpower below its mandated level. They imposed overtime bans that limited Police presence on the streets.
In late 2007, overseas training for Police was cancelled – a move that deprived officers of opportunities to develop skills that could be in play today.
And, as we’ve pointed out, they grandstand in the wake of shocking crimes with emergency meetings, followed by tough words, action plans and then … nothing.

So, yes, we are concerned about this government’s commitment to lead on crime.

There are people who will criticize us for being critical at this time, but the fact is we hurt our ability to progress if we don’t have the clearest understanding of our strengths and weaknesses.

The United Bermuda Party has been consistent with its concerns about escalating crime and the need for strong action.

Our longstanding goals call for the establishment of a regime that enables

better detection of crime,
more effective prosecution, and
enhanced rehabilitation to reduce re-offending.

Since December we have held a series of press conferences to outline short term and long term strategies to help us achieve these goals.

In the first conference we put forward immediate steps to provide Police with the means, the manpower and the money for stronger, more persistent and effective crime-fighting efforts.
In the second, we outlined steps to strengthen Police forensic capabilities, including an effective CCTV system and mobile cameras.

We also called for a review of the working relationship between Police and Customs at our ports of entry to better prevent the inflow of drugs and firearms. This is a major concern.

Our third conference focused on the need to reform the criminal justice system.

And our fourth introduced ideas to help families and communities caught up in the current crisis.

Today, I have asked my colleagues Michael Dunkley, our Shadow Minister for Public Safety, and Trevor Moniz, our Deputy Leader and Shadow Justice Minister to introduce and expand ideas we think can help Police and the government make this island safe again for everyone.

Senator Michael Dunkley, Shadow Minister Public Safety

Thank you Kim.

I don’t know one Bermudian who is not alarmed by the current situation.

People fear we are witnessing the unraveling of Bermuda and that there is no plan to stop it, no strategy to stop the shooting.

My colleagues and I share these concerns. We are particularly disturbed that since the alarming rise in gun violence took hold we are not further along in coming to grips with the problem.

We will continue to do all we can to help turn things around, but we need to be realistic: There are no quick fixes.

We are in a long-term fight for the survival of Bermuda as we know it. We are fighting for Bermuda as a place to visit, as a place to do business and as a place to safely raise our families.

We must be smart. We must marshal our resources wisely and commit to actions that not only disrupt gang activity but also give gang members the opportunity to leave that life behind.

Ultimately, this must be a community-based campaign that begins with the Police.

Crackdown

In the immediate term, the shooting must be stopped.

We have long talked about the need for a police presence across the island at all times.

For the shooting to stop, we expect the Police to apply full pressure in all areas of concern – and this means a visible armed 24/7 presence, with no tolerance for any law breaking, with a constant watch on gang members and drug dealers.

The message must be sent that gangs will not be free to do as they please, that they are being watched and that they will be arrested for any transgressions. To date, while we believe the intent is there, the action has not been effective.

Some might see this as criticism, but the facts speak for themselves – the shootings have outpaced existing strategies.

If the Police feel they do not have the tools, the skills and the manpower to stop the violence then it is critical we arm them with whatever is required.

Training

We have spoken with Police here and overseas, plus law enforcement specialists engaged in anti-gang programmes, and it is clear to us that the Bermuda Police Service needs more highly trained officers to deal with the new violence.

In this regard, it is time for a major investment in Police training. The budget remains 20% below what it was two years ago. This is unacceptable and must end.

We need to equip Police with the skills to take on gangs proactively, not just reactively. We need to equip Police with the skills to take on multiple policing tasks, to strengthen intelligence gathering and improve investigatory expertise. This is a priority.

If we expect the Police to cope with the challenges of gang activity and a community unwilling to speak up and help solve crimes then they need to be equipped with the best technology.

The need for a modern Police computer system is urgent. Right now the Bermuda Police Service is operating a 15-year-old system. It is completely inadequate.

A new computer system can provide instantaneous, integrated information to help Police better manage deployments, track criminal activity, trace weapons and individuals, respond to incidents, and share information. Beyond this, computers can be used to build data profiles of criminal activity and a strategic picture of crime and violence in Bermuda.

A new computer system is an essential policing tool. Steps should be taken to get one in place as soon as possible.

In addition, as we have suggested in the past, the use of CCTV and portable cameras in areas demanding surveillance needs to be stepped up. Why this has not been a priority, when this technology can make a difference, is beyond us

Overtime

The Government needs to loosen the purse strings when it comes to Police overtime, particularly for specialist officers whose numbers are limited. We need to give the Police all the elbow room necessary to do the job and this is one way we can do that.

Police manpower

We want Police manpower increased to the maximum. The Service has been kept below its mandated level as a money-saving measure and it must end.

Community policing

The Service needs to embed officers in communities across the island. A dedicated community policing effort – once the backbone of a law-abiding Bermuda – can help police build relationships with residents that don’t now exist. Trust in Police is missing and it undermines their ability to apprehend criminals and solve crimes. We see it in uncooperative witnesses and the silence of communities gripped by crime. Community policing can earn public trust, which is a vital ingredient in the fight against crime.

CrimeStoppers

We must again stress that CrimeStoppers is a proven method to prevent and solve crime. I urge all Bermudians to use it and trust it.

It is trusted worldwide as a confidential vehicle for people to give information. From what I understand, throughout the history of CrimeStoppers, there has not been one breach of confidentiality.

Operation Ceasefire

Over the past few weeks we have met with specialists in fighting gangs. We have talked with the Police here and in New York and Boston, as well as academics.

Our research has taken us to Operation Ceasefire, a programme used in American cities to stop gang violence. We think it can be effective here in Bermuda.

Its results have been startling: In Cincinnati in 2007, after Operation Ceasefire’s first meetings with gangs, homicides fell 24%; in 2008 they were down 50%. In 1990s Boston, Operation Ceasefire was associated with near 2/3 drop in youth homicide.

These results got our attention.

We learned that Operation Ceasefire is a police-community initiative to deter gang violence by reaching out to gangs, with a stick and a carrot.

Explicit warnings were issued that violence would no longer be tolerated and coming down hard with every legal lever whenever violence occurred. This meant disrupting gang lives with immediate and intense enforcement actions - serving warrants, mounting prosecutions, disrupting street-level drug markets, and strict enforcement of conditions for probationers and parolees.

The flip side of the plan is that if gang members wanted to step away from the violent lifestyle, the Ceasefire working group would help them with services and opportunities to make it happen.

We think Bermuda may be well-positioned for Operation Ceasefire. Police are well along in their identification of all gangs, gang members and their turf. This is essential information for the programme to get off the ground. In addition, Bermuda has a community of social workers, active clergy and community activists who could be enlisted for the helping hand side of the operation.

Bermuda does not have all the pieces in place to immediately adapt Operation Ceasefire but the people behind the programme recognize our problem and are open to working with us to stop the shooting.

We will continue to talk with Operation Ceasefire and report back to you, but the main point here is that there is hope; there are ways out of this mess.

It will take a lot of things coming together; volunteers, much work, patience, commitment and leadership. But we’ll get back to safer society because we have to.

April 7, 2010

Emergency Cabinet meeting a totally inadequate response

By Michael H. Dunkley, Shadow Minister for Public Safety

April 6, 2010

The United Bermuda Party is deeply concerned in the face of society-shattering gun violence that this government does not appear to have a plan to combat the problem.

After a long weekend bracketed by a Good Friday murder and an Easter Sunday shooting that left a 17-year-old girl with four bullet wounds, the Government emerged from an emergency meeting vowing to study its existing powers to prosecute and incarcerate. This is a totally inadequate response.

We will take the Government at their word that good Police work will soon be revealed, but note the public has little confidence because it has seen nothing but escalating gun activity over the past two years. In addition, we are concerned the government does not have the slightest idea how to stop the shooting and break down the structures that support gangs.

This is a crisis that has been festering and growing for years. And in the face of it, we are reminded that today’s emergency Cabinet meeting was not the first to be held in the shadow of violence.

In 2008 following two murders the Premier emerged from a meeting saying Bermuda would get a SWAT team, but his words went nowhere. A minister was widely quoted saying the government had had ‘enough’. This has been the pattern: a shocking crime followed by high-level meetings, strong words, ‘get-tough’ action plans and then, nothing.

It is our earnest hope that this hollow pattern is broken. Our way of life depends on it. As our Shadow Finance Minister E.T. (Bob) Richards said in his recent Reply to the Budget: gun violence “poses the most immediate and greatest threat” to the people of Bermuda.

The unfortunate fact is that this government has been soft on crime and, as a result, gangs have had the room to flourish. In 2007, we told the people that Bermuda needed strong measures to counter growing violence. The island had been experiencing some of the highest incidences of violent crime on record. The Government campaigned vociferously against our position sending, we believe, the wrong signals to the community. Since then, as crime worsened and gangs emboldened, it has backtracked to express support for ideas we’ve expressed albeit without any meaningful action.

People have every reason to question this Government’s fitness to fight crime. It spent the better part of two years trying to say it had no say in how crime should be fought; passing the buck to the Governor. Only when the crime situation continued to get worse and the public demanded an end to the politics did it make an effort to make the relationship work.

Our concerns about Government weakness in fighting crime was underscored this afternoon on two counts when:

The Premier suggested community “pushback” killed his SWAT team plan. His words provided a disturbing insight: If a SWAT team was the deemed to be the right thing for Bermuda at the time, then he should have made sure it was done. This was a leadership moment and the Premier shied from it.
The announcement to look into the transfer of prisoners overseas. This was an idea floated by the government months ago, which makes us ask about progress since then or was it one more announcement that went nowhere.

The United Bermuda Party has been consistent with its concerns about escalating crime and we remain deeply frustrated to see this government stand motionless in the face of it.

Strategically, our programme calls for the establishment of a regime that enables ‘better detection of crime, more effective prosecution and enhanced rehabilitation to reduce re-offending.’

We have called on the government to give the Police total budget support, for training to increase the number of senior investigating officers, for manpower to maintain a 24/7 presence on the streets and for a re-start community policing. More specifically we have called for the budget to provide a new computer system to replace the antiquated system currently in use. This would go a long way to helping Police better manage deployments, track criminal activity and respond to incidents. We consider this an essential tool for more effective policing.

We have called for anti-gang legislation and for a peace summit to at least get a dialogue going with gangs to broaden understandings.

We have called for reform of the criminal justice system; with measures to strengthen the Department of Public Prosecutions to a complete review of sentencing policies to include minimum sentences for people convicted of murder and manslaughter, statutory periods of preventive detention for repeat offenders, removal of the rule against double jeopardy and increased penalties for repeat offenders.

Our programme and recommendations are too extensive to fully recount here, but needless to say there is much that can be done to improve the current situation. Ultimately, it’s down to leadership and commitment. This has been missing

New Education strategy needs independent standards board and frequent updates

By Dr. Grant Gibbons, Shadow Shadow Education Minister

April 5, 2010

I commend the Ministry of Education for producing a Five Year Strategic Plan for education reform, something the United Bermuda Party has been calling for since the Hopkins Report was released almost three years ago. We support many of the objectives within the Plan, such as improving the quality of teaching, empowering principals and local school boards and increasing accountability at the school level.

Where we have consistently differed with Government, and have said so, is with their apparent inability to achieve the timely implementation of the Hopkins recommendations. The Government continues to say the right things about education, yet it has failed to deliver significant change to the system. That’s why many people in the community are frustrated and skeptical—progress has been too slow and, for many schoolchildren, too late.

In order to be credible, the Five Year Strategic Plan should be accompanied by a tangible commitment from Government to keep the public informed of progress. Minister James states that he would “return to the [Plan] on an annual basis to assess our progress and refine our objectives for the period ahead.” Given the Government’s record so far, I believe that promise is not good enough.

What’s needed is an independent Education Standards Board, an educational equivalent of the Auditor General. The Standards Board would have free access to information. It would independently track progress in education reform and meaningful student improvement. It would provide credibility to the public education system and act as a watchdog by publishing assessments for the benefit of parents and the public. Such a board is not a pipe dream; they work well in other countries, such as the U.K. and New Zealand.

In the absence of such a board, the Joint Select Committee (JSC) on Education—the Parliamentary committee established to review progress on the Hopkins Report—may be Bermuda’s best alternative. The Minister could commit—right now—for his Ministry to provide detailed quarterly updates on how the Ministry is meeting the Plan’s objectives to the JSC in open forum. The precedent has been set. The United Bermuda Party calls on Government to do its part to reactivate this Parliamentary committee and use it to report progress on education reform.

Use the open forum of the JSC to add substance to the broad objectives of the Five Year Strategic Plan as it now exists. Provide specific tactics, release timelines and deadlines, assign responsibility for tasks and define specifically how success will be measured. These details should be disclosed and regularly updated. Otherwise, the Plan may amount to nothing more than words and more empty promises.

The United Bermuda Party believes the public will welcome the opportunity for consultation and input on the Plan, as outlined by the Minister. Good ideas on public education should be welcomed, regardless of the source.

Good Friday murder

By Senator Michael Dunkley, Shadow Minister for Public Safety

March 31, 2010

No one in the community should be surprised by this latest vile example of thuggery in Bermuda. We have been drifting toward this kind of horror for years now. We are well passed 'enough is enough'.

It is fine to call for counseling and all the necessary support needed for the Police to do their job, but the immediate need is to:

Get gangs to stop the shooting, and
Start breaking down the structures that support the people who are committing and perpetuating these acts.

The United Bermuda Party will come forward with specific proposals on these two priorities later this week, but in the meantime, with the strongest sense of urgency, we appeal to people who know and support the killers and the gangs that send them to kill with the straightforward questions:

Is this life as it should be?
Is this what you want for your loved ones?

Each one of you knows that your behaviour, your acceptance, even your passivity is contributing to the violence.

Each of you has to ask themselves - under your god, before your children, in front of the mirror - whether what you are doing is the right thing. Are you living by the values of your parents? Are you living by the lessons of Christ? Are you setting a good example? Would the people you most admire approve?

Gang related gun violence is a catastrophic threat to our way of life - everyone's way of life - from unionized workers to corporate chieftains, from dive boat operators to school children.

The threat will not diminish until people face up to the consequences of their actions or inactions. We cannot succeed in breaking this tragic and stupid cycle of events until the people supporting the violence decide to change their ways.

Until then, words will follow murder again and again and again.

We’ll beat this challenge to recruit firefighters

By Senator Michael Dunkley, Shadow Minister for Labour and Home Affairs

April 1, 2010

Hiring firefighters from overseas?

This is an avoidable problem, regardless of the startlingly poor local recruiting results.

Firstly, with the number of layoffs and redundancies on the rise, particularly from the construction industry, the number of people who can qualify for firefighting positions will grow.

Secondly, the Government must do all it can to facilitate these job opportunities for Bermudians. If there are problems with recruitment requirements, they should be ironed out.

These are obvious considerations to us, which makes us think officials are not really engaged in the problem. It leaves us thinking this is yet one more example of the government falling down on the job.

Bermuda’s Fire Service used to be over-subscribed. For officials to even float the idea of going overseas for jobs is unacceptable but telling. If the government thinks this is really an option, then they should step down to give a go to others who are not so ready to give up on Bermuda.

Recruiting Bermudian firefighters has never before been a problem and this begs the question what is it about the current situation that has altered the outcome. In the absence of specifics, people are speculating the extreme failure rate may be related to the government’s failure to enact education reforms that make a difference in the classroom.

Whether the two are related or not, we see the firefighter issue as symptomatic of a government that has lost its grip on the affairs of the island.

This challenge is eminently beatable, but it would help a lot if the government brought a stronger Bermuda-first mentality to the situation.

Finally, as a former volunteer fireman, I urge out-of-work Bermudians to think about joining the Service. It can be quite a rewarding career, in terms of camaraderie, job security and public service.

Paying the price of the 2010-2011 Budget

By E.T. (Bob) Richards, Shadow Minister of Finance

March 31, 2010

I was speaking last week with a Bermudian businessman who runs an IT company and his news was not good:

“I’ve just done the numbers and I’m going to have to lay one of my staff off,” he said. “I don’t want to but I have to.”

The businessman was speaking about the impact of the increased payroll tax on his company’s bottom line. With primary responsibilities for meeting significant payroll demands and maintaining his company’s share value, the net impact of the budget for this businessman was one less worker on the payroll.

It takes time for a national budget to impact business operations and family budgets, so the anecdote I’ve mentioned may be the first rain drop in the coming storm.

Certainly the business community has already issued storm warnings about the Government’s budget, which imposed $100 million in new taxes on the community.

Organizations representing the insurance industry, international companies, local companies, even unionized workers have expressed their belief that significant new taxes, at this time, in the midst of a recession will:

Limit “future employee growth… and diminish employment opportunity for Bermudians” – Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers
“Result in job losses… and increased outsourcing” – Chamber of Commerce
“Force business closures” – Bermuda Public Services Union, and
“Undermine conditions for “job creation or retention” – Association of Bermuda International Companies

There are some in the community – including all PLP MPs except Dale Butler and Wayne Perinchief – who say the budget is a good budget and dismiss these concerns as self-interested knee-jerk reactions. Even if that characterization were accurate, consider who these criticizing groups represent: major employers both local and international and a trade union. I urge people to take their concerns seriously. They are real.

You may ask why the government is forcing people and businesses to pay $100 million more this year to support its operations.

The answer is twofold.

On the one hand, the government has simply spent itself into a corner. Incessant spending sprees on everything from perks to consultants; massive overspends on virtually all building projects and unprecedented borrowing has left little to help people in hard times. Just ask Parks workers fighting for overtime pay. Just ask people who face a 36% increase in HIP premiums or seniors who have to pay twice as much for FutureCare.

On the other hand, with the possible exception of the PLP’s first finance minister Eugene Cox, virtually all government ministers have shown no spending discipline, no respect for the public purse and no understanding that the economy needs to be tended and nurtured to grow and prosper.

Government ministers came of age thinking Bermuda’s economic miracle was pre-ordained, even bullet proof, and that it would continue forever. There was a sense that it didn’t matter how much money they wasted, the miracle of rapid economic growth would always bail them out.

The cumulative effect of the government’s years in office has been a massive increase in the size of government (30% since 2000), the near destruction of our tourism and retail sectors, an unprecedented debt burden ($1 billion and counting), alienation in the international business community, a depleted capacity to help people in hard times and a persisting sense that deal-making favours friends over fairness.

And now the government with this budget is coming after the public to pay for its bad habits and poor results.

What is particularly galling about its tax and spend budget is that it wants people to knuckle under and pay the bill while doing nothing real to curb its own spending, which is scheduled to grow at least 9% this year.

This says to me the Government will not change; and if it cannot demonstrate leadership in current circumstances, then when?

With no change in behavior, we face the prospect of the government continuing to weaken the island’s economic foundations. It is a road we cannot continue down if we are to succeed in this ever-challenging world.

Bermudians must ask themselves if this is acceptable, if they support more of the same. The question is real because “what’s past is prologue.” The situation we are in is the result of bad habits more than 10 years in the making.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

In my Budget Reply, I spoke of the need to tie government policies and actions to family-based values that work for all of us – in the broadest sense it’s about honesty, integrity and fairness; in budgetary terms it’s about living within our means, judicious use of debt and accountability.

Bermuda deserves better leadership than it’s been getting. Government needs to demonstrate leadership by example. We did not get that with this budget. Instead we got a budget that says: “Do as I say, not as I do”.

My colleagues and I don’t accept it. We can do better and that’s the point I’d like to leave with readers.

Our FutureCare goals - fair, affordable, sustainable

By Louise Jackson, JP, MP. OBE

March 30, 2010

It is my fervent hope that all seniors have a better understanding of FutureCare as a result of the concerns my colleagues and I have voiced over the past year.

Our aim has been to make sure the programme is open, fair and affordable for seniors, as well as sustainable for the country.

This could have been a non-controversial exercise, but that was not possible because the government’s rollout of FutureCare created all sorts of confusions for seniors; confusions we had to address.

When we challenged the government to explain, we were attacked; when we pushed them to clarify they resorted to name-calling.

We recognize the Westminster system of government can sometimes get heated, sometimes ugly, but the aim is to sharpen policies, improve programmes and, ultimately, deliver better government to the people. We’re prepared to deal with the ups and downs of the system because we’ve used it to force government to work harder to explain FutureCare to seniors.

The Government says I'm the one sowing confusion, but they forget to own up to

The contradiction between the Premier’s election promise to “provide every Bermudian above the age of 65 with guaranteed health care” and FutureCare’s first year roll-out that excluded most seniors.
Last-minute restrictions in the 2009 launch of FutureCare that shut out many seniors.
Confusions among seniors over who was eligible for the programme and who was not, and
Two prices for the same FutureCare coverage.

The latest attack against me came last week in this space, asserting I was wrong to say the 2009 launch of FutureCare was under-promoted and questioning our call to narrow FutureCare to all needy seniors 65 years and older using a means test to determine need.

Let’s deal with the first concern:

The under-promoted launch

It is a matter of record the government only announced the qualifications for FutureCare on March 11, 2009, just three weeks before the launch of the programme. When seniors learned they had to be on HIP to qualify, HIP was “inundated” with requests to join it.

The government quickly shut down new enrollments by restricting eligibility to those seniors on HIP prior to the March 11 announcement. It did so because it concluded FutureCare “could not financially support the intake.”

I was particularly disturbed by this turn of events because the government until that point had not advertised the deadlines or the criteria for joining FutureCare.

This was because they were engaged in a calculated numbers game, where FutureCare planners had to balance economic and budgetary realities against the Premier’s promise of FutureCare for all.

Although the government takes issue with my description of the April 1st roll out of FutureCare as “under-promoted”, the Health Minister evaded my Parliamentary request for the “scripts and dates of all advertisements published before April 1, 2009 for the roll out of FutureCare…”

Whether it was the late announcement that FutureCare would be a phased programme or the failure to promote application deadlines and eligibility criteria, the fact is that seniors were not well informed about what they needed to do to enroll in FutureCare.

Means testing

Our call for means testing to determine eligibility for the most needy is based on our concern the country will not be able to afford FutureCare. The most conservative actuarial forecasts indicate FutureCare will impose debilitating costs on the country.

The government says it already applies means-testing through seniors who came to FutureCare by way of Financial Assistance. But this does not apply to seniors who come to FutureCare through other eligibilities. What we get as a result are seniors on Futurecare, who can well afford private coverage, being subsidized by taxpayers.We think this is wrong for moral and economic reasons.

The bottom line is this: The programme should be narrowed to needy seniors 65 years and older using means testing to determine need.

We think this is a sensible approach to take, especially given the fact that this government has already burdened Bermuda with unprecedented levels of borrowing and debt.

We have to be realistic. Our aim is for a programme that is fair and affordable for seniors, and sustainable for all other taxpayers. That’s what my colleagues and I want. That’s what makes us challenge the government when we see them veering from those clear goals.

Parks overtime dispute - years in the making

By Kim Swan, Opposition Leader

March 29, 2010

Parks workers wondering why they have to fight for overtime need only remind themselves of a few things:

The Premier's overseas travel costing taxpayers $30,000 a month
The Dockyard pier costing $65 million instead of $35 million
$100 million a year spent on consultants
$40 million allocated to pay interest on government debt, and
A 9% increase in government spending this year

The overtime dispute is just one consequence of government’s wasteful and excess spending. While its spending continues to grow, the government wants its workers to take home less pay. There is a double standard at work here and it does not favour the worker.

The Premier’s unhelpful response on Bean’s name-calling

By a United Bermuda Party spokesman

March 26, 2010

Once again, the Premier reveals himself to be the master of spin with words that twist perception and alter truth.

His statement supporting Senator Marc Bean’s name-calling attacked the United Bermuda Party for “non-stop, rabid attacks on Wayne Furbert…” in the wake of his decision to join the PLP.

The United Bermuda Party did not attack Wayne Furbert and that is a matter of record. The party’s leader Mr. Kim Swan issued a statement that said Mr. Furbert “left this party more than a year ago and, like him, we have moved on.”

There was nothing in the statement that could be construed as an attack and nothing from anyone else in the party that could be construed as an attack.

Indeed, a quick review of the record shows that statements critical of Mr. Furbert came primarily from the Premier’s own PLP backbench, Mr. Furbert’s new political colleagues.

So by the Premier’s own logic, the ‘combined opposition’ that he often rails against to elicit public sympathy, appears to include members of his own government.

Beyond the spin, the Premier has given Senator Bean the all-clear to continue his “pimps and prostitutes” denunciations of people who oppose or question government policy.

His suggestion that the environmental group BEST conducts “selective environmentalism” is another example of his devious use of language to sow distrust across the community, in this case suggesting something sinister behind BEST’s concerns for the environment.

Trying the taint the good work of Bermudians who have joined together to protect and preserve the environment is a low blow, thrown to knock them into a nasty political pit where the Premier can characterize them as enemies of the people – perhaps as the newest member of the so-called ‘combined opposition’.

On a final point, virtually all environmental groups are selective in the causes they choose to champion. They make their stands to match their usually limited resources to situations where they see the greatest need. It’s nature of the game.

Response to Royal Gazette story – “Angry Parks workers down tools…”

By Senator Michael Dunkley J.P, Shadow Tourism Minister

March 26, 2010

Workers across the island are being forced by this government to take a hit while it carries on with spending increases.

That's the cold reality behind the government's recent budget - one set of rules for government ministers and one for working Bermudians that says, in effect, ‘You buckle down while we carry on; you pay, we spend.’

The dispute between Parks workers and the minister is what happens when you have a government of double standards.

The Minister's imperious attitude, his obviously lack of empathy for what workers are going through has inflamed the situation.

We call on him to retract the disciplinary actions immediately.

Workers need help not punishment, and the sooner the minister and his government realize that simple truth the better things will be.

Tax dollars to airlines

By Senator Michael Dunkley J.P, Shadow Tourism Minister

March 25, 2010

Taxpayer cash not the Premier’s charm appears to be the secret behind Bermuda’s ability to secure more flights from North American cities, government answers to Parliamentary Questions reveal.

Bermuda Government guarantees in recent years have seen the spending of approximately 2 million taxpayer dollars to keep airlines flying to the island.

It is quite possible that the dollar figure is even higher given that some of the Minimum Revenue Guarantee Agreements (MRG) may not have been paid out prior to the answering of our questions. We are also interested to learn that WestJet Airlines is operating with an MRG, which has not yet been approved by the Cabinet. It appears that Minister has prematurely committed Bermuda to the terms of an agreement not yet sanctioned by his Government – shades of the Uighurs.

On one level, we are not opposed to the use of taxpayer dollars to secure needed overseas flights, but feel compelled to make the point that a lot of this money did not need to be spent if the Tourism Minister had maintained a strong marketing focus on our longstanding US tourism markets.

We recall the 2008 Yankelovich study which found that just 10 percent of our potential visitors were aware of Bermuda as a vacation destination. This shocking finding did not happen overnight but reflected years of PLP neglect of core markets.

The falloff in awareness of Bermuda as a vacation destination made it necessary at this time for the Bermuda Government to guarantee airlines minimum revenues.

So tax dollars spent to ensure airlines fly to Bermuda is a consequence of the government’s failure to maintain Bermuda’s profile in markets that had sent the lion’s share of visitors to our shores year after year, generation after generation.

We do not disagree with Minimum Revenue Guarantees if they act as an incentive for Bermuda’s marketers to drive the number of visitors to our shores ever upward.

We are acutely aware that the price of an airline ticket is a big factor for most travelers.

Premier – reprimand your senator

By Kim Swan, United Bermuda Party Leadern

March 24, 2010

Senator Marc Bean’s description today of environmentalists as “pimps and prostitutes” is reprehensible.

Our island is confronting too many serious issues to be distracted by this contemptible name-calling. It damages public morale and sets a very bad example for young and old alike.

This is the second time in as many weeks the Senator has resorted to demeaning words to attack people in the community, and it makes us wonder if he has been given the go-ahead by higher-ups.

Whatever the case, Senator Bean’s words are unacceptable. The Premier must reprimand the Senator and order him to publicly apologize to the people of BEST. Failure to do so will signal consent.

Bermuda needs positive leadership now more than ever. We cannot have Government ministers trashing people with whom they disagree or question. It is the ugliest form of politics and sets the kind of example that can feed anti-social behaviour in other areas of island life.

We say: Do the right thing, Mr. Premier. This is about maintaining our standards as a civil society.

Back to basics for the Music Festival

By Senator Michael Dunkleym Shadow Minister of Tourism

March 24, 2010

The Bermuda Music Festival as managed by Dr. Ewart Brown has been an unmitigated business disaster. The whole point of the festival, as originally envisioned in the 1990s, was to broaden the appeal of Bermuda as a vacation experience thereby attracting more visitors to our shores at a time of year when visitor arrivals slowed.

In recent years, that simple objective has been lost amidst a corruption of spin, spending, celebrity-basking and self-glorification that cost Bermuda’s taxpayers millions of dollars while earning significantly less from the few tourists who came to see it.

It is not surprising the government did not announce a change in approach to the event. To do so, would have been an open admission of its failure.

But we commend them for taking the festival back to the drawing boards. And we are encouraged by its back-to-basics primary aim to “attract visitors to our shores.”

As long as the promoters and the Minister of Tourism keep that objective at the forefront of their thinking we’ll have a music festival that works for our tourism industry and the many Bermudians who love live music.

Paying the price for careless government

By Louise Jackson, Shadow Minister for Health & Seniors

March 24, 2010

One of the major concerns we’ve expressed in recent years has been the government’s perpetual spending spree weakening its ability to help people in hard times.

To make the point we cited the Biblical story of its failure to use the fat years to prepare for the lean years, which are now upon us.

The recent payroll tax increase imposed on working Bermudian is one example of the people paying the price for government excesses.

Earlier today, Health Minister Walter Roban served up another example – a 36% jump in HIP, the government’s basic health care plan.

This extraordinary jump to $299 in HIP’s monthly premium did not have to be as severe as it is, if the government had exercised a modicum of responsibility with our tax dollars. Minister Roban drew attention to this point with the remark that HIP would not be sustainable “without either a significant increase in premium or a significant injection of funds from Government.”

It is clear that despite unprecedented revenue windfalls in recent years – some $317.6 million between 2004 and 2009 – the government has chosen to shovel the HIP increases onto the backs of working Bermudians. When it should have set aside the resources for hard times it did not, and so there is no money today to provide a meaningful cushion for the people.

As one of my colleagues said to me this government’s fiscal failures, “This is one more example of the chickens coming home to roost.”

And as our Shadow Finance Minister said in his Budget Reply: “There is no way Bermuda’s finances would be in this predicament if the government were under the guidance of the United Bermuda Party.”

One of Mr. Richards’s chief criticisms was the government’s failure to forecast economic conditions. The shock jump in HIP premiums is part and parcel of the government’s failure to carefully plan and manage our tax dollars. Instead of exercising living within its means and prudently preparing for hard times, it splurged on perks, contracts, consultants and capital projects that ran overbudget by the tens of millions of dollars.

The 36% price hike for HIP will impact hard-pressed families and, particularly, seniors on fixed incomes.

It will also impact small businesses that have to pay half of it. Coming on the heels of the payroll tax increase, this will lead to lay-offs.

The bottom line is this: When many Bermudians need the government to step to the plate for them, it’s not there for them.

This Government is hurting not helping people.

A step in the right direction

By Opposition Leader Kim Swan

March 24, 2010

I want to take the opportunity to congratulate my colleague John Barritt and former Premier Dame Jennifer Smith on revamping House of Assembly rules and procedures to make the legislature more transparent and government more accountable.

Mr. Barritt and Dame Jennifer are an example of how two experienced MPs from opposite sides of the House can work together toward a better system of governance for the island.

The House decision yesterday to test the Smith-Barritt changes when the House reconvenes in May is a step in the right direction.

But I want to be clear that the United Bermuda Party would have gone much farther than the agreed upon package.

Our good governance programme, long championed by Mr. Barritt, aims for higher levels of transparency, responsiveness and accountability, particularly in the responsible management of the public purse. It includes:

Whistleblower legislation to protect the right of public servants to speak out against corruption without fear
Integrity in Public Office legislation to define corrupt practices and set minimum standards for disclosure of financial dealings by parliamentarians
Anti-corruption legislation
A Contractor General to ensure proper and fair handling of government contracts
A Code of Conduct for all parliamentary members, and
A stronger role for the Legislature’s Public Accounts committee
All Parliamentary committee meetings open to the press and the public

In discussing the reform package accepted by the House yesterday, Mr. Barritt was being pragmatic when he said “we must not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.”

His point is an important one: We have to make progress when we can, where we can. Improving our system of governance to keep pace with the best modern standards is vitally important for our economy, our democracy and our identity. This week’s support for a test run on the Barritt-Smith reforms is a good start. It is not an end.

Shooting the messenger

By Louise Jackson, JP, MP, OBE, Shadow Minister for Health & Seniors

March 22, 2010

It has become customary for the government to attack me.

This discredit-the-messenger tactic is widely used by Government ministers, from dismissals of anti-independence petitioners who “didn’t even know what they were signing” (September 20, 2005), to “alphabet group(s) in this country who purport to represent” Bermudians in international business (March 15, 2010).

But I believe I am the star target in this government’s campaign to discredit anyone who dares question their thinking, their policies or, dare I say it, their competence; in this case over the maladministration of FutureCare.

This morning’s over-the-top 12-page statement by radio propagandist Senator Thaao Dill is the latest salvo in this unfortunate sideshow.

I won’t get into a blow-by-blow rebuttal of Senator Dill’s diatribe because I don’t believe anyone really cares or needs to hear it. Instead I will summarize the concerns about FutureCare that have guided our statements from Day 1.

My United Bermuda Party colleagues want to make sure FutureCare is

open, fair and affordable for seniors, and
sustainable for the country.

We maintain that the Government has failed in each area cited under point 1. It disenfranchised and excluded many seniors in its under-promoted 2009 launch. It created an unfair two-priced premium for the same coverage, and its $600 charge for the Phase 2 premium is unaffordable for many.

We believe all of these problems stem from a no-limits, election-time political promise by the Premier to “provide every Bermudian above the age of 65 with guaranteed health care” for the remainder of their lives. It was a promise made without a plan and without a strategy for how to pay for it, and the history of FutureCare since then has been a scramble, with questions from seniors often arising before reliable information was available.

Our formal position on FutureCare is this: We support the concept of affordable health care for seniors but believe the focus of FutureCare should be narrowed to all needy seniors 65 years and older using a means test to determine need.

Senator Dill’s thoughts on means testing are internally inconsistent and deserve no response from me.

The point here is that the Government should spend more time on getting FutureCare right than shooting the messenger, and to bend over backwards to make sure seniors understand what is going on.

For an understanding of our concerns on the sustainability of FutureCare, please go to www.ubp.bm; October 5, 2009 - “FutureCare or Future Shock?

Wayne Furbert joins Dr. Brown

By Kim Swan, United Bermuda Party Leader

March 18, 2010

Mr. Furbert left this party more than a year ago and, like him, we have moved on.

Our focus is on issues that matter most to people – a more stable economy that grows jobs, better government leadership, education reform and safer streets.

Mr. Furbert has been angling for this crossover for a long time. To get there he has repeatedly voted with Dr. Brown's government.

His move to join the PLP aligns him with a government that has imposed $100 million in new taxes on everyday people and the businesses that employ them - a budget that is already costing people jobs across the community.

We look forward in the next election to putting forward a candidate who is part of a team dedicated to growing the economy, expanding career opportunities and ensuring fairness for all.

That's what the people of Hamilton West deserve and we intend to provide that for them. That's our commitment.

Undue stress for seniors over Phase 2 roll-out of FutureCare

By Louise Jackson, JP,MP, OBE, Shadow Minister for Health and Seniors

March 18, 2010

For more than a year, the United Bermuda Party has been fighting to make sure FutureCare is open, fair and affordable for seniors.

The Government has failed in each of these areas. It disenfranchised and excluded many seniors in its under-promoted 2009 launch. It created an unfair two-priced premium for the same coverage, and its $600 charge for the Phase 2 premium is unaffordable for many.

This week we’ve learned that Government continues to make things difficult for seniors.

Application forms for Phase 2 of FutureCare are not yet ready and won’t be until the April 1st launch date.

We have heard that FutureCare coverage will be backdated to April 1st but this leaves seniors facing an uncertain decision to end their existing insurance coverage or continue it for another month to make sure negative possibilities don’t come to pass – namely falling through the cracks of coverage in the transition to FutureCare. This can be a relatively costly matter for households getting by on pensions.

One person who is trying to arrange FutureCare for her mother said of the backdating provision: “I’ve not seen that in writing anywhere.”

The history of FutureCare does not give people comfort that all will work out for them.

We therefore call on the Minister to come forward with a complete and precise explanation of how seniors should approach this situation. Clear the air. That’s all we’re asking.

The current situation combined with FutureCare’s problematic past has fostered undue levels of uncertainty, confusion and anxiety for many seniors. Eliminating these negatives must be en essential going forward.

Unwise words that get us nowhere

By H. Kim Swan, By Kim Swan, United Bermuda Party Leader

March 17, 2010

Senator Mark Bean’s dissing of BEST is a classic example of Premier Brown’s appointees trashing the messenger.

His demeaning words represent the most bankrupt form of political engagement, whereby insults are used to attack people instead of debating the substance of their concerns.

BEST is one of the few organizations actively speaking for careful stewardship of Bermuda’s environment. Its views are welcome and should be respected because they reflect genuine concern for the island.

Sen. Bean’s cheap words are an affront to BEST and a disincentive to anyone who wants to express concerns in public on any given issue. They are symptomatic of an ill-tempered government that sees Bermuda only in terms of who’s for or against them. His words foster an environment that is not conducive to the free-flow of ideas.

It gets us nowhere.

An inexcusable budget charade

By Dr. Grant Gibbons, By Dr. Grant Gibbons, Shadow Education Minister

March 17, 2010

The Minister of Education came to Parliament yesterday with an Education Budget that was deceptive and incorrect.

The budget showed cuts of millions of dollars for substitute teachers and paraprofessionals when in fact these areas were not intended to be cut.

The Minister admitted that the required savings would have to be determined at a later point and then transferred back to these areas.

This is completely unacceptable. How can you bring an Education Ministry budget to Parliament when you know the budget line items do not reflect the actual budget plan – and then not be able to state explicitly how you will correct it and where the $4 to $5million in cuts will actually come from?
The budget debate is supposed to provide the opportunity for Members of Parliament to scrutinize the Government’s budget and get a clear explanation of how taxpayers’ money will be spent in the coming fiscal year.

What happened yesterday in the Education Ministry presentation makes a mockery of the budget debate process. During the House debate I referred to it as “a charade”.

It is also now clear that the Minister of Finance was scrambling at the last minute to look for cuts to balance the overall budget anywhere she could find them before it went to the printers.

But that was more than three weeks ago. Surely by now, if the $4 million-plus in education cuts are real and not a sham, the Minister of Education would have been able to tell us from which specific programmes they will come.
That’s what a meaningful debate requires and what transparency is all about.
If this type of financial manipulation occurred with a public company, shareholders, auditors and regulators would have been clamoring for heads to roll.

Frankly, Government seems to be making it up as they go along.

This episode raises serious questions of where else this practice may have occurred besides Education, and whether the Minister of Finance’s national budget is built on a foundation of sand.

Budget debate - Reply to Premier’s comment on Opposition ‘lack of cooperation’

By Opposition Leader Mr. Kim Swan, JP, MP

March 15, 2010

Dr. Brown has always used bully tactics to get his own way and on this occasion Her Majesty's Opposition made him choose between a trip overseas and the people’s business here at home.

This was a point of principle for us because his travel habit – costing Bermuda $30,000 a month – is a major concern and because of the dubious value of his many ventures abroad.

In this instance, the Premier made his choice – CARICOM over Bermuda - and now he is trying to shift blame and justify his indifference to his tourism portfolio and the serious issues we face.

In our exchanges on the debate schedule the Premier threatened the Opposition would get “no time” if we did not accede to his request.

For the record, we got three requests from government ministers to adjust the debate schedule – one from the Telecommunications Minister, which was accommodated; one from the Environment Minister which we could not, and two from the Premier himself, one of which we accommodated – namely the Cabinet Office debate, which was shifted to the front of the Budget debate schedule.

Beyond these accommodations, we considered the Premier’s scheduling challenge to be self-created given that he had months to figure out his own travel plans, and also the timing of the Budget debate, which his Government postponed one week for reasons never made clear.

In a pique, the Premier allowed 30 seconds for the Opposition to speak during the Cabinet Office budget “debate” – in our view putting personal animosity ahead of the people’s business.

We believe he had no intention of allowing much time to scrutinize the planned 16% increase in the budget of the Cabinet Office, where overspending on major projects has run rampant and which is the home to a posse of consultants who claim hundreds of thousands of dollars from the public purse.

The times are serious for Bermuda. Economic recession is with us, people are hurting. This is the time the country needs its Premier focused exclusively on the challenges and not his profile overseas. That was why we held the line on this issue. Now the Premier is making us pay for it by shutting down debate on ways to improve and strengthen the island’s performance. That’s the government leader we’ve got.

As we said last week, this issue became a question of priorities and the Premier’s decision to fly off the island the day his portfolio was to be debated says his priorities are the wrong priorities.

We would do better with the Budget

By E.T. (Bob) Richards, Shadow Minister of Finance

March 9, 2010

Toward the end of Monday’s first series of debates on the Government’s budget, I reiterated the need to anchor management of the public purse to the principles that guide a family budget – living within one’s means, judicious use of debt and sound judgement.

The Finance Minister disagreed, saying a government budget was different.

Is it really?

If this Government had lived within its means, why is it hitting the community with more than $100 million in new taxes?

If it had been judicious in its use of debt, why is it foisting nearly $1 billion of debt onto the shoulders of future generations?

If it had used sound judgement, why did it continue spending in the face of recession and run, for the first time ever, $95 million in current account deficits over the past two years?

Our main concern with this budget is that the government does not understand how to be careful with the public’s money. If it did, we might not have to hear about construction projects overshooting their budgets by tens of millions of dollars. We might not have to hear the Auditor General say there is a “pervasive lack of accountability” in the halls of government “creating an environment conducive to error, misappropriation and fraud.” We might not have to hear about a million dollar contract with a US consultant that contains “no specific deliverables.”

We are also deeply concerned the government does not recognize the need to set the right example for the country. Hypocrisy runs through the marrow of this budget. So, while the minister orders people to pay more in taxes, she continues increasing government spending. While the government encourages hotel workers to accept a wage freeze, it tables amending legislation to increase the Finance Minister’s salary more than 40%.

The unwillingness of the Government to change its spending habits and lax management of the public purse has put Bermuda on a path that is unsustainable.

Just consider the fact that in the six years since the Finance Minister came into the job, the government’s gross debt has gone from $175 million to $830 million – an increase of more than 400%.

Consider too that the Minister is growing the debt again – to an estimated $973 million this year; meaning that Bermudians under the age of 35 – those who will have to pay it off – will inherit a debt of $36,000 per person. In 1998, that debt was $5,602 per person.

The fact that the government did not put forward a plan to reduce its debt says it is either incapable of disciplining itself or it does not want to discipline itself. Whatever the case, without a change in the mindset of this government Bermuda will continue losing strength.

We must have change.

The Bermuda economy needs careful stewardship. We’re not big enough and we lack the economic diversification to absorb bad public management for too long without risking mortal damage to our reputation, our governance and the overall health of the economy.

But bad public management is what we have had for too long. This budget is simply a milestone on a path we cannot continue down; a path on which we squandered money, spent more than we earned and mismanaged tourism to the point of collapse.

What is most galling to me is the Government’s failure to adjust; to recognize it is out of sync with the concerns of everyday people. So we see no change in their travel habits, we see ministers disregarding cost-cutting measures ordered by the Finance Minister and, worst of all, no real compulsion to solve any of the problems that have plagued Bermuda for too long.

We must remember, after all, that we elect a government to solve problems, strengthen the island, maintain public safety and foster conditions to ensure people have jobs to provide for their families. It takes real leadership to achieve these things; leadership that has the strength to stand on principle and put country before colleagues.

Bermuda does not have to accept the way things are. There is a better way to manage the public purse; a pragmatic and prudent way.

As I indicated at the start of this column, our approach is very much like the head of any family. We would make sure our children are educated and protected; we would provide for their futures, live within our means and use sound judgment to sustain these noble responsibilities. We would do better.

For those who would like to read our approach to managing public finances, I urge you to go to our website at ubp.bm. Scroll down the main page and click Reply to the Budget.

2010/2011 Budget Debate Schedule

March 8, 2010

Click here to view the Budget Debate Schedule

So much for ‘the sunshine of public scrutiny’

By N.H. Cole Simons, Opposition Whip and House Leader

March 8, 2010

This morning’s episode in which three ministers did not answer Parliamentary questions was tantamount to the government giving the finger to anyone wanting transparent, open and accountable government.

The ministers declined to answer questions about a Government contract with companies from the Ambling group based in Atlanta, Georgia:

Works Minister Derrick Burgess said he had been too busy with the Budget to get the answers
Tourism Minister and Premier, Dr. Ewart Brown, simply did not answer them; and
Environment Minister Eugene Blakeney said he would defer answering the questions (even though he had prepared answers).

These coordinated non-answers signal a break with long-standing conventions that have helped elected representatives hold governments to account for their actions and decisions.

That the ministers thumbed their noses at these conventions challenges the Speaker of the House of Assembly and the standards and practices he is sworn to uphold.

The issue here is accountability – one of the central pillars of responsible government. With it, Governments justify and explain their actions and decisions. Without it, all bets are off.

Two weeks ago, Auditor General Heather Mathews drew attention to the pitfalls that can occur when governments operate without having to answer for their actions. Ms Mathews reported audit findings from previous years that revealed a “pervasive lack of accountability” within the government. She also cited concerns about the “negligence of senior management to carry out their oversight and fiduciary responsibilities, thereby creating an environment conducive to error, misappropriation and fraud.”

This is what is at stake when governments decide not to answer legitimate questions.

***

In the case of Ambling, the Opposition wanted specific answers on a multi-headed contract that paid the Georgia-based consultants at least $115,000 a month over two years.

In a copy we obtained of Mr. Blakeney’s prepared answer – the one which he deferred – we note that the contract clauses governing Ambling’s work for the Planning Department “did not contain any specific deliverables.”

We find this completely unacceptable. Without deliverables, you cannot measure performance nor can you hold people to account; indeed without deliverables you do not have a finite contract – one that ends when the job is done. It can theoretically go on forever. It is, in short, a potential gravy train for the contractor.

In this instance, Ambling has been paid nearly $1 million to review Planning regulations and related work. We have no way of knowing whether that work was competently done or even accepted by the Government.

The other two components of the contract – with Tourism and Works & Engineering – involved general consulting work, which we fear also “did not contain specific deliverables”.

These are the kind of holes in the public purse that our Auditors General have expressed such concerns about. Anyone who is concerned about how taxpayer dollars are spent should pay very close attention to this contract.

Get your priorities right

By Opposition Whip and Shadow House Leader N. H. Cole Simons

March 6, 2010

It is indicative of this Premier’s priorities that he chooses to travel abroad while his government’s controversial budget is being debated by Parliament.

So ingrained is his wanderlust – a habit that cost taxpayers $30,000 a month last year – that he thinks it more important to fly to a Caricom conference than participate in the debate of his own Tourism Ministry, scheduled for Friday, March 19.

The Premier blames the Opposition for being uncooperative in not shifting the Budget debate to accommodate his travel schedule.

But we say to the Premier – take a good hard look in the mirror.

You are the Premier of this country. Parliament is debating your Government’s Budget, which sets out its spending plans for the year. It is the most important document put forward by a government in any given year. It is the nub of the people’s business.

So what are you thinking? Why are you planning to be off the island in the first place? No self-respecting Premier would absent himself during the debate on his government’s overall plan for the country, let alone his own ministry.

There is something deeply irresponsible at play here – and it is perhaps an indication why this government has lost its way.

By flying off to the Caribbean the Premier is saying Caricom comes first, Bermuda second.

Or does the limelight come first?

Let’s look for a moment at whether the Opposition, which is responsible for laying down the schedule of the budget debate, has been uncooperative. Since the schedule was set, we have changed it to

Allow the Premier to debate the Cabinet Office first thing this morning; and
Accommodate another minister’s scheduling challenge.
But there comes a point at which the Opposition has to say ‘enough is enough’.

And let’s not forget that the Premier’s scheduling woes would not have happened if he had not postponed the budget by one week, which he did last month for reasons never made clear.

The point here is that the people’s business comes first. The Parliament is fully engaged in it. If anyone wants to opt out, that’s their choice. Nobody is forcing the Premier to attend a conference that will have little bearing on Bermuda.

In the meantime, we’re going to get on with the people’s business.

Reply to the budget

By E.T. (Bob) Richards, Shadow Minister of Finance

March 5, 2010

Click Here to read the full report

A penalizing budget

By E.T. (Bob) Richards, Shadow Minister of Finance

February 26, 2010

Finance Minister Paula Cox’s Budget penalizes Bermuda for her Government’s reckless spending sprees that have piled up deficits and debt year after year.

The cost to Bermudian families, now and for years to come, will be severe:

Ms Cox’s budget will impose over $100 million in additional taxes, including $77 million in payroll tax increases – that’s money coming out of the pockets of all working Bermudians.
Ms Cox is not doing anything to reduce the burden of debt on future generations, a debt that is now costing an astounding $39 million in interest payments alone for the year. Instead of committing to a debt reduction plan, she is content to push debt repayment out to younger generations.

While Ms Cox preaches austerity for the people, she increases Government spending by 9%. In other words, she wants Bermudians to buckle down and foot the bill for Government while her colleagues carry on without restraint.

This failure to tighten Government’s belt carries over from past years. Despite ordering a 10% cut in Government spending last year, she and her colleagues spent $56 million net of revenues more than planned.

Ms Cox’s Budget says this Government will not change its ways. The minister is taking people for granted and is content to tell them “Do as I say, not as I do.” We think people should step forward and say this not acceptable, enough is enough.

We can’t go on piling up debt year after year. We owe it to ourselves as a matter of self-respect, and we owe it to our children and their children not to leave them with a legacy that hamstrings their ability to meet the challenges in their own times. We must be fair to them. This budget, this minister and this government are not being fair to them, nor are they being fair to hard-working Bermudians today.

Auditor General’s report says something is deeply wrong

By Trevor Moniz, United Bermuda Party Shadow Minister for Justice

February 25, 2010

The Auditor General’s 2008 report should be required reading for every Bermudian who cares about the future of our island.

But be warned. The picture it paints is not pretty; in fact it is downright ugly.

You do not have to get to the end of its 234 pages to conclude that there is something deeply wrong at the centre of our government. You do not have to get to the end of this stunning report to conclude that Bermuda is in the midst of destroying its long and proudly held international reputation for financial and ethical integrity.

And mark my word: There is no ducking this. This report is about you and me as Bermudians. The ministers of this Government may be in charge of the country’s finances, but it is our collective reputation as Bermudians that is being put at risk.

We are being dragged down.

Let’s forget for a moment that the Auditor General called for Police investigations into faith-based tourism and the National Drugs Commission – two areas where millions of taxpayer dollars have vanished without a trace.

They are just the ugly tip of an iceberg that has formed at the centre of our public affairs, displacing our reputation for being a smart little island that plays by the rules, that manages its public affairs with prudence and care, that does things well – an island, in short, that has its act together.

You can’t really say that after reading this report.

Here is a list of words and phrases that kept popping up at me from the pages of the Auditor’s report: negligence, misappropriation, fraud, failure to comply, lack of oversight, breakdown of internal controls and lack of accountability.

So deep is the misconduct, so widespread the carelessness that I found myself thinking of the word anarchy as I read through the report – make that financial anarchy. It fits.

Just consider the fact that no one seems to pay attention to rules and responsibilities. So we get managers of government entities promising “year after year” to implement Auditor recommendations to comply with legislation and strengthen accounting and management controls, “yet too often nothing happens.” Nothing indeed. Appendix 2 of the report contains 21 pages of audit recommendations alongside management responses. It is a litany of lip service; a disgrace.

Consider the fact that managers and ministers continue to do business with companies that haven’t paid their payroll and pension taxes despite Financial Instructions that prohibit them from doing so.

Consider that ministers and managers continue to award contracts without public tendering despite Financial Instructions banning the practice, which the Auditor says “has become a greater and greater problem…”

Consider that civil servants who want to report misdeeds and wrongdoings have expressed concerns that they no longer view the Public Service Commission as their protector; that going to it with their concerns would be “useless”, even “dangerous”.

Consider the Auditor’s view that Cabinet Ministers interfering in the operations of government has become a problem so severe that he recommends they take a seminar in how our Westminster system of government works and a course on good governance in general.

This is deeply concerning. After 12 years in power, the Auditor feels it necessary to tell this Government to go to school to learn the rules of government. Think about that. Is it the worm at the centre of this very troubling picture? I think so: Ministers who simply don’t get it; ministers who through their ignorance, indifference or willful manipulations - you name it – are presiding over the decline of Bermuda.

All of us who care about the future of this island have to fight what’s going on. A lot of what gives us strength as Bermudians – our reputation for being special, for being a cut above the rest – is on the line. It’s time to step forward for a better Bermuda.

The closer you get, the worse it smells

By Senator Michael Dunkley, JP, Shadow Minister of Tourism

February 24, 2010

The Premier’s handling of the Morgan’s Point development is an example of his dictatorial control over Government decision-making.

It is damaging Bermuda’s reputation as a place to do business because it shows that big decisions must pass through a personality that is revealed as unreliable, inconsistent and unchecked.

Two weeks ago the Premier said the Government had not approved the project because it contained “too much concrete.” Now he says it’s because the developers are inexperienced.

The truth, like most things involving this Premier, is hard to pin down, calling into question in this instance whether he is an honest broker.

The “inexperienced” Morgan’s Point group had Dr. Brown’s full support in 2007. At the time, the Premier blessed their project – then at Southlands – as “the centerpiece of a nation-wide tourism revitalization.”

The group, he said, was made up of “dedicated Bermudians” who dreamed up the Southlands project and, in partnering with Jumeirah International hotels, would “usher in the tourism comeback...”

Dr. Brown was so committed to the group he got his Government to give it a Special Development Order to expedite their project’s timely success.

When public protests shifted the project to Morgan’s Point, the Premier underlined his continuing support for the group by setting up a unique land swap: 37.5 acres of Southlands for 80 at Morgan’s Point.

Now, 21/2 years on, the Premier’s spokesman ridicules the group as “pretending to be hotel developers”, “who didn’t know what they were doing.” How do these comments square with the Premier’s support for them as agents who would usher in the tourism comeback?

We are further amazed that the Morgan’s Point group appears to have been rejected by the Premier alone. The Cabinet has not been given an opportunity to hear a presentation on the project despite its commitment to the land swap underpinning it. In light of the Premier’s comments it seems whatever chance they had to impress the Cabinet has been fatally compromised. This is unfair and disappointing, particularly given the project’s history and the costs incurred on all sides.

In contrast to the disparagement of the Morgan’s Pont group, the Premier’s support for Mr. Carl Bazarian and his St. George’s hotel project remains steadfast. Dr. Brown’s spokesman said the Morgan’s Point group is not in the same class as Mr. Bazarian. Now let’s get this straight: Is this the same Carl Bazarian who has repeatedly failed to make progress in St. George’s after years of the Government doing everything but build the hotel for him? He may have a track record but not in Bermuda.

This tale of two developers is the tale of a double standard.

Let’s be clear: We want to see Mr. Bazarian succeed but there has to be a level playing field for all parties, Bermudian and foreign.

The Premier appears to have welched on the Morgan’s Point deal leaving the developers with no place to go but back to Southlands. That may be the Premier’s hidden agenda, but is it in Bermuda’s best interest.

Consultants – Bermuda’s Shadow Government

Trevor Moniz, United Bermuda Party Deputy Leader

February 23, 2010

We have long expressed our concerns with this government’s over-the-top reliance on consultants, many from overseas. In the first instance, Bermuda has the largest government in its history – more people in its ranks than ever before – yet Ministers have hired what is, in effect, a shadow government, accountable to no one but them.

Consultants now account for about 10% of the Government’s billion budget or nearly $100 million in spending. Many of these consultants are from overseas, taken ahead of Bermudians – a state the old PLP would have been screaming about – to run, for example, our hospital, rewrite our planning laws and advise on the government takeover of the corporations of Hamilton and St. George’s.

The waste in spending is phenomenal. Just consider the $900,000 a year being paid to Greeley for the hospital Chief of Staff. $900,000! Really? Or how about the millions spent on Atlanta-based Ambling International Consulting, which was picked over two local groups to rewrite Bermuda’s planning laws, and to provide “general consulting” on the Southlands-Morgan’s Point land swap.

In some cases we don’t know where the money is going or even what we’re paying for. We are not alone in our concerns and suspicions about the handling of these monies. Just last week, the former Auditor General called for Police investigations in two areas and his successor has confirmed she is conducting special audits on two capital projects.

The reliance on consultants makes us think this Government lacks confidence in the Bermudian people. How else to explain this extraordinary move to outside expertise? We have to wonder who made the decision that Bermudians were no longer capable of running their own hospital? We have to wonder who made the decision that Bermudians could not rewrite our planning laws.

This government shows little faith in their own civil servants and Bermuda’s own private sector expertise. It’s a shame and a scandal.

Is there a hidden agenda at Morgan’s Point

By Senator Michael Dunkley, Shadow Minister of Tourism

February 23, 2010

One has to ask why a highly respected Bermudian – a man who has achieved tremendous business success at an international level – felt the need to go public with concerns about the Premier’s handling of Morgan’s Point development plans.

Mr. Brian Duperreault knows how to conduct business. His reputation and character are beyond reproach. He approaches his business, community and charity work with integrity and discretion. So when he accuses the Premier of unfairness people must take notice.

Mr. Duperreault’s remarks indicate he and his well-known and respected business partners have been toyed with by the Premier. They have been misled, misdirected, diverted, put-off and stalled. They have been made to jump through hoops that international developers have not. Their questions have not been answered, their concerns not addressed; and they have been forced to conclude the Premier is not acting in good faith.

Contrast this with the Premier’s treatment of US developer Carl Bazarian, who was given virtually a blank cheque to develop the former Club Med site in St. George’s. There the Government paid for site preparation by demolishing the old hotel, gave Bazarian the land for free, recalled Parliament for a special summer session to pass supporting legislation and shut down the St. George’s golf course to help him pitch the deal to financiers.

The differences are stark, the favoritism undeniable.

It appears to us the Premier has a hidden agenda for Morgan’s Point.

And it has become, unfortunately, one more example where questions and doubts arise about the integrity of the Premier and the Government. The fact that the Premier offers no comment on the situation only inflames the doubts. We say: Own up to the situation, step forward and address Mr. Duperreault’s remarks like a man, not someone with something to hide.

The Morgan’s Point situation is adding to the image that Bermuda is not just a difficult place to do business but a shady place to do business. Bermuda’s reputation is being damaged and it holds job consequences for the people of Bermuda far beyond this particular project.

The Government’s handling of Morgan’s Point has been a disgrace and from the get-go, when it scared off a US-based development group in 1999 – an unfortunate occurrence that, in the development world, salted the ground at Morgan’s Point until Mr. Duperreault’s Bermuda group took up the challenge.

On a final point, one would think the Government – and the Premier as leader of the Government – would want to encourage development at Morgan’s Point given the large and growing numbers of construction workers who have been laid off in recent months. An attentive government that knew people were struggling and knew how to create conditions for jobs growth would have stepped forward. Instead we are left wondering about hidden agendas, lost opportunities and Bermuda’s future under this Government.

Stop the rot now! Commit to the right thing

By Mr. Trevor Moniz, United Bermuda Party Deputy Leader

February 22, 2010

The Government must immediately commit to whistleblower legislation and other transparency measures to break the culture of self-indulgence, waste and irresponsibility that has settled over the handling of Bermuda’s public purse.

Without delay, we challenge the Premier to commit his Government to shut down the careless environment – an environment he and his minister’s have helped create – that led to acts of greed, fiscal indiscipline and alleged fraud, as reported in the Auditor General’s 2008 Annual Report.

The report calls into question the integrity of Bermuda under this Government. We support the call for Police investigations into suspect transactions and into ongoing questions surrounding consultancy contracts and capital projects.

Simple questions cut to the heart of the situation: Is it okay for government agents to buy lingerie with taxpayer dollars?

Is it okay for friends of the government to take hundreds-of-thousands of taxpayer dollars and then never explain how they spent the money?
Is it okay for senior officers to ignore their responsibilities to track and account for the spending of millions of taxpayer dollars?
Is it okay for agencies of government to ignore rules requiring them to report how tax dollars were spent?
Is it okay to have a Finance Minister whose instructions are ignored by civil servants and recipients of tax dollars?

The failure of this Government to respect the public purse is serious and entrenched, and it appears to be spreading. The only way to stop it now is for the government to change its ways immediately and definitively. To that end we recommend commitment to a range of good governance measures that can expose and discourage the kind of bad behaviour highlighted by the Auditor General. These measures include:

Whistleblower legislation to protect the right of public servants to speak out against corruption without fear.
Integrity in Public Office legislation to define corrupt practices and set minimum standards for disclosure of financial dealings by parliamentarians.
Anti-corruption legislation
A Code of Conduct for all parliamentary members
Strengthening the role of the Legislature’s Public Accounts Committee to work more closely with the Office of the Auditor General to monitor government spending.
A Contractor General to ensure proper and fair handling of government contracts

It is up to the Government alone to commit to these steps. If they believe in better governance, they will. If not, the free-for-all will continue and Bermuda’s reputation will continue to suffer.

But these steps will not work unless the people who lead government – the Premier and his Cabinet – set higher moral, ethical and professional standards. It is vital to send a better signal to the public than it has. This is about anchoring Government behaviour in values that ensure integrity, respect and fairness across the board. It begins with the recognition that government is in place to serve the people not itself. Adherence to this basic rule has not been clear for a long time. This is about leadership by example, the right example. Without it, the Government is failing in its duty to set the moral tone for a just and fair society that all Bermuda wants.

We will address specific issues in the Auditor General’s report in the days ahead, but before we do we take note with his observation on page 12 that public entities that received government funds “ignored” the Finance Minister’s reporting directives. It is our view that part of the problem is the Minister and her ministry is not taken seriously by those whom they deal with. Strong leadership is essential for better management of the public purse and we do not appear have it now.

In conclusion, we urge concerned Bermudians to read the Auditor General’s report. This is your country, your home and its pages say it is not being well served.

Premier to Morgan’s Point: ‘Too much concrete’ – That’s it?

By Shadow Tourism Minister Senator Michael Dunkley

February 19, 2010

We are very concerned with the recent comment by the Premier that the Government has not approved a Morgan’s Point development plan because it contains “too much concrete.”

This struck us as a very peculiar assessment of the plan for the west end property; indeed so peculiar that I feel there is something very fishy about the matter.

It appears the developers, who were originally given an SDO by Government for Southlands and then encouraged to shift their project from Southlands to Morgan’s Point after a public outcry, are being sidelined, particularly in light of the Premier’s comments that his Government was now "looking at other opportunities".

The only thing that is clear from these statements by the Premier is how unclear they are.

And so we call on the Premier to clear the air and explain his Government’s thinking more fully. Be open and transparent at all times, not just when it suits you.

The “too much concrete” comment requires some validation. These murky, behind-closed-doors judgments don't wash. They give rise to questions and doubts. I can’t imagine what the developers think of the Premier’s remark. Surely the developers behind this project deserve better treatment especially after all the time and millions of dollars they have invested in this project.

So come clean. Clear the air and set the stage for more legitimate and inclusive decision-making.

Finally it is important to note that while Bermuda tries to attract investment in tourism, many potential investors are watching every more that we make! Potential investment will flee at the first sign of controversy or back room deals that cannot stand the sunshine of public scrutiny.

Conflict of interest in Minister's appointment of sibling? Yes, absolutely!

By Shadow Environment Minister Cole Simons

February 17, 2010

The Royal Gazette asked us whether we think Environment Minister Eugene Blakeney's appointment of his sister to the Development Applications Board constituted a conflict of interest. The following is our reply from Shadow Environment Minister Cole Simons:

Yes we do consider this a conflict of interest - a conflict with the public interest. We say that because we believe the public wants government agencies such as the DAB to decide issues on their merit, without fear or favour. By appointing his sister to the DAB, the minister is undermining that role, certainly in appearance if not in reality.

Anytime a minister of a government appoints a relative to an agency of that government, people must ask why. We know Bermuda has plenty of suitable people who would be honoured to serve and contribute and so we have to ask why this appointment?

The minister's judgment and his intentions must also be questioned. The minister, if he cared about avoiding the appeance of a conflict, did not have to make the appointment. One of the basic rules of good governance is if something doesn't look good or doesn't feel good you avoid it. The Environment Minister did not do that in this instance and it sends a very poor signal to the community.

We belive the Minister needs to go out of his way to show commitment to a higher standard of governance. We say: Reconsider the appointment. Do the right thing

Latest News

Lowering the bar – The PLP and public speaking
By H. Kim Swan , Opposition Leader
Monday, July 05, 2010
Category: Press Releases
Consequences and truth in public spending
By H. Kim Swan , Opposition Leader
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Category: Press Releases
Seniors are being let down by government
By Louise Jackson , MBE, JP, MP, Shadow Minister for Health and Seniors
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Category: Press Releases
Parental responsibility legislation too long in coming
By H. Kim Swan , United Bermuda Party Leader
Monday, June 28, 2010
Category: Press Releases
No one should be above the law
By H. Kim Swan , JP, MP , Leader, United Bermuda Party
Monday, June 28, 2010
Category: Press Releases

More News…

Barritt’s View From the Hill

Click here to read the weekly column on Parliament by John Barritt, JP, MP, United Bermuda Party Shadow Minister for Legislative Reform and Justice.
Last Update: Friday, June 25, 2010

Plan to join us at “Uniting Under the Stars” – our summer fundraiser.

Click here for more information

Lowering the bar – The PLP and public speaking

By Kim Swan, Opposition Leader

Consequences and truth in public spending

By Kim Swan, Opposition Leader

Seniors are being let down by government

By Louise Jackson, MBE, JP, MP, Shadow Minister for Health Seniors

Parental responsibility legislation too long in coming

By Kim Swan, JP, MP, United Bermuda Party Leader

No one should be above the law

By Kim Swan, JP, MP, United Bermuda Party Leader

Doing the right thing – deleting Burch’s words from the record

By The United Bermuda Party

Sousa becomes UBP’s Warwick West candidate

By The United Bermuda Party

More questions than answers

By Senator Michael Dunkley, Shadow Minister of Tourism

Kudos to Mr. Trevor Moniz

By Opposition Leader Mr. Kim Swan, JP, MP

On stewardship and debt

By Mr. E.T. (Bob) Richards, Shadow Minister of Finance

Auditor General investigation needed

By John Barritt, Shadow Minister of Legislative and Parliamentary Reform

When truth and party collide

By Mr. Kim Swan, JP, MP, United Bermuda Party Leader

Party chairman steps down to become election candidate

By Mr. Kim Swan, JP, MP, United Bermuda Party Leader

Heroes Committee should be drawn from the community

By Senator Jeanne Atherden, Shadow Minister of Community & Cultural Affairs

Tourism results are simply not good enough

By Senator Michael Dunkley, Shadow Minister for Public Safety

Let’s work together on the crime challenge

By United Bermuda Party Leader Kim Swan and Senator Michael Dunkley, Shadow Minister for Public Safety

Erwin Adderley – Candidate for Pembroke West, Constituency 19

A threat to free speech

By Trevor Moniz, JP, MP, United Bermuda Party Deputy Leader

On the planned dissolution of CURE

By Kim Swan, United Bermuda Party Leader

Get on with it

By Senator Jeanne Atherden, Shadow Community and Cultural Affairs Minister

Spinning in air

By Kim Swan, United Bermuda Party leader and Shadow Minister for Transportation

Get back to the real business of the people

By Trevor Moniz, Deputy Leader, United Bermuda Party

Smother with 24/7 surveillance

By Sen. Michael Dunkley, Shadow Minister for Public Safety

Allan Marshall - Candidate for Hamilton South, Constituency 7

The following are talk points by United Bermuda Party Leader Mr. Kim Swan and Mr. Allan Marshall, who was announced as the United Bermuda Party candidate for Hamilton South, at John Smith's Bay, May 4, 2010

On gaming in Bermuda

By Kim Swan, JP, MP, United Bermuda Party Leader

When politics preceded public safety

By Senator Michael Dunkley, Shadow Minister for Public Safety

Roban’s code words one more example of Government’s negative leadership

By Kim Swan, JP, MP, United Bermuda Party Leader

‘We would do better’

A summary report of the United Bermuda Town Hall meeting at St. Mary’s Church in Warwick

April 18th road death

Kim Swan, Opposition Leader:

Easter Shootings Press Conference statements

Kim Swan, Opposition Leader:

Senator Michael Dunkley, Shadow Minister Public Safety

Emergency Cabinet meeting a totally inadequate response

By Michael H. Dunkley, Shadow Minister for Public Safety

New Education strategy needs independent standards board and frequent updates

By Dr. Grant Gibbons, Shadow Shadow Education Minister

Good Friday murder

By Senator Michael Dunkley, Shadow Minister for Public Safety

We’ll beat this challenge to recruit firefighters

By Senator Michael Dunkley, Shadow Minister for Labour and Home Affairs

Paying the price of the 2010-2011 Budget

By E.T. (Bob) Richards, Shadow Minister of Finance

Our FutureCare goals - fair, affordable, sustainable

By Louise Jackson, JP, MP. OBE

Parks overtime dispute - years in the making

By Kim Swan, Opposition Leader

The Premier’s unhelpful response on Bean’s name-calling

By a United Bermuda Party spokesman

Response to Royal Gazette story – “Angry Parks workers down tools…”

By Senator Michael Dunkley J.P, Shadow Tourism Minister

Tax dollars to airlines

By Senator Michael Dunkley J.P, Shadow Tourism Minister