ANALOGIES are meant to clarify; not to confuse – and must be held by a strong thread of common sense. It is not hard to depict Dale Marshall as experiencing grave difficulty with these prerequisites.
Mr Marshall argues that Prime Minister Freundel Stuart’s announcement of the St John by-election date before the naming of a Democratic Labour Party (DLP) candidate was “akin to a man buying a ring, renting a place for a wedding reception, booking a date for the church, and having no idea who would be his bride”.
The folly in presenting this as an analogy with perceived bungling, lack of thought and idiocy is that there is neither a legal nor moral demand to name a candidate before calling a date for a by-election. But there is a requirement to name your bride to the pastor before you can “book” his church.
Further, a by-election date and its time limit are prescribed by law, and thus an actual polling day can be identified as early as a Prime Minister might wish to. The procurement of a suitable candidate, or the “best candidate”, may hinge on persuasion, availability and/or confirmation, and needs only be identified publicly by Nomination Day. An extreme case, yes!
Even so, only a fool cared not to know that Mara Thompson was in the running from the very beginning; that all it required was her publicly declared interest in and commitment to following in her late husband’s footsteps – a passionate request of many constituents of St John.
It is obvious that Owen Arthur has not been around, and that deputy Dale Marshall has not had the benefit of counsel from the political general. Nor will he likely gain any insight from experienced election strategist Mia Mottley. Otherwise, Mr Marshall might have known these things and produced a much more pertinent and constructive analogy – if any.
His sidekick George Payne, seeking to give the aforementioned pathetic analogy some measure of profoundness, likened the lack of an early DLP candidate announcement to “another example of the way the DLP has treated this constituency” of St John. This from a man who for a parliamentary term and a half said little or nothing in the House of Assembly on behalf of his constituents of St Andrew – because he had a tiff with his Prime Minister Owen.
Now that he and his leader (again) are on speaking terms once more – Hail Mia, Mr Payne has this preoccupation with unfinished business in St John, particularly the troubled polyclinic in Gall Hill. Not minding the limbo the nigh $40 million Greenland Landfill in St Andrew has been in since Mr Payne’s Barbados Labour Party (BLP) was last in power, and the much touted alternative natural park in the Scotland District that has never seen the light of day under this MP’s watch.
With what moral authority can Mr Payne speak to unfinished business in St John?
Let’s be honest! In the good years (post-1994 to pre-2008) Mr Payne’s BLP did nothing to bring that started St John polyclinic to any fruition. It might have been seen as politically unpragmatic.
In our Prime Ministerial politics, the Lord giveth and the Lord doth not; blessed be the Lord.
Poor Hudson Griffith! A gentleman – but misled. If his BLP, when in Government and with the means, wouldn’t – or couldn’t – do more for the people of St John, how will it now in Opposition on Mr Griffith’s behalf? What new dawn, new era of hope with the BLP is Mr Griffith talking about?
What new thought can there be for a 2011 campaign theme from the worn image of an abandoned polyclinic project in Gall Hill? Why would Mr Griffith want to take comfort in rust of the past?
The neophyte will learn much from the St John experience: that these days rhetoric alone don’t cut it; that common sense is a required ingredient in public utterances.
Moreover, a sixth sense is essential to being made aware when the battle is already won – and definitely lost!