The following article was sent to BFP anonymously – probably by the DLP campaign team (or not – that’s just our guess).
Never no mind the source – it makes some good points so we’ll run with it…
BLP Leadership: Unity or Collective Greed?
The launch of the BLP campaign was a well orchestrated affair. I only found two obvious flaws in the proceedings and they were related to Clyde Mascoll.
The first was Mr Mascoll’s cry to “re-elect the Democratic Labour Party” during his address. I was astounded! I wondered whether it was a Freudian slip or a case of divine intervention; similar to the biblical tale of Lord speaking through Balaam’s donkey. Either way, at best it made it clear that Mr Mascoll is seriously confused.
The second was the deafening silence on the matter of Mr Mascoll being ‘anointed’ as the ‘co-leader’ of the BLP. Please don’t tell me that this is yet another case of the Nation and Advocate newspapers both inaccurately recording yet another statement by Mr Arthur.
Barbados can you imagine it! Mr Arthur ‘anointed’ Clyde Mascoll to be ‘co-leader’ of the BLP. This means if he wins the next election look for PM Mascoll in the near future.
People, forget Reggie, forget Mia, forget Liz, forget Billie; Mr Arthur has gone for “Malik wid teet”, to use a term of endearment coined by one of his Cabinet colleagues.
And what of Mr Arthur, you ask? You think him foolish? He is going to be President! You say this is a conspiracy theory? Did you hear Mr Arthur last night? The only leader he could find to compare himself to, was Fidel Castro.
And imagine not a word on the ‘co-leader’ Wednesday night at the BLP meeting! It was like a TV episode of the “Twilight Zone” (under 40s will have to do a Google search on this to get the analogy). And what should we make of the silence, is this a united front? I suggest that it is a blatant case of collective greed!
Much was made of Mr Thompson’s reported comments, that if you are on the football field and a decision was made and you did not like it, then you should walk off, to explain the reason for his walk out of the House. The BLP vehemently objected to this comment and we now know why….
The BLP’s objection is not based on principle but on the fact, as demonstrated in the anointing of Mr Mascoll, they cannot walk off; and Mr Arthur knows it. It is the most obvious case of “i f you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow”.
Mr Arthur knows that those of his parliamentary team who don’t want money, want power and he knows that he is their meal ticket. Mr Arthur also knows that despite their obvious contempt for him, the ‘negrocrats’ in his party need this “poor boy from Rose Hill” to win back government. And he is rubbing it in their face.
In his quest to rid Barbados’ political landscape of ‘negrocrats’ Mr Mascoll has become Mr Arthur’s comrade in arms. His heir apparent! While this social engineering agenda is commendable in principle, what does it tell us about the leadership of the BLP, especially when we are told “leadership matters most” in this election?
Mr Arthur, in foisting his ‘co-leader’ onto the BLP, has demonstrated that the spirit of greed as captured in the1985 calypso by John King, “I want a Plantation” is alive and well in his Party. Mr Arthur gambled on his colleagues’ desire, at any cost, for the people of Barbados to continue to call them ‘master’, call them ‘boss’ and their common commitment never to be poor again.
Mr Arthur has exposed that the leadership of the Barbados Labour Party is not united by philosophy, or vision, or love but by collective greed.
In 1994, when Mr Sandiford’s authoritarianism loomed large, four DLP backbenchers joined with the BLP in a vote of no-confidence against him. These men of morals and conscience, these great sons of Barbados knew that it was better that they should die for the people, than the whole nation should perish. These were God fearing, decent men who put their country before party.
Can the members of the BLP, after the ‘Hardwood’ scandal which demonstrated Mr Mascoll’s incompetence, put Mr Arthur’s personal political agenda to anoint Mr Mascoll ahead of Barbados? The evidence suggests that the answer is a clear ‘yes’.
It is ironic, that in such a short period of time Mr Mascoll could create such political confusion in the BLP. Finally, they understand that many of the problems that Mr Thompson faced over the years were not of his making but, even then, the consequence of the actions of Mr Arthur’s political marionette, Clyde Mascoll. But he is now their problem to deal with. I wish them well.
Mr Arthur, the Dees didn’t want Mr Mascoll, the Bees don’t want Mr Mascoll. Who are you to anoint him as the de facto leader of Barbados? This is not Camelot and you are no king to impose him on us!
It is obvious that the collective greed of the BLP candidates outweighs any sense of personal ethics, loyalty to party and most damningly, commitment to this country. The BLP team of political ‘paros’ is unable to say ‘no’ to Mr Arthur’s power fix.
In this election, I agree that leadership matters most. The BLP has shown it doesn’t have a team with the honesty and integrity to challenge Mr Arthur’s leadership vision for Barbados which is “Malik wid teet”.
We must depend on Mr Thompson to once and for all rid us of this political parasite.
To the BLP all we can say is: Goodbye, Farewell, Amen.
John Q Public