It was an effective and memorable advertising campaign that Avis once ran: we’re number two, we try harder. This same principle is probably equally applicable in politics, most especially in two party contests where finishing second means last, out of the running and definitely without power.

So you have to try harder, not just to win back the confidence of a majority of the people, but also to be noticed, to be heard and to be reported. Such is the lot of the Official Opposition in our version of the Westminster system. At least that’s one explanation for the, ahem, extravagant language we see so often and typically employed not just in the formal Reply to Throne Speech but in the debate which follows.

You might think I am being kind here. Too kind even. But I have been there and done that and know only too well how frustrating it is as an Opposition MP to be limited in contribution and effectively marginalised when it comes to the government of the country.

A voice is sometimes all you have on and off the Hill. It therefore should come as no surprise that debates descend into shouting matches and that strong words are used to forcefully make points.

As was the case when I happened to listen in last week when the matter of “commercial immigration” was under scrutiny, involving as it apparently does the possible grant of status in Bermuda for money, which could arguably become the third rail of local politics, assuming it isn’t already.

Mind you I only caught part of the debate, and I do wonder just who and how many of us do actually listen after midnight? Although you should know that you don’t have to stay up late to hear what your MPs are saying and I digress here for a parliamentary infomercial: check out the Legislature’s website www.parliament.bm where what they said is recorded and available at a click of the mouse.

Big tick here for this advance. It’s one more way in which new technology helps bring about greater accountability.

In some instances though listening is déjà vu all over again. The Opposition PLP are hearing what they used to tell the Opposition UBP: you had your chance, for umpteen years, it is our turn now to clean up the mess you left behind and correct your failures. It’s a familiar, well-worn refrain.

On the more creative side, we go from claims of “political sorcery” to counter claims of acting like “Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde”. Were the issues not so serious, these charges might be regarded as entertaining, enthralling even. Can’t wait to see the movie? But be warned: don’t go with a untrustworthy boyfriend. LOL.

Riddle me this too: what is the difference between being pro-Bermudian and anti-foreigner? This was also the subject of some debate at a late hour (and that’s probably a clue).

Is it just one of language? I suppose that very much depends (1) on who is speaking and (2) on who is listening. There’s a third proviso as well: it also depends (3) on who is interpreting what has been said for whomever is listening. Suffice it to say a lot can get lost (and added) in translation. Some call it spin.

But there should be other opportunities for tongues and idle hands on the Hill. The committee system is one. They have three on the hop now, although what we really need to see and hear is that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is up and running and doing its job. The importance of a more active and robust PAC, along with the financial oversight it is meant to provide, was thankfully not lost on the SAGE Commission.

A few SAGE words ...

Speaking of which — I am still working my way through the report, and its ramifications, but that recommendation on the size of Cabinet (8) and reduction in members (36 to 30) came as no surprise to me.

It is one way to effect a savings and, as I told the Commissioners, I personally would be prepared to accept a reduction in the House, providing the maximum for Cabinet is reduced and not left at 13. We have to have a backbench which, when coupled with the Opposition, is capable of providing, numerically, a check and balance on the exercise of power by the Executive; and, so you know, the Bermuda Constitution Order provides that the Premier can reduce his Cabinet to a minimum of seven — so he could start tomorrow, if he wanted to.

As for a proposed reduction in salary, there is meant to be a standing independent Salary Review Board in place and in operation. It ought to be appointed (by law) and told to get cracking.

I agree too, that leadership starts at the top. Privatisation aside, that will be heavy lifting, much of the organisation and reorganisation recommended by SAGE looks pretty straightforward and sensible to me — and well overdue. Some of it looks like it need not cost a dime and just a matter of will. It’s what we commonly refer to as the low lying fruit, and that doesn’t mean start by picking on those at the bottom. Begin first with those at the top.

* Share your views on The Royal Gazette website or write jbarritt@ibl.bm.