TWENTY-FOUR hours is a long time in politics, Mr. Editor. Ten weeks is too long. But that's how long the House will have been out when we reconvene on the Hill next Friday.

It's been quite the recess really, and in duration more like a hibernation than a break from parliamentary action. Not that it's been completely quiet on the political front since Christmas.

If the pollsters are to be believed, there are some close races going on . . . except backwards. A kind of political version of the limbo, if you will: how low can you go . . . without collapsing.

The two political parties like their leaders are said to be neck and neck; and therein lies a warning. As most pundits will point out, clever politicians want to be careful to never stick their necks out too far. They tend to get the chop.

Sticking with body parts, the Premier seems to have one leg up on the Opposition ? access to the public purse. Someone somewhere came up with the idea of paid focus groups to tell him and the Progressive Labour Party Government how to improve their image and how to get their message across to the people.

I don't know about you, Mr. Editor, but it all sounds to me like an expensive and more convenient substitute for canvassing and listening. Although on reflection, as it is paid for by taxpayers, it does work out to be cheaper for the PLP.

Mind you, we have repeatedly been told that the purpose of the focus groups and polling was not political. Sure, sure, Mr. Editor. Meanwhile we all await the report on how much this exercise cost; who was polled; what they were asked; and what they said, i.e. the results ? without editing and without editorial comment. Fat chance, you say?

Speaking of costs, as advertised, Big BIC also swung into action while we were down and out, on holiday from the Hill: a 12-person committee appointed by the Premier to investigate and give us the facts on Independence for Bermuda.

We in the Opposition were very kindly offered the right to nominate one person for the Bermuda Independence Commission, but respectfully declined, thank you very much. It was a decision that didn't go down well with everyone, including the Man Who Made The Offer, as well as ? dare I say it? ? some of our own supporters. Only some, Mr. Editor, not many.

As our leader, Dr. Grant Gibbons, explained at the time: we didn't in good conscience feel that we could serve. And it wasn't just because we were only offered the right to put up one person for one spot, even though we represent close to half of the voting electorate. It was a point of principle.

First, the PLP didn't run on the pursuit of Independence in the last election. They have no mandate. While I appreciate that their platform wasn't published until a week or so before the 2003 vote, and voters may as a consequence have had little time to read let alone digest its contents, the subject didn't even rate a mention.

The only change since the 2003 vote? A change of leaders: see above on polls, popularity and what happens when your neck is out too far.

What we have seen since the change in leaders is the emergence of something called "The Social Agenda", trumpeted in the most recent Throne Speech in which, incidentally, despite its length and its breadth, the subject of Independence once again didn't even rate a mention in the PLP Government's list of priorities for the current Parliamentary year.

Secondly, we in the Opposition could agree on that: there are some far more important and pressing issues to get on with than the pursuit of Independence. Limited time and resources ? money and manpower ? have a way of dictating what you can and cannot do.

Now the PLP calls it a Social Agenda.

We call it the People's Business.

Speaking of agendas, Mr. Editor, the Opposition also happened to think that the pursuit of Independence wasn't very high on the list of priorities for the people of Bermuda. The polls tend to confirm this to be the case, the most recent example being that which was published last week in

Those against have apparently reached a new high: 65.2 per cent. What's even more startling perhaps is that an even greater number (69.4 per cent) wish to have the issue decided by way of a referendum rather than general election. Nothing uncertain about those numbers, eh?

Meanwhile, the position of the United Bermuda Party, new or old, has been consistent. On the question of a referendum, we've been neverendum: the people of Bermuda should have the right to decide by way of a direct vote, yes or no, on whether Bermuda should go independent.

It's a position that is hardly surprising for a party that is made up of people who are for and against Independence; in fact, you might say it's a position that is representative of the community we seek to serve.

After a yes vote, maybe, we can get down to deciding on Brand X or Brand Y and who should lead us into Independence by way of a general election.

But BIC, we're told, won't be dealing with how the question is to be decided. In his one and only Ministerial statement to Parliament on the subject, just before we rose for the Christmas holiday, the Premier foretold the establishment of BIC, promising that it would embark on "a comprehensive, fact-finding, analytical and reasoned approach". We can only await their findings on the facts.

Speaking of reasoned approaches, we have now heard from the ex-right hand man of the ex-Premier (see the bit on polls above) on the subject. Lt. Col David Burch called for a debate on the issue "free of all the hyperbole and overreaction that has characterised the debate thus far".

That was bit like the kettle calling the pot black, don't you think, Mr. Editor? He reminded us that the PLP have always been for Independence, since day one ? it's in their constitution, he said ? and they are for deciding the issue by way of a general election.

But so what? As the song says, that was yesterday. They used to be against accepting the Queen's Honours too. I particularly liked his bit about general elections being "the bedrock of democracy". True that.

But let's not overlook the downside of the first-past-the-post system. Even if constituencies are even in terms of numbers of voters, that system has a habit of returning Parliaments and Governments that are not necessarily representative of how people voted.

The number of seats rarely matches the popular support and Governments have been known to be elected without the majority popular vote and in some cases, if not most, with more MPs than their fair share on the basis of the popular vote.

A referendum cuts through all of that: each vote actually is of equal value when people vote in a referendum. Col. Burch also scolded those who promote a referendum for overlooking the cost. He put the price tag at around $600,000.

Even if he's right, I suspect that the additional and new costs of an Independent Bermuda make a $600,000 price tag quite modest by comparison and a small price to pay for letting the people have the final say.

Finally, speaking of change, Mr. Editor, the about-face in Barbados this week didn't escape my notice . . . and that of hundreds of others in Bermuda too, I bet. Prime Minister Owen Arthur reversed positions and will now plump for a referendum on the issue of whether Barbados should move from a monarchical to a republican system of government. Fancy that.

"The opinion of the people should be deliberately and specifically canvassed by way of a referendum," the Prime Minister was quoted as saying in the news report which I read.