AS my mother, God bless her, used to love to remind me on occasion: if you can't think of something nice to say about someone don't say anything at all. But, you know, it's hard not to, Mr. Editor - and in the modern world of politics today it seems like one of those golden rules that doesn't apply and that, moreover, this is generally regarded as fair and acceptable by all.

Let me share with our readers a case in point; and it's personal.

I happened to be perusing the PLP web site the other day, keeping abreast of developments on the other side, when I happened across this release which caught my eye - for obvious reasons.

The PLP were extolling (read, announcing) their candidate for Devonshire South Central, the constituency which I happen to represent, along with two others who will be running against my colleagues in two neighbouring districts, Grant Gibbons and Patricia Gordon-Pamplin:

"Grant Gibbons, John Barritt and Pat Gordon-Pamplin", read the PLP statement, "represent politics as usual. Gibbons, Barritt and Gordon-Pamplin, the UBP old guard, are obsessed with obstructing a positive agenda that will move Bermuda forward. And, instead of pursuing compromise and working in the best interests of Bermuda, they regularly engage in the politics of personal destruction."

Yikes! You don't say. But they do. And if you don't mind me saying so, and I don't much care if you do, that sounds very much like the kettle calling the pot black or, if you prefer, the chalk calling the cheese white.

Old guard!?

I could be uncharitable here and note for the record that the three of us haven't been around as long as some of those who sit on the PLP benches - and name them, but I won't. We all know who they are. They are the ones the new PLP Party Leader and Premier has been busy trying to shuffle off, some of them unsuccessfully - at least to date. Speaking of Dr. Brown, I seem to recall that he and I came to the House at the same time, the class of 1993, almost 14 years ago now.

On the other hand, I suppose old guard is better than being described as having been around for what seems like an eternity: which is how I am told one TV news reporter elected to describe me on the day the PLP announced their candidates. Surely old is relative, isn't it Mr. Editor? Mind you, on the one hand, I am staring ahead at impeding grandparenthood in three weeks time (deo volenti) and I admit when I was younger, much younger, that was old to me. But now that I am, ahem, older, I prefer to think of myself as just a younger person later in life. Older also means more experienced, which I am, seasoned from stints on both the Government and now Opposition benches, and I didn't have to switch sides to make it happen. The voters did it for me.

What was it that the late President Reagan said about age? He was running for the US presidency rather late in life and his opponent, Walter Mondale, must have been 20 or so years his junior at the time. You may recall that the late US President very cleverly pre-empted Senator Mondale in the 1984 presidential debates by saying that he would not make age an issue."I will not exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience", said President Reagan with a characteristic wry smile and nod of the head.

Good point.

But, hey, in all seriousness Mr. Editor, we understand what the PLP are trying to do. The three of us are senior members of the United Bermuda Party team and, while I cannot always speak for my colleagues, they are quite able to do so for themselves, I would venture to say that we will be happy to run on and be judged on - our respective records of service.

Speaking for myself, and I am sure you don't need for me to go on at length about this again, I am all for change and reform in the way in which we do the country's business.

I do not want to just change the players, I am actually committed to changing a system that needs changing to bring about greater and actual accountability and transparency for all that we do in public service.

That certainly doesn't sound like politics as usual to me, but rather more like a positive agenda - not for myself but for the people of Bermuda.

Don't get me wrong though: I also happen to think the introduction of choice and competition is healthy in our democracy. If anything, there are some tangible, practical benefits and don't just take my word for it.

If you don't believe me, ask the voters of Smith's North, the constituency in which Opposition Leader Michael Dunkley has elected to run. I don't think the folks in the Loyal Hill and surrounding areas have ever had so much positive attention, not just from Mr. Dunkley but from the PLP Government.

If this is what can happen with the threat of change, I ask the voters to think about how much more can be accomplished with actual change. Democracy, Mr. Editor, it's beautiful thing. Or what is it Churchill said? Not the best but better than all the rest.

What is it good for?

THE way things are shaping up now, Mr. Editor, summer 2007 looks like it is going to go down as the summer of the election that never was.

Of course, there's been plenty of heat nonetheless. And that's not just a reference to the weather. I have been told that the Premier himself has described the election campaign as "war." Funny that. It was just last week that a new movie was released states-side titled, simply, War. The movie has variously been described as one of those macho films, mano a mano, with plenty of action. You know the type I mean. There are two chief protoganists whom, I presume, go after each other hammer and tongue. "One wants justice", run the advertisements, "the other revenge".

Oh. No further comment is required, I think. This may be coming soon to a theatre near you.

Chickens come home

ONE glaring example of the need to change the way we do the country's business here in Bermuda, Mr. Editor, has emerged over the summer recess.

Readers may have noticed the attention which those controversial amendments to the Immigration and Protection Act have recently attracted. They were the featured subject of this column on at least two separate occasions. The amendments constituted a complex piece of legislation which was banged through the House in a day (a very long day as I recall) as the community struggled to come to grips with the devil in the detail.

The Bill was not subject to the sort of scrutiny that is required for such legislation. The general public had a limited understanding of what was being done at the time of its passage, and, regrettably, as is usual, no meaningful opportunity to review and to make comment and to give input. Just tabling a Bill is insufficient and arguably inexcusable in this day and age. Our Legislature needs to put in place a committee system which doesn't just invite participation as a matter of routine, but actually encourages it. The chickens are coming home to roost on this one. You may recall that everyone thought because this was what everyone was told that these amendments were simply a crackdown on the practice of fronting, purchases by Bermudians on behalf of and for non-Bermudians of properties and homes that were otherwise not available for purchase by non-Bermudians. However, Bermudians, young Bermudians especially, are now figuring out some of the wider implications. And they don't like them. Quite rightly. The amendments discriminate against Bermudians who happen to be married to non-Bermudians and their Bermudian families. The Bermudian spouse l in all likelihood will not be able to buy more than one property for so long as the non-Bermudian spouse remains a non-Bermudian, regardless of whether or not they have children who are Bermudian; and even then the licence which they must obtain under the new law is going to put them at a distinct disadvantage to Bermudian couples who will be able to close the deal on a purchase faster. As well licences will be subject to statutory restrictions which may or not be waived, restrictions like whether they can rent the property, and for how long, or whether they can add on or sub-divide. The changes, incidentally, became law in late June. At the time of writing, we were still awaiting policy guidelines on how the Government intends to apply the new law and on how the Minister responsible will exercise any of the discretions which he has under the Act. Go figure. People should have known from the outset.