The row between the Progressive Labour Party and the United Bermuda Party over personal political attacks shows every sign of getting out of hand.

The fight began last week when Opposition Leader Grant Gibbons referred several times to the "Smith Government" during his unveiling of the "new" UBP in a speech last week at St. Paul AME Centennial Hall.

PLP spokesman Glen Blakeney protested, saying that to characterise the PLP Government as the Smith Government was too personal and unfair and smacked of American-style politics.

Mr. Blakeney was wrong to protest. The Premier is inevitably identified with the government and of the day and as the head of the Cabinet has collective responsibility for all decision taken by the Government.

Then too, the Premier has taken a a leadership role on issues ranging from education to constitutional reform to Caricom. It is her face that is one the cover of the PLP's 1998 manifesto and it is her picture that greets every single person entering Bermuda through the airport. No one is more closely identified with the Government's policies than Ms Smith.

So complaining about criticism of "the Smith Government" is not just naive; it suggests the PLP is worried the Premier is an election liability. Mr. Blakeney was complaining too much.

Then Mr. Simmons snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

First he hit back at Mr. Blakeney and rightly refused to apologise. Then he did get personal, saying that the PLP had been "drunk on power" and "drunk on champagne" for four years.

The latter statement was wrong, both ethically and politically. First, his response was a personal attack where none had been made before and marked a new low in Bermuda politics. Ms Smith's penchant for champagne may be well known; bringing it up in a political campaign is quite another matter.

Bermuda's politicians, media and most of the public have generally followed an unwritten rule that what politicians do in private should stay there - unless it affects the way they govern.

And Mr. Simmons and his colleagues should probably think very carefully about getting personal with the Government, unless they want all of their personal foibles exposed as well.

Bermuda elections have traditionally been reasonably clean affairs in which the issues are well aired without descending into the kind of attack ads and negative campaigning that characterises US elections and have done so much to bring American politicians into disrepute.

Bermuda has a chance to take the high road and have an election on the issues; there is certainly plenty to debate, from tourism to housing to the economy to health care without descending into an ugly and personally vitriolic campaign.

Does that mean that politicians should not be held accountable for their public statements, past business practices or policy decisions? Of course not. If the Opposition wants to take the Government to task for its love of official travel when the same Government promised to stamp out waste then that is fair enough. And if the Government wants to remind the Opposition in relation to the Housing Corporation scandal and delays at Berkeley of the Sea-Land bailout at Westgate then that's fair game too.

It is fair to say that the PLP has indulged in racial and ethnic politicking of the worst kind as politicians as diverse as Sir John Swan and Kim Young will attest.

But that does not mean that either party should sink to those kinds of lows now; there's no place for negative campaigning in Bermuda.