An election is looming. When it comes, each main party will no doubt promise to sustain economic growth, reform education, build houses, tackle crime and economically empower the disadvantaged.

A spat caused by inflammatory racial rhetoric might grab a few headlines and set the parties at each other’s throats. But, beyond the bluster, how different are the parties in their core philosophy?

Are they more divided by a their history rather than their current beliefs or are there still significant differences available to give the voter a real choice?

With its roots in the labour movement and its fight for greater rights for oppressed blacks the Progressive Labour Party certainly began on the left while the United Bermuda Party, with its genesis in the business class, looked to be a typically conservative entity when the party system was born in the 1960s.

But now both parties seem to be clinging to the centre, promising social reform programmes while not wanting to upset international business. The competing claims are about who can manage Bermuda better.

Some saw the shift a while ago. Back in 2002 then backbencher Wayne Perinchief, now presumably happily ensconced in Cabinet, accused his own party of failing its core working class supporters while surging ahead with policies friendly to big business and the rich.

He went as far as to say some early legislation had given the impression that the PLP had become a conservative party supporting the same people who were backed by the former UBP Government.

The PLP had to make a shift from its “left wing socialist” agenda to a “comparatively radical right wing” philosophy in order to win the election, he said.

The question is how far has the party moved to the right? Key Government Ministers seem to flip flop between pumping out a go-getting message that Bermuda is the best place in the world where those who work hard will surely prosper, to claiming it is still riddled with white privilege and grasping foreigners who need to be held in check.

Premier Ewart Brown has spoken scathingly about the welfare culture which he said stripped people of their own spirit. And he has attacked the atmosphere of entitlement after complaining some students seem to expect Government to find them a job.

Continuing labour unrest throughout the PLP spell in power has also led some to question how close the party is to its core support.

Political scientist and PLP supporter Walton Brown said both parties had evolved significantly since the origin of party politics in the 1960s.

“There has been repeated comment about a socialist dimension to the PLP but this has never been reflected in any policy proposals,” he noted.

And, he said, while the UBP was created to represent the dominant oligarchy it too became a reformist party.

Both parties are committed to capitalism. “The difference is that the UBP was more conservative and business-friendly, the PLP reformist and labour-focused, wanting to create capitalism with a more human face,” Mr. Brown said. For years the PLP lost elections having struggled to win over the white working class. “The party seemed to equate workers with blacks,” Mr. Brown said.

But he added that, in the 1990s under leader Freddie Wade, the party worked to drop the race rhetoric that put off both conservative blacks and whites as it reached out to the business community.

Christian Dunleavy, a former UBP candidate, who runs a political website, sees further movement. He said: “Under Dr. Brown, there is a clear shift favouring big business and unrestrained development, but in a manner where the approval is gained by currying favour with the Premier and being in his circle of friends.”

The UBP has also shifted, noted Mr. Brown, and has projected itself as the reformist party as is seeks to reconnect with voters by offering a better deal for seniors and those seeking affordable accommodation. “What this tells voters is that ideology is significantly less compelling than projecting the right message to win key votes,” he said.

Indeed the party is beginning to outflank the PLP on the left with some progressive policies — most noticeably the promise to abolish payroll tax for those earning less than $36,000.

Rootsier candidates are being selected such as ex-PLP stalwart Kenneth Bascome and community activist Gina Spence-Farmer.

Supporters see a broad church representing all sectors of society. Cynics see an unsustainable and loose coalition of people with little in common which could implode again at any moment — just as it has done with the messy resignations of MP Jamahl Simmons and party chairwoman Gwyneth Rawlins.

Since leaving the UBP, Mr. Simmons has become one of its harshest critics. He said it lacked a clear and consistent ideology.

“As the years progress, it becomes more evident that the UBP exists primarily as a stopgap/buffer against the PLP rather than a legitimate and independent entity,” he said.

“Their ideology can be summed up in believing in diversity and anything that the PLP isn’t doing or is doing badly, they will do better job on. Thus most of the ‘values’ they promote such as good governance and sustainable development are more of a reaction rather than an example of forward, progressive thinking.

“It is like advocating ice cream on a hot day or a suitor telling an abused woman that they are totally opposed to the abuse of women. It becomes the politics of platitudes.”

He added: “Isn’t it odd that the party that promotes diversity as a value has no position on homosexual rights and affirmative action? What is their position on immigration? What is their position on Independence? The list for what they oppose is far greater than for what they propose to do for the country.

“Contrast the PLP in Opposition pushing for the lowering of the voting age, single seat constituencies, Independence and a more equitable tax system. And while they certainly did their fair share of ‘opposing’ they also had a clear set of goals that they didn’t have a problem stating over and over again.”

The gay rights issue has also thrown Bermuda’s politics into sharp relief. The Governing party helped scupper a bid to broaden gay rights after pressure from the church lobby — not something which seems that progressive in any normal use of the word. Indeed some have questioned whether the ‘progressive’ label in the PLP’s moniker refers to anything much more than the advancement of black causes.

Along with it comes obvious anti-foreigner sentiment which again is the preserve of right-wing governments the world over. Indeed where the PLP now stands is illuminated by the use of a political spectrum chart from the Wikipedia website encyclopaedia. In many cases the party firmly stands on the right.

It supports equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome, laissez-faire economic policies rather than Government intervention, traditional values rather than widened lifestyle choices, religious morality rather than personal philosophy and individualism over collectivism. And so the list goes on and the party differs little from the UBP on that count.

But of course the true picture is far more complicated. The PLP does have radical policies which transcend the traditional spectrum — like geared-to-income housing where tenants are charged a quarter of their income. The scheme, which began with the 12-unit Butterfield Lane development and will also be used in the larger Perimeter Lane and Ireland Island residences, is designed to let tenants build up savings with the hope they can then buy rather than rent a home.

Meanwhile, both parties are now plugging black economic empowerment — even if they don’t always want to use the world ‘black’. In 2005 the UBP tabled an economic empowerment bill and later attacked the Government for not taking it up but merely ‘talking black’ but doing little. Government has since moved to assist entrepreneurs in Court Street and North Hamilton, something which already championed by the UBP.

Which leads to what credit Oppositions can legitimately claim for the actions of Government. While the UBP pushed through social reforms in its 30 years in power, it is common for PLP politicians to claim their prompting was the deciding factor.

Mr. Dunleavy said: “After spending many, many years arguing that Bermuda was a terrible place under the UBP, the PLP has spend a lot of time taking credit for the successes implemented by those UBP administrations. For their own part, the UBP have done a poor job of taking credit for their own work over many decades and have allowed the PLP to write themselves into, and UBP MPs out of, history.”

PLP party grandee Arthur Hodgson concedes the policies of the parties might seem similar on the face of it but he said the histories of the parties indicate the PLP is more sincere about progress. He said the UBP was formed as a bid to keep the status quo, while the PLP was an agent for change.

And while he concedes the UBP is different from its early days and its long gone politicians wouldn’t even recognise their party or country of today, he said the tendencies of the past remain.

“The PLP is committed to change, the UBP is not committed to change,” he said.

And while the UBP might promise more now Mr. Hodgson said: “I can’t believe Michael Dunkley is as committed to change as Ewart Brown is.”

Which is not to say he hasn’t been disturbed by trends he has seen in his own party during its nine years in power.

“Over the years we have become far more concerned with getting in office than we are about any progressive movement,” Mr. Hodgson said.

He said the party had failed to tackle the education issue in it nine years of power in spite of the fact that it used to be a core concern for many of his colleagues. But at least it is still on the agenda for action, said Mr. Hodgson.

Bermuda College economist Craig Simmons said ideology has never been strong in Bermudian politics and, because of the need to be pragmatic, neither party has core values.

“As one of the most isolated places on the planet, Bermudians learned early that ingenuity and hard work put food on tables, roofs over heads and clothing on backs. Ideology was a luxury few would trust,” he said.

“Most within the PLP now accept that before one can re-distribute shares of an economic pie, someone must first bake the pie.”

As a result the PLP has become pragmatic and less ideological while the UBP has changed little in that it had no ideological roots and was formed in strategic reaction to the PLP.

“It is still the pragmatic party, but lacks a raison d’|0xea|tre or a strategy to gain the confidence of the electorate.”

Sometimes it seems as if there are bigger ideological differences within the parties than between them. The PLP has radicals like Rolfe Commissiong and conservatives like Reggie Burrows while the UBP has fielded such disparate candidates as free-market campaigner Robert Stewart and centrists such as Kim Swan, ironically former running mates.

Mr. Dunleavy agreed there was a vastly divergent set of views within parties and what kept them together was less to do with policy and more with approach and a lack of other political choices.

“I think without the UBP to push against, the PLP would divide into a few disparate camps, with labour at one end and Dr. Brown’s black capitalists at the other.

“I think ultimately the electorate will tire of the current dynamic between the parties or Bermuda will never mature politically.

“There is so much that people aren’t paying attention to that is happening right in front of their eyes, because politically we remain focused on what happened, not what is happening.”

And Mr. Simmons said class divisions were re-emerging despite the concentration on race as an issue.

He said: “The public education system’s inability to give value for tax dollar should be the issue that decides elections. Poor people send their children to public schools and their voices are not heard. Middle class and aspiring middle class parents display their disgust by sending their children to private schools. Race, whilst an issue, is giving way to class.”

Beyond the political bluster