Jason Hayward made his move this weekend to capture the leadership of the Progressive Labour Party in a smartly choreographed move designed to eliminate competition and make any other candidate look divisive.

Mr Hayward, the economy and labour minister, has long been seen as a likely successor to David Burt when he steps down as PLP leader and Premier in October.

The statistician and former trade union leader showed he is also a deft political operator, having removed his only declared rival, Zane DeSilva, from the running with a pre-emptive deal that saw the housing minister endorse him immediately after his declaration.

It is not clear whether any other candidates will emerge. It is not impossible that Curtis Dickinson, the former finance minister who unsuccessfully challenged Mr Burt four years ago, will throw his hat in the ring. But there do not appear to be any other likely candidates at the moment.

That is a shame. Even though the leader of the PLP, and therefore premier, is chosen by the party’s delegates and not the wider electorate, both the party and the population should see an election campaign in which the personalities and policies of the candidates are tested and publicised.

The successful candidate will inherit a parliamentary majority that will be theirs for about three years. On that basis, the public — who do not choose him or her — have the right to know who will be leading them. This is not an internal matter, despite Mr Hayward saying so at a press conference this month when he was asked whether he was running.

Mr Hayward may have had his tongue in his cheek when he batted off that question, but the reality is that this is not an internal matter, but an issue of vital public interest.

Despite that, Mr Hayward seems to be aiming for a coronation, not a contest.

That’s the reason he worked to get Mr DeSilva out of the race and on to his side, and it was also reflected in his fairly brief remarks on his candidacy.

He said discussions with colleagues and party members made it clear that the party wanted unity rather than division, which could be read as code for a plea for an uncontested leadership vote.

He said: “Let us move forward united, let us move forward with focus, let us move forward determined.”

Beyond that, Mr Hayward’s speech was high-minded but vague: “Where hope is lost, let us restore hope. Where there is a lack of confidence, let us restore confidence. Let us exemplify excellence in the execution and delivery of our work. Our people deserve and they expect nothing less.”

Those are worthy goals, but mean little without detail about how Mr Hayward intends to achieve them. Nor do they constitute a vision for the kind of Bermuda he would like to see.

With regard to Mr Hayward’s own personality, the public also needs illumination.

He said: “I am prepared by experience, I am prepared by struggle and I am prepared by service.”

Of his decision to run, he said: “I make it grounded in service, I make it grounded in justice, I make it grounded in solidarity.”

Again, these are high-minded words, but the public has the right to know what they mean. What struggles has Mr Hayward endured? What does he mean by justice and solidarity?

Mr Hayward, in fact, has a record that deserves to be examined. A statistician by profession and a civil servant, he became the first full-time president of the Bermuda Public Services Union in 2014, during which time he was one of the three leaders of the People’s Campaign that galvanised opposition to the One Bermuda Alliance during its tenure in government.

During that time, he was also appointed to the Senate and became an MP in a by-election in 2019 in the relatively safe seat of Pembroke Central. He has held the seat since.

He has been responsible for labour since the 2020 election, adding economic development in early 2022. The portfolio includes immigration.

Mr Hayward said at the Chamber of Commerce Budget Breakfast yesterday that gross domestic product had expanded from $6.9 billion in 2020 to $9.2 billion in 2024, the most recent year for which statistics are available. That was an impressive 33 per cent rise.

Mr Hayward appeared to be taking some credit for this, with some justice. But disturbingly for a statistician, if not as a politician, he was selective in the data he chose.

First, any economic growth in the present environment deserves praise. Many Western countries are struggling with sclerotic growth and face many of the same challenges Bermuda does.

However, Mr Hayward measured growth from 2020, when Bermuda’s economy was in free fall as a result of the pandemic. In 2019, gross domestic product at current prices was $7.4 billion. That would still result in a 21 per cent rise. That is still impressive, just less so.

But Mr Hayward also chose to use GDP at current prices, which includes growth owing to inflation.

When inflation is taken at constant prices, and with inflation taken out, Bermuda’s GDP between 2020 and 2024 grew from $6 billion to $7.1 billion, an 18 per cent increase. GDP in 2019 was $6.45 billion in constant prices, meaning the economy has grown 10 per cent since then.

Every politician attempts to put the best possible gloss on their performance, and perhaps Mr Hayward is no different.

But if he wishes to be leader of all of Bermuda, he needs to be sure that he is being as straight as possible with the people to whom he is responsible and accountable.

Using a different and more flattering measure of economic growth may seem a small thing or a matter of semantics. But it is important. Much of politics is gamesmanship, but Mr Hayward is asking for the trust of all Bermudians, and that should not be taken lightly. It is hard to gain and easy to lose.

In the next few months, Mr Hayward and whoever joins him in the leadership race will be under more scrutiny than they are used to. Every word will be examined not merely in the context of their jobs, but to decipher how they will lead the country. This is a great responsibility that will help to determine if they are worthy of the public’s confidence.