TACTICS, Mr. Editor, tactics. We all understand how they play a big role in politics but sometimes even the guerrilla warfare in the House on the Hill can get to be a bit much. Day 2 of Our Return to the House, or the day of the Opposition Reply to Throne Speech, was a prime example.

Let me break it down for you: there are nuances, some subtle and some not so subtle, which the news media typically ignore or choose not to report. It ain't glamorous and it ain't funny. In fact, if you're looking for a barrel of laughs this week, stop. Do not read on.

You will recall, Mr. Editor, that last week was that very Grand Occasion, on the lawn in front of the Upper House, which is down the Hill from the Lower House, where we gathered under the Big Tent for the reading of the new Social Agenda aka the Throne Speech (call it the TS for short ).

Naturally, the spotlight was all theirs. The Opposition is confined to reply the following Friday and ? no surprises here ? these replies are rarely complimentary, and always critical, but have been that way since party politics began no matter who the Government and who the Opposition.

But here's what you can do if you're the Government and you don't like criticism, and you can't stand (up to) scrutiny, and you want to throw your weight around: you did what the PLP did last Friday.

Swivel civil

Step 1: Conjure up as many Ministerial Statements as you can and direct your swivel servants to make them as long and as tedious as only a civil servant can. As best I can tell, there are four principal objectives:

1. Lengthy statements help pad the time and the longer you are presumably the more important you sound.

2. They delay the time when the Opposition gets to speak and deliver its Reply.

3. See if they can divert and/or distract the attention of the news media back to yourself and away from the Opposition at least for the morning and noon radio news; and

4. Ministers get more practice, sounding good, reading someone else's work without fear of interruption or of questioning or of debate.

There were eight of them Friday.

Carry on Ministers

Step 2: Don't worry if the statements or their contents might be in apparent breach of the Rules, precedent and tradition. Carry on like there's no one in charge except you. Breach the rules? What breach? What rules? Now the Rules of the House on the Hill can be awkward ? in either their interpretation or application ? but there is one rule that generally discourages members from anticipating a debate by speaking on issues that are already set down on the order paper for debate.

It didn't deter Minister of Transpourism Dr. Ewart Brown who gave us a lengthy statement on what's supposed to happen now that he is The Man's Man for Tourism and Transport. It was just the sort of thing you would expect him to tell us during debate on the TS. Didn't happen. We got in the statement instead; as it turned out Doc had other appointments and was MIA for the rest of the day.

Give him his due though he at least tried to disguise his statement by telling us initially that it was "an update" on what had been happening in Tourism since he took over. Not much. But he has attitude: under him they are going to put the "Bermudian back in tourism", open Bermuda for business 365 days a year and introduce more "pop and sizzle" to change us from a destination for the "newlywed and the nearly dead". One question then: what pray tell have they been doing for the last six years?

Housing Minister Ashfield DeVent wasn't as subtle as Ewart. The person who wrote his statement told us right up front he was about tell us more about items on housing mentioned in the TS. Trouble was he couldn't keep to script and attacked "mischievous members" of the UBP who were fighting proposed rent increases for seniors ? of which I am one . . . member that is.

Turned out even his lengthy statement wasn't enough for Minister DeVent who led off the Government reply to the Opposition Reply with a further 45-minute speech in the afternoon ? and he wanted us to believe it was a Reply not worth replying to!

These things do come in threes, Mr. Editor. Social Services Minister Patrice Minors was persuaded to share with members a report that had been shared with them last week: "Ageing in Bermuda: Meeting The Needs of Bermuda's Seniors."

Mrs. Louise Jackson had been required by the Speaker the week before to provide copies to all members when she moved a motion to discuss the report's findings and recommendations. But Patrice and the PLP don't like to be upstaged, especially by Louise, and especially on the plight of seniors, so we then not only got a second copy of the report but a summary of it in yet another lengthy statement.

But top prize in the category of Ministerial Statements goes to Education Minister Terry Lister. He was bursting to share two burning pieces of news: (1) His tour of schools which had had Open Houses last month and (2) pen sketches of 13 teachers who had retired and been previously honoured at a Camden reception in September.

That was after he felt compelled to rush to the House with a prepared piece on the Reports and Consolidated Financial Statements of the Bermuda College for the years 1992/93, 1993/94 and 1994/95. No, that's no misprint ? those were the years. But look on the bright side, wheels may be grinding slowly but they are not going backwards. Yet.

To be fair, Mr. Editor ? and I do want to be fair ? two Ministers did make appropriate and good use of Ministerial Statements:

1. Randy Horton: he gave us an update on the prisons where the PLP took out the top non-Bermudian earlier this year and two Bermudians with him. The acting Commissioner is working out and Government has decided he continue for two years, and they need only bring in one non-Bermudian specialist to assist the Bermudian and not two as originally thought.

2. Dale Butler who shared with us the CURE report for 2002 and has not to date been required to withdraw or clarify any part of it.

Congratulations people

Step 3: Postpone, delay even further if you can, by squeezing every last second out of congrats and obits which follow next. Members only get three minutes each ? they are not transferable ? but still they can add up: as it was we heard from about ten Government MPs. None from the Opposition spoke: we knew what was up.

Astute readers will also know that lengthy congrats and obits are a means to avoid answering questions set down for oral reply. But there were no questions: the Speaker has ruled that the Opposition can't ask any of Government the first two Fridays back.

Off the mark

Step 4: The Man himself aka the Premier gets to lead off the debate by telling us more about the TS he and his colleagues wrote. So we got more of the same and how he was particularly proud one Minister who had been quick off the mark .

NO, he was not referring to Dale Butler. As we all now know Mr. Butler learned later that he had not only been quick off the mark but off the mark, period.

The Premier said that he actually meant Neletha Butterfield with the park in every neighbourhood plan.

As it turned out, it was not until around noon that the Opposition Leader Dr. Grant Gibbons finally got his chance to deliver the official Reply.

It was always going to be touch and go as to whether he would finish before the luncheon interval at 12.30 p.m.

But he's a quick reader (you got the impression he actually wrote it) and it wasn't half as long-winded as the TS.

It was also very quickly agreed that he should continue to the end of his Reply before we broke, and so he went an extra ten minutes and we adjourned for lunch at 12.40 p.m. for return at 2.15 p.m.

Members do need those 90 minutes, Mr. Editor, to digest food for thought.

PS: The Great TS Debate continues this week. We broke at a sensible hour last Friday but sadly only a third of the eligible members have spoken. We could be in for a longer evening this week. Stay tuned. Or not. Your preference ? and do have a nice day.