V or not TV? That could have been the question Mr. Editor, but it wasn't . . . when we were called upon to approve the Cabinet Office estimates in the House on the Hill.

The Man In Charge, aka Mr. Premier ? P for short ? told us that there's no question but that his PLP Government is going to go ahead with plans for a TV station. It has set aside $975,000 in next year's Budget for its latest brain wave, including some $800,000.00 for the purchase of TV equipment.

The Premier and his troops are convinced that this is must see TV for them, but I for one was grateful for confirmation that viewing will not be mandatory. We won't actually have to watch the station, explained the Premier.

There is a dial and this is a democracy, he said, and the Progressive Labour Party believes in democracy, and you can turn us off at any time. Hmmm, Mr. Editor, there's a thought. Here's another: any chance of direct dial elections ? area code 911, I presume? But I digress.

Voluntary viewing or not, this is going to be an awfully expensive exercise, as United Bermuda Party Opposition Leader Wayne Furbert pointed out, funded not by the PLP, but by taxpayers.

One million dollars are just the start-up costs: wait 'til it gets up and running. But make sure the equipment has a short shelf life, commented Mr. Furbert: when we get in it's going to be sold, he promised. It won't be needed in Wayne's world.

P sees it differently ? not surprisingly. He claims to be tuned in ? and turned on? ? to what people want. They put together some focus groups a while back ? remember them, Mr. Editor? Another expensive exercise funded by the taxpayers ? and apparently it was the opinion of a number in the group that the news tends to be controlled and biased.

The PLP agrees and a Government-run, taxpayer-funded TV station is apparently the PLP answer. According to the Premier, the station will enable the PLP Government to gets its message "out to the people", unedited, without bias, and without spin.

Unedited maybe.

But without spin? Without bias?!

Really, Mr. Editor: who do they think they are kidding? Themselves? The people?

Everyone and his brother knows that Government press releases and Ministerial statements are written by swivel servants to ? how shall I put this? ? put the best shine on what else but the Government and its policies.

My quick-witted colleague Maxwell Burgess took up the point from his seat. The Premier was on his feet in mid-presentation when Max made this interpolation.

"People aren't so interested in how you can get your message out", he said, "as they are in getting their message to the Government."

The Premier was neither impressed nor amused .

"Mr. Speaker," he said. "I hear a little man with a little voice making . . ."

"A big point," Maxwell quickly interjected ? before the Premier could finish his sentence.

Ouch.

The Premier moved on with his presentation ? as he and his colleagues tried to persuade us why GOV-TV is necessary.

Balance

KID you not, Mr. Editor. We were told that with a Government-run TV station we can expect a more balanced presentation of what Government is doing. They're fed up with the sound bites they do get and with the selective information which reporters choose for their news stories.

They want you to read what they want you to read, and to hear what they want you to hear, and they want unfettered freedom and untrammelled access to their very own TV station to make it happen.

Some of the Ministers even complained about opinions expressed on the Limey in Bermuda web site and the negative impression, in their view, it creates of Bermuda and of the PLP to the outside world. On this point, Mr. Editor, I would have thought the Bermuda Government portal or the PLP web site would make the perfect foils (if indeed any are really necessary), but to start up a TV station? The mind boggles.

No word either on whether there will be still be press conferences at which reporters can ask questions ? which may, of course, not be the questions they like (in which case they get dismissed as the plantation variety) or questions they don't want to hear (don't presume to lecture me, you're not from around these parts).

You can see where this might be headed.

I mean, I wouldn't take them so seriously except they are serious ? and they are the Government and they do have access to funding from the taxpayer and they have no apparent aversion to spending other people's money.

Local programming

AGAIN, I kid you not Mr. Editor. There was the suggestion that the two Bermuda stations are bereft of local programming and the Government station will fill the void. At one stage the Premier and Cabinet Minister Walter Lister compared what they have in mind to the BBC, CBC and PBS. It was all starting to sound so grandiose ? and so much more expensive and unbelievable. I mean the BBC, CBC and PBS are major networks with independent charters, and they value, preserve and protect their independence from their respective governments. They are anything but easy outlets for press releases from governments or any one else for that matter.

You have to also ask the question: if the local broadcasting stations are struggling, not just for programming, but survival, and Government wants to truly assist, then why not buy the time to broadcast your messages ? and stay out of the expense of running a TV station?

They do it already: for instance, we learned in the Education Debate from Minister Terry Lister that the Education Department funds to the tune of $100,000 annually.

The obvious answer, as Opposition Leader Furbert pointed out, is that it's not the PLP's money which they are spending, it's the taxpayers'.

There's also the matter of fairness otherwise known as Equal Time. We've got rules now that govern political broadcasts which include broadcasts by Government. We heard not a peep on what sort of unfettered and untrammelled access will be given to others ? like that which is currently required under the Broadcasting Regulations. But I wouldn't hold out too much hope. The last time I looked the Broadcasting Commissioners, who decide these things, were hopelessly stacked with committed and avowed PLP partisans, including their own rabid party spokeSimmons.

They can say what they like, but we all know what's really going on here.

I guess from here on in we'll have to stay tuned ? or not: remember boys and girls, this is a democracy ? to see just how it unfolds. In the meantime, and for now, Mr. Editor, from me, it's

This was no T party

E can but try, Mr. Editor. You will recall last week my explanation of how the Opposition divvied up the Budget debate to (one) concentrate on some key areas and (two) encourage a debate by giving more than the Minister and his Shadow an opportunity to participate. It seemed to be working well enough until we reached Tourism on Friday.

It was all over again when Cabinet Minister Randy Horton stood in for Dr. Ewart Brown (who was on his way back from a Boston T party: T for tourism) and read from one of those lengthy pre-packaged briefs (which incidentally they never share with the Opposition), and stretched out his presentation at the end, laboriously, so as to reach the luncheon interval so as to allow Dr. Brown to pick up after lunch.

What we ended up with then was almost two hours of the stand-in Minister followed by 35 minutes from the real Minister before Shadow David Dodwell could get to his feet ? and he just about matched them word for word, taking two hours himself.

As we had set aside six hours for Tourism, there was every prospect that others might still get a chance. No chance, actually.

It was the turn of a PLP member (it kind of works that way during debate, Mr. Editor, one from their side, one from ours and so on) when Dr. Brown waved off backbencher Glenn Blakeney and rose to speak again.

The rules permit a member to speak more than once when the House is in Committee (which is how the House debates the Budget Estimates) and Dr. Brown wanted the last word. Sort of. He wrapped up after another hour which gave Dr. Grant Gibbons the last half hour or so.

The verdict on the state of tourism?

It was more like a prognosis.

"The patient is in cardiac arrest," said MP Dowell, also a hotelier. "We've fallen behind. We're slow. We tinker and we don't change. We need major surgery."

Dr. Brown the MP also MD disagreed ? slightly. "The patient is ill," he said, "but he's out of ICU and under treatment."

Here's hoping, Mr. Editor, that we aren't in for a prolonged period of convalescence and recuperation.

Reading lesson No. 2

RONIC this, Mr. Editor, but Education on Monday wasn't much better. We set aside seven hours and Minister Lister opened with a three-and-a-half-hour brief ? not that we ever doubted his ability to read.

On the other hand, shadow Neville Darrell confined himself to an hour which, thankfully, gave others a chance to participate, including Government backbencher Ren?e Webb, who managed to once again grab the headlines with her critical thoughts (and she tells us that she is only saying publicly what she used to tell them in Cabinet).

There were seven other MPs who managed to squeeze in a comment or two ? literally, Mr. Editor, because as we neared the end members were limited to five, ten minutes, tops ? while the Minister did get a further 20 minutes to wrap up. This is closer to what we in the Opposition are trying to achieve ? wider participation, closer scrutiny and lively debate ? but we're not there yet. Not by any means.

Spot the elephant

NNOVATIVE, radical and sensitive: now there's an impressive approach to problems, Mr. Editor, and it's precisely what the Finance Minister Paula Cox is recommending when it comes to the issue of Government pensions ? and she's right too.

This is the elephant in the room which few seem to appreciate, much less understand the need for action. Case in point: The Public Service Superannuation Fund (PSSF). We were being asked to approve increases in the rates of contributions. But it's only a small step in the right direction. We also had before us an Actuarial Valuation of the Fund dated May 2005.

The news isn't good. Unfunded liabilities were pegged at $533 million as at March 31, 2004, up from just under $300 million three years, up from $148 million in 1999.

The Net Investment Return for the three-year period to March 31, 2004 wasn't good either. The valuers reported a net investment loss of just over $47 million.

There have been write-offs by Government of $80 million in the last five years with the PSSF. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to quickly grasp the direction in which we are headed here, Mr. Editor. These are not small sums ? even for a Government that raises $800 million in revenue.

We've already seen what has happened elsewhere as the age of retirement and pensions themselves come under review ? attack even.

We've got some challenges too, with the future funding of the contributory and non-contributory pensions.

Something will have to be done all right to ward off catastrophe. Or, as the Finance Minister, was also heard to say: "Someone is going to have to pay."

Too true, taxpayers. Too true.