The first and only debate between David Burt and the challenger Curtis Dickinson took place on Saturday night with neither expressing any bombshells or knockout punches. However, in a rather evenly contested debate, there were differences between the approaches of the two candidates when you examine the nuances. The irony is I was able to listen to the full debate very shortly after the conclusion courtesy of technology. That we live in a technological age shows the absurdity of having “secret” or private meetings such as these.

The panellists were each asked questions and given two minutes to answer, allowing also two minutes for rebuttal.

Some of the key takeaways, when asked about the direction of the party each would take if selected as a leader. Mr Dickinson said he would take the party in a different direction pointing to a more collaborative government that brought people together, while the Premier’s position was that there was no need for the party to change and insisted all the party needed was to perform on its core principles.

A similar question asked what each candidate would do about the “ageing” party membership and the youth. The Premier’s position is that the Government has initiated policies such as assurance of education through Bermuda College, emphasising it as one of his major goals and accomplishments for the youth. He also talked about clearing the party of a toxic atmosphere, which he saw as a hindrance to young people entering the party, sharing examples of his own evolution through the ranks.

Mr Dickinson spoke of making the party more relevant to the aspirations of the youth and acquainting oneself with how they view today’s world, citing also the way in which the party performs among other things in Parliament and the way politics is perceived by the young persons.

If one were to summarise the debate, one would have to refer to the Premier as saying “stay the course, the party is functioning well and has proven electoral success”. Mr Dickinson would say we need to make changes that cause the party to meet with present demands that build a more collaborative Bermuda and a more prosperous better future. The Premier’s call was an appeal to the base of the party, while Mr Dickinson’s was an appeal directed towards the broader community. The question is, which approach do the delegates prefer?

Meanwhile, over on another street, the One Bermuda Alliance is trying to determine where it is heading or should be heading. The jury is still out on whether it can get there alone, or if it needs intervention from another source. At the moment it seems as if the OBA’s choice is to rebrand and reinspire the leadership, or a wholesale reversion to the days of old.

Note the biblical adage: “How can you put new wine in old skins without bursting them?”

The on-the-ground realities are such that if Cole Simons has not already expressed a new vision, then he has none — the same would be true of Michael Dunkley. The raw truth is that the OBA needs a new vision. If it wants to be relevant, it has to be in that place where the Progressive Labour Party is not prepared to go.