OBODY said it would be easy, Mr. Editor, and let's face it, little in politics ever is. The cool and the clever only make it look that way.

But looks don't deliver the goods, if you know what I mean. Neither do speeches. It's what you produce that counts except maybe when you're the Opposition, Mr. Editor, when words are your main, if not only currency.

It also helps if you attempt the impossible as Wayne Furbert found out last Friday in the House on the Hill when, as leader of the Opposition United Bermuda Party, he was called on to deliver the formal Reply ? his first ? to the Throne Speech, read by H.E. the Governor the week before, but penned (we think) by the new leader of the third administration of the PLP, the third Premier in the eighth year of their reign, Dr. the Hon. Ewart F. Brown.I know, I know, I'm biased, but I thought Wayne did a good job. [Mind you, Mr. Editor, as I pen this week's column, travelling, I have not had the advantage of reading or hearing the early reviews.

Wayne certainly did what needed to be done.

First, you have to call them like you see 'em in this business, and that means taking a critical look at the PLP Government, mould and all. It is more than just a role that we have to play. It's our duty as the Official Opposition.

The PLP don't like it when you call them out as we did on what they have done (the $50-million Berkeley overspend, "pay for play", Ministerial travel, massive pay raises and GP cars), and on what they have not done (in housing, and in education, and for our seniors).

Of course, they prefer when you support any of their ideas ? like that of establishing a poverty line to determine who needs what help in prosperous Bermuda.

Secondly ? and this is an equally important objective ? the Opposition has to share its plan and tell voters what the United Bermuda Party would do if it were Wayne's World and his party formed the government.

Trouble is, Mr. Editor, it takes time to lay it all out. In this case, the Reply was some 19 pages long and took 64 minutes to read ? and that was as short as we could make it to achieve our two objectives: show and tell.

Like I said, it ain't easy.

One minute, man

HOW long should these speeches be anyhow? Good question, Mr. Editor. Maxwell Burgess shared with the House advice which the late Sir John Sharpe, a former Premier, shared with him.

"The length of a mini-skirt," Maxwell said that he said. "Long enough to cover the essentials and short enough to maintain interest."

Well, Mr. Editor, I do suppose that is one way to make the point ? in a man's world.

With apologies to the ladies: I mean men wouldn't dream of substituting a pair of boxers for a mini-skirt, would they? On second thought, let's not even go there.

Back on point: the Throne Speech was half the length of the Reply and took half the time to read.

"It was long enough to be digestible," explained the new Premier and author, "and clear enough to understand our intentions."

The explanation was Dr. Brown's opening ? and parting ? shot as he rose to start off the Throne Speech debate in the House on the Hill when, in the one minute it took to deliver his summary, he gave one of the shortest and sweetest opening addresses I have ever heard a Premier give to launch a debate. Period.

Keeping time

FOR those of you who like to keep track of these things, Mr. Editor ? and I do [keep track because, well, it's my job: I am the Opposition Whip ? I put together a Scorecard of sorts on Day One of the Throne Speech debate.

Day Two is this week.

The decision to spread it out over two Fridays ? advanced by the two whips: Government Whip Ottiwell Simmons gets to share in the blame, Mr. Editor ? was taken basically for two reasons: (1) to give everyone who wants to speak an opportunity to speak and (2) to do so at a reasonable hour.

But the plan only works if members keep their comments short, relatively speaking, of course, and to the point, and on message.

Twenty minutes each was the suggested maximum.

Check out the Scorecard, Mr. Editor. I make no further comment.

Making haste

LOOK closely, Mr. Editor, and you will see that the Most Recent Former Premier did speak on Day One. He read in part from notes of what appeared to be his version of the Throne Speech ? which it probably was.

There was a confession, of sorts.

"We may have made haste slowly," said MP Alex Scott, "but there is a record of accomplishment of which I and others are proud."

"Hear, hear," came the only cry from another Scott, Michael, also now on the backbench.

But, continued Scott, Alex: "If we need to keep changing until we get it right then so be it."

What leaders?

No, Mr. Editor. He was actually referring instead to the contents of the Throne Speeches, the one which he apparently had prepared and the one which Dr. Brown rewrote. Sadly, we only got a copy of the latter. Unfortunate that too.

Trying times

IT was only earlier in the morning, Mr. Editor, that we gathered at the Hamilton Princess Hotel at 7.30 to break bread at the annual Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast ? the 37th annual actually.

The guest speaker was local preacher, Pastor Dean Smith. He knew he was working under a serious time constraint when he rose to speak at 8.40. The programme required us to be out and on our way by nine.

He was reminded of the advice oilmen in Texas receive.

"If you don't find oil after drilling for 20 minutes," said Pastor Smith, "stop boring."

He wasn't.

Pastor Smith reminded us of the story of Solomon and the need for wisdom among those who serve as leaders ? like those seated before him at breakfast. We need to get wisdom, he continued, but in all our wisdom to get understanding.

Lord knows, Mr. Editor, I'm trying.