Welcome to Bermuda's own version of The War of the Roses and I mean the movie, Mr. Editor, the movie, the one starring Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner, which features the differences and disagreements of two otherwise mature and reasonable people who end up going to extreme and bitter lengths to get one over on the other.

Sound familiar? Hope not but … but you will understand when I say that it was with some trepidation that I answered your reporter's questions about the Premier's "state" dinner for the Queen and my failure to receive an invitation. I understand well how few among us want to hear the Opposition whinging and whining, yet again, about this and that, and certainly not about relatively small matters like being left off the guest list for a dinner with Her Majesty.

Obviously I didn't think it was such a small matter. I thought there was a point that should not be lost. It wasn't about my personal disappointment, although there was that. I simply believe that there ought to have been better representation from those who make up the ranks of the Official Opposition.

The dinner was, after all, paid for out of the public purse. I haven't seen the guest list – inquiring minds want to know (here's where PATI comes in handy) – but I would have thought there ought to have been room for more members of the Opposition aside from our Leader Kim Swan.

One obvious example is the Opposition Leader in the Senate, Michael Dunkley. The rest of us could have drawn straws if it were simply a matter of numbers, but to otherwise be shut out so completely was wrong in my view, most especially since it was thought fit and proper and possible to find places at the table for three other non-UBP ex-UBP members of the Opposition, Wayne Furbert, Darius Tucker and Mark Pettingill.

I said I believed it smacked of petty, partisan politics. I still do, and that's the pity, because – and here's the rub, as Shakespeare would say – it makes it that much more difficult for us to believe and respond positively to those calls that go out from time to time for all of us to come together and work together, to bury our differences on important national issues, and unite for the greater, common good of Bermuda.

Blah, blah, blah: you've heard it all before, I'm sure. Those words ring hollow when they are not actually put into practice when the occasion arises. The Queen's visit was one of those occasions.

Enough said on that, I think, except for this one last thing: I thought the Queen showed remarkable graciousness and stamina for an 83-year-old lady, adhering to a full and busy schedule over the three days she was here. I was also equally impressed and pleasantly surprised by both the warm reception and beautiful weather which greeted her visit. Who could have predicted that?

I am sorry, too, that Her Majesty was not able to squeeze in a visit to the House on the Hill to book-end the first visit she made in 1953 where she could have re-signed the visitor's book and seen first-hand how far we have changed in the 50-plus years.

But, the Queen's brief visit was not without its impact on the House. It meant we did not learn what we were doing on the Friday until late in the day Thursday. No mind. We were told that Government intended to take up only three short and relatively straightforward items.

Short notice, short agenda. Short agenda, short day? Well not quite. A full-scale debate broke out over an amendment to the Child Day Care Allowance Act, and we saw, once again, just how divisive it can get. Government was proposing to reduce eligibility for children from five to four years, and those over four would only qualify if they could prove that they were unable to secure a place in pre-school, public or private.

Shadow Minister for Education Dr. Grant Gibbons, proposed a further amendment which would have required those who obtain day care subsidies to commit to programmes provided by Child Development Services. He was thinking that this might be an opportune way – and time – to combine exposure to parenting skills and early education for infants in what more and more people are coming to regard as critical years of learning.

His proposal met with flat-out rejection. There were some strong words too. The acrimony was actually quite surprising to the average listener, I'm sure. In fact, it prompted one of the newer and younger members of the House, Shawn Crockwell, to wonder out loud in the middle of the debate whether there wasn't a better way to proceed: he saw merit in both the Government Bill and the Opposition suggestion.

I wonder too.

Critics are quick to blame the adversarial nature of the Westminster system. There is that. There is room for reform too. Our systems of governance can be overhauled to provide for greater discourse and dialogue, and not just sharp debate. But, ultimately, success here is going to come down to people, and their attitudes, and the approaches they bring to the table, and so I finish this week at the point at which I began.

I'm just thinking out loud here, but it does seem to me that the sometimes poisonous polarisation of party politics prompts some to go too far on occasion with remarks that call into question some fundamental values: like the notion that each individual deserves to be judged on competence, not background, and evaluated on content, not on political affiliation. Just a thought, Mr Editor, just a thought.

Comments? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm

Famous last words? If somebody is going to stab me in the back, I want to be there. Former Toronto Mayor, Allan Lamport.