There has been some talk about me around here recently, Mr. Editor. But, hey, this isn't so surprising in the business of politics. If we don't expect attention, we invite it. Most of us want to be heard. Few among us want to be regarded as forgotten but not gone. Of course, the first rule when you open your mouth is to try and not put your foot in it. But speak up and you can expect criticism. It goes with the territory and is very much a part of the dialogue and the debate on issues. What we don't like or don't need are unwarranted personal attacks and unnecessary personal criticism. But it happens and, when it does, you usually get a better measure of the person levelling the criticism than you do of the intended targets.

There are rules about this sort of behaviour in the House on the Hill. Listeners will often hear the following rule invoked by the aggrieved and offended from time to time during debate, typically when things (and members) get heated: "No member shall impute improper motives to any member of the House or indulge in personalities, except on substantive motion moved for that purpose."

I believe there is a similar rule in what we on the Hill call that Other Place, the Senate, which is down the Hill. The key is application and enforcement, and that is a matter for the people in charge, the Speaker in the House and the President in the Senate or, in their absence, the person who sits in the chair at the relevant time.

On the other hand, there's another school of thought and, as the expression goes, you have to learn to give as good as you get. It becomes a personal question then of how low you are personally prepared to stoop to reply in kind. Speaking for myself, I am inclined to side with those who think there ought to be a better way and that Bermuda's political gangs ought to be setting a better example to the rest of the community. It's much like the lawyer (speaking of which) who in open court slammed his books on the table when the Judge gave his client a heavier sentence than he thought appropriate.

"Are you trying to show contempt for the court?", bellowed the angry judge. "No, to the contrary, My Lord", replied the lawyer, "I am trying my best to hide it".

P.s. Those were timely remarks by the Anglican Bishop who decried what he so eloquently described as "the language of schoolyard belligerents", and who called on us to raise our public discourse, so as to give our children and our community "a language that enables them to rise above the tactics of the schoolyard." Fat chance, you think? There are those among us who already recognise that we are more than likely in the 12-month spin cycle leading up to the next general election, what with the promised departure of Premier Brown in October, the election of a new PLP leader, and the need a new Premier will likely feel to get his or her own mandate shortly thereafter; and if the past is any indication, the personal and the racial attacks are likely to continue to increase not decrease as we march towards that date.

Corn, not carrots

Let's go again to the mailbag for some final words on the subject of change this week, Mr. Editor. KW writes in response to last week's column and the quoted remarks of GF on the need for stronger, more effective opposition in Bermuda.

"Yes, John, I think most of us get it. The problem is one of the strategies of ruling governments in our processes is to make the opposition look stupid. Misinformation/delayed/or outright avoided answers is the character of what we have always had; only, but for, at times, the good graces of perhaps a few well-mannered leaders, did the public or opposition get any insight or any level of transparency. But even proverbially, the people without glasses couldn't see the fine print.

"I believe in the notion of democracy and proper governance like that person 3,000 miles away [GF], but you cannot plant carrots and expect corn to grow. The past and present construct with the parties only allows for partisanship. You gotta be a tried, tested, proven loyalist to get in, so we cannot expect a majority of any kind in Parliament to rise to their feet and save the country on behalf of the people; even when it looks blatantly obvious that they need to be saved from an unruly government.

"Unfortunately at the moment there seems to be no person or group amongst the opposition including those of the backbench [of the PLP] who can maverick a situation that we all can benefit from. I hope one day something good happens, but you are as old as I am and I am beginning to think it may not be my time."

Ouch.

Here we go again

A short holiday week brings about a shorter than usual column, although it doesn't look like Fridays will be getting any shorter on the Hill from here on in. From the it-always-happens to the you-can-count-on-it department, legislation now starts to flow up the Hill the closer we get to the end of a session. We had about half a dozen pieces tabled last week, including, I should point out, the land licence amendment extension, with the promise of more Bills to follow. This, Mr. Editor, after limping along since we started in early May and being rushed on less than a week's notice on the controversial Firearms and Bail Amendment Acts. Go figure.

Comments? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm.