Yesterday’s Bermuda Day Races and Parade are another timely reminder that there is far more in Bermuda that unites the community than divides it.

With a General Election looming, and with the possibility that it may be more divisive and negative than ever, that’s important to remember.

It is to be hoped that politicians will remember that in the coming months. Many Bermudians are tired of the unnecessary rancour, name calling and pettiness that characterises local politics, and that may also help to explain why so many people are undecided about which party to vote for, according to local polls. For that reason, both parties should be concerned about turnout. It is conceivable that voters of all persuasions will be so put off by the process that they will fail to show up at the polling stations.

That would be too bad.

That does not mean that there isn’t room for healthy and vigorous debate on the issues and on both parties’ record in Government. There absolutely should be, but it should be fair and accurate debate. Too often, and especially in the last few months, the standard of debate has come nowhere near that standard.

Instead, it has rapidly degenerated into personal attacks, spin and attempts to divert the public’s attention from the issue at hand.

A classic example of that occurred in the House of Assembly last week when Premier Dr. Ewart Brown responded to Opposition criticisms over the granting of a Government contract to a cousin, Donal Smith, for a monopoly on emissions testing.

The Opposition was right to raise the concerns, not so much because of any relationship between Dr. Brown and Mr. Smith, but because this was a sizeable contract that was granted without being put out to tender.

Because of the size of the population, situations will invariably arise that would be seen as conflicts of interest in larger countries and banned. That is exactly why bidding on tenders must be completely open and transparent. Public tenders and open bids are vital to show that there is no cronyism or favouritism.

On the face of it, the grant of the emissions testing tender was neither. Even the suggestion by Sen. Wayne Caines that the company was willing to invest in the equipment needed and thus was the preferred contractor does not stand up. What other companies would have made the same commitment if they had the opportunity to do so? We will never know.

Then, when Dr. Brown had the opportunity to explain the decision, which was made within his Transport Ministry, he chose not to. Instead he fell back on the shopworn and tawdry habit of attacking his opponent, in this case Opposition Leader Michael Dunkley, claiming that Mr. Dunkley’s milk company had a near monopoly which had been enabled by the previous UBP government.

This attack failed to explain the emissions testing centre decision (except to show again that two wrongs don’t make a right) but worse, it was wrong. Dunkley’s does not have a monopoly - Bermuda’s biggest supermarket chain sells its own brand of milk - and the legislation Dr. Brown referred to protected Bermuda’s dairy farmers, not Dunkley’s by barring imports of overseas milk. Even more significantly, the legislation was passed with the support of the PLP, including, presumably, Dr. Brown, who was an Opposition MP in 1997.

It is this kind of disingenuousness that is driving people out of politics faster than people left the West End during the “tsunami”.

Bermudian voters deserve better.