21 Square

Push polling

So, I just got a call from Bermuda Opinion Surveys confirming what others in the blogging spectrum have suggested with regards to push polling.  

Tin Foil Hat

 

Limbo Party

Still on the two-fish bit, I woke up with more inspiration of what would be better and couldn't help myself.

The two fish are at the edge of a big party.  There are balloons and a whole bunch of fish everywhere who are partying.  In the center of the image there's a limbo pole setup quite low to the ground and it's obvious fish are trying to swim under it.  Above there's a banner that says "PLP Limbo Party"

The one fish asks the other: "Why are you at a PLP party?"

The other fish responds:  "I'm watching to see how low they can go"

Inflated poles

Ok, so a friend has hit out in defence of the UBP's fish bit as being a satirical poke but unfortunately most people don't get satire.  Now, I'll be the first to admit that I'm one of the most unfunny guys out there, who is for the most part far too serious for my age, but I mean, come on.  No offence to the UBP's ad guys intended, but it could have been better and the problem isn't the premise of two fish in the ocean nor the cartoons themselves.  Largely, it's the script, the non-Bermudian voices, the excruciatingly slow pace and the lack of overall content.

The fish thing could still be made to work but I'm sorry if I just don't get the point of the 'opinion polls' that involve tiny fish forming the letters UBP.  It's simply not funny because it just doesn't make any sense.  What do little fish forming the letters UBP have to do with polls?

Here's an example of how I would have made fun of 'opinion polls', and it's something that could be captured in a still frame that takes all of a few seconds to get the gist of, which, in advertising, is about all the time you really have when dealing with the average attention span.

The two fish swim up to a pole (like a barber pole) sticking out of the bottom of the ocean with PLP colours on it and the word "opinions" scrawled across it.  Attached to it is an over-inflated balloon which reads: "PLP rulez".  To which the fish see it and suggest: "looks like the PLP are trying to float another overly inflated opinion poll".

Black executives: The hard numbers

Back in October I expressed disappointment at the poor statistical analysis of the decline in the ratio of Black executives in the workforce.  Subsequently, I've done some digging and discovered that the Commission for Unity and Racial Equity produced the comprehensive, non-spin based, numbers I was looking for.

As part of the Annual Review of the Workforce Survey Report 2006, here is the depiction of the Level of Employment by race for 2006.

As quoted by Community and Cultural Affairs Minister Wayne Perinchief, the rate of black executives indeed did  decline from 29% in 2005 to 27% in 2006.  In my piece, I questioned whether the hard actual number of black executives increased or decreased.  Studying the actual numbers, the number of black executives overall decreased from 173 in 2005 to 159 in 2006. 

However, it is interesting to note that in 2004, the percentage of black executives was 27%, some 154, which suggests that if you compare 2004 to 2006, the percentage was the same and yet there was an increase of 5 black executives.

Interesting.  Lets dig a little bit further back as data was collected in 2003 and 2002 wasn't it?  Well, in 2003, the percentage of black executives in the workforce was 21%, however, the number of black executives was 203.    In 2002?  The percentage of black executives in the workforce was 22% with the overall number being at 217.

So, we've had over the years a gradual decrease in the number of executives overall, black executives included, however, the percentage of black executives has been generally trending upwards indicating that despite the wild claims of some, international business may well be doing it's part in promoting blacks in the workforce.  Though, of course, all we really care to focus on is the one year drop from 29% to 27% in 2006 rather than focusing on the data that has been available for 5 years, right?

Now, here's the real kicker.  While digging through the actual hard numbers I discovered that 'black executives' isn't the same as 'black Bermudian executives' in CURE's statistics.  I've realised that I was making the incorrect assumption that CURE statistics was dedicated to promoting equality between Bermudians in the workforce.  However, this was not the case as CURE was originally studying race overall including Bermudians and non-Bermudians in their reports. From 2004 on, statistics have been improved to give breakdowns of employment levels by race and Bermudian status, which presents a far different picture.  This leads me to a whole new question, how are non-Bermudian's being worked into the justification for why workforce equity legislation as it exists in it's draft form is necessary and should they be non-Bermudians be included when calculating whether black Bermudians have fair representation in our workforce?

More on this with greater investigation of the real hard numbers to come, as time allows.

Fear of criticism

Phil Wells over at A Limey in Bermuda hits it dead on with his commentary regarding the PLP and it's fear of criticism.

Well, why should a political party's website link to or publish comments from its critics, you may ask? Isn't that expecting a bit much?

Not if that party has any self-confidence, it shouldn't be. A link isn't an endorsement, it's an acknowledgment of the existence of another point of view. It's what blogging is all about: a debate between people with different opinions. You link to your intellectual opponents because you respect your readers' right to make up their own minds, while remaining confident that your own arguments are the stronger ones.

Thus far the PLP have proven themselves incapable of rationally debating any point which serves as a grave disappointment.  Instead, they continually resort to demonizing every critic as if everyone who holds an opposing point of view must be evil, a racist or both.  Acting as if having a different point of view is unhealthy and wrong when in reality it can help strengthen proposals.  

Unfortunately the PLP have failed to realize that for many bloggers it isn't simply about targeting the PLP, it's about coming up with solutions that will yield the best results for our island.  We care about Bermuda, it's why we blog.  We care about ensuring we have the just and accountable government that we so much need and deserve, UBP or PLP.  Despite people who attempt to attest to the contrary, the internet isn't a fad and likely many of today's blogger's would still be critical of a UBP government if they won the coming election.  Undoubtedly, if the UBP did win and PLP supporters chose to rise up and rationally criticize and debate issues, policy and proposed solutions of a UBP government they'd be welcomed by the blogging community.  Healthy debate is essential and regardless of the government, PLP or UBP, our leadership had better get used to it because the people finally have a voice.

A better ad

Being that my ipod is broken, this morning I was flipping through the radio stations on my way to work and caught Thao Dill talking about the recently launched UBP cartoon. He suggested it is so bad that even he feels sorry for them, to which I've got to say I agree.  He said he felt like writing them a better ad because he feels so bad for them and he got me thinking that I could do the same.

Here's the ad I'd make if I were the UBP, it'd be a take off of the "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" ads from Apple to capture a bit of popular culture that many people are familiar with and offer a parody to poke fun at the structure of local campaigning by each party.

 

Setting

UBP: Young Bermudian dressed in a suit

PLP:  Young Bermudian dressed in jeans and PLP paraphernalia (Green PLP t-shirt and Green PLP #1 novelty finger) 

Background: all white like "I'm a mac" ads

 

Script

UBP:  "Hi, I'm a UBP supporter"

PLP:  "and I'm a PLP supporter"

UBP:  "We're here to talk to you about the issues for the coming election"

PLP:  Produce noisemaker, banners and flags from behind back.

UBP:  Attempt to speak

PLP:  blow noisemaker in the ear of UBP as UBP attempts to talk, jump up and down, wave and attempt to distract the viewer from paying attention to the UBP supporter. 

PLP:  wave banners, shout "all the way PLP, PLP all the way" while running back and forth across the screen, in and out of camera view as if sprinting across a huge room with a PLP banner flying past the screen

UBP:  Calmly pull out a tv remote control from pocket and point it at PLP, pressing pause button

PLP:  stops mid action, perfectly still as if paused

UBP:  "The PLP is going to do it's best to distract you away from dealing with the issues"

UBP:  "Real issues that impact the lives of Bermudians that need to be addressed like housing, crime, etc". 

UBP:  "Issues with solutions the UBP is proposing that we'd like you to study and compare against the PLP's proposed solutions to determine if we're the right choice for Bermuda's future"

UBP:  "On December 18th, make the right choice for our future"

UBP:  point remote back at PLP and press play

PLP:  continues jumping up and down, distracting until he realizes UBP has stopped talking.

PLP:  Compose himself, face camera and put a contented smirk on face as if success has been achieved in distracting the audience while having no idea that UBP paused things.

end.

Kyoto Pledge

Government's sudden interest in the Kyoto Protocol must be some sort of joke as they attempt to suddenly put on an environmentally friendly persona contradicting past actions.  Certainly it has expressed zero interest in it from 1998 all the way up until when it came into force in 2005.

"With all due respect to this administration and past administrations, no one has taken a lead on this. Governments have looked only as far ahead as the next election. That is a very short timescale."  said Wayne Perinchief, Minister for Community and Cultural Affairs.

Sounds a lot to me like this government is still only looking as far ahead as the next election.

A quick reminder to the writers of the Bermuda Sun to note that Bermuda's power generation is diesel and gas-turbine generated, not coal fired, which is far worse.

BELCO has previously said that it is investigating all possible alternative energy solutions but that at present only more coal-fired generators are suitable for the island.

Should BELCO itself be looking to escape some of the heat with regards to the non-green nature of their diesel based power generation they could be exploring algae farm technology to recycle the carbon dioxide produced by their power plants.

That and explore further alternative energy options.

"It wasn't me. It was the one-armed man"

 

Premier Brown has had so many people speaking on his behalf as of late it's hard to tell who to believe when he shift's blame by suggesting it wasn't him or that those speaking for him were incorrect and weren't speaking for him, even when it's their job.

In the recent PLP email that was sent around, Premier Brown's name was signed at the bottom as leader of the party. 

The long knives of the opposition are out. Along with their willing accomplices in the media, they will do everything they can to put old power brokers back in charge.

But, the truth is, the old UBP power elites no longer control Bermuda — the people are in charge. And, we, the people have an obligation to keep government working for you — not for the old elites.

Which was signed:

Sincerely, Ewart Brown, Party Leader.

But then the Party's Press Secretary Premier's Press Secretary suggested

"The Premier didn't sit at a computer and write it," he said, adding that Dr. Brown had no comment to make on its contents.

Sorry Premier Brown, few may expect you to have the time to write everything that is sent out, but most do expect you to have knowledge of what your name is being put to and will hold you accountable to what is said if it's sent from organizations which you lead.

Again, that also goes for comments made by your Press Secretary.  His sole job is to represent you and thus should be kept up to date on your position on issues considering that his word is to be taken as your official remarks.  Thus, when he speaks for you and you don't immediately correct it, it is hard to accept later when you correct it via facebook rather than through the media.  Certainly, how can we now be certain that it's actually you on facebook and you now won't again turn around and claim that it again was someone else speaking wrongly on your behalf?

 

This whole debacle is getting to the point where one could wonder if the Premier is attempting to pull an Abbot and Costello style "who's on first" gag on our people.

 

Finally, the sheer fact that our Premier has taken to using up handicapped parking spaces for his personal leisure begs the question of whether we're about to hear him make like Jim Carrey as 'The Mask' and blame it on the one armed man.

An eye for an eye

It was Mahatma Gandhi who once said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".  I believe he was right.

The only thing more startling than today's news that the government has bid to get into the cement business was comments raised by a friend of mine regarding the offer.  When speaking of the cement crisis and the buyout bid, my friend suggested that it was the right thing to be done in the interests of our island.   By his suggestion, the Bermuda Cement Company has for years held a monopoly on cement supply to our island at the detriment of our people.  Whenever trouble occurred in the negotiations between our government and the cement company, it is suggested that the cement company would disrupt supply as a tactic to gain leverage, thus disrupting construction across the island and holding government at bay.  Thus, by his suggestion, the recent move on the part of the government has little to do with a dispute about relocating the facilities as it does an attempt to take over the business and hand it to new owners.  The reasoning suggested as being that that privileged white people have owned and monopolized it for 40 years and thus it is time for a change in ownership, one that will hopefully bring fair prices and better supply to the people, especially if it is government owned.

It is this line of suggestive reasoning that really has me stumped.  Somehow the argument of past transgressions by the "rich white elite" has once again risen as justification for why unethical things should continue to occur today.   That's right, unethical.  If it was wrong to do it then, how are things any better to perpetuate a similar injustice today.  It are these thoughts which remind me of the words of Gandhi.

So I asked my friend if this is the real intention of our government and if he truly believes is in the best interests of our people, than why be dishonest about it?  Why dance around the truth by making the dispute about the land and the requirement of relocating the facility when it's really about government harboring the desire to confiscate a business for the apparent betterment of the people.  Doesn't that scream dishonesty and a lack of proper ethics displayed by a government?  To which my friend replied that the company displayed a lack of ethics with regards to suggesting that it isn't financially feasible to relocate the business on the basis that they make money with ease.  It was at this point that I realized that this was not a discussion that could be won on the basis of the arguments I was attempting to make.

Honestly, I don't accept the logic of an eye for an eye.  Very simply, I fail to see how it could be justified that a government could even consider being deceitful, manipulative and unethical enough to conjure up a fake relocation requirement under the intentions of forcing a change in ownership of a business.  I don't mark what was done in the past as right and thus I don't accept present wrongdoings as acceptable either.

Furthermore, if such a change in ownership is truly believed by our leadership to be in the best interests of our island than why not be forthright about it?  If you believe it's right, why not have the testicular fortitude to stand behind your opinion and not hide behind shady tactics?

The biggest thing that really gets me about all this and leaves me entirely skeptical about the entire process is that if our leadership truly felt that this company was abusing it's monopoly could it not have simply moved to introduce reasonable artificial controls on the price of concrete?  Then if the cement company refuses there would be reasonable grounds to request that they sell the outfit to someone else without this whole land dispute debacle.

Unfortunately, who really knows what the real motivations behind this whole thing are.  Should the PLP win the election, those who wonder the truth should watch with a keen eye to see if the facility is relocated as was demanded by the West End Development Corp.  Should they not, then perhaps we will never know.

One thing is for certain, I grow increasingly weary of local politics and the eye for an eye mentality we so desperately hold on to.  It has come to a point where I have found myself questioning whether it is something I really wish to have any involvement with and whether this island is really a place where I wish to continue to reside.  While I have yet to find answers to these questions, they are ones that do not pass without a great deal of contemplation.

Stay out of local politics

Hopefully immigration Minister Derrick Burgess is hot on the heels of race relations expert Tim Wise to remind him that non-Bermudians are to stay out of local politics.  According to the precedent set by our Immigration Minister, Mr. Wise  should restrict his comments to discussing race alone and not offering his opinions with regards to any proposed legislation.

That is unless such remarks are a one way street and our government feels it is only necessary to give such warnings when foreigners promote opinions conflicting with those of the government.

Proposed Belco Expansion

The proposed expansion of Belco's Pembroke site with two new power stations is a grave disappointment. 

Anyone who has spent some time studying peak oil and the impacts it will have on fuel costs will likely hold the opinion that a 23 year investment in the addition of more diesel generators is a poorly conceived plan given the risk Bermudians will face of skyrocketing electricity bills due to rising fuel costs.  Further, with all the focus on global warming it is incredible to watch and Bermuda largely turns a blind eye to the amount of pollution we contribute to the atmosphere, of which more diesel generators will only make things worse.

While Belco has been keen to promote it's interests in alternative energy, you'll have to excuse this writer if he remains skeptical of the proposed sea turbine solution.  While the current to current system is a nice thought, it remains largely unproven and experimental.  At the time of the announcement there were no resources available with regards to designs, environmental considerations, modeling, pilot studies, or any sort of tests.  Even costs were a gray area and one could wonder how much success current to current has had in acquiring financing. 

Thus, while it is great to have Bermuda piloting a system, why should Bermudians be willing to accept an unproven single large scale alternative to diesel power generation when many other proven alternatives exist?  While there have been mentions of other technologies, the focus has remained with the underwater turbine.

By contrast, Bermuda happens to be a great site for wave power generation of which there has been much research, many varying technologies and even physical trials.

Examples include:

OceanLinx's wave energy system which has been piloted in Port Kembla (New South Wales, Australia)

Ocean Power Delivery's pelamis which has been piloted in the UK and is being commissioned by Scottish Power for power generation

Ocean Power Technologies' wave buoy, which you can watch a video of below

 

Given the raft of alternatives available, it is disappointing to hear that Belco has thus far put all it's eggs in one basket with regards to one technology that isn't even close to being as well proven as other competing technologies.  Hopefully the wave technologies listed above have come under their radar as one's that we could be aiming to adopt sooner to supplement our needs.  Thus enabling us to better diversify our power generation facilities away from simply diesel and take a greater step towards energy independence.

St. David's transportation improvements

While it is nice that the PLP have pledged to introduce dedicated mini-bus service to St. David's, this service should have been an obvious inclusion in the introduction of the St. David's ferry stop. 

The lack of details in terms of price, availability and accessibility leaves much to be desired because who knows what a dedicated mini-bus really means.   Indeed, mini-buses are already available in St. David's, the real issue is that they are cost prohibitive.  Who wants to spend $4 to ride a minibus on top of the regular bus and ferry fares?

The lack of basic improvements to the overall transport situation for St. David's when combined with the lack of updates on the government web site with regards to improvements still leaves a great deal to be desired.  Should the PLP be gunning for support from neglected St. David's islanders, they're going to have to do a fair bit better than last minute promises.

Where's Waldo?

 

One thing that certainly still isn't clear is what positive impact RFID will offer that will compensate for the $2.4 million price tag.   The argument as it stands is that it will save some $11 million in lost revenue of people who have invalid licensing.  Unfortunately, this sounds a lot like a solution look for a problem which will be demonstrated by the two following scenarios.

Scenario 1:  The current system

Police officers setup a checkpoint at the Aquarium to pull people over and do license checks.  This involves a covertly placed police officer with a notepad to look at licenses on windshields, write down license numbers and radio officers at the aquarium to pull them over.

The downside?  It's blatently obvious that a checkpoint is setup at the aquarium whenever traffic backs up all the way to shelly bay market place.  The simple solution for a license offender?  Turn around.

Scenario 2:  The RFID way

Police officers setup a checkpoint at the Aquarium to pull people over and do license checks.  This involves a covertly placed police officer with a notepad and wireless RFID reader to detect whether RFID tags are working on windshields, write down license numbers and radio officers at the aquarium to pull them over.

It has the same downside of increasing congestion and in reality, you still need officers to make sure people have RFID tags installed and active on their cars.  If the tag removed, an automated scanner won't pick up anything unless you replace the officer with a notepad with a car sensor of some sort, but then you wouldn't be able to record the license plates in the case they tried to speed through the checkpoint.

Conclusion

RFID in it's present form will save the expense of one officer and a notepad.  For $2.4 million it'll take us an officers whole career to regain the invested cost.

So?  What have we learned?  RFID in it's present form is a solution looking for a problem.   That is unless there are covert plans to introduce automatic speed detection, congestion taxes and automated parking after the election.  Of which these will only punish the law abiding citizens among us who actually go get fitted with RFID tags as those who don't will still have to be caught the old fashioned way.

Mind you, many likely would be all for reasonable methods of introduction including automated ticketing for those traveling faster than 70kph, a 6 month trial of the congestion tax to prove whether the people prefer it to congestion itself and well, automated parking you can't argue with that. 

The fear is that there is a grand vision that only resides in the minds of a select few and the rest of us aren't important enough to be privy to the intentions until it's too late.  Even worse, if RFID is used maliciously to track individuals.

Slow moving trucks

One of the major contributing factors to morning congestion is heavily loaded trucks drive 30kph and need to slow to 20 on the turns.

Is it really necessary that such trucks be headed to and from town during the morning and evening commute at the price of increasing congestion for all?

YouBoob

Someone explain this one.  One week the UBP is signing a code of conduct with the intent to make the coming election about issues and not personal attacks.  The next, they're preparing to launch a satire based YouTube video to make fun of the Premier.  Don't they know a joke isn't funny if you try to convince people how funny it is before you tell it?  Perhaps the UBP will be smart about it and pretend like the video never existed in the first place.

Apparently whoever's running the UBP election campaign missed two critical rules. 

One, if you say you're not going to make it personal:

4) Avoid using language, in word or in text, that is defamatory or inflammatory, or that threatens or incites violence against any other person or group of persons.

Then you announce you're going to make it personal, it makes you look dumb.  That is unless making fun of someone isn't defamatory but that'll no doubt be up for debate amongst the people when the actual video is released.

Two, it's common knowledge that telling people how funny a joke is going to be before you tell it will make people defensive and render the joke much less funny.

4. Do not tell everyone how funny your joke is beforehand. You'll make your audience defensive and your laughs smaller.

What have we learned?  First, don't contradict yourself by saying you're going to focus on the issues and then deviate from that plan.  Second, don't ruin the joke by describing how funny it is before you tell it.   Perhaps, the UBP's real joke will be to pull a PLP and claim the meeting notes video never existed and that the media is out to get them.  

Car-sharing revisited

In a recent article in The Royal Gazette, Premier Brown is suggested to still be in talks with international business about how to have fewer cars on the road and ease traffic congestion.  Unfortunately, Premier Brown far too often takes a win-lose approach to solving the issues of our island and fails to recognize that innovative solutions already exist to curb the number of cars and congestion.  It's called car-sharing.

Premier Brown's recent suggestion that the PLP have kept their promises with regards to transportation may find at least a few people who disagree with him.   Disagreements aside, his other plans for transportation in the future may still be lacking, as despite offering free public transport, this writer (who has free access to public transport due to his conscription in the regiment) still doesn't take it.  The reason has on numerous occasions been pointed out where service still needs improvement, and the month of or after the election would be a hard indication of promises kept.  Further, there is still the whole issue of taxis that GPS failed to solve, especially when you need to catch a flight.

Premier Brown should take a moment out of his busy schedule to read the book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, or, if he finds himself too busy to read, he could always have his driver pop the audiobook version in the audio player while he's being chauffered around in his police escorted limosine.  By doing so, he would gain the insight of habit #4 of thinking win-win when approaching various issues related to our island.  A win-win approach to solving the traffic approach wouldn't look upon our international business to take a loss by being asked to solve our problems for us.  Instead, we should be looking for win-win situations where noone is forced to compromise and both gain the desired result.

As suggested all the way back in April, a win-win approach to solving our traffic congestion woes is to introduce legislation that encourages car sharing businesses.  Car sharing, which has achieved considerable success around the world, would offer individuals the benefits of being able to use a car such as getting groceries, having friends visit, transporting things purchased in town and even carrying kiteboarding gear when there's a little wind.  All without the drawbacks of the high expense of taxi's and the pains of actually getting one.  Many people, even those such as this writer, often get a car just as a means to satisfy these needs that present transportation solutions do not adequately address.  Car-sharing legislation should be an obvious win-win solution that Bermudians and ex-pats alike could take advantage of to solve our own traffic woes.

Premier Brown may think promises have been kept and indeed many things have been done, but yet there is still a long way we need to go.  We could be taking a win-win approach to solving the issues of our island and taking heed of innovative solutions that are being used elsewhere in the world to solve the issues of traffic congestion.  Car-sharing happens to be one such example.

Pure democracy in action

Democracy as we know it is in for a shock.  A collection of at least 20,000 football fans have utilized the Internet to gather together and purchase a team.  How will it operate?  What are it's goals and how will it change the face of democracy as we know it?

Earlier today, an Internet collective of football fans entitled MyFootballClub made motions to buy a 51% share of Ebbsfleet United , a football team in Kent, southern England.   The premise being to turn the collective of fans into owners and managers through the use of the Internet and pure democracy.   The deal will give fans the ability to vote on everything from team lineup selection to which players should be transferred.  The decisions made during matches themselves will be left up to manager Liam Daish and the players themselves, retaining a sense of order and leadership but balancing feedback for the day to day operations.  It is a move destined to change the way we look at sports, team ownership and the face of democracy itself.

The power of the Internet has reached out and placed in the hands of football fans around the world the ability to manage not a fantasy team, not a game but a real live football team collectively.  Their decisions will shape the course of the future for the team and likely have a large hand in it's success or failure.  It is pure democracy in action.  If this is what the Internet is bringing to sport, what can one wonder of politics itself?  For indeed, it is the prime benefactor of democracy.  How will the Internet move to change politics and our own democracy?  Could we live to see a day where they have a greater hand in the course of our future?  Where we have a greater hand in management of our society while electing leaders to manage the finer details?

Can a football team be managed effectively and successfully by a collective?  If so, could the same be said of a government?  No doubt, this will prove to be an interesting experiment, one which could change the face of democracy as we know it.

Party support survey results

The following is a completely unscientific 21 Square poll

What party do you support?

 

Summary

Value	Count	Percent %
I'm a UBP supporter	53	45.69%
I'm a swing voter who supports the party that best addresses the core issues of Bermuda	31	26.72%
I can't vote	26	22.41%
I'm a PLP supporter	4	3.45%
I don't vote	2	1.72%

 

Of 116 people who admitted to reading this blog by filling out a survey, nearly 46% consider themselves UBP supporters, 27% consider themselves swing voters not supporting either party, 22% can't vote and 3% consider themselves PLP supporters.

 

Overall,91% of people said they don't think the PLP presented clear and well thought out plans last election.  Interestingly, 97% of swing voters held the same view while only 91% of UBP supporters thought the PLP's plans weren't clear.

 

Of the UBP in the 2003 election, overall 72% felt they did present clear and well thought out plans for our island.  With PLP supporters being split at 50% and 58% of swing voters feeling the UBP's plans were well thought out.

 

In the 2003 election, do you feel the PLP focused more on race than they did on issues? 

Overall, 86% of respondents felt the PLP focused more on race than on issues in the 2003 election compared with 95% of respondents who felt the UBP focused more on the issues.  Interestingly, none of the PLP supporters felt the PLP focused more on race than on issues while one felt that the UBP had.  When asked about the 2007 election, 96% of those polled felt that the PLP would focus on race over issues while 96% also felt that the UBP would focus on issues instead of race.

When asked about party performance over the last four years, 95% of people we unsatisfied with how the PLP has performed in the role of leadership while 76% are unsatisfied with how the UBP has performed as opposition.  Half of PLP supporters were unsatisfied with the PLP's performance while all were unsatisfied with the UBP's.   Of swing voters, 94% were unsatisfied with the PLP and 87% were unsatisfied with the UBP.  Of UBP supporters, 98% were unsatisfied with the PLP's performance and only 40% were happy with the UBP's.

Why do your support your party?

Summary

Value	Count	Percent %
They best represent the issues most important to me	54	46.55%
I don't support a specific party	42	36.21%
They represent my political ideologies	19	16.38%
They represent my race	1	0.86%

 

Of reasoning for party support, PLP supporters were divided evenly over issue representation and political ideologies.  Of UBP supporters, 68% relied on issues, 30% relied on political ideologies and 2% or 1 individual admitted they supported the UBP based upon race. 

 

How did you vote in 2003 and are you likely to vote for the 2007 election?

Summary

Value	Count	Percent %
I voted UBP and will vote UBP	56	49.56%
I can't vote	29	25.66%
I didn't vote and will vote UBP	15	13.27%
I voted PLP and will vote UBP	4	3.54%
I voted PLP and will vote PLP	3	2.65%
I didn't vote and won't be voting	2	1.77%
I voted UBP and will vote PLP	2	1.77%
I didn't vote and will vote PLP	1	0.88%
I voted UBP and won't be voting	1	0.88%

 

 

Of PLP supporters, 25% said they can't vote while the rest voted PLP and will vote PLP in the 2007 election.  Of UBP supporters, 78% will continue to vote UBP while 15% who didn't vote in 2003 will be voting UBP.   Swing voters prove interesting with 52% having voted UBP last election and having decided they will continue to do so next election.  24% didn't vote and will vote UBP.  10% voted PLP and will be switching to vote for the UBP while 7% voted UBP and will be switching to vote PLP.

 

Who do you think will win the 2007 election?

Summary

Value	Count	Percent %
not sure	54	46.55%
UBP	36	31.03%
PLP	26	22.41%

 

When it came to predicting the outcome of the election, many people thought it would be too close to call.  PLP supporters were 100% certain that the PLP would again be victorious while UBP supporters were a little less certain with 42% believing the UBP would win and 13% believing the PLP would win.   Of those unable to vote, 39% believe the UBP will win whilt 19% believe the PLP will win.  The majority of swing voters were unsure of the outcome with 32% believing the PLP would win and only 10% believing the UBP would win.

 

Thanks for your participation and please continue to do so in future surveys.

 

Open Democracy: Maternity leave

Could our leadership take a page from the open source software community by opening up our democracy?  What is open democracy?  How is it different from what we have today? What does it have to do with maternity leave?  How can we use it to achieve better governance?

Open democracy is a form of governance that values participation over power.  Acquiring it's ideals from the open source software community, it capitalizes on the the power of online communication in order to change offline politics.  It changes traditional governance from being top-down into bottom up by giving the people greater involvement and a greater voice.

Traditionally, in the run up to an election political parties will spend a great deal of time composing their ideas on what they think you want to hear.  In leading nations, these ideas are typically compiled into a platform or manifesto describing a high level plan of what that party intends to accomplish during their term if elected to office.  The problem often encountered, however, is that this form of structure serves the political party in telling you what they think you want out of our leadership rather than you telling them exactly what it is you want.

A good example is the UBP's recent proposal of extending maternity leave to 6 months.  6 months is great, but how do they know that that is what we want?  Maybe we want more?  Maybe we want less?  Maybe that'll impact businesses too much?  Who should foot the bill?

This blog offered a write-up about it and intentionally took the devil's advocate approach to use the comments to flush out all sides of debate, thus offering the best range of options in order to compose the best assessment of the stakeholders and the issues.

An extension of maternity leave brought forth a number of stakeholders that would be impacted by such changes. 

Families intending to have children and their ability to offer the best care

Women not intending to have children and their ability to not be discriminated against

Businesses, especially small businesses, who could likely suffer under the added costs and lost availability of their worker

These stakeholders face issues that raised a number of questions:

How long should paid maternity leave be?

How much should employers be required to foot the bill?

How much should government cover of the bill?

How much leave should be offered without pay with job guarantees?

Should families be able to split their leave amongst maternity and paternity leave?

Should ex-pats be offered work permit extensions to cover leave time?

A great many interesting questions and no-doubt it would be very easy for this writer to simply give you his opinion and leave it at that.   However, is there a better way?  Rather than simply getting my opinion, why don't we get all of your opinions on what should happen with regards to maternity leave. 

So lets do that.

 

Maternity leave

Page One

1. How long should paid maternity leave be?

	There shouldn't be any
	1 months
	3 months
	6 months
	1 year
	2 years

2. How much should employers be required to foot of the bill?

	0%
	25%
	50%
	75%
	100%

3. How much should government cover of the bill?

	0%
	25%
	50%
	75%
	100%

4. How much leave should be offered without pay, beyond the initial paid leave, with job guarantees?

	None
	1 month
	3 months
	6 months
	1 year
	1.5 years
	2 years

5. Should families be able to split their leave amongst maternity and paternity leave?

	yes
	no

6. Should ex-pats be offered work permit extensions to cover leave time?

	yes
	no

 

Can we use such a method to achieve better governance?  Hopefully over the coming weeks we'll be able to conduct more feedback sessions based upon our leadership's intentions to give them an idea of just how useful public participation can be in governance and hopefully encourage them to consider embracing more aspects of open democracy.

---

If you haven't filled out the Party Support Survey, please take a moment do to so.  The results will be posted soon and so far they've been fascinating.

Bus shelter update

The bus shelter near Radnor road in Hamilton parish was clean of graffiti this morning when driving past.  Quite a nice sight in comparison to the deteriorated state it had reached since the post last month about it.

A fair tax cut

While the UBP's proposed payroll tax cut for those earning under $42,000 is a nice thought, who does it really benefit?  Does it simply punish the rich, reward the middle class a leave the poor behind?  Is there a better way?  One which could offer an evenly and fairly distributed approach that gives the most of the tax cut to those who need it, while not punishing as severely those who work hard to earn the most.

The UBP has proposed that they will eliminate payroll tax for those earning under $42,000 if elected.  The core problem with such a suggestion is that those who stand to benefit most are those who earn closest to $42,000.

Here's a quick example.  Let's say you only earn $20,000 a year.  Cutting payroll tax at the assumed 6% that is usually borne by the employee would result in a savings of $1200 a year.  Cutting payroll tax for those making $42,000 a year would result in savings of $2520.  However, those making $70,000 a year would still be required to pay $4200 in tax.

Unfortunately, those lucky enough to earn $42,000 a year make out the best, but those unlucky enough to earn $43,000 get hit with $2580 in taxes.   In reality, you'd have to make nearly $45,000 before you'd earn more than someone making $42,000 after taxes.  Does that make sense?

What if there was another way, one which took a page from the fair tax proposal by attempting to distribute the tax cut more evenly across all Bermudians sort of like a rebate. 

Lets assume for arguments sake that the UBP's proposed tax cut would amount to the $120 million dollar difference between payroll tax colleted in 1998 vs. last year.  Rather than doing it as a pure tax cut, continue charging the taxes but instead cut every Bermudian a quarterly cheque of their share of the savings.  Using our example $120 million and dividing amongst a Bermudian population of lets say 50,000 people, that would amount to $2400 a year or $600 a quarter.

As we saw above, for someone making as low as $20,000 a year, a cut in the 6%  would amount to a savings of $1200 a year in taxes.  Yet, a rebate of $2400 would give them $1200 more over the course of the year to spend, greatly assisting their income.

For someone making $42,000 a year, that'd amount to $2520 in payroll taxes of which the rebate would give them back $2400 meaning they'd only really be paying $120 in payroll taxes for the year.  Going back to that person earning $45,000, they'd pay $2700 in taxes but receive a rebate of $2400 netting them a total taxation of $300.  For someone making $70,000 a year, that'd amount to $4200 in payroll taxes which would net them a total post rebate taxation of $1800.

Such a scheme would benefit the young and old, the homeless and the wealthy.  The rebate could be offered in forms other than just cash in order to encourage community health and development.  Examples such as redeeming your tax credit for health care, child care or education vouchers. 

The plan could even be expanded to eliminate payroll taxes altogether and supplement it with an increase in consumption tax (duty).  By this manner, people would be taxed purely on consumption rather than earnings which would take a bite out of those who live materially and spread the wealth amongst all Bermudians.

A tax cut for the poor is a nice thought, but given Bermuda's wealth disparity, why reward those in the middle while punishing those at the bottom and the top?  Rather than punishing the rich and poor to reward the middle class, could we find a better way?  Could a fairer tax cut be introduced which could offer an evenly and fairly distributed approach that gives the most to those who need it while not specifically punishing those who work hard to earn the most?

Welcome back Limey

After a long hiatus, Limey in Bermuda has returned.  Welcome back Phil.

Interestingly, though unsurprisingly, after the large amount of turmoil he went through with his comments prior to his sabbatical, he has this time returned without comments.

Having recently witnessed a surge in readership with comments and threads going off into nowhere, I can understand the logic and have even contemplated it myself. 

Given Limey in Bermuda's return, I can't say I'd be surprised to see comments meant for his site (much like those meant for Politics.bm) spilling over here.  So, while I'm not interested in policing my site to the same degree as Phil once policed his, I'm also not interested in spending a great deal of my time ensuring that I'm not held liable for what people say in the comments. 

So, I'll remind everyone to keep it civil and non-personal.  Try to stay on the topic and don't go off on tangents attempting to discuss things that are better off being posted on the forums.  If so, I'm happy to keep the comments going.  Otherwise, I have little issue with taking the same tack as Limey in Bermuda and Politics.bm in going comment-less and relying on trackbacks between blogs for discussion.

Premier Brown's speech by the numbers

Where was the focus of Premier Brown's speech at the recent PLP annual banquet?

In order to answer this question, lets use the 21Square favorite method of counting the number of times specific words appear.

me: occurs 29 times
I:  occurs 66 times
we:  occurs 77 times
us: occurs 11 times
you:  occurs 93 times
they: occurs 42 times
them: occurs 12 times.

Since 'I' and 'me' are interchangeable, lets combine them to 95 times.

Since 'we' and 'us' are interchangeable, lets combine them to 88 times.

Since 'they' and 'them' are interchangeable, lets combine them to 54 times. 

Lets just ignore the fact that he also used 'my' 51 times.

 

---

Royal Gazette version:

http://www.theroyalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?articleId=7d7b24630030001&sectionId=70

 

YouTube version:

http://plp.bm/blog/videos

Doubling maternity leave

The UBP has pledged to consider doubling maternity leave if elected, but will it do more harm than good?  It's a nice thought for making pregnancy easier for mothers, especially single mothers but what are the implications?   How will it impact businesses?  What will it do to the stature of women in the workplace and their earning potential?  What of women who bear no children?  Will doubling maternity leave do more harm than good?

In a recent announcement by the Opposition United Bermuda Party, they pledged that if elected, they would consider doubling maternity leave.

The UBP would institute programmes designed to help people at key stages in life, beginning before birth, with maternity leave.

The UBP would consider legislation to extend paid maternity leave to six months, set up two additional Government-run affordable day care centres for a total of three and subsidize the cost of day care up to pre-school ages.

Doubling maternity leave is a great gesture which will likely go a long way in building support from the feminine voter base, but what are the implications?

How will doubling maternity leave impact businesses?  Unfortunately, modifying legislation to force businesses to support 6 month maternity leaves places undue hardship on businesses, especially small businesses.  According to the August 2007 edition of Labour Market Indicators, the median annual salary of women in our workforce for 2006 was $48,848.  When combined with the average number of children of 2.4 noted for women aged 45 and over by the 2000 Census, we can compare how much maternity leave costs the average business in 3 month and 6 month durations.

Presently, at maternity leave lasting 3 months in duration, women can roughly be estimated to cost a business 7.2 months worth of salary in maternity leave assuming they work for one business throughout their working life.  At even just the median annual income of $48,848, that equates to $29,308.8 that the average business spends on maternity leave on every woman.  For a small business that employs many women, that number quickly adds up.  When considering a doubling of maternity leave to 6 months in duration, or 14.4 months over the lifetime of the average woman, that equates to $58,617.6, which is more than a years salary, in added costs for any business that hires your average woman which adds up very quickly for small businesses.

What will doubling maternity leave do to discrimination against women?  Will it encourage pay discrimination and make small businesses less likely to hire and promote women?  Just as Newton's 3rd law suggests that every action shall have an equal and opposite reaction, so can we presume that extended maternity leave will likely yield undesired consequences.

According to the 2007 Labour Market Indicators women earned $3,512, nearly 7% less, in median annual gross earnings than men annually.  When considering that education level and job roles may well play a factor in that number, the question does arise of what factor the potential of losing an employee to maternity leave contributes to overall compensation.  If the average business spends $29,308.8 on a woman in maternity leave over, lets assume, a 40 year work life, that equates to $732.72 a year in costs to the business which may well contribute to the differential in pay between men and women.  If we consider what would occur when maternity leave is doubled, that could equate to $1465.44 per year in costs to the business.  If the business is forced to pay an extra $732.72 per woman, will that translate directly into a 20% increase in the differential of pay between men and women?  Would it also discourage smaller businesses from taking on the risk of hiring and promoting women out of fear of losing them for 6 months each time they opt to have a child?  What of women who have no children who are unduly punished with less pay while not contributing to a company's loss?

The UBP has pledged to consider doubling maternity leave if elected, but will it do more harm than good?  It's a nice thought for making pregnancy easier for mothers, especially single mothers but what are the implications?   Will it have an impact on businesses, especially small businesses?  What will it do to the stature of women in the workplace and their earning potential?  What of women how have few or no children and the implications in increased discrimination?  Will doubling maternity leave do more harm than good?

Party Support Survey

1. Which party do you support?

	I'm a PLP supporter
	I'm a UBP supporter
	I'm a swing voter who supports the party that best addresses the core issues of Bermuda
	I don't vote
	I can't vote

 

2. In the 2003 election, do you think the PLP presented clear well thought out plans for how they would address the issues facing our island?

	yes
	no

 

3. In the 2003 election, do you think the UBP presented clear well thought out plans for how they would address the issues facing our island?

	Yes
	No

 

4. In the 2003 election, do you feel the PLP focused more on race than they did on issues?

	Yes
	No

 

5. In the 2003 election, do you feel the UBP focused more on race than they did on issues?

	yes
	no

 

6. For the 2007 election, do you feel the PLP will focus more on race or more on issues?

	race
	issues

 

7. For the 2007 election, do you feel the UBP will focus more on race or more on issues?

	race
	issues

 

8. How did you vote in 2003 and are you likely to vote for the 2007 election?

	I voted PLP and will vote PLP
	I voted PLP and will vote UBP
	I voted PLP and won't be voting
	I voted UBP and will vote PLP
	I voted UBP and will vote UBP
	I voted UBP and won't be voting
	I didn't vote and will vote PLP
	I didn't vote and will vote UBP
	I didn't vote and won't be voting
	I can't vote

 

9. Are you satisfied with the accomplishments of the PLP over the last 4 years?

	Yes
	No

 

10. Are you satisfied with the UBP's accomplishments as opposition over the last 4 years?

	Yes
	No

 

11. Why do your support your party?

	They're my party
	They represent my race
	They represent my politicial ideologies
	They best represent the issues most important to me
	I don't support a specific party

 

12. Who do you think will win the 2007 election?

	PLP
	UBP
	not sure

Interest free down payment loans

Government has promised 500 interest-free down payment loans to improve housing affordability.  It's a nice thought for making housing more affordable.  However, will it cost us more in the long term?  What will be the impact as the value of the US dollar continues to drop and inflation continues to rise?  Will it artificially increase demand and cause housing prices to rise? Interest-free down payment loans, it's a nice thought, but does it make sense?

To encourage home ownership, the Government will provide interest-free down payment loans for 500 qualified Bermudian families who have the ability to sustain a reasonable mortgage.

This from yesterday's throne speech.  It's a wonderful thought.  Give 500 qualified Bermudian families interest-free down payment loans.  But what are the implications?

There are a number of issues that rise with the announcement of these 500 loans.  First off, banks are already at the state where they will give out 0% down payment loans to qualified Bermudian families, so what difference does an interest free down payment make?

If you take a $1 million loan, 100% financed over 30 years at 9%, that works out to $8046.23 a month with $1,896,641.42 having been paid in interest.

If you take a $1 million loan, 95% financed over 30 years at 9% interest and 5% financed over 30 years at 0% interest, that's $7643.91 a month for the bank loan, and $138.88 a month for the government loan.  So, overall $1,801,809.35, would be paid in interest over the 30 years.

So, other 30 years, that $50,000 will save each family $94,832.1 on their mortgage, but they'd still have to pay back the $50,000, so they'd save $44,832.1 overall. 

However, 500 loans at $50,000 apiece will mean a 30 year $2.5 million investment on the part of government.  If you take that $2.5 million and invest it in a basic Bermuda dollar savings account at 5.25% compounded annually, that will amount to $11 million dollars after 30 years.  Invest it in a stock market index at an average return of 7% and you're looking at $17.8 million.  Worse, invest it in some of the financial management companies on the island who have long term track records of over 15% per annum and you're looking at $144 million.

So, is that $2.5 million investment in 500 people worth the return of $4.74 in savings when you compare it against earnings of $11, $17.8 or even $144 million if we invested it elsewhere?  Would it be more logical to just write these families a cheque for $200,000 in 30 years than $50,000 loan now?  In order to answer this question we need to examine the impacts of investing in those 500 people.

The problem we have is that without assistance, those families would be paying $8046.23 for a million dollar home, and with assistance they'd save some $263 a month in mortgage payments.  The question that needs to be asked however is for how many families is $7,783 a month "affordable"? 

Who makes $7,783 a month and can't manage to save a $50,000 down payment?  If $7,783 a month is "affordable" when $8,046 is not, the question must be asked whether or not these loans should be given out.  The reality is that with the decline in value of the American dollar inflation is on the rise.  The less the value of the American dollar, the less oil and food can be bought for that dollar and the Bermudian dollar declines right along side the American.  What happens if we assist people into loans that they later cannot afford?

Further, the much larger question must be asked.  If we're giving free loans to the upper ranks of society to make housing more affordable when they couldn't otherwise afford it, all we're doing is increasing demand without supplementing supply.  That increased demand from 500 people who can now buy a $1,000,000 house when they could previously only afford a $950,000 house will mean that we're just going to drive prices up further which will make it harder for everyone who isn't one of the lucky 500.  Is this what we really want in the long term?

The government promised 500 interest-free down payment loans designed to improve housing affordability is a nice thought.  However, will it end up costing us more in the long term?  What will be the impact as the value of the US dollar continues to drop and inflation continues to rise?  Will it artificially increase demand and cause home prices to rise?  Interest-free down payment loans, it's a nice thought, but does it make sense?

Conscripts to guard the Premier?

From the Throne Speech:

The Government will bolster the human resource capabilities within the Bermuda Police Service in the areas of intelligence analysis and will explore the scope for deploying Bermuda Regiment personnel to support the Bermuda Police Service, as may be necessary, in areas such as guard duties, thereby releasing police officers to carry out mainstream policing duties.

This is likely a take off of Minister Burch's wild suggestion that Regimental Soldiers should guard the Premier's and Governor's houses.

Yes, there's a thought.  Get conscripted regimental soldiers, put rifles in their hands and then ask them to guard the house of the man who suggested that conscription is the "price of living in paradise".

Someone has really thought this one through.

New feature: Post ratings

I've added a new feature which allows you to rate my posts so that I can gather feedback on how good they are.  Are they well written?  Do they make good points?  Do they contribute anything?  Is it too long?  Too short? 

If you have a moment when reading a post, give it a rating out of 5 stars and, as always, should you find it could use improvement then please let me know in the comments. 

Thanks.

Election Called

An election has been announced for December 18th.  More on this after work hours.

Another letter to the editor

LaVerne Furbert must have incomprehensible amounts of free time on her hands as she is constantly featured in both paper's letter to the editor sections.

Unfortunately, she is published so frequently that her views grow tiring because they always follow along the same predictable lines where you don't need to read her piece in order to know what she's going to say.

It leaves one to wonder why the editors continue to publish her with such frequency. It has become so bad that anytime I find myself reading the letters to the editor and come across a long winded one, I instantly skip to the bottom to see if LaVerne Furbert wrote it. If so, it's likely I won't even bother reading it.

This has me wondering, does anyone take the time to read her pieces anymore or does she write in so often saying primarily the exact same thing that she's turned the majority of people off from wanting to know what she has to say?

Letters to the editor

Page One

1. Do you read LaVerne Furbert's letters to the editor?

	Always
	Sometimes
	Rarely
	Not Anymore
	Never Have

This morning's top stories

Having wondered this morning whether the causeway would be closed due to high winds, I took the rare opportunity to flip on my radio and listen to the morning news on Mix 106.

Businessman and longtime PLP supporter Harold Darrell steps forward publically for the first time to proclaim that he leaked the BHC report.  Suggesting further allegations include money laundering and drug trafficking and that the people have the right to know who they're voting for in the next election.

Premier Brown calls out to fellow PLP parliamentarians asking that they wait until after the next election before mounting a leadership challenge.

Premier Brown calls out to the newspapers telling them to go ahead and publish the entire report as he "never had anything to hide anyway."

Gerald Simons of Argus speaks out against proposed workforce equity bill.

As mentioned before, this is getting very interesting.

Who's viewing from China?

Sometimes the power and reach of the internet can be underestimated.  Most recently this blog has received visitors from China.  What does that mean?  Could it be tied to our Premier's recent attendance at the World Tourism Marketing Summit in Beijing?  Could people in China be wondering about Bermuda and using blogs as a means of learning more?  What does that say about the power of blogging?

It isn't unusual to notice individuals who view this blog from places all over the world so when Beijing China popped up in the results of a recent survey, the implications of it didn't click.  It was only when someone in the comments mentioned that it could be Premier Brown himself that I began to wonder  as to who it could be.

It would not be incredibly surprising to know that Premier Brown or one of his entourage views and reads this blog.  Frankly, it would be encouraging to know if they did as it would mean that the ideas and opinions shared here are being heard and hopefully considered, which is a large reason this blog exists. 

The other thought however, is that the profile of at least one visitor doesn't match your typical Bermudian. The most recent user happened to be connecting via a Windows Media Center PC with a Switzerland French language setting on their browser.  Interestingly, at least 3 of the convention's speakers are from Switzerland.  The visitor first visited politics.bm before reaching my site, then went on to view my section on Tourism and Hospitality.  Interesting stuff.

Either Premier Brown likes to keep tabs on my writing even from the other side of the world or his attendance at the recent Tourism Summit has sparked further interest in Bermudian tourism.  Both potential reasons have interesting implications for the impact this blog can have and solidifies how incredible the power and reach of the internet can be.