There’s an old Aesop’s fable my father used to always tell me
A dog was crossing a plank bridge over a stream with a piece of meat in his mouth, when he happened to see his own reflection in the water. He thought it was another dog with a piece of meat twice as big; so he let go his own, and flew at the other dog to get the other piece. But, of course, all that happened was hat he got neither; for one was only a reflection, and the other was carried away by the current.
The talk of a snap election reminds me of this fable. The PLP could do more to damage their position than strengthen it by calling a snap election. What it comes down to is that while polls suggest PLP supporters may not be fed up with the PLP, they’re fed up with Premier Brown. A snap election could easily be viewed as an unnecessary power grab by Premier Brown when he has been claiming for some time his intention to step down in 2010. Would we need to again ask if he intends to mislead us?
A snap election could go two ways. One, the UBP and newBP could face off against each other for the newBP’s seats, thus pulling what few candidates they have away from other seats in a bid to sacrifice the win in favor of the same inner squabbling that crippled the party in the first place. The second possibility is for the UBP to not challenge the newBP and focus on winning PLP held marginal’s. This would be damaging to the newBP in that it would make it even harder to differentiate themselves from the UBP, but would give them a decent shot at staying in existence as a third party.
PLP supporters could believe that the PLP is guaranteed to win regardless because of the fragmented opposition and choose this as a time to show their disappointment with Premier Brown by not turning out. A weak turnout thus making it harder for the PLP to hold onto their marginals. Could a snap election be much like that dog enamored with his reflection; Where the greed of having more causes one to lose all?