The America’s Cup event was over hyped.  Many held unrealistic expectations of how it would do.  However, hype shouldn’t be the benchmark.  What we should be considering to determine whether or not the America’s Cup event was a success was comparing it to the original estimates.  Those were the basis upon which the decision was made the host the event and should be the benchmark as to whether or not the event was a success.

As noted back in August when musing about the eventual report’s outcome:

Smart financial decisions are not based upon hype.  They are based upon conservative projections of a return on investment. America’s Cup was not brought here because of hype, it was brought here because conservative projections suggested it was a good investment.

What we really need to do is take a step back and compare the results that we’re seeing against the projections to prove if the investment was worth it. The conservative projections suggested that based upon the invested amount we would generate $235 million of direct spend on the island.  We need to figure out if the returns generated met or exceeded that estimate.  If you expected it to bring the second coming of Jesus then I can only shake my head that you bought into such hype and suggest you’re reading the wrong blog.

The America’s Cup was a well planned event.  It was the only case I’m aware of where an estimated potential economic impact assessment was done to justify whether or not the event should be done.  These sorts of things are critical.  It is easy to throw money at something and hope, but that doesn’t always yield results.  It is much better to take a measured approach to develop a plan and estimate conservatively as best you can so you have a good idea of expectations.

Here were the key findings of the potential economic impact assessment report.

The categories didn’t match exactly as there were some variations in terms of estimates for more cruise visitors, increased impact on government and concerts.  Visitors was given as a total which has been compared against the $25.9 million total estimate for visitors.  There was no impact from cruise provisioning, government-other or concerts.

Overall however, every category outperformed the estimate of gdp impact with the exception of government.

How did the actual event measure up?  In total expenditure, the impact was reported as having been $336.4 million vs. the original $242.2 million.

Was the America’s Cup a success?  There has been a great deal of debate about whether it could have done more or shared the benefits better.  However, when considering whether the event was planned, estimated and executed successfully, the numbers suggest that it exceeded expectations. Let us hope that future events and initiatives are planned, estimated and executed in a similar fashion while yielding a similar level of success.

Here’s my chart of poll results going back over the last few years.

Notice something?  The big change in the election was that the swing vote wholly supported the PLP.

This is key to understand.  The OBA, if they want to maintain any sort of relevance, need to target the swing vote, not hardcore PLP supporters.

Who are the swing vote?  What does the swing vote want?  How do they target those desires and deliver?  Those are the key questions the OBA needs to answer with any strategy.

The OBA’s strategy and vision is to keep recycling the same failed strategy which hasn’t worked.  It is honestly so repetitive that I don’t even feel its necessary to write anything new on it.  I can just quote old commentary regarding the UBP where most of it still applies for the OBA.

Here’s a post from 2009 regarding a need for fundamental change in the way the party conducts themselves rather than new faces.

Seeking profound change

Originally published June 2009

John Barritt was recently quoted in The Royal Gazette condemning the suggestion that the UBP should rename itself.

“A rose is a rose by any other name. Something more profound than that is required.”

Mr. Barritt is absolutely correct.  However, peering through rose colored glasses could detract oneself from distinguishing between a rose in bloom and one which has wilted.  As Mr. Barritt suggests, the UBP needs profound change and a new name won’t do it.  Members need to either walk away from the party and go independent or the UBP needs to start being the change it says it would bring.

When it comes to the “do as I say and not as I do” mentality it is hard to differentiate the UBP from the PLP.  The PLP have been known to skirt laws, policies and procedures while expecting the people to have respect for them.  The UBP subsequently condemns such actions and suggests that government should embody ‘good governance’ and transparency when it itself doesn’t follow such principles.  While the UBP may claim ‘we’ll earn your trust’, we shouldn’t have to wait until after their elected to start trusting them for  maintaining a shroud of secrecy only works against its development.

If the UBP play the way they practice then the way they run their party is a good benchmark for how they’d run government. Thus despite many promises to the contrary, people still believe things likely wouldn’t change if they were elected.  If the UBP hopes to gain any form of traction a real step forward would be to first change in themselves what they would like to see changed in government.  This means reversing the culture of secrecy within the party and making as much of it as transparent as possible.

Why? Let us use the changes we would like to see in parliament as an example.  At present there is no advance schedule, little room for public consultation, no hansard minutes and no publishing of voting results.  All of these are things the UBP would likely claim they would change if elected and yet none of these things are reflected in the way the party is run.

Take caucus meetings as an example.  It is a rather secretive event.  Now certainly there are portions that are necessarily secretive but then there is likely also a great deal which is not.  Thus, why not bring transparency to everything that does not specifically need to be kept secret?  The UBP could publish an advance schedule including descriptions of topics to be discussed.  They could open themselves to public feedback on those topics ahead of time.  They could record and publish hansard minutes and finally publish voting records.  Beyond this they could do the same with other meetings including trying to document what they are able to of parliamentary sessions.

You might ask if the process of reaching consensus is made public, would this tarnish their ability to maintain a unified front?  In order to combat this assertion let us take a look at when parliament works best, which is when people vote on conscience.  When votes reach a consensus everyone falls behind that consensus and government resolves to pursue the result.  People debate, discuss and finally agree on a way forward.  Should this parliamentary process be made public?  If so, why is transparency in parliament any different from transparency in a party caucus?  Why is it not possible to disagree, debate, come to a consensus and finally unify behind the decision, all in the public eye?

Bringing transparency to the party would reap rewards greater than just improved trust.  The party can demonstrate what government would be like if it was in charge.  It could bring greater visibility to the less outspoken and less publicized members allowing for greater promotion of their individual candidates.  It could enable them to garner more support by welcoming feedback and public input.  It would encourage people to feel like they could have a greater impact on decisions and give the party a more participatory feel.  Subsequently the party could look to other initiatives it hopes to bring forth should it be elected and move for implementing them today.

Let us take a moment to call a spade a spade and realise that sometimes roses need to be replanted in order to flourish.  Upturning the roots of the party would reflect a profound change that could set the UBP on a new course.  It would finally be able to demonstrate a real commitment to the democratic change that so many know we need.  It would give the party new found life and potentially entice greater support, thus enabling the party to rejuvenate itself more empowered to better serve the public, whether as opposition or incumbent.