New Senator and Minister to be Appointed

Tonight brings the news that the newly appointed Senator and Minister for Community & Sports, Mr. Commissiong has left the position. It was noted previously that his appointment was controversial, and the dismay over his appointment was showing no sign of abating.

Others are – and will – comment more specifically concerning him elsewhere; my focus here is on what this means for the Cabinet and the Senate. I am interested in the aspects of the role ‘the people’ and social movements will play in our democracy, being as they led the charge on this issue. With a decimated Opposition OBA and a dominant Governing PLP, one imagines social movements and labour unions will play an important role over the next few years.

First however, in Mr. Commissiong’s resignation letter, he cites Section 106 of the Constitution. For those unfamiliar with the Constitution, this sections reads as follows:

106 Resignations
1. Save as otherwise provided in sections 31(1) and 32(2) of this Constitution, any person who is appointed to or to act in any office established by this Constitution may resign from that office by writing under his hand addressed to the person by whom he was appointed.

2. The resignation of any person from any such office (including any seat in either House) by writing under his hand addressed in accordance with this Constitution to any other person shall take effect when the writing signifying the resignation is received by that other person.

The Constitution also specifies that at least one of the Cabinet Ministers (and not more than two) must come from the Senate; and that the Government must appoint five senators. Mr. Commissiong’s removal thus means that (i) a new Senator must be appointed by the Premier; and (ii) a new Minister must be appointed from the Senate.

It is important to note that the new Senator to be appointed does not necessarily have to also be the new Minister. This could mean – hypothetically – that due to the particular issues involved in the Commissiong case, that the Premier could reappoint Ms. Lovitta Foggo back to her Ministry, and remove a Ministry from someone else and hand it to one of the Senators. I’ve heard someone on social media suggest just this, with Senator Owen Darrell proposed in the same conversation as a possible Minister for the Cabinet, for example. Of course, any of the other three Senators could also be considered for a Ministry.

It is likely the Premier will be wanting to chose someone who has some previous experience in the House or the Senate. And if that person also has experience as a Minister, all the better. It may be that the Premier only needs an experienced hand in this role for a short period, say six months. That will give the new Senators time to get experience, and allow the Premier to consider if his new Cabinet needs a shuffle or not.

Obvious candidates for the Senate seat would be former MP Michael Scott and former Senator Davida Morris.

As a former Senator, Senate Leader and former Minister, he certainly has the credentials and experience for the role, and, while he did decide to retire, one imagines he might be willing to step into the role, even if for a short period.

Ms. Morris is a former Senator and was a candidate in the last election, as well as being the Secretary General of the PLP. With an eye for addressing criticisms of gender imbalances in politics, she is certainly a possibility.

Of course there are other former PLP MPs, Senators and Ministers that the Premier may consider. Former Premiers Jennifer Smith and Paula Cox, former Ministers Renee Webb and Neletha Butterfield, as well as a host of other former Senators, as well as other members of the PLP Executive, are all possible names to consider.

Ultimately, the above names are pure speculation, albeit with a degree of educated guessing to them.

It is not clear from the Premier’s letter when the new Senator and Minister are to be appointed; however the Premier previously noted that he is convening the first Cabinet meeting of the new Government for this Tuesday, October 13th, so it is quite possible that the appointments will come on Monday afternoon.

So Many Times Betrayed – Part II @BermudaPSU

Girl I believe you
Are you losing your mind thinking
What will it take to make somebody listen to you

– I Believe You by Fletcher

Continuing my series exploring the issue of sexual harassment, this post continues the review of the BPSU’s report on Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, written by now Minister Jason Hayward.

Gender Lenses

Having provide a definition of sexual harassment and some general types of it, the report has an interesting section on ‘Gender Lenses’. Essentially, this section notes that perception of sexual harassment (and/or its severity) is often influenced by gender.

“Men and women exhibit vastly different views of the propriety of sex in the workplace. In general, men and women differ concerning the appropriateness of sexual conduct in the workplace; behaviour considered offensive by women may be viewed as harmless by men.”

This is important to note, especially in the current context that has spurred this conversation about sexual harassment. As most, if not all, of the women affected by this appointment (either having previously experienced sexual harassment, or potentially subject to such) are civil servants (and thus restricted in having a voice as the matter relates to political appointments), only one side of the story is being given – all from men, and thus potentially subject to the gender lens/filter raised in the report. Additionally, many of the social media discussion on this largely seems to reflect this gender bias (with the addition that several male commentators feel that women are weaponising sexual harassment claims).

Now, the report cites two studies by:

1. Gregory, Raymond, F. (2004) Unwelcome and unlawful: sexual harassment in the American workplace. New York, Cornell University Press.
2. Bannerjee, et al (2011) Gender differences in perception of workplace sexual harassment among future professionals (Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 20(1): 21-4).

Both of these are excellent papers and well worth the read for those interested.

Now, the key takeaways from these papers that the report notes are:

1. In general men and women diverge greatly on what they would consider offensive sexual harassment (in particular being propositoned by the opposite sex).
2. In general men blame women for sexual harassment, in the form of saying women are responsible for their harassment in the workplace based on their dress or working in a male dominated space, and so on.
3. That there is a need for awareness training – especially for men – regarding the full definition and scope of sexual harassment.

These findings are not new, nor are they exceptional. As Bhattacharya & Stockdale (2016) note:

1. “Men’s attitude toward sexually harassing activities continues to be more tolerant than women’s.”
2. “Women are more likely than men to define social-sexual behaviour or events to be sexually harassing or rate such events to be more severe, threatening, unwelcome, serious, or harmful…”
3. “…there is abundant evidence that women tend to be more sensitive than men to SH [sexual harassment] perceptions and that individuals endorsing traditional masculine gender role orientations or sexist attitudes tend to be less sensitive to SH perceptions…”

There are, of course, plenty additional academic studies that basically find the same thing. In general, men are less likely to perceive their behaviours as sexually harassing than the women who are generally the subject of the harassing. And furthermore, men are more likely to blame the victim.

Myself, I was struck by the similarity here with perceptions of racism. As far back as 1981 (and no doubt earlier – see McConahay, et al ‘Has Racism Declined in America? It depends on who is asking and what is asked’), it was recongised that Whites (who generally benefitted from slavery, segregation and ongoing structural racism) are less likely to recognise the continuation of racism beyond the overt ‘old-fashioned’ in your face form of racism.

“As our studies demonstrated, whites mainly recognise old-fashioned racism as reflecting racism. Any of their opinions, beliefs, or actions that work to the detriment of blacks are not seen as prejudice; and since most white Americans either do not hold old-fashioned racist beliefs or they feel guilty about the ones they do hold, whites tend to think racism is a thing of the past. Hence, whites perceive the continuing efforts and demands of blacks as unjustified, while blacks see whites’ resistance to these efforts as tangible proof of racism and hypocrisy, and the cycle of conflict continues.”

In general, using the US example again, perceptions on racism remain different depending on whether the perceiver is white or black.

There is a clear gender bias or ‘lens’ in perceptions of sexual harassment.

Internalised Sexism

Not covered in the BPSU report, but something which I think is worth at least mentioning here is the matter of internalised sexism. In this, I am referring to women that have internalised sexist attitudes and help enable the perpetuation of such – in this case either dismissing claims of sexual harassment or blaming the victim.

There are, of course, various aspects of internalised sexism, but the one I’m referring to here is these aspects:

“Defending, justifying, and excusing individual acts of misogyny, mistreatment, and/or abuse, either toward oneself or toward other women.”

“Defending, justifying, and supporting societal, institutional, political, and/or cultural bias and oppression against women (internalized oppression). Blaming women for causing their own victimization.”

This has certainly been on display on some social media conversations concerning the Commissiong controversy, as well as the radio. In this, the women involved have helped support and legitimise the oppression of other women. There are even some women with internalised sexism who will actively seek out sexually harassing behaviour from men, and to that degree dismiss the very real trauma of sexual harassment on other victims.

In some situations, this can be particularly problematic should a woman with such internalised sexism holds a key role of a shop steward in a unionised workplace. This may cause women workers to feel they cannot go to their union for assistance. This is not the case – if you as a worker are in such a situation where you feel your shop steward is compromised, you can and should go directly to the union itself, be it to a Division Vice-President or to the Executive Committee of the union itself.

So Many Times Betrayed – Part I (a series on sexual harassment…) @BermudaPSU

Through this world I stumble
So many times betrayed
Trying to find an honest word
To find the truth enslaved

– From ‘Possession’ by Sarah McLachlan.

The appointment, yesterday, of former MP Rolfe Commissiong to the Senate as the Government Senate Leader as well as the Minister-in-the-Senate as Minister of Community & Sport, has proved to be quite a controversial appointment. Indeed, some might say that the honeymoon period for the re-elected 30-6 Government is over in a remarkably short time.

The reason for this controversy stems to the nature of Senator Commissiong’s decision to not contest the 2020 election, giving way to Finance Minister Curtis Dickinson to run in the constituency so vacated. That decision arose due to the media reporting that Mr. Commissiong had sexually harassed a civil servant. There’s more to that story, however it has (and will likely) be covered elsewhere. What interests me is the resulting national discussion – on social media, radio, offices (particularly in the civil service) and in the street. To be frank, it has prompted a lot of discussion about sexual harassment.

It occurred to me that there would be some utility in exploring this topic, and so here we are.

What is Sexual Harassment?

Minister Jason Hayward, when he was the President of the BPSU, wrote a valuable report on ‘Sexual Harassment in the Workplace’, which will be the subject of my initial posts on this subject. It is well worth reading, and was even featured in Social Justice Bermuda’s initial reaction to this Commissiong Controversy.

This report opens with a definition taken from the Human Rights Act 1981, Section 9(4). I actually think it is worth quoting the relevant Section in its entirety:

9 – Sexual Harassment Prohibited

1. No person shall abuse any position or authority which he occupies in relation to any other person employed by him or by any concern which employs both of such persons, for the purpose of harassing that other person sexually.
2. A person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from sexual harassment by the landlord, or by an agent of the landlord, or by an occupant of the same building.
3. A person who is an employee has a right to freedom in his workplace from sexual harassment by his employer, or by an agent of his employer, or by a fellow employee, and an employer shall take such action as is reasonably necessary to ensure that sexual harassment does not occur in the workplace.
4. For the purposes of this section, a person harasses another sexually if he engages in sexual comment or sexual conduct towards that other which is vexatious and which he knows, or ought to know, is unwelcome.

Whether section 4, as regards ‘the employer’, refers in the case of Mr. Commissiong when the incident occurred, applies to the Premier, the Speaker or ‘the people’ is an interesting question. However, I digress…

The report itself opens with the following comment on sexual harassment:

“Sexual harassment is a hazard encountered in workplaces across the world that reduces the quality of working life, jeopardises the well-being of women and men, undermines gender equality and imposes costs on businesses and organisations.”

The report also provides a more detailed description of sexual harassment from the ILO:

“…any unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, request for sexual favours, verbal or physical conduct or gesture of a sexual nature; or other behaviour or a sexual nature that makes the recipient feel humiliated, offended and/or intimidated, where such reaction is reasonable in the situation and condition; or made into working requirement or create an intimidating hostile or inappropriate working environment.” – ILO (2011) Guidelines on Sexual Harassment at the Workplace. [Page 5]

The BPSU report then cites the different types of sexual harassment identified in the 2011 ILO Guidelines [page 7], which are worth copying here too:

1. Physical Harassment – unwelcomed touching in a sexual manner such as kissing, patting, pinching, glancing or staring lustfully.
2. Verbal Harassment – unwelcomed comments about private life, body parts or a person’s appearance, sexually suggestive jokes and comments.
3. Gestural Harassment – sexually suggestive body language and/or gestures, repeated winks, gestures with fingers, and licking lips.
4. Written or Graphic Harassment – display of pornographic materials, sexually explicit pictures, screensavers or posters, or harassment via emails and other modes of electronic communication.
5. Psychological/Emotional Harassment – persistent proposals and unwelcomed requests, unwanted invitations to go out on dates, insults, taunts or innuendo of a sexual nature.

As noted in the report, the above is not exhaustive…

The new Cabinet and Senators

I wrote yesterday that the new Cabinet and PLP Senators would be announced today – and so it was.

In my earlier post I noted that there would be at least one Ministerial change, as at least one Minister must sit in the Senate, and the entire PLP Senate team was elected to the House of Assembly last week. As it turned out, there were actually three new Ministers appointed:

• Lawrence Scott as Minister of Transport
• Tinee Furbert as Minister of Social Development & Seniors
• Rolfe Commissiong as Minister of Community & Sports

Now, that last appointment is an interesting one, for reasons of which I’ll touch on below.

With regards the Senate, I had speculated that most of the new Senators will be chosen from the 6 unsuccessful candidates, with at least one of the new Senators being an ‘old-hand’ (an experienced former Senator or MP) who would lead the team and likely double as the Minister in the Senate.

As it turns out, four of the six unsuccessful candidates were chosen as Senators, and an old-hand was, indeed, chosen as the Senate Leader and Minister. The four of the six former candidates were:

• Owen Darrell
• Curtis Richardson
• Lindsay Simmons
• Ariana Hodgson

The old-hand was none other than former MP Rolfe Commissiong.

Without offering too much in the way of opinion, I think it is fair to say that this appointment is being seen by many as rather controversial.

For context, shortly before the election (and during the election campaign period) it was revealed that Mr. Commissiong was involved in a bit of a scandal concerning his alleged sexual harrassment of a female civil servant. Without going into all of the details, he publicly announced he would not be seeking re-election at this time (allowing Mr. Curtis Dickinson to run in his constituency instead). Similarly, the Premier quite forcefully condemned the alleged incident and sexual harassment generally.

As such, the appointment of Mr. Commissiong to the Senate is causing some dismay as it is being seen (based on social media chatter) as hypocritical; a reward (he now has a better position, as a Minister and Senate Leader than he did as an MP); and as part of a quid pro quo.

In other political news, the Independent Senator James Jardine announced his retirement today. As a result, the expectation is that the two other incumbent Independent Senators (Joan Dillas-Wright and Michelle Simmons) will be re-appointed and a new Independent Senator will also be reappointed.

The OBA have yet to announce their new Senate team.

One week later – what to expect.

This Thursday will mark a week since the General Election which saw the PLP win 30 out of 36 seats; the OBA winning the remaining 6 and thus forming the Official Opposition.

As things currently stand, Mr. Craig Cannonier remains the Leader of the OBA and so will be sworn in as the Opposition Leader at some point (although it is no secret that there are many commentators on social media and the news sites calling for his resignation).

The Premier noted last week that he would be appointing his new Cabinet on Thursday, October 8th. At a minimum this will require at least one of his existing Cabinet Ministers to step down. This is because our Constitution requires that at least one of our Ministers be a Senator, and the election last week saw the entire PLP Senate team elected to the House of Assembly. As such, at least one new Minister will have to be announced tomorrow, along with at least one new Senator.

It is not clear if the entire new PLP Senate team will be announced tomorrow along with the Cabinet – however it is certainly likely.

Under the Constitution, the Government appoints 5 Senators, the Opposition 3, and the Governor appoints 3 Independent Senators. In general, we can expect the incumbent Independent Senators to be reappointed, so the speculation of course is who the PLP and the OBA will appoint.

NB – The relevant section of the Constitution here is Section 58(2):

“The other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor in accordance with the advice of the Premier and, of those Ministers, not less than one nor more than two shall be appointed from among the Senators and the remainder shall be appointed from among the members of the House of Assembly.”

While it is not always the case, often one can look at the unsuccessful candidates from the election as an obvious first choice for consideration.

For the PLP, needing to fill 5 Senate seats and having only 6 unsuccessful candidates, speculation will of course fall on these six:

• Owen Darrel
• Dr. Ernest Peets
• Lindsay Simmons
• Davida Morris
• Curtis Richardson
• Ariana Hodgson

With the PLP having made much ado about their record number of female candidates in this election, it is quite possible that the 3 women above are likely under consideration. Of course, there are also other likely picks, with the PLP Executive being potential picks too. And then there are wildcards – people not on anyone’s obvious radar.

For the OBA, they will be forming their shadow Cabinet, and likely doubling up portfolios due to their limited numbers in the House. For the Senate, they have to appoint 3 Senators. They certainly have a large number (30) of candidates to choose from, as well as from their Executive and wildcards to consider.

My guess is they will draw from their pool of failed candidates, and who the Leader chooses will give us an indication of what direction they will take. Will they consist of old-hands from the House for the sake of steadying the boat, or from their crop of new blood candidates as part of a reform initiative? My guess is probably a mix – at least one old-hand to lead the team, and two newbies.

Another consideration for the OBA will be the 5 seats that they only slightly lost, the ones that the PLP flipped. These are the obvious targets for the OBA to try and recover in the next election, so they may want to consider candidates that ran in them, namely:

• Leah Scott
• Marcus Jones
• Vic Ball
• Robin Tucker
• Jon Brunson

Leah Scott, as the OBA’s Deputy Leader is the obvious standout choice for an old-hand. Marcus Jones and Vic Ball as Senators in the previous Senate team are possibilities, however my feeling is that Robin Tucker and Jon Brunson stand a better chance for consideration. To be frank, the former Senators have had their time and lost seats they should have won, and so may be considered liabilities now.

Ultimately, one can only speculate. Tomorrow we’ll know at least the new PLP Cabinet team and at least one Senator, if not their entire Senate team. We will probably not know the OBA’s Senate team until closer to the new Senate is convened.

All the same, keep an eye out for news announcements tomorrow. My guess is around lunchtime.

Passing the ball?

There is an interesting article on Bernews today, by former Senator Vic Ball. I’ll let others pass their own judgement on aspects of this ‘sincere congratulations’.

There are two interesting bits to the article that caught my eye though:

1. His numbers about the vote turnout.
2. His mention of the recent trend of Caribbean parliamentary landslides.

The latter subject is something I have plans to write about in more detail, namely, (i) why is this phenomenon occurring, and (ii) what it means both for the governing party and the opposition (and, by extension, civil society) in those circumstances.

For now though, let us look at what Mr. Ball is saying. And for that, it is worth quoting him directly:

“…there was a notable 61% increase in the number of people who chose not to vote as compared with 2017. That number stands at a whopping 44% and represents 20,548 voters of a total electorate of 46,311, excluding the three uncontested seats. Clearly all is not well in our democracy.”

This isn’t necessarily wrong – although I don’t think he’s accounted for the three constituencies that were not able to participate in this election due to the OBA and FDM failing to field 36 candidates.

However, it appears to rather overlook some key trends that the election data points out (and that I’ve discussed elsewhere).

Specifically, in reading Mr. Ball’s piece, you would think that this voter decline, this “61% increase in the number of people who chose not to vote” is reflective of an across the board voter decline. The numbers do not bear this out.

While the numbers do indicate that the PLP saw a vote decline of 11% compared to their 2017 vote (accounting for the 3 uncontested seats), the key statistic is that the OBA vote declined by 37.5%!

Yes, there was a voter decline, however this was primarily driven by OBA voters not voting.

There probably would have been a decline in voter turnout as is, however this would have theoretically impacted both the PLP and OBA vote equally. If we assume that the PLP vote decline of 11% is indicative of a normally expected voter decline, the OBA’s 37.5% decline is far beyond that.

Quite frankly, the key story of the 2020 election was not the FDM; it was simply and solely the collapse of the OBA vote. A significant chunk of the OBA voter base decided that they couldn’t vote for the PLP and they couldn’t vote for the OBA as is either. That is the electoral problem that the OBA faces between now and the next election.

Nowhere in the article does the author indicate a recognition of this key statistic of the 2020 election or what it means for the Opposition.

It is said that in order to focus on a solution it is important to understand the problem. Otherwise you’re just kicking the ball into the long grass.

Election 2020 – The One With All The Tables…

Acknowledging I am by no means an expert on statistics or Excel formulas, this post is essentially providing the raw data and working out of trends that underpin my previous two posts. I am putting it here so that others can fact-check my work and identify if – and where – I may have made an error.

All the raw data is culled from the Parliamentary Registrar’s website; I simply took some time to do the data entry then developed what formulas made sense to me for the questions I wanted to ask.

Also, in reviewing my sums I realised I made some mistakes in my initial analysis, and the corrected data is represented below. I messed up calculating the % change between the two elections. This post identifies these and corrects them.

NB – I disregarded all the spoiled/rejected ballots in my analysis. However, they can prove a proxy for FDM or OBA votes in constituencies lacking such candidates, or general voter dismay.

2017 results
Constituency	PLP	OBA	Independent	Nonvoter
1	590	365	0	318
2	690	360	0	360
3	737	228	0	453
4	652	429	0	372
5	808	192	0	336
6	635	281	60	292
7	465	486	0	347
8	274	729	15	323
9	405	540	0	329
10	454	497	0	310
11	513	419	0	302
12	152	748	0	341
13	616	337	0	321
14	568	385	41	265
15	733	73	0	344
16	820	58	0	386
17	540	283	0	322
18	639	326	0	286
19	379	502	0	350
20	176	650	0	364
21	538	228	34	422
22	397	704	0	376
23	317	645	0	413
24	723	334	0	376
25	428	493	0	335
26	724	192	0	358
27	661	338	0	284
28	530	518	0	331
29	726	145	0	371
30	463	516	0	392
31	457	506	0	361
32	645	263	19	351
33	653	339	0	411
34	730	170	0	340
35	644	261	0	382
36	577	297	0	380
Totals	20059	13837	169	12604

Table 1 – The 2017 Election Results

2020 results
Constituency	PLP	OBA	FDM	Independent	Nonvoter
1	608	195	0	0	502
2	576	177	65	0	521
3	663	125	0	0	638
4	655	223	0	0	533
5	641	105	114	0	520
6	634	162	0	0	503
7	422	326	89	0	471
8	318	547	0	0	473
9	432	403	0	0	471
10	324	503	0	0	441
11	567	282	0	0	411
12	172	531	96	12	542
13	496	197	63	0	453
14	454	222	0	0	543
15	603	44	0	0	538
16	0	0		0	0
17	0	0		0	0
18	626	124	37	0	425
19	368	307	39	0	509
20	124	485	0	0	549
21	432	0	125	0	626
22	365	472	0	0	553
23	282	447	0	0	567
24	564	240	0	13	529
25	419	405	0	0	487
26	0	0		0	0
27	532	192	48	39	440
28	498	329	0	0	521
29	630	78	0	0	520
30	486	400	0	0	510
31	441	388	0	0	486
32	551	131	100	0	481
33	532	0	202	0	580
34	611	63	131	0	486
35	538	97	90	3	529
36	431	114	185	0	520
Totals	15995	8314	1384	67	16878

Table 2 – The 2020 Election Results

Constituency	PLP	OBA	Independent/FDM	Nonvoter
2017	20059	13837	169	12604
2020	15995	8314	1451	16878
2020 % to 2017 %	79.74	60.09	858.58	133.91
% Change	20.26	39.91	-758.58	-33.91

Table 3 – This is the % change between the 2017 and 2018 elections – the key line is the bottome one “% Change” – and the numbers should be read in the inverse. The PLP vote declined by -20.3%; the OBA vote declined by -39.9%; the non-voter bloc increased by +33.9%.

2017 results
Constituency	PLP	OBA	Independent	Nonvoter
1	590	365	0	318
2	690	360	0	360
3	737	228	0	453
4	652	429	0	372
5	808	192	0	336
6	635	281	60	292
7	465	486	0	347
8	274	729	15	323
9	405	540	0	329
10	454	497	0	310
11	513	419	0	302
12	152	748	0	341
13	616	337	0	321
14	568	385	41	265
15	733	73	0	344
18	639	326	0	286
19	379	502	0	350
20	176	650	0	364
21	538	228	34	422
22	397	704	0	376
23	317	645	0	413
24	723	334	0	376
25	428	493	0	335
27	661	338	0	284
28	530	518	0	331
29	726	145	0	371
30	463	516	0	392
31	457	506	0	361
32	645	263	19	351
33	653	339	0	411
34	730	170	0	340
35	644	261	0	382
36	577	297	0	380
Totals	17975	13304	169	11538

Table 4 – 2017 Results with 3 uncontested seats removed (C16, C17 and C26).

2020 results
Constituency	PLP	OBA	FDM	Independent	Nonvoter
1	608	195	0	0	502
2	576	177	65	0	521
3	663	125	0	0	638
4	655	223	0	0	533
5	641	105	114	0	520
6	634	162	0	0	503
7	422	326	89	0	471
8	318	547	0	0	473
9	432	403	0	0	471
10	324	503	0	0	441
11	567	282	0	0	411
12	172	531	96	12	542
13	496	197	63	0	453
14	454	222	0	0	543
15	603	44	0	0	538
18	626	124	37	0	425
19	368	307	39	0	509
20	124	485	0	0	549
21	432	0	125	0	626
22	365	472	0	0	553
23	282	447	0	0	567
24	564	240	0	13	529
25	419	405	0	0	487
27	532	192	48	39	440
28	498	329	0	0	521
29	630	78	0	0	520
30	486	400	0	0	510
31	441	388	0	0	486
32	551	131	100	0	481
33	532	0	202	0	580
34	611	63	131	0	486
35	538	97	90	3	529
36	431	114	185	0	520
Totals	15995	8314	1384	67	16878

Table 5 – 2020 Results with 3 uncontested constituencies removed (C16, C17 and C20).

Constituency	PLP	OBA	Independent/FDM	Nonvoter
2017	17975	13304	169	11538
2020	15995	8314	1451	16878
2020 % to 2017 %	88.98	62.49	858.58	146.28
% Change	11.02	37.51	-758.58	-46.28

Table 6 – Demonstrates the % change in the vote by category, accounting for the 3 uncontested seats. The key line is the bottom “% Change” which should be read in the inverse. The PLP vote decline by -11%; the OBA vote declined by -37.5%; the non-voter bloc increased by +46.3%.

Basically what we can see here is that the PLP vote did not decline anywhere near to the degree that the OBA vote did. The combined FDM/Indpendent column is really rather meaningless at this stage – 2020 provides a baseline for the 2020 going forward only. However, the data – at another level – will help us try to understand where the PLP/OBA lost voters went and where the FDM vote came from. This to be looked at later; first I was curious what the picture looked like at each constituency.

% Change 2017-2020
Constituency	PLP	OBA	Nonvoter
1	-3.05	46.58	-57.86
2	16.52	50.83	-44.72
3	10.04	45.18	-40.84
4	-0.46	48.02	-43.28
5	20.67	45.31	-54.76
6	0.16	42.35	-72.26
7	9.25	32.92	-35.73
8	-16.06	24.97	-46.44
9	-6.67	25.37	-43.16
10	28.63	-1.21	-42.26
11	-10.53	32.70	-36.09
12	-13.16	29.01	-58.94
13	19.48	41.54	-41.12
14	20.07	42.34	-104.91
15	17.74	39.73	-56.40
18	2.03	61.96	-48.60
19	2.90	38.84	-45.43
20	29.55	25.38	-50.82
21	19.70	100.00	-48.34
22	8.06	32.95	-47.07
23	11.04	30.70	-37.29
24	21.99	28.14	-40.69
25	2.10	17.85	-45.37
27	19.52	43.20	-54.93
28	6.04	36.49	-57.40
29	13.22	46.21	-40.16
30	-4.97	22.48	-30.10
31	3.50	23.32	-34.63
32	14.57	50.19	-37.04
33	18.53	100.00	-41.12
34	16.30	62.94	-42.94
35	16.46	62.84	-38.48
36	25.30	61.62	-36.84
Mean	9.65	42.14	-47.15

Table 7 – % Change in vote for PLP, OBA and non-voters between 2017 and 2020. To be read in the inverse (positives to be read as negatives).

Now we get to see the change in each constituency. I am rusty with Excel, but all of these should be read in the inverse. That which is positive is actually a decline and vice versa. I’ve also not included the FDM here – they are looked at elsewhere.

Also, one should note that at least two of these constituencies lacked an OBA candidate, and so saw a -100% decline, which somewhat warps the data. As such, the key takeaways are:

1. The PLP declined on average by -9.7% in each constituency.
2. The OBA vote declined on average by -42.1% in each constituency. Adjusting for the 2 constituencies lacking OBA candidates, their actual average decline was -38.4% in each constituency.
3. The non-voter bloc increased on averaged by +47.2% in each constituency.
4. The PLP vote increased in some areas and decreased in some.
5. The largest PLP vote declines were in C20 (-29.6%); C10 (-28.6%); C36 (-25.3%); C24 (-21.99%); C5 (-20.7%); C14 (-20.1%); C21 (-19.7%); C27 (-19.5%); and C13 (-19.5%).
6. The largest PLP vote increases were in just 7 constituencies (29 saw declines): C8 (+16.1%); C12 (+13.2%); C11 (+10.5%); C9 (+6.7%); C30 (+5%); C1 (+3.1%); and C4 (+0.5%).
7. The largest PLP vote decline, in C20, may largely be attributed to a boundary change that removed a significant number of traditionally PLP voters, moving them to the previously marginal C17. C17 was uncontested in this election, however it is likely this boundary change renders C17 less of a marginal and more of a PLP safe seat going forward.
8. The causes for the changes in the PLP votes reflected above need to be investigated further (boundary changes, candidate ‘star’ power, canvassing/campaign investment are all possible, but harder to quantify).
9. The OBA vote saw an increase in only one constituency, C10, with a +1.2% increase.
10. The five largest OBA vote declines were in C34 (-63%); C35 (-62.8%); C18 (62%); C36 (61.6%); and C2 (50.8%).
11. The median OBA decline was 39.7%; The median PLP decline was 11%.
12. It is worth noting that three of the OBA’s largest declines were in seats that saw a specific concentration of FDM activity (more later).
13. It is also worth noting that one of the OBA’s largest declines was the one held by their Leader and considered one of the OBA’s safest seats – indicative of a general vote of no confidence in the OBA Leader by its supporters?

Now, as this post is getting long and is already chockful of data, I am going to end it here, and devote another post specifically to trying to answer the following questions:

1. Where did the missing PLP/OBA voters go?
2. Where did the FDM vote come from?

2020 Election Analysis – Part II – How the cookie crumbled…

As a follow up to my initial analysis, here’s some additional interesting statistics from the 2020 election.

In my last post I was focused primarily on means as the statistic highlighted. This showed in particular that:

1. The PLP vote declined on average by 2.4% and the OBA vote by 30.5%.
2. If I remove the constituencies where the OBA didn’t have a candidate this election, their average voter decline was actually 26%.

However, if one wants to get an idea of the total voter decline between 2017 and 2020 for each party, as well as the increase number of non-voters (and for this one must exclude the three uncontested seats), one finds this:

1. The PLP vote declined by -7%.
2. The OBA vote declined by -45%.
3. The non-voter vote increased by +27%.

You will note I have not modeled the FDM into this. This is solely due to the 2020 election providing the baseline for them, so I couldn’t really model them compared to 2017. The best comparison would be with the category ‘Independent’ from 2017, in which case the vote increased here by +5,159%, which to me isn’t too useful a metric.

What to me is more interesting for the FDM vote here is seeing what happened to the declining PLP and OBA vote in relation to the non-vote and the FDM vote here.

The OBA saw a total loss of 4,990 voters, while the PLP saw a total loss of 1,980 voters. The total voter decline then was 6,970, of which 72% was OBA and 28% was PLP.

On the other hand, the increase in voting categories was that of FDM+Independents (1,451 or 21%) and non-voters (5,340 or 79%).

Now, it isn’t possible for me to say for sure how the breakdown between PLP/OBA voter decline went between FDM/Independents and non-voters. If I assume that the voter decline of the PLP/OBA broke according to the 21% and 79% aspect and in proportion to their respective declines (28% and 72%), one can start formulating some hypotheses.

However, as the FDM didn’t run candidates in every seat, I feel the analysis here should be restricted solely to the seats with FDM candidates. This, of course, leads to further complications in that in two of those seats there was no OBA candidate. I don’t think the OBA understands how inconsiderate they were in not fielding 36 candidates, both for the voters and statisticians… lol

Reducing the pool further to just FDM challenged seats to see how the vote split between PLP/OBA declines and FDM/Independents/non-voter increases, gives us the following bits of data:

1. In these seats the PLP vote declined by -22% overall (but -1.6% on average).
2. The OBA vote declined by -217% overall (but -15.5% on average).
3. The non-voter category increased by +63% (but +4.5% on average).

To get a better idea of how the vote broke down one should remove the two seats without OBA candidates. This then changes the above numbers to:

1. The PLP vote declined by -25% overall (but -2% on average).
2. The OBA vote declined by -189% overall (but -15.75% on average).
3. The non-voter category increased by +76% (but +6.3% on average).

So how did this vote decline split between PLP and OBA in these seats? (just ones with a 3-way fight):

1. The total loss of PLP/OBA votes was 2,958.
2. The PLP loss here was 1,042, or 35%.
3. The OBA loss here was 1,916, or 65%.
4. The increase in FDM/Independents/Non-voters was 2,911.
5. The FDM/Independent was 1,092, or 38%.
6. The Non-voter was 1,819, or 62%.

If I assume the PLP/OBA vote decline went 62% to non-voters and 38% to FDM/Independents one may hypothesize that:

1. 62% of the PLP lost voters went to non-voters = 646 voters.
2. 38% of the PLP lost voters went to FDM/Independent = 396 voters.
3. 62% of the OBA lost voters went to non-voters = 1,188 voters.
4. 38% of the OBA lost voters went to FDM/Independent = 610 voters.

What does this mean for the composition of the FDM vote?

1. About 5.7% of 2017 PLP voters found the FDM attractive.
2. About 14.3% of 2017 OBA voters found the FDM attractive.
3. It isn’t possible to gauge how many of 2017 non-voters found the FDM attractive here.

By all means, please double-check my calculations. I do not at all claim to be an expert at statistics and it has been many years since I dabbled at it.

My basic conclusions though are:

1. The FDM can peel off some of the PLP voting base, however the core growth area for the FDM would be from disaffected OBA voters.
2. That the FDM couldn’t attract more disaffected OBA voters is interesting. It is possible that the candidate selection and main personalities behind them are not palatable for the OBA voting base. After all, Mr. Bean as a former PLP leader was the subject of demonisation by the OBA at the time, so perhaps he is both the FDM’s biggest asset and liability in this context.
3. Had the OBA and FDM ran in every constituency it is unlikely that the FDM would have won any seats.
4. It is unlikely the OBA had any pathway to securing a majority at all.
5. Had the OBA been able to get their voter base out they would likely have at least retained their 11 seats and probably have even increased their numbers to a maximum of 15 seats (the final would have been a PLP majority of 21 to an OBA Opposition of 15).
6. That the OBA lost 5 seats instead is indicative of a spectacular failure of their organisation – to what degree this was due to their leadership, their communications campaign, their electoral machinery (voter lists and GOTV systems) I cannot say. My personal feeling is all of the above in almost equal doses and this should mean the OBA need to do a thorough restructuring.
7. The FDM has a significant challenge ahead of them to increase their attractiveness to OBA voters (their most fertile growth area), and will find it difficult (but not impossible) to supplant the OBA in time for the next election. Things are certainly dire for the OBA, however they have a significant institutional advantage over the FDM.
8. There are options for additional fragmentation of the Opposition parties, including room for further 3rd parties. This would, however, be a transitional period in such an event, with survival of the fittest coming into play. The key growth area would be in those OBA voters who abstained from voting altogether. You can be sure that both the OBA and the FDM will be studying this group to see how to either regain them or attract them. The PLP will likely also be looking to see if any of these OBA boycotters can be persuaded to vote PLP going forward. Key takeaway? All those seats that flipped to the PLP will be the focus of intensive canvassing cultivation between now and the next election.

So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, good night.

This site has been operating now since January 2007. Throughout this time it has changed quite a bit, both in terms of its focus and its writing style.

I’ve enjoyed writing here.

The flame’s not out. Just taking a break. 🙂

However, after almost eight years, it’s time for a change.

I’m not saying the blog is dead.

I’m not necessarily stopping the blog. However, it is going to undergo a change.

A good chunk of this blog has focused on local politics, first as an independent pro-PLP site when I was an active member of the PLP, and since then as an independent, non-aligned, political blog.

I am not able to continue that particular line of writing going forward, at least not for the forseeable future. Effective immediately I am ceasing all commentary on local politics.

What that means for the blog, I don’t really know. I’ve been experimenting over the last few months with a non-political writing style. Thoughts on books or articles I’m reading, a review of this or that legislation (in a non-political way), or a look at historical (or other) speeches/writings which I think are simply interesting.

I’d like to experiment some more with such an approach.

I realise they don’t quite have the same popular appeal as posts framed around local politics. However, I’ve enjoyed them and found them quite stimulating. Whether readers agree, I don’t know. But needs must.

So, as regards blogging about local politics, adieu, adieu to you and you and you!

And for the sake of clarity, the above also applies to Facebook and Twitter.

My Vote Starling page on Facebook has already been converted to this blogs Facebook page, and my Twitter handle has changed to a non-political one. The Vote Starling website that I set up for the election has also been retired. The ‘About’ page has also been changed already to reflect this change in direction.

Reflections

I have tried over the years to engage in reasoned discussion.

I have my positions; I’ve never hid them. I have, however, tried to listen to others and been willing to change my mind if convinced by an argument. I’ve tried to be respectful of others and their positions. To what degree I’ve succeeded in any of that is not something I can really judge however. All I can say is that I’ve tried my best.

I am hopeful that other voices will continue to grow in strength and number to continue these political discussions going forward, even if I am not able to participate actively along with them.

While much of these conversations are quick to descend into partisan shouting matches and personal attacks, there are also good conversations where individuals come away from them with healthy respect for the other, positions have been clarified and perhaps even one or two minds changed.

Perhaps it’s wishful thinking on my part, however, I’d like to think that – in time – we’ll have more of the latter and less of the former.

On a related note, I realise that my ending local political commenting further reduces the number of local blogs providing local political commentary. Blogs provide a much different contribution in terms of such commentary, very much different from the more rapid-fire conversations that social media like Facebook and Twitter offer. They provide a greater in-depth more constructed argument in my opinion.

If we are to achieve a sustainable Bermuda then one thing we also need to achieve is sustainable and respectful conversations that are based on constructive dialogue, mutual respect and and reasoned debate which together contribute to positive change for our island. Central to this is the ability to listen to the other and reflect on what is being said rather than reacting. We must learn to listen to each other with enough care to learn from each other if we are to work together for our common interests.

I remain hopeful that such is achievable, and I wish you well.

Continuity?

One last note. I hope that someone else will pick up the baton of local political commentary. There is a space there for a critical progressive voice out there, and that’s what this site tried to do.

While I’m no longer able to continue that, I am happy to help facilitate anyone that wishes to do so. Just drop me a line.

There are already a number of other voices out there, writing on their own sites, on Facebook or in the media. I’ve enjoyed sharing the platform with them and learning from them.

Branding Bermuda – An Addendum

In my previous post I intended to provide the relevant excepts of the various legislation that the America’s Cup Act 2014 exempts the America’s Cup (and its associated ‘corporate’ partners) from in Bermuda. Unfortunately, it was just getting to be a far too big an article, so I ended up just dealing with the most relevant one for that article.

And so, here, I provide the remaining advertising exemptions granted by the America’s Cup Act 2014.

Just as a reminder, this is the relevant section of the America’s Cup Act 2014 concerning advertising exemptions:

3 – In relation to advertising of and at the Bermuda Events, ACEA and its designated commercial partners, and the Teams and their designated commercial partners, shall be exempt from –

(a) sections 2, 3, 4 and 6(c) of the Advertisements Regulation Act 1911;

(b) section 14(4) of the Development and Planning Act 1974;

(c) the Motor Car (Control of Design, Colour and Advertising Matter) Regulations 1952; and

(d) sections 3 and 4 of the Alcohol Advertisement (Health Warning) Act 1993.

I addressed subsection (a) in my previous post. As the entire Motor Car (Control of Design, Colour and Advertising Matter) Regulations 1952 is exempted, I’m simply going to direct you to read the entire Act than reproduce it here… (opens as a pdf).

Development and Planning Act 1974

Section 14 (Development requiring planning permission) – Only subsection (4) of this section is exempted under the America’s Cup Act 2014.

Section 14(4)

Without prejudice to the Advertisements Regulation Act 1911 [title 20 item 9], the use for the display of advertisements of any external part of a building that is not normally used for that purpose shall be treated for the purposes of this section as involving a material change in the use of that part of the building.

Alcohol Advertisement (Health Warning) Act 1993 – Only sections 3 and 4 are exempted under the America’s Cup Act 2014.

Section 3 (Alcohol advertisement in printed publications; Schedule)

(1) No person shall print or publish an alcohol advertisement in a printed publication to which this section applies unless the advertisement bears the health warning as set out in the Schedule.

(2) This section applies to – 

(a) any newspaper with majority ownership by Bermudians printed or published in Bermuda;

(b) any periodical, magazine or other publication with majority ownership by Bermudians printed or published in Bermuda.

Section 4 (Health warning when alcohol advertisement displayed; Schedule)

No person shall – 

(a) display; or

(b) publish or distribute for the purpose of display,

an alcohol advertisement in writing or other permanent form or semi-permanent form unless the advertisement bears the health warning as set out in the Schedule.

Summary

Basically the America’s Cup Act 2014 exemptions here remove the need to include health warnings regarding alcohol and remove the need for planning permission (and all the related checks and balances that involves) for advertising on the outsides of buildings.

Although I haven’t included the Motor Car (Control of Design, Colour and Advertising Matter) Regulations 1952, it is a relatively short Act (six pages). Some of the key sections though are:

Section 4 (General Principles)

The superficial design and colour of restricted motor cars and trailers and of any advertising matter displayed thereon shall be regulated and controlled by order of the Minister –

(a) so as to conduce to road safety; and

(b) so as to preserve as far as possible the amenities of Bermuda, notwithstanding any consideration of private gain.

Other sections generally provide regulations for lettering, colour, designs, etc, mostly with regard to ensuring road safety. I encourage readers to read through it fully though. It is mostly an Act about advertising on vehicles, as is indicated by its name.

Thoughts?