THE LAW ON MURDER IS MOST FOUL, AND NEED REFORMING

The public and the legal profession want change. It would be a tragedy if the justice minister is thwarted by his peers

When Clarke put forward sentencing reforms this year they were rubbished by the prime minister and home secretary. Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian

The justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, should beware of a report published this week advising a change to the law on murder. He has been mugged four times already in the dark alley that passes for law reform. He gets no support from his leader, his colleagues, his party, the opposition or the media. They hurl at him the hobgoblins of prejudice, fear, conservatism, vindictiveness and xenophobia, supported by the ghouls of Fleet Street. In reply, Clarke can deploy only common sense and public opinion, and in penal policy they hardly raise a squeak.

The judges and academics of the Homicide Review Advisory Group point out, for the umpteenth time, that the British law on murder is shockingly out of date. It requires a "mandatory" life sentence of at least 15 years for a crime that lumps together premeditated killing, mercy killing, killing under extreme provocation and gang violence that results in death. Attempted murder, where death may have been averted only by assiduous medical care, is treated quite differently. In the case of murder, sentencing does not match the circumstance or the perpetrator. There is no scope for plea-bargaining. Judges have no discretion to take into account the likelihood of rehabilitation or the lack of risk of reoffending. It is all primitive.

Any violent death is awful, and murder especially so. It is also rare, and each one is peculiar. Those who have studied murder rates in different countries see them as reflecting many social and economic factors. They tend to be highest in the drug economies of Central and South America. They vary with the availability of weapons, with migrant cultures and with the efficiency of emergency services. New York murders fell dramatically when hospitals were compelled to admit critical cases irrespective of insurance cover, cutting the lag before treatment and thus the chance of survival by a crucial 20 to 23 minutes.

When capital punishment in Britain was abolished in 1965, a notional pact was reached between parliament and public that life sentences "should mean life". This was interpreted as at least 15 years followed by the possibility of release on a "life licence". Ever since, parliament has treated this pact as a sacred icon of retributive justice. While other states, even the US, updated their laws, Britain remained intransigent. If you kill someone, even if you did not really mean to do so, you go to prison for 15 years and are never fully "released".

Time and again the judicial establishment has pleaded with parliament for a more sophisticated approach to homicide. In 2004 the Law Commission called the law on murder "a mess". A year later it was "a rickety structure set on shaky foundations". A further year passed, and three sorts of homicide were identified for different treatment, with a fixed tariff only for the most serious premeditated killings.

Two directors of public prosecutions, Lord MacDonald and Kier Starmer, have added their voices to pleas for reform. According to Starmer, many juries "instinctively kick against the idea that someone should be convicted of murder with a mandatory life sentence" when there was no intention to kill. This replicates the pre-1965 situation, where juries refused to convict people if it meant they would hang – a phenomenon thought to have created Britain's then "low" murder rate.

The left used to wear with pride a liberal reputation on law reform. Past Labour governments oversaw the end of capital punishment and reforms to divorce, homosexuality and abortion. This ended abruptly in the 1990s, with Tony Blair's cynical soundbite, "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". The prison population soared to 85,000 under Labour, and home secretaries lived in terror of the tabloids. The lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, said he was "not convinced of the need for a change", and that was that.

True, in the Dutch auction for penal retribution, the Tories gave not an inch. No peep of progressive thought on sentencing came from them in decades. This was the more puzzling in that public opinion, as opposed to knee-jerk newspaper editorials, was relatively open-minded. Surveys showed a readiness to reform cannabis law. Polls indicated an acceptance of non-custodial sentences where appropriate. A Nuffield survey last year found widespread agreement that murder embraced complex crimes and that punishment should reflect this. Only 20% thought a gang member who did not actually kill should be liable for a murder.

On coming to office last year Clarke proved himself a pragmatic reformer. He seemed determined to rescue his party and the justice system generally from its reputation for reactionary inertia. This was not, he declared, because he regarded most punishment as excessive, but because it was wasteful, inefficient and counterproductive. It created criminality rather than reduced it.

Spurred by a curb on prison spending, Clarke proposed to cut remand in custody and permit a 50% cut in sentences for early guilty pleas. He hinted that violent rape might be treated differently from date rape. He wanted to end the growth in indeterminate sentences that had 3,000 people still in prison beyond their indicative tariff. The only word for most of this was commonsensical.

The response was grimly familiar. Clarke was shouted down in his plea that too many people were in jail for too long and for trivial reasons, and that remission for guilty pleas would save court time. His proposals were rubbished by the prime minister and home secretary, and he was forced to accept the primitivism of mandatory prison for knife crime and mandatory life for "two strikes" serious offenders. There is no way he'll cut the prison population.

David Miliband and Labour's justice spokesman, Sadiq Khan, played to the gallery with demands that Clarke was setting 2,500 "dangerous offenders free" and should be sacked. The days are clearly not over when Labour front benches bayed in cringing unison with the Daily Mail and the Sun. The Clarke affair has seen Britain's political community at its most depressing.

Justice requires that punishment fit the crime and its perpetrator. In the case of murder, this is what judges, prosecutors, the legal profession, the Law Commission and public opinion now regard as the way forward. For once there is a progressive justice minister in place with radical intent. It would be a tragedy if he is thwarted by the bovine tendency in British politics.

By: Simon Jenkins

Simon Jenkins is a journalist and author. He writes for the Guardian as well as broadcasting for the BBC. He has edited the Times and the London Evening Standard

RIOTERS SAY ANGER WITH POLICE FUELLED SUMMER UNREST

Guardian-LSE study of riots – involving hundreds of interviews with participants – reveals deep antipathy towards officers

Our team collected more than 1.3m words of first-person accounts of the
English riots. Photograph: Luke Macgregor/Reuters

Widespread anger and frustration at the way police engage with communities was a significant cause of the summer riots in every major city where disorder took place, the biggest study into their cause has found.

Hundreds of interviews with people who took part in the disturbances which spread across England in August revealed deep-seated and sometimes visceral antipathy towards police.

In a unique collaboration, the Guardian and London School of Economics (LSE) interviewed 270 people who rioted in London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Nottingham, Manchester and Salford.

The project collected more than 1.3m words of first-person accounts from rioters, giving an unprecedented insight into what drove people to participate in England's most serious bout of civil unrest in a generation. Rioters revealed that a complex mix of grievances brought them on to the streets but analysts appointed by the LSE identified distrust and antipathy toward police as a key driving force.

Details of the research findings, which are also based on an analysis of an exclusive database of more than 2.5m riot-related tweets, will be unveiled in a series of reports over the next five days. Monday's findings include:

• Many rioters conceded that their involvement in looting was simply down to opportunism, saying that a perceived suspension of normal rules presented them with an opportunity to acquire goods and luxury items they could not ordinarily afford. They often described the riots as a chance to obtain "free stuff" or sought to justify the theft.

• Despite David Cameron saying gangs were "at the heart" of the disturbances, evidence shows they temporarily suspended hostilities. The effective four-day truce – which many said was unprecedented – applied to towns and cities across England. However, on the whole, the research found gang members played only a marginal role in the riots.

• Contrary to widespread speculation that rioters used social media to organise themselves and share "viral" information, sites such as Facebook and Twitter were not used in any significant way. However, BlackBerry phones – and the free messaging service known as "BBM" – were used extensively to communicate, share information and plan riots in advance.

• Although mainly young and male, those involved in the riots came from a cross-section of local communities. Just under half of those interviewed in the study were students. Of those who were not in education and were of working age, 59% were unemployed. Although half of those interviewed were black, people who took part in the disorder did not consider these "race riots".

• Rioters identified a range of political grievances, but at the heart of their complaints was a pervasive sense of injustice. For some this was economic: the lack of money, jobs or opportunity. For others it was more broadly social: how they felt they were treated compared with others. Many mentioned the increase in student tuition fees and the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance.

Although rioters expressed a mix of opinions about the disorder, many of those involved said they felt like they were participating in explicitly anti-police riots. They cited "policing" as the most significant cause of the riots, and anger over the police shooting of Mark Duggan, which triggered initial disturbances in Tottenham, was repeatedly mentioned – even outside London.

For the research, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Open Society Foundations, a team of more than 60 academics, researchers and journalists spent three months interviewing people rioters and analysing their accounts. 

The most common complaints related to people's everyday experience of policing, with many expressing deep frustration at the way people in their communities were subjected to stop and search. An independent panel set up by the government in the aftermath of the riots identified stop and search as a possible "motivation factor" for black and Asian rioters.

In findings released last week, the panel – which took evidence from riot-hit communities and victims, but did not speak to rioters – concluded there was no single cause for the riots, but urged police to improve the way stop and search is conducted. "Where young law-abiding people are repeatedly targeted there is a very real danger that stop and search will have a corrosive effect on their relationship with the police," it said.Of those interviewed in the Reading the Riots study, 73% said they had been stopped and searched in the previous 12 months. They were more than eight times more likely to have been stopped and searched in the previous year than the general population in London.

The Metropolitan police's internal report on the riots, also released last week, appeared to identify simmering tensions with police. Citing community feedback about the riots, the report concluded: "Either the violence was spontaneous without any degree of forethought or … a level of tension existed among sections of the community that was not identified through the community engagement."

The Met said it welcomed the research that provides an insight into why the riots occured "so that police and society can do everything possible to prevent a recurrence".

"We will consider this research alongside the detailed operational review that we are conducting." The force said its own research showed 66% of Londoners believed the MPS does a good job in their area, and that stop and search "can be a highly effective and essential tactic" against knife crime.

It added: "Stop and search will continue to be necessary but we want to ensure that it is only used in an intelligent, professional, objective and courteous way."

The second phase of Reading the Riots, to be completed next year, will draw on interviews with communities, police and judges about their experience of the disturbances and their aftermath.

By: Paul Lewis, Tim Newburn and Matthew Taylor

Paul Lewis is Special Projects Editor for the Guardian. He was named Reporter of the Year at the British Press Awards 2010 and won the 2009 Bevins Prize for outstanding investigative journalism. He previously worked at the Washington Post as the Stern Fellow. Professor Tim Newburn is head of social policy at the London School of Economics and works on the Guardian's reading the riots special project. Matthew Taylor is a reporter for the Guardian

“A BUSY, BUSY MAN”

The attitude exhibited by the Honorable Chief Minister Mr. Hughes since taking office, that he is fighting an “undeclared war with the British” has incited constant “outrage” with the Governor and FCO and to some degree has created an impediment to a progressive approach to the business of governing on the island and has apparently resulted in a brutal reception in London. This is according to the Chief Minister’s own reports of hostile treatment. Clearly, the Chief Minister was extremely disappointed and blamed it on negative reports reaching Britain. No doubt much of what is been said here at home is reported back to London. The Chief Minister felt appeased by the other delegates and Dependent Territories heads seeming to have better relationships with Britain than Anguilla and Mr. Hughes does; It brings into focus the consistent feud with the Governor over matters that seem unclear to the population and is causing Mr. Hughes difficulty and embarrassment with his diplomatic business. Business with Britain is all about the interest of the country and should not be about personal feuds or the raging of personal battles. There have been many calls for the Chief Minister to control his rhetoric and conduct business on better terms with the Governor which would reflect a better functioning government. It is possible though that much of this conflict is staged just for local consumption to appease party supporters. Hearing Mr. Hughes report of hostile treatment in London make us believe that he was expecting royal treatment there amidst a lingering dislike for the British and revved up anger on the island, giving the impression that the island is being deprived of its constitutional rights and privileges and is somehow oppressed, Mr. Hughes wants us to believe that he has the will to change the constitutional framework with Britain and change the political direction of the country; but had “No Outrage in Britain.” even though he acts like the big bad dog here at home there was no bark in London and in the end he subdue himself truly, as a “loyal British Subject.”

A door was swung wide open for the Chief Minister to openly address his fury and issues with Britain, when Anguilla became the subject matter in the British parliament recently and questions were asked to the Minister of State and Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Minister was asked to give an assessment of at least one of the many disparaging statements by Chief Minister Hughes of the British, stating that “Anguilla’s biggest dilemma is Britain which is not our friend ….. They are no asset to us.” “They are our liability”. The Minister replied in writing, and stated that he was not aware of such a statement by Mr. Hughes. Curious! Such statements are common by the Chief Minister, so it is unbelievable that the Minister has not heard. Mr. Hughes should now take the opportunity and set the record straight which would give him a direct link to the British Parliament and perhaps he’ll have a friend in Lord Ashcroft the Parliamentarian who asked the questions.

If one follows the approach of the British Government, they have been extremely clear on their policy towards the Dependent Territories, which have been reiterated consistently. The question is whether our government has a good grasp of the undertaking and the process of governing according to the British order? Leading up to these bilateral meetings the Secretary of State Mr. Hague again outlined the UK Government’s fundamental responsibility and objective to its Dependent Territories, which is to “ensure security and good governance of its people.” Britain is willing to shape policy to the specific needs and circumstances of each Territory. It goes to say that “the strategy is to design a framework in which these policies can be developed and implemented consistently and effectively.” The word developed would indicate a process of putting together, clearly meaning that they expect input from the Territories. It can only mean that, because no one knows the special needs of these Territories than they who live there. The fact that the Minister is indicating in advance that in February of 2012 a White paper would be issued is in effect giving those Territories time to make an input. Our government has to stop politicking and get busy structuring a serious frame work that would shape the future of the country after 2012.

The honorable Chief Minister summarized his trip by declaring that he and his delegation came out on top, but very little was brought back in terms of real substance. He has distinguished the hard work and effort of the Permanent Secretary who made the case to the British that monies received from Voice Roy’s sale in effect brought our budgetary chaos into positive territory with excesses, but the British maintained that the island is not a massive real estate scheme and they would rather see a methodical approach to governing that would result in a more strategic process of solving the island’s fiscal problems. What was interesting was the direct exchange the Chief Minister had with his counterpart in one of his meetings where Mr. Hughes apparently stuck to his local theme and language, indicating to the British that their approach to our problems is not workable, declaring that people on Anguilla are hungry! This perhaps was a little too local and could have been dressed up in better diplomatic language, I must reiterate that it appears that while the delegation emphasized a strong will, this trip pretty much reinforces the fact that with all the rage and disgusts with the British here at home, when Mr. Hughes touches down on British soil he is pretty much “A British Subject” "with no outrage in Britain!!!

By Elliot J. Harrigan

IT'S ALL STUPID!

There is a level of discussion that is needed in Anguilla politics. A level only a few of our politicians or political pundits are capable of attaining, however none have made the effort to achieve this level. There is the possibility that certain issues that need to be discussed will be unpopular with the masses and might render those who participate in the discussion unelectable, however these things must be discussed and understood before Anguillians are ready to take the next step.

If politicians know better they have to do better, they cannot fail to make economic decisions because it’s an election year; they cannot turn a blind eye to the unethical practices of friends. They cannot be soft on crime and condone stupidity just because the criminal and the stupid are their friends or supporters. They cannot become a supporter of independence just because the people object to their political style or because they hate the British or the British Governor of the day. Anguilla cannot become independent to satisfy the egotistical needs of any politician, preacher, fisherman or hotel worker.

In order to build a new Anguilla, Anguillians have to follow processes and have standards that are fair to all. Anguillians must respect and preserve the rule of law. A criminal is a criminal, and criminals destroy lives and property. It matters little if the criminal is local or foreign. Anguillians cannot socially ostracize the police or the magistrate because they are too tough on crime. Anguillians cannot continue to know who the local thugs are but refuse to identify them. The blind cannot continue to lead the blind, whether it a political party or a radio talk show.

By: Statchel Warner

HOW TO OCCUPY THE MORAL AND POLITICAL HIGH GROUND

As UK citizens are being told once again to "trust" the gatekeepers of the global banking system and as US citizens are realising that, despite a first amendment that guarantees freedom of speech and assembly, they are facing potentially lethal rubber bullets in Oakland and police brutality ranging from Tulsa, Oklahoma, to the streets of Manhattan, what is becoming clear is that a game-changing global shift is taking place. The conflict is no longer between right and left, but between the "one per cent" – a corporatocracy that, without transparency or accountability, is claiming the lion's share of the planet's resources and capital, while disregarding democratic processes – and, well, the rest of us.'

This single global family, transcending national boundaries, just wants a peaceful life, a sustainable future, economic justice and basic democracy. On the other side, the global corporatocracy, also transcending national boundaries, has purchased governments and legislative processes, developed its own military, mercenary or quasi-military enforcers, engaged in systemic economic fraud and plundered treasuries and ecosystems.

What should global protest movements learn from what's happening around the world and what lessons should they draw from their own experiences? My study of successful protest movements leads me to suggest the following:

■ Democracy is disruptive. Around the world, peaceful protesters are being demonised for this, but there is no right in a democratic civil society to be free of disruption. Protesters ideally should read Gandhi and King and dedicate themselves to disciplined, long-term, non-violent disruption of business as usual – especially disruption of traffic. If they are peaceful, they can't be infiltrated by provocateurs as easily, while the unjust militarisation of the police response is more transparent. Also, the winning protest movements of the past were a matter of months or years, not days or hours; they involved sitting down or "occupying" areas for the long haul.

■ Protesters need to raise their own money and use it to hire their own lawyers. The corporatocracy is terrified that citizens will get their hands on the mechanism of the law.

■ Protesters should make their own media and not rely on mainstream media to cover them. They should learn to write opinion pieces and press releases, blog about and document their experiences and create web platforms where cases of police abuse (and the abusers) are logged and documented. Protesters should use their cameras and video cameras religiously. There are, unfortunately, many documented cases of violent provocateurs in demonstrations. This is why it is so important not to cover one's face in a protest: provocateurs need to be photographed and logged.

■ Protesters in democracies should create email lists locally, sync the email lists nationally and start registering voters. They need to email their representatives the list of Occupy-registered voters in each district and commit to getting out the vote in congressional or parliamentary elections for Occupy-supporting candidates – while working to defeat Occupy-bashing candidates.

In Oakland, California, the right has started a recall effort to force the mayor from office for being "soft on the protesters". Protest groups need to organise to oust politicians who are brutal to or suppressive of protesters. This tips the scale: in Albany, New York, for instance, police and the district attorney refused to crack down on protesters and chose to support their first amendment rights.

■ The movement has been shy of identifying leaders, but I believe this is a mistake. A leader does not have to be a top-down hierarchist: a leader can be a simple representative. Protesters should elect representatives – for a given term just like in any democracy – and train them to talk to the press and to negotiate with politicians. These should span the spectrum: young people and grandparents, truckers and teachers and businesspeople. It is hard to cover the protest effectively if there are no spokespeople.

■ Protests should be scenes not of clashes but instead should model the kind of civil society this emerging human family wants to live in. In Zuccotti Park, in Manhattan, for instance, there is a kitchen, food is donated for free, kids are invited to sleep over and there are teach-ins organised. Musicians should bring instruments, the vibe should be joyful and positive. If there is mess, protesters should clean it up themselves. The idea is to build a new city within the corrupt city and show that this is a reflection of the majority of society, not a marginal destructive element.

■ Finally, we should understand that it is not a "list of demands" that is so profound about any of these protest movements; it is the very infrastructure of a common humanity that is being created. For decades, the global family has been told to keep its head down and leave leadership to the elites; in wealthy countries, to zone out in front of TV or at the mall; in the rest of the world, to submit to poverty and drudgery. What is transformative about the protest movement is that people are emerging and encountering one another face to face and remembering the habits of freedom: face to face, they build new institutions, new relationships and new organisations.

And, I hope, pass laws sooner rather than later to demilitarise the police; ban Tasers and rubber bullets; criminalise police and politician violence against free speech activities; demand prosecutions for financial fraud; compel the corporate books that unaccountably swallow billions in tax revenue to be audited; investigate torturers; bring home soldiers from corporate wars of choice – and rebuild society, this time from the grassroots up, accountably, lawfully and democratically.

By: Naomi Wolf

Naomi Wolf is the author, among other books, of The Beauty Myth and Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries. She is a graduate of Yale University and New College, Oxford.

"TIME FOR SOME GOOD NEWS!"

Over the past week culminating on Sunday, I had the opportunity to participate in a number of evangelical services on Anguilla at the Bethel Methodist Church as well as a dedication service for the newly built Good News Baptist Church in St Maarten. All of these events were to say the least inspiring. And the messages that emanated from the various pulpits were both uplifting and edifying. Among several others, there seemed to be a common theme in all these events, that is, the role of the Christian Church in the community and need for believers to grow in Christ and use their special talents to bring others into the fold to make a positive difference in their communities and the world. For those who came with an open heart and mind the messages were very personal indeed. And I am certain that every heart was touched in some measure by the worship experience as a whole.

The dedication service in St Maarten, however, had an additional dimension that transcended the “spoken word” and the worship and fellowship experience. It was the physical manifestation of what can be achieved by Leaders with a strong faith motivating “god fearing” people to do great things. I am certain that every single Anguillian (and there were over a hundred strong) who made the decision to travel to St. Maarten to attend the dedication service for the Good News Baptist Church in St. Peters were exceedingly proud. That pride comes from the fact that a young Anguillian Pastor and his family decided to move to St. Maarten seven years and seven months ago and led a congregation of believers to do great things. It was not in a “strange land” given our historical, social, familial and economic connections, but it was certainly not the country of his birth and infant nurture. Pastor Roderick Webster as a new Pastor assigned to a church already established for thirty-five years, convinced his congregation to tear down the old church building and construct a new one from the ground up.

The new Good News Baptist Church dedicated on Sunday October 30th, 2011 is a magnificent edifice in the heart of the St. Peters Community. It is an imposing structure without and awesome sanctuary within. Its beauty and splendour is befitting the purpose for which it was built --- to worship and glorify God. And only strong faith, perseverance and sound leadership could have led to its completion.

It is also very obvious that Pastor Webster is well loved and respected by his congregation, which is a clear indication of caring and understanding leadership. We salute Pastor Webster for this demonstration of how good Leadership constrained by a love of God can move people to do exceedingly greater things than they even imagined. Not only his colleagues in the Priesthood Ministry --- but those in the Political Ministry who were invited to the service as well, liberally heaped such salutations and kudos on the Pastor and his family. One could not but reflect on the biblical observation that “ a prophet is not without honour but in his own country.”

Speaking of caring and understanding leadership the cries of many people in our beloved country Anguilla ring out as they try to make sense of what has actually befallen them. Everyday we stumble from one crisis to another as if to remind us of the predictions of Rev. John A. Gumbs that “we would be punished”. Unhappily though, that punishment was not predicted to apply to persons who voted for the AUM, but to the Anguilla United Front supporters who in their loyalty to a government that gave them several years of prosperity and decisive leadership voted for the AUF. According to the AUM cleric, in so doing they “committed an act against God”. As lesser mortals, and like “the publican standing afar off” many of us must have said: “God be merciful to me a sinner!” The reality is that the AUM and the AUF supporters as well as the APP and other independents in between may be suffering from that apparent “act of blasphemy” that was committed by a “self-proclaimed intermediary” professing to relay a missive from God. On the other hand without claiming to received any revelation from the most high, I had predicted during the election campaign that the AUM could “fly an election campaign but could not land a government!” Just in last week’s Anguillian alone there were two contributions that give support to my point view, namely, a “Letter to the Editor” by Mr. Sheridan Smith and an “Open Letter to Honourable Walcott Richardson” by the Honourable Edison Baird, the Minister of Social Development. I will discuss them briefly to elucidate my point.

Mr. Sheridan Smith’s Letter. In his letter to the editor Mr. Smith was for the most part commenting on a discussion of a letter that he sent to the Chief Minister as the Minister also responsible for Finance and Economic Development on July 1, 2011 and copied to the Anguillian for public information/education. The letter presents a clear proposal worthy of discussion on how the Government might develop some new revenue streams. Mr. Smith’s proposal became the subject of discussion on the well-known “ Mayor’s Show” between three Anguillian panelists living in the United States. According to Mr. Smith as usual Mr. Haydn Hughes, the Parliamentary Secretary called in with an intervention that exposed a concession for the Viceroy based on the full waiver of alien landholding licence fees for a period of five years. Mr. Smith’s view is that though his proposal suggested a reduction in alien landholding licence fees, it was based on an industry wide concession to stimulate the economy rather than an individual property.

Obviously, Mr. Smith’s proposal could take some fine-tuning but it is not far removed from the concession that the Anguilla United Front granted in the early period of the recession to stimulate the sale of high priced real estate for a period of twelve months in the first instance. The concession was made known in a release from the Ministry of Finance on July 1, 2009, which in part read as follows:

“During this period of financial constraints it is important that we make every effort to revitalize the real estate sector as well as the construction activity, which flows from it. This does not mean a relaxation of the policy on land alienation as it relates to undeveloped land but assisting properties that are already developed to be disposed of when required. It is apparent that when times are tough every penny counts and real estate agents and property owners have been complaining that the high alien land holding licence fee is a disincentive to buyers from outside of Anguilla. In these times of tight liquidity it is important to attract financial resources from outside of Anguilla. This can be achieved without embarking on a program of massive land alienation. That would not be a good thing in the long term.

To address these needs the Government of Anguilla (GOA) as a part of its Fiscal and Economic Recovery Plan (FERP) will be putting in place an incentive to generate economic activity in this area. In this context, the Government, effective today July 1, 2009, will reduce the Alien Land Holding Licence Fees on real estate transactions on built development. On such transactions the applicable fees which are set at twelve and a half percent (12.5 %) will now be reduced by fifty percent (50%) for real estate transactions valued at less than Five Million U.S. Dollars (> US$ 5,000,000) --- and by sixty percent (60%) for real estate transactions valued over Five Million U.S. Dollars (< US$5,000,000). This means that the applicable fees for these categories will now be six and a quarter percent (6.25 %) and five percent (5%), respectively. This incentive will be for a period of twelve months ending June 30, 2010.”

While I am not acquainted with the details of Haydn Hughes’s stated concessions I am surprised that as one of the “campaign pilots” of the AUM that criticized the Anguilla United Front for excessive concessions --- he seems to be boasting about specific concessions to one property exclusively. The point that Mr. Smith so eloquently makes is that such a concession must be for the general real estate sector rather than for any particular project --- which is exactly what the Anguilla United Front did. The general AUM behaviour continues to demonstrate that the same policies which they condemned are the ones they are forced to adopt --- but without a sense of balance and careful analysis.

Mr. Smith in his letter also makes a point worthy of repetition as he analyzes our present predicament when he wrote: “The one thing this government has achieved is that it has squandered the people’s trust. …. “Just imagine that these cowards would go Into the House of Assembly just to be able to curse each other. And if anyone disagrees with them they go to the extremes to annihilate the character of hardworking honest citizens.” … “Who left Anguilla in a will just for them?” Four of my “oft repeated” points are included in that quote from Mr. Smith: 1) They have deceived Anguillians. 2) They are cowards. 3) They cannot take criticism. 4) They believe that the rules do not apply to them.

Mr. Baird’s Letter to Mr. Walcott R’dson. In his open letter to Mr. Richardson the Minister of Education laments his inability to get consensus from his own colleagues in Government to pass the Education Bill 2011. All this despite the fact that it was agreed in Executive Council after a period of wide consultations; later taken to the House of Assembly where its second reading was postponed by the Speaker of the House acting in her own discretion; brought back to Executive Council for further amendments; it was re-gazetted for further public consultations; the Bill was then openly opposed by the Minister’s colleagues on public talk shows; and the Minister has now decided that after eight times it would be futile to take the Bill back to Executive Council unless he receives his colleagues’ objections in writing. This whole issue is shameful example of the inability of the Chief Minister to manage and control his own Government. It is a national political fiasco. It reinforces my point that the AUM cannot “land a government”. There is opposition from without and within and the Chief Minister is helpless to do anything about it. He cannot control his own Ministers! And it brings back the question raised by the same Mr. Baird in “His Confessions” in his other statement to the Press entitled: “Who Runs Anguilla?”

Mr. Baird points out that the purpose of the Bill is to “provide for the orderly and coordinated development of a relevant, varied and comprehensive educational system in Anguilla characterized by excellence.” He indicates that his colleagues’ opposition to the Bill after such extensive discussion and consultations is “unfathomable and unreasonable”. And he emphasizes the fact that “it is unfair to the Anguillian children, through inaction, to allow other islands to run furiously ahead of us.”

This entire issue raises serious questions! In this challenging period when it is necessary to have stability in Government why are Ministers bickering among themselves on national media? Is the Chief Minister capable of resolving this matter with his Ministers? Is Mr. Baird satisfied with the relationship he has with his Ministerial Colleagues? Is Mr. Baird the problem or is it the other Ministers? If Mr. Baird is the problem why does the Chief Minister not dismiss him? If Mr. Baird is having problems with the Chief Minister and his colleagues on the other hand why does he not resign? This is a real dilemma which points to deeply rooted dysfunctions in the Government. And must have a serious effect on achieving good governance. Unlike the Good News Baptist Church there is no caring and understanding leadership in the GOA providing positive motivation for our people in these challenging times.

Finally, I have intentionally decided not to comment at this time on the present situation at Cap Juluca --- even though the blogs are filled with the usual “smoke screens” seeking to divert attention and spread lies. We recognize our responsibility to allow the principals involved at the ownership level, to resolve their issues within the legal framework of their agreement without any real or perceived interference from our party. Even though we remain concerned about the number of “loose statements” which the Chief Minister continues to make without regard for the delicate nature of the issues involved. Everyone is hurting! It is time for some Good News!

By: Victor F. Banks

Victor Banks is a former Finance, Economics, Commerce and Tourism Minister on Anguilla. He is presently the leader of the Oposition Anguilla United Front Party, writer and author of a weekly political article for the Anguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

DISENCHANTMENT!!!

Some accepted the new Government of 2010 without hesitation! Reasons were disillusionment, the rapid change in the economic situation together with heightened uncertainty hovered over the country during that period, it brought much anxiety and no one seemed able to explain why things changed that quickly, the elections were timely, which results brought new promise. We are now close to two years into the governing term of this administration and observers now say that the people have lost the enthusiasm and have slipped into a very somber mood. Things have only gotten worse; consequently, present conditions are bearing heavily on the individual condition, the island is experiencing a turbulent period. The premise of a “plan” that would immediately reverse the trend and return the island to prosperity has not materialized and the level of confidence which emanated from the campaign has now simmered down to mere speculation. The notion that dismissed anything to do with a world-wide recession claiming that the people of Anguilla were victims of “bad government” under AUF, unattended by the British Government has proven not sustainable therefore, it now exposes the depth of unpreparedness of this team in anticipating of the reins of government..

It is unusual for a new government this far in their term not to have any clarity into the direction of the country, having not laid out a program with clear positions people are losing hope. Considering that a change of government usually, and most likely comes with a framework to succeed, there is a narrow window to analyze and make the necessary reviews for a reset. The People of Anguilla have come to love their politics and embrace the process which has evolved over many years; we love to engage each other in political debate, and even though some are well entertained by the protracted stalemate between the Governor and a faction of this government lead by Chief Minister Hughes it is now reflecting the impotence impacting the government. People like to ride the momentum but that window quickly closes with the lack of optimism and results. In general, people are now lowering expectations and the many pundits that were strongly defending the campaign and applauding the new government are slowly retracting and walking back their talk, in fact many of those voices have been silenced, the mood of the country has in effect changed, and people are now looking at very gloomy prospects, having concluded that this government indeed is without a clue how to fix things.

We must focus our attention on real matter that would make a difference; instead, our elected representatives use their esteem positions to insult and denigrate each in the “House” while to be considering honorable. If this kind of energy were exploited in reviving the Anguilla economy and creating jobs our people would have hope and homes and property may be preserved. To uphold this festooned honor, our representatives must themselves show respect for the country, the people and our honorable House. What disseminates from these sessions are much less than honorable, and more so, for member to be addressed as honorable with such state of mind is ironic. Our Representatives must respectfully discharge their responsibility to this society with respect, upholding the character of the House of Representatives, show respect for their associates and respect all positions associated with government. There is little respect shown to the position of Governor, The Deputy or the Attorney General, a posture seemed to be promoted in particular by this government, with such a low threshold of regard the same is meted in the most dishonorable form; we have no respect Minister to Minister, no respect Chief Minister to Governor, no respect Elected Representative to each other and therefore no respect from the people to the government.

This government has chosen to expend its time preoccupied with the role and function of the Governor which bears no immediate consequence for the people of Anguilla, if it’s a matter of policy to disregard this function aliened with our constitution, then such must be declared and the people must be clearly informed where this government is taking the country. If there is no such policy government must operate in absolute coherence with the constitution and conform to its directives. This matter should be put to rest and calm must be restored for the good of the country. Even if this Governor is recalled today, his replacement would be much of the same, which is to carry out the policies of the British Government in the governance of its Dependent Territories. Our government should get on with its agenda of setting policy and governing to shape the future and bring a spirit of optimism to the country, recompose its self with a full ministerial body and put an end to the factional dysfunction.

The political process we know must make the difference we aspire, and at some point our representatives must come to understand the consequence of their actions knowing that the work they do affects the country on a whole. Our politicians must be able to eloquently entertain opposing views, not respond with treats and insults, carry on debate in the House with integrity and respect for themselves and those they refer to as honorable. It is time that our elected representatives take a civil approach to the business of the people and learn to utilize the consultative process within our constitution for the greater good. Our Elected Representatives must utilize the appropriate tool for effective governing. Use the tools of dialogue, be tough, but respectful; the strength of a well formed opinion, a well articulated opposing view and well constructed thought process which is geared at producing results, all of which works in the advancing of our country and to bring hope to the people , “a people that is now disenchanted.”

By: Elliot J. Harrigan

“BY JOVE! I HINK HE'S GOT IT!”

The cause most central to triggering the Anguilla Revolution was the many years of neglect Anguillians endured at the hands of the Central Government situated some seventy miles away in Basseterre, St Kitts. That neglect manifested itself in the lack of proper roads; potable water; telephones; and electricity. Today Anguillians can boast of having one of the best road networks in our region; island wide access to potable water; a modern “state of the art” telecommunications system; and one of the most reliable and efficient electricity providers in these neighbouring islands. For all intents and purposes, we have in great measure, achieved most of these stated national goals and aspirations since 1967.

However, in recent times, the increasing number of consumers being disconnected because of their inability to meet their monthly obligations to our electricity provider, ANGLEC, has become the subject of island wide conversation. High electricity bills and the lack of employment and business opportunities have been the root causes of this challenge to consumers. And the fact that ANGLEC has the monopoly on the provision of electricity services, has resulted in the company being vilified by a number of persons who support the viewpoint, promulgated during the past election campaign, that we are being “ripped off” by the Board and Management of the Company. It has been my intention for sometime now to attempt to sensitize the public to the challenges facing ANGLEC in this regard; the initiatives being pursued; and the solutions being considered to address them.

It is important at the outset that I make it extremely clear that neither I, nor anyone in my immediate family own any shares in ANGLEC. In this context, I have absolutely no pecuniary benefit to derive from promoting the Utility other than the fact that its success will result in more efficient electricity services for all residents of Anguilla. It is also worth mentioning that even in these difficult times the incidence of “unplanned outages” is probably the lowest in the region and the occurrence of damage to household equipment a similarly small number. Understandably though, as customers when we are the ones affected it is very difficult to find comfort in these impressive statistics.

My decision to make ANGLEC the topic of my column was sparked by two issues: 1) The increasing number of persons who have been complaining to me that their electricity bills have doubled and the Government needs to do something about it. 2) The response by the Minister of Utilities, the Hon. Evan Gumbs to a question posed to him by the Elected Member for Island Harbour, the Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool in the House of Assembly. The question was: “You continue to promise the people of Anguilla that you will reduce the rate of electricity. When will the reduction take place and by how much?” I will deal with the two issues in order, but there will of necessity be some overlap in the discussion.

High Electricity Bills. The base rate of 63 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity charges, has not changed since 1997. This is an important factor in understanding the fuel surcharge in the breakdown, which appears on our bills. It means that if the price of diesel were to return to the levels of 1997 we would not be paying any additional charges for the electricity we consume. In 1991, the Government of Anguilla through the Ministry of Utilities, the regulator of the newly established Utility Company (ANGLEC), put in place a number of mechanisms to deal with periodical tariff adjustments. Such adjustments could become necessary if any costs for producing electricity increase, for example the cost of fuel. This was done to establish fixed arrangements ahead of time and thereby exclude any subjective considerations in determining tariff levels when any such need arises. The Company would therefore have more certainty in putting together its budgets and making its projections with the knowledge that certain critical fluctuations in its operational costs would be dealt with by a system already established for that purpose.

The mechanism for determining the fuel surcharge in particular is based on a price level set in 1991. The agreement with the Ministry allows that every time the cost of fuel increases over that level by 10 cents the surcharge per “kilowatt hour” is adjusted by 1 cent. However, ANGLEC has never charged the full amount since the first time the surcharge was put on in 2003. As an example that the adjustment can go in either direction based on the price of fuel, it is to be noted that in May 2004 the surcharge was reduced to zero. And to demonstrate consideration for its customers, in 2010 alone, ANGLEC absorbed $4.85 million of the fuel surcharge. The actual costs for that year being $22.35 million and the amount charged to the consumer only $17.5 million. It clearly shows that the Utility has been extremely generous by not passing on the entire costs to its customers.

The fuel surcharge is not unique to consumers in Anguilla alone. An authoritative monthly electricity price survey data matrix is published in the Anguillian periodically, which compares ANGLEC’s adjusted rates with those of other Utilities in the OECS including St. Maarten and St Thomas. It shows clearly that the adjustment in all the territories are within a similar range and that ANGLEC is by no means the highest. Since this adjustment reflects the increasing cost of diesel a good statistic/fact for the consumer to note is that at present fuel makes up for almost ninety percent of the cost of electricity production in the Anguilla context. Put simply, for every dollar spent to produce electricity almost 90 cents goes to the fuel suppliers. And if one were to go a step further, this is as compared to 30 to 40 cents for the same costs out of that same dollar nine years ago. Reality must now step in! It is all about the price of fuel!

I am making the point that there is no magic to the pricing mechanism of ANGLEC. And it is impossible for us to expect any radical reduction in our electricity bills if the price of fuel remains at present levels. ANGLEC is a public company with shareholders who bought their shares on the basis of a prospectus, which assured them that the company would be managed along commercial lines to produce a return on that investment. In fact, a twelve percent return on the investment is actually legislated. Obviously, any decision by the Management of ANGLEC, which impacts shareholders dividends, may be questioned. And it would therefore not be unreasonable for a shareholder to demand: “Why should I have to forego my dividends to subsidize the consumer?”

What this mechanism, which passes on such production costs to the consumer has afforded ANGLEC, is the ability to maintain an efficient service. And any profits forthcoming are used to further enhance ANGLEC’s transmission and distribution capacity. Were that not the case, every individual or company, which relies on a constant and steady supply of electricity to survive would experience many obstacles and setbacks to its own development as well as to the other quality of services it offers or expects. It would be most irresponsible of any leader in the community to propagate the idea that ANGLEC should not be allowed to recover the reasonable costs of producing and delivering electricity to its consumers. Equally, we (the consumers) are entitled to expect efficient services from ANGLEC at reasonable rates.

The Minister’s Response. It was a pleasant surprise to hear the Minister of Utilities, the Hon. Evan Gumbs’s written response in the House of Assembly to the question posed by the Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool. It seemed that at last he had come to understand that his sweeping promises in the election campaign to drastically and unconditionally reduce electricity rates in the short term are both impractical and foolish. Furthermore, they were seemingly based on a strategy that included a “hostile takeover” of ANGLEC, which along with the Chairman of Social Security he orchestrated very early upon his ascendance to office. It was obvious that the Minister was a believer in the AUM conspiracy theory that electricity rates were artificially high because the wicked AUF Government was conspiring with the Board and Management of ANGLEC to “rip off” the Anguillian consumer. And it appeared that his mission and promise when elected was to fire the entire Board; replace it with AUM supporters; and reduce the rates. Unfortunately, there are a number of Anguillians including a few who have been placed on the Board, who have bought into this theory “hook line and sinker!” Fortunately, those plans were thwarted and I am proud to have in some way contributed to that eventuality by my article: “Comments on a hostile takeover of ANGLEC!” on May 21st 2010.

While I certainly do not recommend it, because the Government needs valuable revenue, the Minister could have considered other options open to him over which he had more control --- than planning to take over a publicly owned company and slash its prices. In 2010, the Government of Anguilla derived some $7.5 million in direct revenues from ANGLEC comprising some $300,000 from the business licence; $465,500 in dividends; $4.1 million from the environmental levy; and $2.6 from duties on diesel alone. It would not be a good idea to slash these Government revenues to pass them on to the consumer --- but since the Minister seemed bent on fulfilling his promise maybe he could have found a way to replace them. Again, I repeat: “Not a good idea!”

But if it is to be believed that the Minister meant what he read and read what he meant, we will be looking at a very sustainable approach to bringing “renewable energy into the energy mix of Anguilla”. This would be a most commendable strategy for the Minister and the Government to pursue --- as they seek to address the need for more affordable electricity prices for their citizens. I must quote a section of the Minister’s response that brings great comfort as follows: “Our exclusive reliance on conventional energy sources, i.e., diesel fuel, is the primary reason for the high prices we pay for electricity. If our dependence on diesel fuel is reduced then we will see a correspondent decrease in the price of electricity. It must be remembered that Anguilla has no control over the price of diesel fuel in the world market and thus has no control over its imported price. It therefore follows to a large extent that we in Anguilla have little or no control over the price we pay for electricity, unless and until we reduce our reliance on it."

When I heard the Minister plodding through this written response --- it was as if a light went on in the room. (No pun intended!) This is precisely why the AUF Government put in place the Alternative Energy Committee; passed the Alternative Energy Bill; established, funded and staffed the Anguilla Renewable Energy Office; began the dialogue with international agencies like the Clinton Global Initiative; and brought ANGLEC into the equation. Eureka! He has finally got it!

What the Minister said, seemed, at last, to be in recognition of the need to move beyond vacuous politics in dealing with such issues of national importance. He must now see ANGLEC as his partner, not his adversary, in the quest to provide long term solutions to our energy needs. The General Manager of ANGLEC is a full member of the Alternative Energy Committee. And every member of the Committee is a volunteer. Anguilla is making great strides because of the efforts of that Committee and ANGLEC is fully engaged in facilitating the process to rationalize the use of alternate energy sources by the wider community. This will necessitate revising the Electricity Act and drafting new legislation and policies to allow private producers using renewable energy systems to become a viable part of an island wide initiative. In fact, these ideas, including making the efficient use of energy a cultural phenomenon will have global and indeed planetary impacts.


Maybe, the Member for Island Harbour’s question really “hit a switch” because something seemed to have “clicked” with the Minister. It would be remiss of me not to quote a part of his closing paragraph as follows: “We must be mindful that the current financial and economic crisis gripping the entire world, including Anguilla, does not help the situation”. What a difference twenty months make! By Jove! I think he’s got it!

By: Victor F. Banks

Victor Banks is a former Finance, Economics, Commerce and Tourism Minister on Anguilla. He is presently the leader of the Oposition Anguilla United Front Party, writer and author of a weekly political article for the Anguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

“DEM COULD GIVE --- BUT DEM CARN TEK!”

I listened with interest to the House of Assembly intermittently yesterday (October 17, 2011) whenever the opportunity provided itself among my several other preoccupations. I wanted in particular to hear the Chief Minister’s response to the issue of the Governor’s Statement to Executive Council on September 8, 2011 regarding the “ill-considered conduct of the Chief Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary” to conclude an MOU with the Starwood Capital Group on their stationery and “without authorization from EXCO, without the benefit of the advice of the Tourism Investment Committee and without having been seen or negotiated by the AG’s Chambers.” He made a response on “To the Point” last week, which I have transcribed from his own words --- but I was looking for consistency in his response. I got an earful and so did David Carty and Marcel Fahie, if they happened to be listening. As the “usual suspects” in most of the Chief Minister’s conspiracy theories I am sure we all expected it. Once the Chief Minister can avail himself of the protection of “parliamentary privilege” in the House of Assembly he uses that “cowardly route” to spout his vicious lies and propaganda. I have noticed that his leadership by “bad example” is “rubbing off” on his junior colleagues as well.

One thing has become blatantly obvious is that the Anguilla United Front’s public meeting of Saturday, October 8th “struck a nerve”. And as a testimony to that a number of the elected members in their responses in the House showed themselves to have been well versed in our presentations made on that occasion. I heard the Hon. Jerome Roberts not only comment on that meeting but our Town Hall Meeting on Sunday as well. I consider my Elected Representative, the Hon. Evan Gumbs, to be an “innocent bystander” so I will not respond to his comments even though I heard he spoke for a very long time about my twenty-eight years of service as an elected member --- an honour and privilege to which I would have thought both he and all the newly elected candidates would wish to aspire. His self-righteous proclamation of his Christian principles, which lesser mortals as myself would not dare to judge, should however cause him to understand that just like the God he serves ordained that he should be the elected representative for Valley South likewise that same God ordained that I should be “the Journalist” to report on issues affecting at least the 677 voters in Valley South who supported me --- and in truth and in fact all Anguillians. But like I said before why take advantage of an “innocent bystander”.

But I will repeat the point that I have made time and time again, namely, that the AUM and its supporters seem to believe that the concept democracy and freedom of speech or expression is a “preserve” to which only they are entitled. In fact yesterday this was reinforced by the comments made by the Chief Minister in the House of Assembly and Mr. Elkin “Larry King” Richardson (an apparent AUM sympathizer) on “ To the Point” last night. Let me demonstrate the inconsistency and ambiguity of their thinking through their own statements as follows: 

• The Chief Minister said in the House yesterday “that in some countries political parties are prohibited from campaigning for a period after elections”. It is obvious from this comment that he believes that the Anguilla United Front is guilty of campaigning after elections. And secondly, that he has adjudged that any media that the Anguilla United Front uses to express its opposition to the actions of his Government, constitutes a campaign platform and should not be allowed. On the other hand, during the entire period of the AUF’s second term in particular, it was fine for him to use every available forum to express his political views because he is Hubert Hughes --- and, as is well known, “the rules” do not apply to him.

• Mr. Elkins “Larry King” Richardson on his part tried to cajole Mr. Curtis Richardson on his show last night into agreeing with him that my column in the Anguillian is “dividing Anguilla”. The irony of this “sad” position by Mr. Elkin Richardson is that he is not in the “print media” but he is in the “broadcast media” yet he genuinely appears to believe that while he has the right to freedom of expression on his “show” I should not have the right to freedom of expression in my column. And even further, like other supporters of the AUM, he seems to want to determine the editorial policy for the “Anguillian Newspaper” also. Obviously, our “Larry King” seems to believe that the rules do not apply to him either.

But this attitude goes even further. A number of the members of the House yesterday made the statement that I am fighting to get back into the House. As a matter of fact the “innocent bystander” said that I should not be the Leader of the Anguilla United Front because I do not have a seat in the House of Assembly. Simply put it would appear that they want to run the AUM and the AUF as well. Our membership elects our party officials. The party officials do not elect themselves. If any member of the AUM wants to determine who should lead the Anguilla United Front let them join the party. The point I am making is that not only does the AUM and its supporters believe that “democracy and freedom of speech or expression” is a concept designed for them --- but also that only they, apparently, have the right to run for public office.

Every single elected member of this Government, including the Parliamentary Secretary, has lost a bid for public office before. Has Anguilla now elected the “Perfect Government” ordained by God, which it is sacrilegious to criticize or oppose? Maybe the AUM clerics have that view --- as one of them frequently declared during the election campaign. Someone once said that the will of the people is the will of God! However, one must never question or try to “divine” God’s will and purpose! Like the Children of Israel, Anguillians may also have to experience several manifestations of God’s omnipotence before the truth is revealed to them. But far be it from me, a lesser mortal, to make any boasts as those widely spouted by the “anointed ones” of the AUM in the House of Assembly yesterday.

But as I said earlier, it was my intention to analyze as a case study in poor governance, the Chief Minister’s response to the Governor’s Statement in Executive Council regarding the 18 million dollar fiasco caused by the July 27th Starwood Capital MOU negotiated by the Parliamentary Secretary alone. I will therefore have to fulfill that analysis albeit in an abbreviated form given the mother lode of issues now demanding my attention. First of all, I must commend the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers and the Elected Member for Island Harbour, the Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool, for their questions and their stellar performance in the House today. Needless to say, as usual the Chief Minister avoided providing any substantive answer to most of his questions. However, with regards the 18 million dollar question he regurgitated what he said on “To the Point” adding a few political spins with his usual conspiracy theories, which I will ignore at this time. However, I will quote directly from what he said on “To the Point” on October 10th 2011, to expose both the lies and the examples of poor governance as follows: 

1) Mr. Hughes: “Starwood Capital came to us in New York last year June and told us that they were interested in buying the note from Citibank. … but they wanted to take our taxes on US$15 million because that is the amount the former Government agreed that they should pay their taxes on. But we said no!” My Comment: Starwood Capital Group did not negotiate taxes on the sale of the note from Citibank because when we were in Government the issue of the sale was never a subject of discussion. Starwood Capital was not even in the picture! We were preoccupied with getting the property open. The Chief Minister cannot produce any such agreement! It never existed. It is another one of his lies.

2) Mr. Hughes: “We had a lot of wrangling and most of this wrangling took place outside of EXCO. Because, as a matter of fact it is as if you go to EXCO for the Governor to decide everything. And even some Governors used to wonder why certain things come to EXCO.” My Comment: The Chief Minister is trying to justify why he did not take the matter to EXCO and to make the point that in EXCO the Governor decides everything. The fact is that the Governor is merely the Chairman of EXCO --- it is the elected members who make the decisions. And since EXCO minutes are now released to the public everyone will notice that all EXCO minutes report that: “members decided, advised, or agreed”. Not the Governor! If the elected members do not agree --- that matter cannot be passed. EXCO is to ensure transparency and proper procedures. It is where Government decisions are recorded. Actually, it also protects Ministers of Government by ensuring that their decisions have the support of the entire Government. Can you imagine what the Chief Minister would have been saying today if another Chief Minister and his son negotiated a US$500 million MOU for the people of Anguilla? Mr. Hughes good governance procedures apply to you as well! There is no justification for your misguided actions.

3) Mr. Hughes: “But the Governor in his conspiracy to mislead is saying that the Government of Anguilla would have lost 18 million dollars on that transaction. … The Governor fully well knows that even though, I signed that agreement in my office, I signed that agreement in my office because the people came in on a chartered flight and they wanted a signature before they leave.” My Comment: With whom did the Governor conspire? He made his statement in EXCO! It is on record. Mr. Hughes did not follow proper procedure! One cannot rush an agreement before due diligence is completed simply because an Investor has his chartered jet waiting on the airport. That is bad governance. There is no need in this age of technology to sign an agreement under such duress --- there is Fedex, UPS, DHL and electronic mail. What’s the rush?

4) Mr. Hughes: “But it was under provision. The proviso was that this must be approved in the EXCO. I signed it tentatively. My Comment: Where is the proviso? As soon as the MOU was signed on July 27th two days afterwards, before EXCO met or its members saw the MOU, he and his son were on the international media boasting that an MOU was signed and Viceroy was sold. One of his own Ministers admitted that it never came to EXCO. Obviously, the Chief Minister does not get the point that he and his son are not the Government. A signature of the Chief Minister cannot be tentative! It is either signed or it is not! Once you signed the document, the other party has legitimate expectations that you will adhere to the terms of the agreement. This is bad Governance!

5) Mr. Hughes: “There was an arrangement made between Starwood and the KOR Group … that they would declare bankruptcy so that it makes it easier for the KOR Group. It had nothing to do with us. That was an internal matter … this was to satisfy an American Court process.” My Comment: How could the Chief Minister accept that this arrangement between Starwood and Kor Group is a reasonable justification for fixing the market value of Viceroy for stamp duty purposes? As I predicted a year ago in my article: “So shall it be in the end!”, it would have been more appropriate to set a minimum rather than a maximum. The rushed MOU limited the negotiating capacity of the Tourism Investment Committee (TIC). This is bad governance!

6) Mr. Hughes: “We were mislead into thinking that we could get some extra money now --- but the lawyers --- our lawyers our Attorney General and their lawyers and the Developers and us had debate over whether we could draw some extra money. … We were told categorically that that was only a device to satisfy the bankruptcy.” My Comment: Who mislead the CM? It was he and he son who caused this situation! Not the Governor! The Governor did not sign the July 27th MOU. The CM did and that is the root cause of the problem! There can be no device to overrule the stamp duty assessment. It is paid on the real price! That is why the Government had to reduce its rate of stamp duty to fit Haydn’s negotiated maximum payable by the developer. That is bad governance!

7) Mr. Hughes: “Yet the Governor issued a statement sometime after without even discussing it with anybody in the EXCO --- without raising it as an issue --- you know something we could have gotten some extra money. We couldn’t because we all knew that he was not telling the truth about this --- 18 million dollars. That it is why he could not do it and that is typical of the Governor --- every now and then he will raise a particular issue with somebody to create a false impression.” My Comment: What is the Chief Minister talking about? The Governor’s statement is retrospective he is advising the Chief Minister to exercise better governance in such matters in the future --- because it could cost the people of Anguilla well-needed revenue. What can be wrong or misleading about that! But the Chief Minister is so caught up in never accepting responsibility for anything that he does not get the message. The Chief Minister must come to grips with the fact that he did not exercise good governance in this matter!

After hearing the responses of the AUM members of the House yesterday and Mr. Curtis Richardson’s performance on “To the Point”, someone declared with appropriate emphasis: “Dem could give --- but dem carn tek!”

By: Victor F. Banks

Victor Banks is a former Finance, Economics, Commerce and Tourism Minister on Anguilla. He is presently the leader of the Oposition Anguilla United Front Party, writer and author of a weekly political article for the Anguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

“They Talk Stupid;” TIME TO REFOCUS!!!!

It is well within the right of every Anguillian to choose their affiliation and association! In recent years our people have become extremely enthusiastic about political talk and it seems that we are very motivated about political campaigning. The affiliation and or association with a particular organization or group are actually a good thing if it is known what the ideals and basic principles are that drive the concept, this type of association should contribute to a better frame of mind in our public discourse. The lacks of anticipation, especially within our political parties have created a less informed people and has caused serious division and a clear lack of astuteness in our conversation. It was the year 1992 I believe, the Association of Anguillian Citizens of St. Maarten received a report which indicated that Anguilla had a very high illiteracy rate compared to the rest of the region. Our association invited the Parliamentary Secretary Mr. David Carty to St. Marten to explain, and to give us his opinion on such a report. Mr. Carty indicated that such a report was probably an opinion of an organization but was not an official position of any recognized institution that the island relies on for data.

Such a report could well have been based on hypothesis because of some of our unscrupulous dialogue where facts escape the airwaves and viewpoints are smeared by partisan rhetoric. It is true that some of the conversation on the airwaves led by some uninformed hosts, or others are exactly partial in their point of view, hell bent on vigorously defending their party at all cost without pertinent contribution to the larger platform of public discourse, meanwhile probably creating unintentional damage in general. This has caused much unintentional severing of good personal relations and family feuds, but more so presented a very negative image, raising in some instances the question of literacy among our people. Just recently I was told by someone being resident on Anguilla for some years that they would soon be leaving the island, I inquired why? The person said to me I probably came to the island in the good times, I was very impressed and I guess I lost my enchantment, it could be because of the economic situation, but I find the people to be very simple minded, I asked by what measure? The person said they talk stupid! I asked are you saying that the people of Anguilla are stupid. The person said not really, but much of their conversation is really about nothing, you can listen to the talk shows and they talk very little that you can learn from or stimulate good wise discussions, the people are too political and they don’t even know what they are talking about.

This conversation helped to reset my mind and has caused me to refocus on the direction of the country. It is noticeable that many who call in on radio are actually unable to broaden the scope on the subject matter. We must find it necessary to enable our people to focus on what matters and not to engage in unsubstantiated claims and matters beyond our reach, and those who can indeed make a viable contribution should be part of the discourse. What we say, and in context present an image which transmits to understanding, this is the bedrock of literacy. It would probably do our talk show hosts well to change their format; instead of stimulating vague talk on matters of public interest, they should ensure that an expert is on hand to inform the people on these matters.

Much is said of our politics as well, which seems to have no focus except to diminish one another. It is time our political leaders begin to think less about our past and commence the process of shaping the future of the country; this must begin with positive political leadership which focuses less on their party. The election of 2010 should be made our final, having the premise being the revolutionary period. We must see new leadership for the island that would lead the people first. My concept of the revolutionary period leads me to believe that our entire field of politicians is still beholding to the ideals and accomplishment of that period, the frame of mind, and reference do not permit us to envision new horizons. As a people, we have lived the primitive lifestyle and have lived hardship, we must shake off that stigma, our children are now privileged to be well educated, and we are a society that has excelled in all of the requirements that makes us a better country today, we must now refocus on those values and attributes that present a well rounded society, this begins with appropriate political leadership with a vision for the country. We must refocus; commence the process of leading the country into the future, building a society of modern minds.

By: Elliot J. Harrigan