The Tribune

PLP CHAIRMAN Bradley Roberts never ceases to amuse. Usually we have a chuckle over many of his comments, but so many other events crowd him out, that we let him pass. However, his “flip-flop” statement in yesterday’s Tribune was just too tempting to let slip by – at least without a second look.

The word “flip-flop” should be locked away in the PLP’s lexicon of words as an expression that should never be used — that is if they don’t want a conversation about PLP flip-floppers. You see, it dredges up too many “flip-flopping” memories – our files can even take you back to the days of Pindling.

Accusing FNM Leader Dr Hubert Minnis of being a “flip-flopper extraordinaire” because, after approving the passage of VAT, he was now promising to amend the tax should he become prime minister, Mr Roberts quickly relegated him to the dust bin, slammed the lid down with the sign: “Unfit for Office.”

Mr Roberts thought he had easily disposed of Dr Minnis in yesterday’s press statement.

“As an FNM minister,” said Mr Robert, “he agreed with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recommendation that the Bahamas’ public finances were in need of tax reform and that VAT was the most viable option.

“When the FNM lost the election in 2012, his Cabinet colleague (Zhivargo) Laing reiterated the pro-VAT policy position of the FNM, had the party prevailed in the 2012 general elections.

“By the 2014/2015 budget debate,” continued Mr Roberts, “Minnis told the House and the Bahamian people that while he agreed that the country’s system of taxation was in need of reform, the FNM ‘was not on the VAT train.’ This was a flip-flop. He has not to this day pronounced a viable alternative. He bad mouthed the VAT policy and voted against it in Parliament.

“Days after the successful implementation of VAT with absolutely no help, but strenuous opposition from Minnis and the FNM, he flip-flopped yet again telling the media that he is partly on board with VAT and would repeal some of it.

“It is both incredible and disgraceful that a person who wants to lead the Bahamas is incapable of articulating and defending a policy as important as tax reform based on principle and an appreciation for the needs of the country he claims he wants to lead.”

According to Mr Roberts, Dr Minnis’ vow to repeal the tax was not the type of leadership that was beneficial to the country.

We don’t think Mr Roberts qualifies as a candidate for Alzheimer’s, but let’s just give him the benefit of the doubt and say he must be suffering from slippage of memory.

We invite Mr Roberts to take a walk down memory lane and knock at the door of February 2002.

In that month, he should recall the day when today’s prime minister, then PLP Opposition leader Perry Christie, pledged his support to the proposed FNM government’s referendum that would put women on an equal footing with their men on the question of nationality.

The question then before the House,which was proposed to be put before the electorate in a referendum was simple. It asked:

“Should Bahamian men and women be equal and should they both be able to confer nationality on their spouses and their children?”

Then Prime Minister Ingraham made it clear that he would not go through with the referendum unless there was unanimity between government and opposition.

The then Christie-led opposition wanted many changes. Everything the PLP asked for was conceded by the Ingraham government for the sake of unanimity. Mr Ingraham was determined that both government and opposition would speak with one voice when they went to the people. The vote was taken in the House and the record shows that both government and opposition unanimously agreed that the question be put to the people.

However, at his first town meeting to help inform Bahamians of what the referendum question meant, Mr Christie announced: “If I knew then what I know now, I almost certainly would have taken a different position on the bills.”

The PLP campaigned and defeated the FNM proposed referendum to give women equal rights in their own country. The 2002 election was three months away. It was far more important to the PLP than women’s rights. The PLP concentrated on the election. The cry was that whichever side defeated the referendum would become the government. The PLP had picked up political momentum from the referendum battle and won the election. And now, Mr Roberts is dismissing Dr Minnis as a flip-flopper because Dr Minnis has changed his mind about VAT.

Exactly what Mr Christie and his party had done to the Ingraham government in 2002 on the referendum for women’s rights.

However, Mr Christie’s flip-flop won him the 2002 election. Today he is the Prime Minister.

But, according to Mr Roberts, Dr Minnis’ flip-flop on VAT disqualifies him as a future prime minister.

We agree that “flip-floppers” don’t make good prime ministers. But if one “flip-flopper” can succeed, so can the other. However, according to Mr Roberts, it is not the type of leadership that is beneficial to the country. In view of this statement, what does Mr Roberts now have to say about Mr Christie, also remembering Mr Christie’s flip-flop on the more recent gambling referendum?

However, Mr Roberts’ logic — or rather lack thereof– just doesn’t compute.

Mr Roberts, we suggest you give more thought to your next press release. If you don’t, you might find yourself dredging up old memories that would best be left forgotten.