The Tribune

LIKE him or not, it has to be admitted that former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham never shies away from what needs to be said.

And with talk of tensions in the FNM between leader Michael Pintard and former Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis, Mr Ingraham launched right into the matter – with Dr Minnis right beside him.

“I don’t believe that there’s a call for convention,” he said. “I think that there’s a leadership challenge they want to launch against Mr Pintard’s leadership, and they are cloaking it in this thing called convention.”

He is right, of course. The push for a convention has not been about process or timelines or administrative matters inside the party – it has been setting the stage for a possible challenge to Mr Pintard from his predecessor.

He also called out former Deputy Prime Minister Desmond Bannister, saying he “like me, is not active, not active at all, doesn’t go to meetings, hardly, and to wake up one morning and decide, have a convention, please don’t do that to us”.

In describing those pushing for a convention as “rebels” – an interesting term considering the once “Rebel Seven” who opposed Dr Minnis in a push to unseat him as leader – Mr Ingraham dismissed their calls, calling it a “made-up story”.

He also shot down the talk of the need for a convention every two years, as specified by the party’s constitution, noting occasions in the past when a vote had been held to move it. That’s true, though it’s not necessarily good practice.

As for Dr Minnis, there was an interesting exchange between the two with Mr Ingraham saying the two had been “very close” but that “after he became Prime Minister, he was a different man altogether, but I never lost my respect for him”.

Dr Minnis responded: “There comes a point in time, especially when you get certain positions, you try your best to carve a direction for you … you will find that as you have your children, they too will carve their way, but they will always come back and ask questions, your recommendation, etc. So it’s not that they distance themselves, but it’s the reality of the world.”

Far from a denial, certainly – more an amicable agreement on the matter.

Throughout the exchange, Dr Minnis certainly did not deny he had an interest in challenging for the leadership – though he had plenty of opportunity. By now, surely it seems it is an open secret, if secret is even the right word.

Mr Ingraham, for his part, expressed confidence in Mr Pintard as leader. The question remains how much of the rest of the party shares that view. Then the bigger question is how much of the electorate does.

Still, there is much to be said for Mr Ingraham’s approach of addressing the debate in plain sight. Why tiptoe around with talk of calls for convention instead of saying what you really mean and that you want a change of leader?

The FNM does need to resolve its internal disagreements – while the PLP pulled together to unite on the campaign trail in the by-election, the FNM was clearly divided, with Dr Minnis nowhere to be seen. If the party can’t count on support internally, how can it convince people they’re the right choice at the ballot box?

If Dr Minnis wants to be leader, let him say so clearly. And if he doesn’t, then enough of these shadow games.

Well said, Mr Ingraham, for calling the issue out into the light.