IT HAS BEEN interesting to note the attempt at spin at the now talked-about caucus that was convened by Grenada’s Prime Minister Tillman Thomas at Mt St Ervans in St Andrew’s on Sunday.
The only thing so far with the spin is that it has not been well coordinated -- the Prime Minister says it was "a party meeting", Information Minister Glen Noel says "a meeting of stakeholders" and Sports Minister Patrick Simmons says "a meeting of community leaders".
Outside of the normal pot-shots about who broke the story (alleged friends, real or imagined), the critics such as George Grant and Keshawn Thomas who somehow felt the story should not have been told, could not tear apart the facts of the report.
It might make troubled reading – but unlike this piece (which is opinion) – that initial report was all fact.
First of all, some people may ask why is the meeting of any significance and worthy of reporting.
It is for the following reasons:
· If as the Prime Minister says the meeting was called to discuss the current state of politics of the party and the way forward, it begs a million questions. Should not the entire management team of the party that handles strategy be involved? Shouldn’t such a meeting be handled in coordination with the Chairman?
Everyone concedes the meeting took place – and there is no dispute as to who attended and who did not.
A natural question that should follow, how did the Prime Minister decide who should come to the meeting?
Is there any significance in that decision making process?
And what does that tell us about the state of play within the party?
And for George Grant and Patrick Simmons and the PM who say the meeting was no big deal – answer this: Let’s say Chairman Kenrick Fullerton called such a meeting (and he can convene party meetings), and leave out the political leader, would we say that it is no big deal?
Remember this was not a barbecue fete, or a backyard get-together for whom the Prime Minister could invite whoever he wants with no questions asked.
This is, by his admission, a political strategy session to figure out the way forward.
So does the way forward include the eight MPs and/or the party management team?
It may well not include them – which if it is so – then the meeting was in proper order.
Why waste time with people you not running with?
And if the majority of your party branches, and the elders of your party, request in the interest of unity to make nice and find a way forward, then you turn around and send a different signal – what does that say?
Maybe calling this a hijack of democracy might be too strong a phrase.
I don’t want to be a threat to society anymore. I still have a home in a beautiful place call Munich that I want to get back to.
PS: My good friends George and Keshawn it’s your right to be apologists for this kind of behavior. Check me the day after the next elections – I will have the tissue to help dry your tears.
Another PS: I suspect somewhere in Happy Hill, they are stocking up on champagne. Doc, don’t forget to invite the Mt St Ervans crew to the party.