Of bonkers theory and political malpractice

 I wasn’t quite prepared to take a deep dive into Grenadian political analysis just yet because of time and being on the road so much lately, and not being able to inform myself adequately about several things.

   But I just thought that I would dip my feet into the water at this juncture – after having heard about and finally “studied” at daybreak the latest Justin Pierre analysis of the current political state of play.

   To frame the context, it must be understood that Justin Pierre, a good friend of mine, is not a pollster; at best, I describe him as a Projection Analyst.

   I do a level of projection analysis myself, too – but the basis of my framing is not just on historical data, but what current polling indicators, and in many jurisdictions, I have the advantage of seeing the figures from both sides (from their scientific polling and canvassing information) to be able to compare and contrast.

   Pierre’s methods are not scientifically sound, at best, and questionable at worst. Some in the regional data collection and polling stratosphere put it even worse than that.

   If he is guilty of anything, it is colorful data analysis laundering.

   And I am developing this context not necessarily to reign on his parade, but as a basis for understanding.

   My concerns about some of his work are not so much about what he has done in Grenada, but about what he has done in many other jurisdictions.

   His “polling” – and lord knows where it came from- told Ralph Gonsalves he was going to win the Southern Grenadines – a seat Unity Labour Party in St Vincent and the Grenadines had never won, even in its best days; and the last time was some of its worst days.

   Three days before the elections, and up to midday on polling day, Gonsalves told me he was not only winning the election but taking the southern Grenadines with him.

   All his proper pollsters were telling him, up to three months before the vote, that he was in an absolute crisis – at best, he might take three seats, but it seemed likely (as it turned out) that it would be one.

   Then came the Pierre “poll”.

    We have just seen in another jurisdiction (which shall be nameless for now) where such bonkers analysis is being proffered based on supposed “polls” that, even given the limited reported methods, are neither scientific nor make basic common sense.

   But coming back to his latest “analysis” in Grenada.

   First of all, based on the real polling we have seen and the reporting of other polling that we have been briefed on, nobody is winning 10 seats at this juncture; nobody is winning eight, for that matter.

   There is a lot of fluidity in some areas and many opportunities, especially with a significant base of people who are not yet engaged in the process.

   When polling shows huge amounts of ‘wont say’ or ‘don’t know’, it normally means there are more opportunities for challengers than for incumbents; that, too, is something all in the game must watch.

  Based on the data – and the actual feelings on the ground – anyone wanting to suggest that someone is winning – and even so – winning handsomely, is trying to sell you a bridge. Don’t buy it. They don’t own it.

   There could be a point at which the race breaks decisively. That is always a possibility. That’s what campaigning is about, because things are never ever static.

    There are some interesting factors and many moving parts that may make this upcoming campaign different from what we have known in the modern era. And as of today, there are three or four different scenarios that can play out. (But that’s not my remit to talk about those here).

   In regard to the New National Party, where it stands now – based on the average of the polling I have seen or been briefed on - it is at best comfortable with three, perhaps even four seats. There are other opportunities elsewhere – but if they seize on those, it will depend on many factors – positioning, messaging, structure, ground game, financing – and also hoping for some opponent’s missteps.

   That also rings true for all the others in the space, however.

   But regarding specifics – NNP’s “surest” seats remain St George’s North West (Adrian Joseph) and St Mark’s (Myanna Charles). It is doing well and leading in St Patrick’s East (Robert Whyte). St Andrew’s North East (Kate Lewis) is its best seat in St Andrew’s. For St Andrew’s South East (Emmalin Pierre), it is tighter than maybe the NNP political leader would like at this stage, but, as leader, if she gets to the right strategies, she should pull it off.

   At this stage, that’s five, ranging from solid to “should be ok.”

   This Justin Pierre theory that somehow NNP is leading in St Andrew’s North West is bonkers stuff of the Southern Grenadines variety.

   At this stage, St Andrew’s North West (Delma Thomas) is one of the four strongest seats of the incumbent National Democratic Congress – behind St Davids (Dickon Mitchell, St George’s  South (Andy Williams), and St George’s North East (Ron Redhead).

   It is interesting that Pierre did not have St John’s. NNP is potentially more competitive there than it is in St Patrick’s East or Carriacou, for example, even though, of course, not winning it at this stage.

   In terms of the national general, there is a third force factor, which throws up many scenarios as well.

 
Anyone discounting it is guilty of political malpractice. (The polling doesn’t).

Grenada’s full joy comes in the night under a half-moon

ST GEORGE'S: Grenada saved its best for last -- and in terms of the ECCB Netball Series, for too late - but still their joy came in the night under the glow of a half-moon.

As they eked out a one-goal win over St. Vincent and the Grenadines 64 -63, their play was clearer, as the threatening gloom of the early evening gave way to allow a fitting finale to a tournament that had its starts and stops, compliments of the rainy season.

Grenada looked like a different team from the one that had slumped to a depressing and disappointing loss the night before at the hands of lower-ranked St Lucia.

For most of the tournament, the home team looked a step behind; they huffed and puffed against Barbados but did not blow the house down; and then, a Lavalas of indecision and tentative defense had them washed away by an improving Cayman Islands.

Saturday night was as bad as it could have been, with St Lucia defeating them 50-48 – a scoreline that flattered to deceive, given how disappointingly the home team played.

The result of that night threatened to turn what was set up to be, from the outset, a marquee clash against St Vincent and the Grenadines into an anti-climactic nightmare.

It was, however, anything but.

What the crowd was served in the end was the best game of the tournament.

Each time Lottysha Cato (56 goals), suddenly looking like a born-again attacker, aimed for the net, the bench shouted – just one shot.

An aggressive Grenada came out of the blocks flying – and by the end of the night, they got the one win, which, if it did not come, could have well led to a Tanteen summer of recriminations.

Grenada led by six points after the first quarter (17-11), but St Vincent and the Grenadines steadied themselves in the second, to whittle down the deficit as Grenada led by one.

St Vincent and the Grenadines had its best quarter in the fourth, scoring 20 in a 100 percent shooting masterclass under pressure, to Grenada’s 12.

For some period, it looked like Grenadian hearts would be broken again – but they held on – using their last center-pass to play around for time, until the seconds ran out – and then the final whistle became the moment.

St Vincent and the Grenadines were overall OECS Champions – winning on goal difference, or perhaps more accurately, on the goal attack of Mary-Ann Frederick, the tournament’s top scorer and overall MVP.

Her 92 percent overall shooting in the nine days was the best by a long shot.

Grenada placed second, leading to rue what might have been, if they had a Saturday night close to the one they had on Sunday.

But the joy of the night was strong enough to last until morning.

 

 

 It’s a sham, and a farce!

How the NNP Convention is not a legitimate exercise

ARCHIE BAIN, the last known Chairman of the NNP St George’s North West Constituency Group, and the manager of Dr Keith Mitchell’s last re-election campaign there, calls the entire arrangement for next Sunday’s party convention – a sham.

   I had also described it to a friend only a few hours before I saw his post – a farce.

   I knew what both words meant – without the need for any further reference – but in the circumstances – I wanted to be so exact – so I looked them up.

 

 Sham - a thing that is not what it is purported to be.

 Farce - a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay; (and in another instance) - an absurd event.

 

  The pending NNP convention has indeed nose-dived into both – a sham and a farce. And take that from Dr Mitchell’s campaign manager on the one hand, and his three-time campaign strategist on the other.

    And it is very unfortunate, though in many ways understandable, how this whole situation has been “personalized” – as if it is about Doc, or Peter or Emmalin.

    The subject of national debate is about something bigger than any one of them; it is about the state of the body politic – whether these three are at the center of it or not; it is whether our political processes are worthy of the times in which it should serve.

   It brings into question whether the New National Party – as it is currently (un)constituted – and whether it is led by Mitchell, Pierre or David – can be trusted ultimately to govern with accountability, and transparency; whether it can be trusted to be the defenders of democracy and fair play.

   Those are deep fundamental questions that the people of Grenada must ponder in the weeks and months ahead.

  What is in motion here is the de-legitimization of the NNP – as a credible force for good; an inexplicable act of political arson by Dr Mitchell himself.

   On a podcast on Friday night, Doc opined that what is happening in the lead up to next Sunday’s convention is nothing different to what they have done in the past 40 years.

   Given what we know and see now, it is a very damning self-assessment.

   He was right in one instance though – and wrong in the other.

   What is happening now with the gerrymandering and the underhand picking of delegates began from the very first NNP convention in 1984.

   And I know because it was not anything I read in a book, or a story that was told to me by someone. It happened to me.

   I was scheduled to be a delegate in the very first convention – supposedly one of the youngest.

    Under the NNP constitution, which still stands today – each group from each polling division gets to select two delegates for its convention.

   In 1984, representing the polling division CO2 (that’s upper Munich) were Hamlet Mark and Shirley McMillan.

    Those names were duly submitted.

   When we showed up at the convention, our names were not on the list – replaced completely by two different people, who were not even members of our group, much less qualified to be delegates.

    I was editor then of The National newspaper – which was the party organ, so I had close contacts with the people at the headquarters.

  When I asked them the Monday after – whatever happened to Shirley and my name – the ladies told me, Dr Mitchell (who was the general secretary designate and the one organizing for the convention) had asked that we be removed because we were “George Brizan people.”

 PS: That was the only 14 months of my life that I “did party.”

   And as a humorous side note – from the people I now see around the NNP – only Doc and Larry Joseph I remembered from that convention. Talk about “the belly of NNP?” – ah dee dey before Gregory Bowen and Peter David and Emmalin Pierre et al. (Maybe I should join back and run for leader then, having come from the belly?)

    But back to the main point - Doc is an experienced hand at fixing party conventions.

   Nowhere is it more bold-faced this time than in St Patrick’s East, St Patrick's West and St Andrew’s North West.

   I hope Wayne James makes it back on the list for St Andrew’s North West after Lorina Waldron was told to remove him because there is “some doubt” as to how he will vote. (Pastor Lewis you safe too?)

   The other thing Doc was not correct in his assertion however – that this is how it was done all the time – was in relation to the leadership contest.

   In NNP’s history there was only one leadership contest ever – when Keith Mitchell challenged Herbert Blaize and won in 1989.

   Mitchell’s nomination came from the floor (and rightly so), even though Blaize had asked him hours before if the “rumor” was true, and he skirted around giving him a direct answer.

   There was never some arbitrary committee which “screened” or “approved” potential leadership candidates; and there was nothing banning nominations from the floor.

  Doc was fairly the beneficiary of that.

   This time, in maneuvers directed by Doc himself, there is a Screening Committee, and there is the banning of nominations from the floor.

   As far as I understand, David’s campaign has asked for a list of the delegates that should have been finalized on Monday. He has been refused access to that list.

   How does someone go into an election – any election – for national or even boy scout and they cannot get to see, peruse and canvass the electors’ list?

    The protestations of the likes of Archie Bain and Prescot Swan, longstanding allies of Dr Mitchell, are telling.

   The frustration from me – someone Doc had enough confidence even as a teenager to ask my advice about challenging Blaize (which by the way I advised against) – comes from 10 years ago, when in speaking about how to strengthen his legacy, was the idea proffered about deepening the democracy in the party.  I tried to argue then (unsuccessfully) how that in the long term can strengthen both his hand and that of the party.

 

That was 2014.

 

Forget 2014 -- 2024 now looks a hell of a lot like 1984; all over again!

 

 

PS: Martin Luther King once wrote from the Birmingham jail: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."