So apparently the OBA wanted to consider pulling back the referendum on casino gambling all the way back to at least April of 2013, and commissioned a study to investigate how to do it.
It's a "typical politics" approach from a political party that from inception pledged "A Better Way" and ran a campaign based on transparency and being honest. That now, has clearly been blown out of the water.
While the PLP and its staunchest supporters may be in no position to claim the moral high ground when it comes to secret strategies designed to maneuver around (and attempt to manipulate!) the will of the public, Joe Public has every right to be at the very least disappointed in these tactics.
This released document also begs the question of if the events of last October where the Opposition leader was called into a private meeting, followed by the reveal of the referendum question followed by the scrapping of such, was all an orchestration where the OBA deliberately threw a loaded question, guaranteeing a PLP backlash and thus providing impetus to scrap the referendum altogether under the guise of "attempted sabotage (via boycott or otherwise) by the PLP"?
The other major question I have is that if this situation is true, why did Government pass the bill to allow cruise ships to open their casinos in port? Was that part of the overall strategy, of a truly tactical blunder on their part? Because, if you're planning to open casinos on-island, why discourage cruise ship visitors from partaking in the new on-shore product by allowing on-ship casinos to compete for the tourist dollars?
Finally, and this has been asked by several others in the past, is what happened to change the minds of several MPs who rejected similar gambling bills in 2009? Not one MP to my knowledge has divulged their feelings on that particular aspect matter, and that's disappointing again... which seems the be the recurrent theme when it comes to most politicians in Bermuda.
2 comments:
Who cares. At least they aren't blatantly stealing from us.
I totally get that it's not a big deal to some folks, and that for some it represents a clear 'lesser of two evils' thing, or even that it's going to become one of those "This too shall pass" moments as far as public opinion goes.
But isn't it fair to hope for or even demand better? - especially if the next questions could get asked on which parties or persons could immediately recoup the benefits of such insider goings-on?...
Post a Comment