---

Those of us old enough to remember the old UBP in its heyday can be excused for wondering if the 'new' party is up to its old tricks.

In the 70s and 80s the party would strike viciously with character assassination and/or economic sanctions at any challenge to the ruling cabal. It was an effective strategy, dissuading anyone from making any less-than-affirming statement about the party or its leaders for fear that they too would become targets.

From an impersonal perspective, there can be little difference to the party between the actions of an Alex Outerbridge (was it twenty years ago?) publicly claiming support for the PLP, and the actions today of Jamahl Simmons, David Dunkley, Gwyneth Rawlins and Maxwell Burgess publicly stepping away from the party fold. To the impersonal party, 'If you're not with us, then you're against us'.

Fortunately, the new UBP no longer has the power to make its adherents cower, its critics quake and its leavers crumble. Unfortunately, judging by how it is handling this situation, it would if it could.

The UBP is obviously in trouble: Four members are bowing out (I'll refer to them as 'the leavers'). The party leadership is in crisis. The party is resorting to twisted logic and the last ditch of defences, shooting of the messengers.

A few examples:

n On Shirley Dill's talk show last Sunday, Deputy UBP Leader Michael Dunkley was simultaneously praising the party leader for not shooting the messenger, while he and new UBP Chairman Shaun Crockwell were systematically aiming a fusillade at the leavers;

n A succession of UBP MPs has been lining up to say they haven't experienced any racism. This enables Mr. Crockwell to declare, "If there is no evidence there can be no indictment". He shouldn't forget, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

n It seems the UBP is asking us to turn logic on its head. If one solitary person cried "racism", that charge might be dismissible. If two people make the same claim, the first is corroborated, certainly reinforced, by the second. If three people tell the same story, one would find the story difficult to discount. Yet, in the face of this double corroboration, the UBP is suggesting that the additional evidence makes the story less believable, not more.

n Perhaps the least understandable aspect of the affair has been the UBP's attempt to pin their troubles on the PLP. The UBP has regularly cast the PLP as incompetent, unintelligent, incapable of doing anything right, and so on. Yet, now UBP pundits are claiming that this 'incompetent' party has masterminded the disenchantment of one of their longest-standing parliamentarians, the disaffection of their brightest rising star, the disillusionment of a deeply embedded party stalwart, and the departure of a devoted administrative chairperson. It would be laughable if the idea wasn't so pathetically at odds with itself.

Actions not words

Instead of denials and retribution, a 'new' UBP could say: There's something here we need to look at, and we will. We regret it has got to the point that we are losing the allegiance of people who have served the party well. We wish we had been able to defuse the problem before it exploded and we intend to do better in the future. We are now encouraging any members past or present at any level of the party to come forward if they can shed light on racial, gender or other issues that might disunite us."

The UBP must keep in mind that it is under the microscope and will be judged more by its actions than its words. All the talk about harmony and inclusion will be seen as hollow if its actions are otherwise.[[In-content Ad]]

---