The premier’s new tune
A Beaconite has learned that tunes change — especially in politics. But lately, the premier seems to be conducting a full orchestra of contradictions. When the so-called “Greedy Bill” first hit the headlines before the April 2023 election, he struck a clear note: He would not, under any circumstance, take “a dime” from the post-term salary scheme that caused public outrage. But now the melody has softened. At a recent press conference, he said decisions like that should be left for “individual members and their families” to make — later. Translation: Maybe he’ll take the money, but maybe he won’t. Of course, the premier is only human. Everyone is allowed to change their mind. But when the same man who speaks passionately about independence, transparency and public trust also hedges on questions of self-benefit, the audience can’t help wondering what song he’s really playing. Because this is not just about money. Governments across the Caribbean — and around the globe — have long offered post-service benefits to their leaders. The difference lies in the delivery. When Westminster adjusts its pension scheme, the public debate is loud and often brutal. In Washington, even the smallest salary adjustment is dissected in public hearings. In the Virgin Islands, however, the music often plays behind closed doors, and the lyrics tend to reach the public only after the encore. The Beaconite doesn’t claim conspiracy — but the harmony between independence talk, airport expansion plans, and quiet financial manoeuvring does strike a curious chord. Is it all coincidence? Maybe. Or maybe this is the rhythm of a government trying to secure its legacy while preparing for the long fade-out after the final encore. Still, the Beaconite would like to think it’s not cynicism, but just human nature. Perhaps the premier, like anyone nearing a crossroads, is humming the tune of self-reflection. Perhaps he’s thinking about what life looks like after public life, when the podium lights are no longer fixed on him. To the Beaconite, the real question isn’t whether he’ll take the money, but what the changing tune says about the song itself — and who it’s really for. Until then, the Beaconite will keep listening. Because in the VI, politics always comes with a soundtrack.
Bad cop, bad cop?
The Constitution may not seem like a sexy subject to most people, but the political elite are getting very excited about it as negotiations with London loom. A Beaconite could not help noticing a not-so-subtle shift in gear in recent weeks as Premier Natalio “Sowande” Wheatley used a keynote address to the United Nations committee on decolonisation in New York on Oct. 7 to pull the trigger and fire the loaded words “timetable for independence.” This came just after Financial Services and Economic Development Junior Minister Lorna Smith used highly emotive language in a House of Assembly debate on constitutional arrangements. Referring to the current state of relations with Britain, Ms. Smith declared that it felt “a lot more like confrontation and less like a partnership between us and the United Kingdom.” In a way, the government seems to have decided on a bad cop, bad cop approach in trying to get as much as possible out of the United Kingdom. Maybe it’s a laudable strategy, but is it realistic if London thinks the territory is overplaying its hand? Last week, British Overseas Territories Minister Stephen Doughty made it plain to the House of Commons that he “will not hesitate to act” in order to speed up the reform agenda in the VI — prompting a sharp retort from an unusually united HOA. In recent interviews and conversations with the premier on the constitutional issue, the Beaconite formed the distinct impression that Mr. Wheatley was much less interested in rushing independence than in forming an association with the United Kingdom which would give the territory greater financial freedoms and weaken the governor’s influence in areas such as law and order and the civil service. But perhaps the real sell will be in broadening out the debate from the tiny political class obsessed with it to the wider population. In that regard, though, the HOA’s decision to debate the constitutional reforms behind closed doors is a step in the wrong direction.
