St.Michael Central

Steve Blackett (DLP)                 Arthur Holder (BLP)

Bios

13 Responses to St.Michael Central

  1. Checkit-Out | May 6, 2012 at 8:10 PM |

    I am told by people from this constituency that Steve Blackett can’t get back his seat. However, his opponent does not appear to be particularly attractive as a politician while Steve Blackett in one-on-one situations comes through as very knowledgeable, engaging, totally patriotic to the DLP cause and somewhat wily. On the other hand I suspect his ministerial persona and reading might lose him some votes. With an islandwide swing Blackett may likely lose.

  2. Observing | May 7, 2012 at 9:41 AM |

    Advantage – DLP

    Even with a swing Holder is an unbelievably weak candidate.

  3. ! | May 8, 2012 at 11:14 PM |

    The current BLP leader never wanted Holder for this seat. He was Mottley”s pick.

  4. Prodigal Son | May 10, 2012 at 5:15 PM |

    What’s your point? When the dead king ousted Clyde Mascoll as leader of the Opposition, he told all the candidates they were deselected. The pitbull, David Estwick went on Brasstacks and did the dog, Frederick Smith called in and told David Estwick that if he had the power, he, Estwick would never cross the doors at George Street again. The dead king had to back down. When Dems do things, it is alright, when Bees do the same thing, it is a crime.

    What if the present leader did not want him? As far as I know all of the candidates were told that once they were nominated, he would stand by the choice of the branch.

    Now you cannot say so, right? Remember Verla Depeiza and the doctor for St Thomas?

  5. David | May 10, 2012 at 6:09 PM |

    @Prodigal Son

    You cannot have it both ways. You can’t say the BLP parliamentary group wanted Arthur over Mottley and then suggest Thompson assumed the position of leader of the opposition without support.

  6. Prodigal Son | May 10, 2012 at 7:20 PM |

    The difference in the two scenarios is that David Thompson walked away from the leadership because he was a lazy man who did not like hard work and when he was ready, he came back, pushed out Mascoll. Mascoll had to resign to save face. The BLP called back Owen Arthur to be leader, Thompson came back to claim his throne. Remember the part Peter Wickham, Hartley Henry and Cranston Brown played. Remember the part Phillip Greaves played, he told Mascoll he was not DLP leadership material and that he should resign and let DT become leader. This only happened a few years ago you know, I know Bajans have short memories.

  7. David | May 10, 2012 at 7:37 PM |

    @Prodigal Son

    Again you are incorrect. Thompson’s withdrawal was strategic because he new the popularity of Arthur would have inflicted a predicable defeat on him in 2003. To reiterate, he could only have resumed as leader of the opposition with the support of Jones, Sealy et al.

  8. Prodigal Son | May 10, 2012 at 7:53 PM |

    David,
    You made my point, he ran away and then came back when it was time to reclaim his throne because he was born to become PM or so he said. It helped that he had people who were willing to ditched Mascoll and support him.

  9. ! | May 10, 2012 at 8:09 PM |

    The major difference between Mascoll and Mia Mottley is that Mascoll is a political lightweight. If he had played his political cards right, he would be sitting pretty at the seat of power todayand not carping every week in a newspaper trying to sacrifice his economics on the altar of political expedience and opportunism.

    Mascoll does not give a damn about the BLP but his ego was too big to step down and regroup so he jumped ship to get back at them. He is cosying up to the BLP as a “mock B”.
    Arthur realised that the BLP cabinet was sooo empty that he had to look into the DLP for a “coleader”.

  10. Roverp | October 15, 2012 at 2:52 PM |

    This seat is interesting as it cannot be considered either a DEM or BLP seat…

  11. PLANTATION DEEDS FROM 1926-2013 AND SEE MASSIVE FRAUD ,LAND TAX BILLS AND NO DEEDS | January 7, 2013 at 4:14 PM |

    http://bajan.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/the-violet-beckles-affair-separating-fact-from-fiction-part-i/#commentsAUD

    READ BEFORE YOU VOTE , ASK FOR CLEAR TITLES NOT GOOD FRAUD TITLES.

  12. PLANTATION DEEDS FROM 1926-2013 AND SEE MASSIVE FRAUD ,LAND TAX BILLS AND NO DEEDS | January 13, 2013 at 7:53 AM |

    http://bajan.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/the-violet-beckles-affair-separating-fact-from-fiction-part-v/

BU welcomes your comments: comments on the site do not always reflect the views of BU.  For more information checkout our Comments Policy at the top of the page. If you see an error report it, include a link to the story.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s