In the House of Assembly last week – the opening of a session that Will go down in history as the one that shattered Prime Minister Christie’s faith in the Opposition’s two leaders – Mr Christie was at great pains to remind Independent MP Larry Cartwright of the debt of gratitude that he owed the PLP for his seat in the House as the representative for Long Island and Ragged Island.
Mr Cartwright, a newcomer to the House, wrested the FNM’s Long Island seat from veteran Jimmy Knowles in the May, 2002 elections. Having won as an Independent candidate he told his constituents that he would probably decide to join one of the two political parties before the term of the House ended. A few weeks ago he decided to rejoin the FNM and announced his decision at the House’s opening session last Wednesday.
“I would truly wish to address the member of parliament for Long Island and Ragged Island,” Mr Christie told Mr Cartwright who took his seat with FNM members, leaving a lonely corner to the remaining three Independents.
Mr Christie said he wanted to “indicate” to Mr Cartwright that he hoped “he is aware of the fact that he is sitting in the House of Assembly because the PLP elected not to run against him in the last election… But I would like to just observe that but for the support of the (PLP) party, the FNM candidate could well have won this seat and to recognise that we must now move forward because the member of parliament has now made his decision.”
Mr Christie also reminded Mr Cartwright of how much the PLP government had done for his Ragged Island and Long Island constituents, even more than it had done for some members of its own party. He pointed out to Mr Cartwright that the PLP government had done even “more for that constituency than the party he has now joined.”
He enumerated how much his government had done, especially for Ragged Island. “My government,” he said, “has decided to spend more in your constituency on Ragged Island on a per capita basis than on any other constituency. We have decided to put infrastructure there of a major kind – water, airport, dock, the electricity. The fibre optic cables allowed those in Ragged Island to even be able to see TV, even the Speech from the Throne.” The PLP government was obviously trying to woo this constituency away from its FNM roots, and secure it in the PLP fold.
The prime minister’s whole tone to Mr Cartwright seemed to be saying: How dare you show such ingratitude.
Despite it all, Mr Cartwright had made his decision. “And so, therefore, my brother and friend, member for Long Island, I wish you well, we will obviously meet in the field,” said Mr Christie in his farewell oration. And then he added ominously: “We will look carefully at Long Island to see whether Long Island needs adjusting…” These words were greeted with mocking laughter from the PLP side.
It would seem that instead of the following day’s radio talk shows being full of empty chatter as to why Messrs Ingraham and Symonette were not at the opening of the House, callers should have been trying to dissect what Mr Christie meant by his parting words that appeared to be a veiled threat. In our opinion these words seemed far more threatening to democracy than did the absence from the House of the two Opposition members.
If Mr Christie had paused to think before he spoke in the House last week, he probably would have remained silent. His memory failed him badly that day.
Did Mr Christie, who was fired from the Pindling Cabinet in 1984, forget that if it had not been for the FNM he would not have won his seat in the House in the 1987 election? He probably would never have been returned to parliament, and he certainly would not have been prime minister today. As in the case of Mr Cartwright and the PLP, the FNM decided in 1987 not to contest Mr Christie’s seat, giving him a clear run against the PLP.
The same was done for Mr Ingraham in Cooper’s Town. That was the first time that two Independents were returned to the House, despite the Pindling administration’s cruel decision to end their political careers. They bath had the FNM to thank for their victory.
When decision time came three years later, Mr Christie – as did Mr Cartwright with the PLP – forgot about the FNM’s leg up and – like Mr Cartwright returning to his FNM roots – Mr Christie decided to return to his PLP roots. In 1990 he was sworn back into the Pindling Cabinet, leaving Mr Ingraham as the sole Independent in the House.
At the time a critic accused him of being like a “dog returning to his vomit.” Caught up in the euphoria of the moment, a jubilant Mr Christie, overjoyed at being back in the seat of power; sent a message at a PLP rally to his critic: “Take this word back for me. For the love, for the emotional support that these people gave me I will swim in the vomit.”
In view of his own political decision in 1990, what gave Mr Christie the right to point an accusing finger at Mr Cartwright?
Editor, The Tribune
