We remain stuck on stuck. Or so it seems, Mr Editor. The blame game rages unabated as each party seeks to put the blame where they each think it (self) justifiably lies — at the other party’s doorstep.

The approach is exceedingly helpful, er, unhelpful, depending I suppose on which side you happen to support.

But I wonder if, for just once, the debate on what’s best for Bermuda could be lifted to new heights. You might not think that too difficult.

It was former US vice-president Spiro Agnew, was it not, who gave us that most memorable phrase when describing his critics in the press. He said that they were “nattering nabobs of negativism”.

Agnew didn’t stop there either, as I recall, and in flamboyant fashion also called them members of the 4-H club: the hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.

Mind you, he also had access to a very good speech writer: Williams Safire.

It was good for a laugh while it lasted. You may recall that VP Agnew served under President Richard Nixon. That’s a clue. Here’s another: both of them resigned their offices in disgrace.

But back to the plot this week: face it, folks, it’s difficult to shake off the criticism that you’re negative when you are in the Opposition. Anyone who has ever served on the Opposition benches knows that. Whether they choose to remember that or not is another matter.

We all know that the role of the Opposition is to take a critical view of all that the Government does, surprise, surprise, and to voice their views on behalf of those who they represent, as well as on behalf of those whom they do not, but who have concerns. They invariably do so in strong terms. To be heard, of course.

It’s also true that they can often go too far in their criticism. But we know it when we see it, or hear it, and invariably recognise it for what it is. Voters do not need the assistance of translators or interpreters to understand. So much of it is also written off as politics and put down to party politics: group think; group speak; parties appealing to their bases. We all know the deal.

Politicians are often accused of being polarising and divisive, but it isn’t just them. Pause for a moment and consider the politics of Bermuda and how politics is practised. Not to mention our history: two races, two parties, two Bermudas. The fault is definitely not just in our stars (literally or figuratively, and no matter how slick you think they may appear to be). It is we ourselves.

For instance: I couldn’t help but think of any number of former PLP premiers (the four of them, actually) who must have chuckled out loud when they heard the current premier complain about the constant negativity of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, now PLP, but formerly OBA and UBP, and now members of the current Government. The kettle, they must have thought, was truly calling the pot black (no pun intended, please).

Observation number one: it was ever thus. Question number one: will it always be thus?

Good luck with that. It will require an entirely new approach to governance, something which those in power are unlikely to want to take on. It means sharing power; losing total control; giving others, on the other side, your electoral opponents no less, opportunities to showcase their talents; and conceding that you, and they, may not have all the answers. Not easy.

They will also tell you in any event that they have bigger problems to solve: Like the economy (jobs, stupid) and mounting debt (don’t you get it?). I agree. These are serious and important issues, the solutions to which are critical to not just to our future success as a community but our future as a community. But surely community problems require community approaches.

Critics need to be put to the test. Meaningful opportunities to collaborate must be created for those on the other side, and become embedded in our system of governance as the standard means by which community problems are tackled and addressed, regardless of who or what party is in power.

There was the promise, the expectation, that the last election would lead to just this sort of change. It never did. Pity that: not just because it didn’t happen but because the opportunity that comes after an election has now been lost. That was the time when a new broom could have swept in promised change and when new approaches were not only anticipated but likely to have been embraced by an expectant electorate.

By changing nothing, nothing has really changed: apologies, Tony Robbins.

Halfway through the term, and one leader later, that opportunity sadly may now be gone. Already it looks like battle lines are being drawn, Mr Editor, and that the next election looms large.