On Friday, September 2, the BIU held its 25th Labour Day banquet. The guest speaker was Mr. Julian Hall who from most accounts gave a typical Julian Hall address ? stirring, thought provoking and very entertaining. Yet, again not surprising, there was a minority who felt that the address was not as supportive of the Progressive Labour Party as it might have been. Still others perceived it as a virulent attack on the Progressive Labour Party.

However, it would seem that the general consensus was that were many, many more who supported his address than there were detractors. Among the supporters, there were many who expected no less from Julian. For these dear souls, their attendance at the banquet was as much to hear a brilliant son of the soil as it was to demonstrate their happiness that he had been so completely successful in beating back the legal attacks by his enemies. For those people, the address would have been a resounding success even if Julian had merely said or sung the single word "Boo".

Others wanted to hear an analysis of what political action Julian thought was necessary to meet the interests of Bermuda in general and Bermuda's underpaid, poorly housed workers in particular. These listeners heard a mild criticism of the PLP leadership and a much stronger plea that workers in attendance at the packed banquet and Bernard Park must join the PLP branches and in that way exercise much needed influence over its Leadership. I have been made to understand that this particular point endeared Julian to the large numbers of active and retired Union members who were at the Banquet, the majority of whom were most definitely supporters of the Progressive Labour Party.

Still, it has been widely reported that a vocal minority at the banquet took issue with what Julian had to say, not because they disagreed but because they did not feel that serious criticism of the PLP from such a high profile member, should have been aired in public "We should criticise in house" was the oft repeated cry from this group.

Certainly one group was extremely pleased with what Julian had to say. These were those persons who read his "confessions" in the media on which occasion he provided substance to those who believed certain negative things about his personal life and who were delighted at his unabashed criticism of the PLP. There can be no doubt that these people wanted more of the same.

From my personal viewpoint, I cannot accept the frequent complaint that members of the PLP should not criticise their party in public. The only people who should observe this obligation strictly are the members of the Cabinet and the officers of the party. For the rest of the party membership, public criticism may be the only way to communicate their concerns to the rest of the party.

I suppose I have this point of view because I once was expelled from the PLP along with five others for expressing myself with respect to the need to change the PLP leadership.

At the time Dame Lois Browne Evans was the leader of the party and doing a good job, considering what she had to work with. Still I did not think so at the time. The revolt and the ultimate expulsions led to the election of Mr. L. Frederick Wade as leader.

Unfortunately, Mr. Wade also did not meet with my approval. Still, he turned out to be an excellent leader. In fact, most people concur ? since his death ? he was the best leader the party ever had. And of course, we are assured by those people that things would have been so much better had he lived.

There are three observations I would like to make about my own revolt against the party leadership. Firstly, Mr. Julian Hall contributed importantly to the expulsion of the dissidents. Secondly, Mr. Wade who turned out to be such a fine leader moved the motion for expulsion. Thirdly, the members of the party who shared my dissent with the leadership were all very substantial men in the community with excellent reputations. A direct result of the expulsion of these men was the creation of the NLP and reduction of the seats held by the Progressive Labour Party from a high of 18 in 1980 to a low of seven in 1985.

Does that experience prove that dissension always results in irreparable division? No! The UBP also had major leadership disputes during its 35 years of political dominance that resulted in four UBP party leaders being forced out of the premiership as a result of deep seated dissension.

These Premiers were Sir John Sharpe, Sir David Gibbons, Sir John Swan, and Dr. David Saul. Dame Pamela Gordon avoided a resignation as Premier but had the dubious distinction of being the first UBP premier to be defeated at the polls.

I needed to summarise the history of the demise of UBP Premiers to silence the criticisms that are already beginning to emerge about how the "white man" keeps his dirty linen hidden from public view. The members of the public that did not know about the UBP 'internal slaughters' could outperform the ostrich in terms of self-imposed blindness.

All mature political groups understand that human beings have a natural tendency to dissent. It has been going on in every country since Cain assassinated Abel. The need to kill a leader in order to change a system of government was the general rule until the creation of democracy not too long ago by the more enlightened European nations.

Basically, democracy is a method of changing a government without bloodshed. The contestants for power appeal to the people for their support and the people respond by means of a vote. The person, group or groups with the majority of the votes wins the right to govern.

I maintain that this system should be applied in all aspects of political decision making in Bermuda and not restricted to the trade unions. How would it be applied with the goal of resolving the growing conflict within the PLP?

It is clear to me that the current conflict could be resolved very easily by using the same democratic process that is used in the selection of the national government.

We might begin by encouraging debate of the PLP performance at the branch level. Conclusions reached at the branch level should be introduced for further debate at the level of the Central Committee and the Cabinet. If the resolution of the dispute requires a change in the constitution, this should be handled at the Annual Delegates Conference or at a Special Delegates Conference.

Personally, I feel that the deep concerns generated by Mr. Hall's address to the BIU Annual Labour Day Banquet and at the celebration at the Bernard Park have served to reveal that there are serious questions among hard core PLP loyalists about the performance of the PLP since attaining the government. The evidence of this deep concern is that the only criticism of Mr. Hall's address among PLP loyalists was the fact that he chose to criticise the PLP in public, not that the criticism was unfair.

Clearly, this is resounding support for the growing viewpoint that the forthcoming Delegates Conference should be used to thrash out all divisive issues in preparation for the next General Election.