Charisma, huh? Well, I agree, Mr Editor, to this extent: as has been often said, style is a good indication of substance. Not always, mind you, but often enough. This can be particularly true of those who perform in the political arena.

We do so admire the silver-tongued who can entertain us, sure, but who can also appeal to our higher nature, our collective hopes and aspirations, and take us to new heights, rather than those who seek to appeal to our baser nature and prey on our fears, our anxieties and, yes, our biases and prejudices. The trick is spotting which is which. There is also, Mr Trump, a profound difference between telling it like it is and like it isn’t or like it should be.

There are those, too, who believe that hard work will conquer all. About that we can never be too sure when it comes to politics. It certainly helps and can go a long way to success. But what’s also important is to keep the end constantly in view as well.

In politics, that means focusing on the goal, which is, ultimately, let’s face it, winning: whether election or re-election and winning the government. Remember, power and the loss of power are what count the most. Or so it seems.

What we, of course, hope is that somewhere along in this political equation, the best interests of Bermuda and her people are factored in. It also raises for consideration, as some of our readers have already done, the question of what constitutes a good politician. Good question.

There are some criteria by which voters can perform their evaluations. I list some:

• Canvassing: consistently and regularly, listening to constituents and, where possible, taking up their concerns

• Speaking up and out on issues of the day, whether in party caucus or the Legislature or both. Publicity doesn’t hurt, either, whether print, TV or radio. But keep it real. The canned stuff is like it looks: manufactured

• Attendance: this is key in the Legislature. It does not help to be counted MIA (missing in action) on an important vote

• Position: seen to be making a contribution to the advancement of the cause, and not just for party but for a better Bermuda

In the Westminster system, the latter can be challenging. Rare is the opportunity for a representative to have a hand in bringing forward legislation or developing new policy — unless, of course, you happen to be a government minister. Backbenchers are too often relegated to having to be critics (if in opposition) or cheerleaders (if on the Government benches) and, of course, simply to being votes in the cause when it counts — and to steal a line from Jeb Bush, who this week got off a surprising zinger when describing his fellow Republican contenders and their fight with Mr Trump for the nomination: they need to stop acting and looking like they are in a witness protection programme.

Not everyone can serve in the Cabinet — at once. But we understand aspirations — and here is where a more active, organised and visible committee system has a role to play. It is also an opportunity for MPs to understudy in preparation for ministerial portfolio or government, and whether through a seat on the Public Accounts Committee or on some other legislative committee of oversight much like the three that were recommended by the Sage Commission.

I know, Mr Editor, I am covering old ground. So be it. The need for greater and more effective oversight of the executive and government expenditure has never been more apparent.

The successive reports of successive Auditors-General have surely made out the case for reform.