“The same boiling water that softens the potato hardens the egg ...”— Unknown

I am no political consultant, Mr Editor, and with that disclaimer out of the way, let’s get down to it. The business of politics is no easy business and strategy is often key to success or failure. I know, I know, I’m stating the obvious. To some maybe, but to all, maybe not. There are some fundamentals when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of voters on the difficult and the controversial decisions; and winning the hearts and minds of voters is pretty damn important in any democracy, parliamentary included, if you and your party are going to stand any chance of electoral success at the polls the next time around. A little preparatory work is usually in order. It can go something like this:

• Identify the arguments for and against

• Test them, if you can (which is why polling by parties is so popular, assuming they have the time and the money)

• Drill down to the arguments that will likely have the greatest positive impact Simple, huh? Not always.

The issue of permanent resident’s certificates and Pathways to Status is a glaring example. Two arguments were identified early on:

• The right thing to do (in light of recent court decisions here and elsewhere)

• Economic necessity (we need people, people, and their money)

Those making the decisions typically have the advantage — at least from the outset. They get to frame the arguments in ways they hope will bring about the desired result.

There was some trouble with that:

• The right thing to do very much depends on the eye on the beholder and tends to cut both ways.

It works best only when adopted uniformly — and good luck with that. For example, the beholder may well wonder why the right thing to do in one case was not done — a promised referendum on casino gaming — but is ignored in another case by way of referendum (same-sex marriage).

• The economic argument takes some convincing for people who are out of work, or seeing less work, and are worried about their future prospects and those of their children. Their fears, their concerns, their anxieties are understandable and legitimate.

Add to that strong counter-arguments that were bound to emerge, based chiefly on our history when it comes to immigration reform and what it has meant in the past, both in terms of demographics and the vote. There are strong views on each side, pro and con, throughout the community, which reflect not just the political divide, but our racial divide as well.

Division and discord were utterly and entirely predictable. The script practically writes itself.

I pause to make the point again that others seem conveniently to ignore or overlook or disregard. The parliamentary means for collaboration should not depend on what any MP or group of MPs has to say on the issue; it should be standard operating procedure. Neither should it depend on whether MPs do or do not have a position on the matters referred to committee.

Committees are a means for MPs to question and to explore issues in the sunshine of public scrutiny, to hear and to evaluate the options. What the heck; they may come up with recommendations, some of which are agreed. This is their value.

It matters not their opinions going in, but rather coming out. But just as importantly, if not more importantly, the general public are also engaged whether it be by way of information or representation. It’s an opportunity to hear and be heard.

We knew immigration needed an overhaul, almost from the day the One Bermuda Alliance took over the government, and they told us so. The Act itself is 60 years old: Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act 1956. The groundwork by way of bipartisan parliamentary committee could have been laid long before now.

Instead, we are treated to a full-court press (pun intended) after the fact. It provokes rather than mends and, on any view, we are once more a community in need of additional repair on and off the Hill — and, as it has proven to be the case in the past, that will now be no easy task as words and actions escalate and “the two sides” become entrenched.

Can no one remember what it is like when the shoe was on the other foot? There again, maybe that is the problem. They do remember.

It isn’t always the system, Mr Editor. I complete the quotation with which I began:

“The same boiling water that softens the potato hardens the egg. It’s about what you’re made of, not the circumstances.”