Last summer, the Progressive Labour Party government released its Economic Development Strategy. This document is meant to be Bermuda’s way out of the financial quagmire we have been in for far too long. I read the document and quickly forgot about it — because it is not much more than a large collection of shallow ideas and warm, fuzzy statements.

A strategic plan should be based on research. It should contain statistics, rationales, budgets, timelines, milestones, etc. This “strategy” does not.

Michael Fahy wrote a column on January 22 when he dared to ask scary questions such as, why is Cayman’s economy doing so well while Bermuda’s seems to be stuck in reverse? Instead of merely asking the question, he actually had the gall to put forward a few suggestions. Not once did he attack the Government. He actually proposed potential solutions and even asked readers to share their own.

How dare he!

For Fahy’s sins, PLP MP Christopher Famous wrote a response. To point out the obvious, here was a superb opportunity for Mr Famous to remind the public about the Economic Development Strategy. He could have humbly stated that we could have done some things differently, but here is where we are going now. But instead of promoting the Government’s plan for making us competitive, Mr Famous zealously attacked Mr Fahy for ... politics!

Perhaps he, too, forgot the Government’s Economic Development Strategy.

Things got weird in Mr Famous’s attack really fast. His opening salvo was to claim that Mr Fahy was incorrect — lying — about Cayman having a state-of-the-art incinerator. OK, Mr Famous is right that Cayman does not already have a state-of-the-art incinerator. But what he didn’t mention, most likely on purpose, is that Cayman is on the verge of signing a contract to build “a state-of-the-art energy recovery and recycling centre that will transform solid waste management”. Whereas Cayman has a billionaire investor taking risks on its economy, Bermuda is wishing on a star for a Band-Aid fix for Tynes Bay Incinerator.

To Mr Fahy’s suggestion that Bermuda should allow taller buildings, Famous replied with:

“Perhaps Mr Fahy should have a word with the different organisations that object to almost every proposed development for hotels and office buildings.”

Again, this is weird because it’s as if Mr Famous is blaming the protesters for the lack of investors seeking to build taller buildings and hotel developments. Not only is this notion wildly incorrect, it is very much beside the point. Mr Famous would have us forget that the Government’s own development advisers rejected the plans as submitted. He would also have us ignore the need for a more transparent and objective process for a minister overruling decisions by the Department of Planning and Development Applications Board. Most importantly, Mr Famous would have us forget the resignation of the former finance minister over his concerns about future hotel development.

Mr Fahy also suggested that we should mutualise government departments, as the Free Democratic Movement suggested. Mr Famous hit back with:

“Well, it didn’t take him long to throw Marc Bean under the bus. Mr Fahy is actually attempting to rewrite history. It was under his watch as home affairs minister that the One Bermuda Alliance proposed to mutualise or privatise government departments.”

Perhaps I’m missing something, but exactly how does Mr Fahy’s failure to mention that the OBA first proposed mutualisation throw Marc Bean under the bus? After several days and lots of caffeine consumed, I still can’t find a logical connection here. Mr Famous didn’t weigh up whether mutualisation is something worth looking into; instead, he seems to be trying to create some kind of friction between Mr Fahy and Mr Bean. Why? It’s all quite weird!

Moving away from suggestions, Mr Fahy went on to claim that the United Bermuda Party is dead. This claim is arguable, and it was bound to attract some attention. But instead of making a solid case for why the UBP ethos exists in the OBA, Famous once again replied in bizarre fashion:

“While in government, the majority of OBA ministers were formerly members of the UBP. As it stands now, one third of their existing parliamentarians — Michael Dunkley, Susan Jackson and Doug De Couto — are former UBP members. The UBP ethos still exists.”

If Mr Famous wanted to make an argument that the UBP ethos still exists, resorting to weird shell-game mathematics is hardly the way to go about it. As it stands now, both political parties have three former UBP MPs. But it is not the number or percentage of former UBP Cabinet ministers or MPs that proves the existence of a past ethos; it is a political party’s actions.

As a former PLP political activist put it last year:

“Speaking as someone who was involved when PLP was in opposition and who was deep in the campaign in 1998, and who has seen the 2017+ PLP, I will debate you anywhere, anytime on the motion: the PLP today (philosophy, priorities, & policies), is closer to the UBP than the OG PLP.”

Many voters are now waking up to that harsh reality.

Mr Famous’s reply to Mr Fahy would not have been complete without some weird scaremongering:

“Our progress cannot be via giving away status and allowing us to become a minority in our own island, as is the case in Turks & Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands and, yes, Cayman Islands.”

First, born Caymanians have only recently become a population minority. Born Caymanians are not a minority to Cayman status recipients.

Second, emigration is very much deciding for Bermuda what kind of population we need to survive and thrive.

Third, there are about 45,000 Bermudians, and 20,000 expatriates on the island. Assuming that the population of Bermudians remains unchanged, the number of expatriates would need to more than double to even remotely approach 45,000. That would bring our entire population to 90,000 on 21square miles. We should all know that this is utter fiction, which makes it so weird that Famous would put it out there in the first place.

Last, but certainly not least, I must mention Mr Famous’s final defence of his column in the Gazette comments section:

“To the bigger point. Fahy’s argument is not about increasing the working population. His focus has been and remains giving away Bermudian status.”

It took me 60 seconds to find the 2016 Pathways to Status presentation online. Unlike what Mr Famous has claimed, the document quite clearly shows eight slides that directly address Bermuda’s population challenges. I’m not claiming that Mr Fahy was right, or that the OBA tried to bring about immigration reform the right way. But I can read for myself, and it’s extremely clear that the Pathways presentation was focused on Bermuda’s growing population crisis.

It has been eight years since Pathways, and we have still not seen comprehensive immigration reform.

In 2024, Mr Fahy has gone out of his way to make suggestions and ask the public to share their own suggestions on how to fix things. In contrast, Mr Famous went out of his way to firehose readers with deflections, disinformation and demagoguery.

Unfortunately, that’s not weird at all.

• Bryant Trew can be contacted via e-mail at bryanttrew@mac.com