Last Friday's Motion to Adjourn was a particularly unpleasant display, even for Bermuda's Parliamentary "debates". The embarrassing scene began when the United Bermuda Party's Louise Jackson rose to turn up the pressure cooker that is the Bermuda Housing Trust (BHT), and the treatment of our seniors by the PLP Government.

Somewhere among the insults, the vitriol and the raised voices, was a peek into the current state of both political parties

Former Premier Jennifer Smith, responding to Mrs. Jackson, delivered probably the most insightful speech. The rebuttal was short, shrill (the House and Grounds committee might want to check for hairline cracks in the windows), and dwelled entirely on the past.

The Deputy Speaker reminded Parliamentarians of the causes which the PLP had effectively championed during their 30-plus years in Opposition. She went on to point out how this pressure resulted in successive UBP Governments adopting these ideas as their own.

Ms Smith's point is well taken, although unique neither to Bermuda nor the past. Governments worldwide tend to act as much as a result of pressure tactics as they do because of a great vision or foresight. Visionary Governments don't come along often, although that is what many had hoped for after the 1998 election.

What Ms Smith and her colleagues don't realise ? or choose to ignore ? is that this same dynamic is at work today, only in reverse. The PLP Government is frequently forced to act because of pressure and advocacy by the Opposition, community groups and individuals.

In other cases however, where you'd expect to see a little compassion from a progressive party, they refuse to budge, or worse still act in contravention of the party's supposed core values, the BHT serving as the latest example.

The commissioning of the recent taxpayer-funded focus groups would suggest that the PLP is aware that they've lost the connection with those they purport to represent from the grassroots up, they're out of touch and have squandered the support of a generous public.

Ms Smith's history lesson highlighted a tragic irony: the PLP are resorting to the trumpeting of their past successes as an opposition as a replacement for their current performance.

The UBP members have been quick studies and are using these tactics well, bringing substantial pressure to bear on critical issues. The tables have been turned, but the PLP haven't likewise raised their game when on the receiving end of their own tactics.

The PLP's effectiveness as an Opposition ? a pressure group ? might also be their Achilles heel? Could the very traits that made them a successful Opposition party be retarding them as an effective Government?

This opposition style is so ingrained that they're unable to transcend confrontation with entirely avoidable crises over crime, housing, seniors, education and healthcare for example?

Indeed, if you listen regularly to Parliamentary debate and follow the speeches of the PLP closely, you'll note an inability to move out of the past. After seven years, you would expect to be hearing about the advancement of a progressive social policy in their time as Government, not credit-taking for the UBP years and a last ditch effort at patching together a Social Agenda.

It is evident that the PLP are effective at advocacy but ineffective at implementation. But could the UBP be the counter-balance to this equation?

After all, UBP Governments have, by the PLP's own admission, successfully implemented PLP identified issues alongside their own. This argument implicitly acknowledges that the PLP haven't achieved the same level of success as a government as they did as an opposition. If that was the case surely they'd be touting those.

History ? and Jennifer Smith's own words ? suggests that the UBP has been more effective at following through on PLP ideas than the PLP themselves.

Couple that with the UBP's current seven-year experience as an Opposition, where they've refocused and re-connected with the public, and you might just have a UBP Government-in-waiting that is less in need of that historical PLP pressure.

In fact, if you've been paying attention to the UBP's critiques, throne and budget replies, you'll notice that they don't just criticise, they follow-up that criticism with their own plan.

Could we have a perfectly balanced equation? Could Bermuda be best served with a PLP pressure group (Opposition) prodding the UBP (Government) towards public policy implementation?

Have the supposed adversaries been bringing out the best in each other for the betterment of the community all along? Is it time to reset the equation?