for the Government to trip up, the Progressive Labour Party's run-up to the General Election has been almost flawless.

But on Wednesday, when the party unveiled its next four General Election candidates, it was the PLP's turn to stumble -- although it did not fall on its face.

That is because community activist Cromwell Shakir's decision not to run in Warwick West seems to have caught the PLP by surprise and left them looking rigid and inflexible.

The PLP announced that George Scott -- who ran a strong fourth in the 1993 General Election in Warwick West -- will represent the party in Paget West, where his chances of winning are slim to none.

Why not run Mr. Scott in Warwick West? Because, according to the PLP, the relevant committees had already met and decided to have him tilt at windmills in Paget instead.

It's surprising that the PLP does not have the flexibility to change course when the opportunity presents itself.

Doubtless, the PLP is quite pleased with the departure of Mr. Shakir, who had the support of the Warwick West branch and incumbent MP Ewart Brown but was not seen as a winning candidate by the party's leadership and was said to be lagging in both parties' constituency polls.

It may be that the Opposition has an even stronger candidate in mind -- and some names, including that of Bermuda Cricket Board of Control president and Warwick Workmen's Club stalwart El James has been mentioned -- but it seems to be a strange way of approaching what is certain to be one of the most fiercely fought constituencies in the Election.

By presenting a strong candidate in the constituency, the PLP can turn a potential liability into an asset -- and it must be said that at worst, the move turned a predicatble announcement of candidates into a newsworthy event and kept the PLP's name in the headlines.

SENATE WASTE EDT Senate waste Wednesday's aborted Senate debate on transport is certain to raise questions about the value of the upper house.

Because some Senators -- and it is still not clear who -- were not ready to debate the discussion papers on Government's proposal for transport, the upper house failed to do any substantive business.

The decision begs the question of how the Senators -- who have had the transport policy papers for months -- could not be prepared to debate and it also makes one wonder how it was that the Government was unable to tell the Senate what was on the agenda until just days before.

The Senate has an important constitutional role to play as a check against the power of the ruling party in the House of Assembly. But if there are more repeats of Wednesday's fiasco, more and more people will question whether it is capable of fulfilling its purpose.