The following is the text of a speech Devonshire South MP John Barritt gave to Hamilton Rotary on Tuesday May 22.

Third Party Politics, or pass the pliers, they're downsizing democracy.

From talking with (Rotarian) Toppy Cowen about a topic it soon became clear to me it would have to involve politics... And very early on in our conversation up came the subject of all this recent talk of a new or third political party. Okay I thought let me deal with that first.

Talk of a third party has I think been around for some time now and recently emerged again in the news media with speculation on a possible merger between the UBP and NLP.

I was named as one of those involved in active discussions. For the record I have not been involved in any such talks, formal or informal. I am not even aware that any such discussions are going on at any level of the UBP. I also have no idea of how the story got started. For all I know it may have been one of my own colleagues.

While I have no idea of who is responsible for the rumours, I am not at all surprised that such speculation has surfaced -- it is not just a good story (if it were true) but a reflection I think of the sort of change a good number in the community are looking for.

Speaking for myself I detect more and more -- in quiet conversations with more and more people -- an unfulfilled desire for a change in the way our political leaders conduct the country's business or more precisely a change in the way in which our Parliamentarians conduct themselves in undertaking the Country's business.

If radio talk shows are any gauge, there's more vocal evidence of disillusionment disenchantment and dare I say it, disgust, with politicians on the part of some.

But this is not new or unusual political phenomena. In fact I believe it is as natural as the undertow which flows from the waves that crash on the south shore. Criticism followed successive UBP governments like flies followed honey.

But is there something new in the air? I believe there is.

There was hope for change with the election of a new Government in November 1998. The first Progressive Labour Party Government after 30 some years in opposition. Hope that was fuelled chiefly by the PLP itself which not only held out the hope but the promise of a New Bermuda for all Bermudians.

Now some two and a half years on, people have had a chance to watch the promise translated into action and make an evaluation not on words but on deeds.

The French have a wonderful saying: La plus la change la plus le meme. Loosely translated: The more things change the more they stay the same. Or as we are more likely to say here in Bermuda: Sounds like the same old, same old (Or as I said in the House: UBP, PLP, all the same damn P).

Voters must be asking themselves: Are our concerns being addressed any differently? More importantly are those concerns being addressed better by the PLP than by the UBP? Is the listening any better? The response any better? Now I am not here to simply slam the PLP Government -- as provocative as they might be, I want to acknowledge there is enough blame here to be share by both political parties.

I am not so naive as to believe disaffection in the community is simply confined to Government. The UBP as Opposition also comes in for its fair share of criticism too. Just as the PLP has had, and continues to have its challenges in governing after 30 years as Opposition, so we in the UBP continue to wrestle with our new and unfamiliar role of Opposition, which requires not just that we be sharp and vocal critics of the government but that we present as a viable alternative when the next Election rolls around.

And I think the growing disillusionment in the community of which I speak is a reflection of the struggle of each party as we perform our new roles in this so-called New Bermuda.

But notwithstanding the struggles within each party inquiring voters will want to know: is the Government addressing in the most effective way the issues of the day? Whether it be in crime, education, affordable housing and economic development in tourism in particular and generally ... and is it in the best interests of Bermuda? Is it just me or don't other people think there is still all together too much tit for tat in politics? You did it, we can do it. You didn't do it, we don't have to do it.

Never mind, it seems, whether there is a right way or a wrong way of proceeding.

In sport we tell our young people it's not whether you win or lose it's how you play the game. In politics it seems its not how you play the game that is so important, it's how good you are at shifting the blame.

The blame game has become a permanent feature here as elsewhere, now that we have had a change of government, blaming the other guy or the other side has become not only the best defence of a decision under scrutiny, but the best offence.

The future beckons and yet we appear to be driven, confined and trapped by the baggage of perceptions that applied in the past.

I believe there is a majority forming out there in the Country which is searching and reaching beyond the way we used to do things around here -- and still do things around here -- and they find echo in the talk of what a third party could represent.

This emerging majority I think finds voice in the poll results released yesterday by the recently formed action group the Association for Due Process and the Constitution.

An overwhelming majority of Bermudians -- across the board -- have indicated that they would have preferred a representative conference precede proposed constitutional change -- and this is significant too -- an even greater number of those polled, 84 percent, would like to see a representative conference that allowed for participation by all interested groups and not just the political parties.

It has been said that the true art of politics is not simply to listen to those who speak, but to hear those who do not.

Those people have now had an opportunity to speak through a poll ... and as you might expect my colleagues and I are not surprised at the result. Let's reflect for a moment on how we arrived at where we are on Constitutional change or more specifically electoral reform.

After telling the House of Assembly in February 2000 that the PLP Government had no plans to undertake Constitutional change in the next 12 months. Six months later the Premier tabled in the same House proposals for Constitutional change -- which among other things not only called for the adoption of single seat constituencies but for a reduction in the number of MPs -- a Boundaries Commission was going to be asked to pick a number any number between 20 and 40 The UK Government was to be asked to make the necessary changes to the Bermuda Constitution -- as only they can do -- after a debate and vote in the House -- a vote which would be a foregone conclusion in any event One man one vote of equal value, I hear no-one arguing against that. The UBP was remiss and wrong not to tackle before now, but a reduction in seats as well? What's the plan here? Why suggest they even be cut in half? While no-one in Government has as yet indicated a number the PLP prefers, somebody, somebody with influence, clearly considers that we could manage just fine with as few as 20 MPs. Otherwise why even specify 20 as a minimum, say rather than 30? As few as 20 MPS? What's that all about? In the absence of any explanation by the Government I relate it back to the Civil Service Review. A Review which was never shared with the public -- co-incidentally the taxpayers, whom the Civil Service are paid to serve -- but a report which was leaked to the Press. And in it we found the recommendation for a super Cabinet of eight, with junior ministers in support, and the underlying rationale was that a smaller, more compact Cabinet would make for more efficient Government.

However, it also follows that with a smaller Cabinet it would be far easier to govern with a smaller backbench, with a smaller backbench just about everyone could be given a post as a Junior Minister. And thus a tighter, more easily controlled executive is born.

More efficient? Maybe. More democratic? I don't think so.

Too small a number will in effect and in practice reduce to a rubber stamp our Parliament -- the forum to debate the issues of the day and give voice to those in the community who elected its members. A rubber stamp Parliament is certainly the experience in smaller states where there are equal size constituencies but so few elected representatives.

It has been suggested that Bermuda is over-governed with 40 MPs indeed it was advanced in the Civil Service Report as I recall as a reason for a reduction.

Over-governed? compared to what? The US? Canada? The UK? Those countries have constituencies of voters greater than the entire Bermuda electorate. But if we use that as a criteria, we would end up in Bermuda with what? Three quarters of an MP?! I imagine government could be terribly efficient if but one person was in charge.

What do the history books show us? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Lord Acton). It's an affliction that afflicts even those who start out with the best of intentions, how soon in the comfortable corridors of power they forget those who put them there.

Reducing the numbers makes greater power possible. Subtraction will not be addition. It will diminish not enhance democracy in Bermuda. We will be less likely to have a Parliament and a Government that is representative of all the voices in the community. In any event, I think -- as does my party -- that the people of Bermuda should have had greater input as well as the final say on the number by way of a Referendum But from all we have seen to date, the squeeze is being applied on London and the political pliers are drawn to give us a downsizing and a reduction, presumably whether we like it or not.

Speaking of pliers, the squeeze is also on when it comes to voter registration. This is what I really wanted to talk to you about today but (Rotarian) Toppy Cowen told me it didn't sound that exciting, but a few words please, because I don't think people yet appreciate what a potential mess we have on our hands.

The PLP scrapped annual registration. It was pronounced an annual annoyance and inconvenience to voters and denounced as a UBP method to discourage people from registering and thus voting. We were first told that the new system would be cheaper than sending out forms annually and chasing them up.

Well, forget cheaper, the new system with new spanking offices on Burnaby Street is proving more expensive, far more expensive. And we've got problems, big problems that could -- and I stress could -- see hundreds of unsuspecting voters disenfranchised.

Under the new system of registration when a voter moves, he or she is required to notify the registrar of the change. It happens, but only rarely. The last thing on people's minds when they move is to notify the Parliamentary Registrar but -- and here's the rub -- if you have moved and you have not re-registered when the election rolls around you could be disqualified from voting period. You will not be able to vote where you're registered because you are no longer ordinarily resident there and you won't be able to vote where you live because you are not registered there.

This will only happen if someone knows the situation and puts in a challenge.

How pervasive is the problem? Well, in Devonshire south where Michael Dunkley and I have been canvassing this month, in a sample so far of 250 registered voters we have discovered over 50 who have either moved in or moved out. That's a 20 percent ratio and if that is in any way accurate you can figure out the sort of numbers we are talking about in an electorate of, say, 36,000 voters. And the Parliamentary Registrar himself has already gone on record in one of the newspapers to say he thinks we are talking about 4,000 people.

Can you imagine the scramble when an Election is called? Because the way it is meant to work is this, once the writ for an election is dropped people will have seven days to register if they are not already registered in the constituency in which they live. Seven days later the Parliamentary Registrar must publish the list of registered voters for each constituency. Those who know their voters then have a further seven days in which to object to or challenge the inclusion of any persons they feel do not belong on the register for their constituency i.e. they have moved and are living elsewhere.

Hearings of the objections will have to be held and under the new law a final list ready in a further seven days at the latest. I shudder to think of the number of angry people there will be if they are challenged, and just how will the Parliamentary Registry cope with hundreds of challenges when there's also an election to be organised? It will be a monster -- or the Bermuda version of a Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and pity the poor registrar and his staff. They will be in a right squeeze. Time? John Barritt