Shaw putting self above party

Gordon Robinson, Contributor

So, Audley 'Are You' Shaw is 'considering' a leadership challenge. For THIS, we've had weeks of intrigue, stormy Standing Committee meetings, serial speculation, and general excitement throughout the land? You're 'considering', Audley? Really? Seriously?

Audley 'Are You' Shaw got my nickname for him from his Apocryphan counterpart, R.U. Shaw, who's like a man whose initials were G.B.S. When asked, "Are You Shaw?" the man replied, "My dear chap, I'm certain of nothing."

After all this hype and anticipation, Audley still doesn't know if he wants to challenge? He's sure he's not sure.

One minute you say you
will

and the next you
won't.

One minute you want
me

and the next you
don't.

You're turning me upside
down,

giving me the
runaround.

Don't think that I don't
know, I do

Don't think that I
won't go, you watch me

It isn't out
of the question.

But
leaders don't dither. Leaders decide. What's the point of
'consultations', Audley? With whom? JLP delegates? But consulting with
delegates IS the election. Surely, the first step is to DECIDE whether
to take the plunge and then consult the delegates on election day? Why
would you first have a private election to decide whether to have a
public one?

Maybe you don't have the party's interests
at heart. If you did, you'd eschew this prolonged, potentially damaging
double-dipping, offer yourself, and let the delegates decide. But you
seem to want only a sure thing which could expose you to charges of
political opportunism.

What's all this about resigning
as deputy leader? Is that a petulant warning that you want all or
you'll pick up your marbles and go home? If you can't be leader, no
other party post interests you? Is THAT acting in the party's best
interests or your own? Mike Henry, to whom I see you've recently offered
what appears a very self-serving apology, engaged in none of this fancy
footwork. He put up his hand on the floor of conference, took his
whipping like a man, and committed himself with even more vigour to the
party's success thereafter.

When Seaga was ousted, did
you consult delegates before offering yourself? Or before you withdrew?
Or was it all decided by a backroom deal with Bruce for you to be named
finance minister? If that was the case, were you furthering the party's
interests or personal ambition? Are you a better leader now than you
were then? Then, you said you were running. Suddenly you weren't
running.

One minute you're
kissing me

and the next you're
not.

One minute you
remember

and the next you've
forgot.

I don't like it one little
bit,

you're giving me the
slip.

Don't think that I don't
know, I do

Don't think that I won't
go, if you want me

It's really out
of the question.

When
Bruce was dumped, you were front-runner to succeed. Again, you suddenly
withdrew in favour of Young Andrew. The JLP was then in shambles. Was
your decision to stand down born of an opportunistic desire to avoid
responsibility for the shambolic beating you foresaw? Or was it in the
JLP's best interests?

What has
changed?

If it was in the JLP's best interests, what's
new? Young Andrew, in whose favour you then stood down, is still
leader. You didn't challenge after the 2011 General Election loss with
the party still in tatters requiring rebuilding. You didn't challenge
after the local government loss when the party lost every parish
council. So, why now? Is it that the rebuilding process has gone so well
that you now foresee an election win? If so, wouldn't that be political
opportunism? Or is it the JLP's best
interests?

Between us we
could have conquered
Everest;

sailed empty-handed around
the world.

But no, you couldn't
wait.

You had to go make the fatal
mistake

of leading me
on.

Listen here, me girl, that was
wrong.

Audley, this isn't
how leadership challenges are made while protecting parties' best
interests. With the best of intentions, public challenges always end up
dividing and damaging parties. They should be last resorts. If you truly
felt it best served the JLP's interests for you to be leader, these are
the responsible steps you should have taken.

First,
you should have consulted your parliamentary colleagues. Without them,
you can't be prime minister or even opposition leader. Without them,
you'd be a general without an army. Why not seek their support first?
Leave it to them to conduct independent consultations with delegates and
constituents.

Second, arrange a private meeting with
the leader. Bring with you a contingent of senior party members and
advisers. Patiently and politely tell him the time of day. Give him an
opportunity to gracefully resign. That's what South Africa's National
Party did when it was time for Botha to go. Margaret Thatcher got a
similar opportunity to leave gracefully and (eventually) took it. Audley
Shaw also got similar opportunities when he twice ran for leader. His
withdrawals were accomplished in private.

This
inelegant takeover bid isn't how a deputy leader with his party's
interests at heart seeks leadership. This has all the trappings of a
clumsy, careless attempt to seize power. This isn't in the JLP's
interests.

One minute
you're full of life

and the next
you're sad.

One minute you're
marvellous

and the next you're
bad.

I don't like it one little
bit,

you keep giving me the
slip.

Don't think that I don't
know; I do.

Don't think that I
won't go, if you want me,

it's
really out of the
question.

So, whose
interests are being served by this ham-fisted caricature of a movie
premiere titled 'Let's Publicly Embarrass the JLP' likely to run for at
least three weeks in your local cinemas? Certainly not the JLP itself
facing certain public-image destruction as hyped-up delegates go at each
other in full view of eager-beaver reporters. Audley must know that no
matter how publicly polite he tries to be, supporters of both camps
won't be so restrained.

So, whose interests are being
served by this gauche display from a veteran politician who ought to
know better? Certainly not the party's parliamentary caucus, most of
which has come out stridently against the
challenge.

So whose interests are being served? Audley
has twice proven he can live without being JLP leader. So, it's not
anything as simple and ugly as selfishness.

What is
it? What's changed in the past two years? Why now? He says he's been
asked to do it. The asker must be very important for Audley do this to
his own party at the asker's behest when Audley has twice demonstrated
he realises how destructive it can be.

Since he feels
obliged to consult JLP delegates, it's fair to conclude delegates didn't
ask. Based on public utterances, it wasn't the JLP parliamentary caucus
majority. So, the push comes from outside the JLP. Who's doing the
pushing and shoving? Who's driving Audley into this political
cul-de-sac?

Who's the real
driver?

JLP's big money man has been relatively
circumspect (for him). I wonder if he's the logistics hub through which
the pushing and shoving is being done. Maybe. If that's so, only a
bigger money man could be the real driver. Maybe Bigger Money Man (let's
call him 'Cashman'), accustomed to being spoiled rotten by governments,
is uncomfortable with the restrictions imposed by this IMF Government
and doesn't believe Young Andrew can be a successful agent of
change.

After all, didn't Young Andrew promise 'bitter
medicine'? Maybe Cashman prefers Prime Minister Shaw to Prime Minister
Holness. So he funds a soul-sapping campaign against Young Andrew and
remains an outside observer while spin doctors powder Shaw's nose and
create a sanitising impression of the challenge as a political
masterstroke.

Cashman cares not if his ploy destroys
the JLP's election chances. He's no worse off. He's investing in a stock
going up and providing the catalyst. If it fails, so be it. He tried.
Maybe it's Cashman's best interest at stake here.

Are
we witnessing another example of Goodman's Law? Goodman's Law: Don't ask
if it's about the money. It's ALWAYS about the money! Audley, are you
sure? Of one thing we can all be sure: Within the JLP, there's Never a
Dull Moment.

Oh, I'm doing
my best

and I don't know
why.

I'm giving her a
call

and there's no
reply.

She's getting me
down

till I can't get
up.

She's giving me
hell

and if that's not
enough.

She's breaking my
heart

nearly every
day

not only in
pieces

but every
way.

I'm sorry, of
course,

but the fault is hers
...

British entertainment
mogul and artiste manager Gordon Mills was the 1960s version of Simon
Cowell. He 'discovered', managed and produced Englishman Gerry Dorsey,
whose overnight superstardom after years of struggling was credited to
Mills' changing his stage name to Engelbert Humperdinck; and Welshman
Tom Jones. In the early 1970s, he added a third artiste who, although
his all-round talent exceeded the others', wasn't as superb a singer.
That, together with his quirky, reclusive nature, defied even Mills'
talent for publicity. Yet those same eccentricities endeared him to his
fan base.

Irish singer/songwriter Raymond Edward
O'Sullivan was born in Waterford, Ireland, on December 1, 1946. Mills
changed his stage name to Gilbert O'Sullivan bringing him "fortune and
instant fame" (from Gilbert's Underneath the Blanket
Go). Like Neil Diamond or Willie Nelson, his songwriting
skills far outstripped his singing ability, but his lyrics were so
brilliant; so personal; so convoluted in meter yet simple in meaning;
that they resonated best when he performed them. A stylistic mixture of
Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, Gilbert's biggest hit, a hermit's
lament of disappointment and loss (Alone Again Naturally), sold more
than 2 million copies in the USA, where it topped the singles charts
while reaching Number 5 in Britain.

Alone
Again Naturally was followed by Clair.
Inspired by Gilbert's babysitting of Gordon Mills' small daughter,
Clair reached No. 1 in Britain and No. 2 in the USA.
Then came Out of the Question, a top-20 single in the
States, recorded with the feel of a carousel tune to answer critics who
felt he couldn't do an uptempo song.

Peace and
love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email
feedback to
columns@gleanerjm.com.