Saturday, February 14, 2015

Tufton Not Too Bright To Re-think

We have stated that Christopher Tufton  was not "too bright" to have a place in the JLP Council of Spokespersons as a main spokesman with very substantial shadow portfolio responsibility.
Dr. Christopher Tufton had ran afoul of  Mr. Andrew Holness in the leadership challenge by Audley Shaw et al ostensibly for comments made on the campaign platform about disliking the company of "bright" people.

Background:

Tufton, a former close National Democratic Movement associate of Bruce Golding, was tipped by some to be Golding's successor as JLP Leader. However, Holness was anointed and appointed. Moreover scholarly Chris has lost his seat in the General Elections was seated in the Senate and  employed as Co- Director of a University "think-tank".

Tufton, along with others being nominated by the Opposition Leader to be appointed to the Senate by the Governor- General, signed the undated resignation letters which purported to effect resignation "with immediate effect" and gave the Opposition Leader the unfettered authority to fill in the date. Those were signed on the same date of the appointment to the Upper House.

The Letters did not indicate any purpose  which limited their usage. So Andrew Holness could have dated any or all a day after their appointment---if he thought prudent or politically expedient or those appointed were getting 'too bright'.

  • It seems puzzling to some that "bright " Chris --A Phd , Manchester University, should have signed such a letter. Then he was in 'good company' as many attorneys-at law did likewise. McDonald-Bishop (J) described the terms of the letters as"ill-conceived and nonsensical"[para 154]
But Tufton held his tongue and seemingly accepted his unceremonious removal from the Senate.He refrained himself from the public debate and did not join Arthur Williams,attorney-at- law, Leader of Government Business in the Senate, Chief of Staff in the Office of the Leader of the Opposition and designer of the "flawed" letter who himself had suffered a similar fate but decided to test the validity of his removal in the courts.
  •  Tufton did not join Williams in the suit against the Leader of The Opposition; giving the public impression that he was "above the fray", not wanting to publicly attract any criticism for "mashing up " the JLP.
Williams seemed to be shunned. There was the view that he was not "too bright" having designed and signed letters that  were used to remove him in face of his public protestations that he had no intention to resign.

Williams vindicated:

The Constitutional Court has held that the request, letters and the use thereof was unconstitutional, contrary to public, unlawful and therefore null and void. The effect was that Williams and Tufton did not resign and therefore could resume their seats in the Senate.
  • Tufton has now found his voice and has publicly admitted that  he should not have signed the undated resignation letter --rather belatedly and only after a court  had found fault with it. Not a bright move for he did so "on reflection". 
Tufton, apparently now riding on the Williams bandwagon,  has not been vindicated as Williams but has vowed to continue in the Senate:

“Therefore, I wish to assure my colleagues in the Opposition party, that I intend, in good conscience to represent the philosophy and principles held by it, and to do whatever I can to help forge a stronger Opposition,”
     
  • Apparently "Bright" Tufton does not think that there is any adverse inferences to be drawn from his poor judgement and willing participation in a scheme that the Constitutional court has found to be unconstitutional, contrary to public policy and unlawful . 
  • He has not offered a public apology. He has merely sought to reassure the JLP  that he will be a 'good labourite'--- toeing the party- line.
  • Probably on further reflection it will dawn on Dr Tufton that it may be exemplary if he immediately tenders his resignation and delivers same personally to Kings House as  a symbolic act of political atonement. [ See "Need for Political Atonement"
  • Tufton is indeed not that 'bright'  to seriously do otherwise; and should educate 'vindicated' Williams to do likewise.


No comments: