Its like saying to the athlete that came 2nd, 3rd or 4th - who didnt win - you wasted time training and participating!!! Not that he should redouble his efforts and address his shortcomings!!
The idea of equating a vote for someone who did not win as a wasted is about 2 things: saying to their supporters that something is wrong with the system and second, concealing the fact that regardless of the words the speak, they cannot muster what it takes to have true national appeal.

@ Aranguez: keep posting: i may not always agree with you BUT i respect your opinions!!

Comment: Rickey Singh has been misled by the charade of the smiling PM. She is the first person I have ever seen on a political platform to declare victory after a severe cut-tail in a national election with her declaration that "we won!! We havent lost anyting". Indeed at that time we were wondering which spirit was moving her!!!!
With the THA, poor me I was misled by the propaganda and even the bogus polls - I really thought there was a race on!! Poor gullible me!! When the results were announced, they werent even in the winning column once!!!
So poor Rickey - he has been taken in by the bravado and the residual fumes in the air!!!
And while I have not been following Jamaican politics, Portia is certainly no Kamla; so to equate their political futures is seriously disingenuous and appears to be Rickey just singing for his supper and leading the misguided. Remember, we saw several "independent" reporters who immediately after elections 2010 were rewarded magnificently. Rickey missed out on that gravy train and has decided that it will not happen to him again. So before the orchestra is even in place, Rickey has hit his first note!!!
So let history be your guide: propaganda, misinformation, bogus polls, paid reporters and ministers telling you you are better off than you were 5 years ago (they wont say that they are millions times better off) they are all going to come out of their boxes

Your sophistry of language, the clear structure and articulation of your ideas, the maturity of thought processes leave me no option but to conclude that your statement is not worthy of a response!!

This is an example of condescension.

Have a good day!!!

Your reaction is certainly Pavlovian!!!
Just the use of the name Manning in a positive context is enough to get that poisonous saliva flowing!!
So you are one of those trolls masquerading with multiple handles!!
Your inability to see positive in anyone but you and yours certainly gives you away!
You certainly are no fan of the Express, your only purpose here is to denigrate, insult and eliminate those who do not share your views of this country.
Unfortunately, for the Westminster system to function properly it requires that the participants have reached a certain level of development; that we are possession of a certain level of moral and ethical values, and as one former PM & President has added spiritual values, meaning integrity, honesty and character. Unfortunately, characteristics that will NOT be found in anyone who can subscribe to the mantra "politics has a morality of its own"
I choose to refer to Manning as a gentleman in this case for a simple reason: he did not choose to try to hold on to power at any cost as you seem to imply that he should have. This is unlike the present group whose position is that they are there for 5 years - Sect 34, emailgate, Rishmi, Petrotrin, $400 million sport-gate, $10 million wrecking for a $2m fire tanker, national quarries, bogus silk followed by bogus national awards, etc etc - too many to list.
The problem with this kind of greed for power is that it lowers the standard for all future parties in power!!!
Yes - and Manning did have faults as PM - however to date with all the millions spent by the first political AG in the history of the country, he has not found a single iota of evidence to support all the malicious, nasty and deceitful accusations leveled at him by those you think so highly of - I particulary remember the billboards with him and Calder Hart with a background of 100 dollar bills. Where is that same zeal in pursuing Anil Roberts, etc???? There is evidence in these cases for criminal charges!!!

Keep talking......for certain I am NOT Stingraye!

Free speech is ..........free
Intelligent speech is.....................PRICELESS

You see, not because you have the right to speech you must always say something!!

Posted: 8am Sunday 7th Sept 14
Re-posted: 3pm Sunday
Re-posted: 9am Monday
I want to ask of bloggers two simple questions with respect to the changes made to the constitution - since the entire amendment debate started these issues have been at the back of my mind waiting for someone to address them.
1. With a fixed election date, can the sitting PM call elections before that date - implicitly the answer is no. This however has been especially useful with Manning, where public discontent was so high that he prudently took the gentleman's way out, called an election knowing that the odds were against him and gave the people the opportunity to choose -literally fire him. Does this amendment remove this option from the political landscape. If so then this amendment can be argued that it favours the incumbent - even a vastly unpopular one. There can be no call by the public or anyone for any unpopular government to seek a new mandate from the people. What we have therefore done is bring into prominence the concept of a lame duck government - without the people's support and running down the clock to the due date for their removal from office.
2. With the opportunity to recall an MP, we have now created the opportunity for change governments after 30mths. Where there is a marginal majority, lets say 2 or 3 seats, sufficient "recalls' can be engineered in these marginal constituencies to facilitate a change of government after 30 mths
I see these as the unintended consequences that have not been sufficiently discussed, understood or presented to the people for their consideration - and this may be willfully so.
The first ensures security of tenure in high office for the incumbent; the latter can bring political instability into the country! We have not looked at the various scenarios emanating from these two possibilities. We are a country where it is only when an anticipatable event takes place, we then "plan" for it. Take having an even number of MPs, sooner or later there was going to be grid lock!!!

@zoya:
What just struck me is that the person who is facilitating the removal of non-offensive blogs that may be critical of the party in power is NOT a supporter of the Express.
I am now more frequently in country areas and was surprised to see the number of outlets that dont sell the Express but sell the Guardian and Newsday. I was informed that this was because the owners dont support the Express and see this paper as critical of their government.
This is the same person - on reflection not the Admin unless the Admin and the person are one - who is systematically removing critical comments or attacking specific bloggers.
The net effect is that the comments will no longer reflect real discussion, but will be a watered down collection of banal, inane commentaries first aimed at defending the government and second if possible attacking the opposition. Apparently exposure of corruption and fraud is not in the best interest of the party - it is however in the best interest of the country!
PS: Similar to you, I conducted an experiment Sunday last where a comment was posted that contained no offensive language, was not derogatory to anyone unless criticism of poorly thought out ideas masquerading as leadership is derogatory,and the comment was deleted 3 times in 24 hours - its gone again. AND I am posting it again at 9:00am Monday.

What is also interesting and has not been presented or analysed:
Following up on (2) - change of government through recall votes,
Any party that lost an election by 2 or 3 seats can keep their election machinery in place, target the marginals and effectively place the country in the process of having mid term elections. I dont think at any point or time that was the intention of the framers of the constitution.
B. The amendment basically gives the minority party two bites at the cherry. On second thought, both parties in a marginal government scenario are going to be placed on a permanent election footing.

Well said!
I am often amused when there are accusations leveled at organisations such as the judiciary how they do not respond but attempt to divert attention with pseudo-facts.
1. Our judicial system is inefficient incompetent pompous and pretentious - as you said filled with snobs
2. False fact: Jury trials were too expensive and inefficient. Implying that the elimination of the jury component will result in lower cost more efficient trials. The fact is that elimination of the jury would only save on seats; people run from serving because it negatively impacts their work, the Court does not compensate them (if anything) and it is often a frustrating waste of time. I now with the benefit of experience can say, that the time wasting inefficiency and incompetence has everything to do with the judges and lawyers. No even the people who have gone to court to get justice can affect this train once they have entered the station!!!
3. Illiteracy: A lot of the pompous arrogance of our judges and lawyers come from the belief that they are educated, the "law" is some kind of mystic science and ordinary mortals cannot comprehend it. The expression the law is an xxxx is however the belief of most of the citizens. I was shocked several when a survey showed the level of disrepute in which the public held the judiciary. No amount of insults - implied or direct - to citizens will correct that.
4. Finally - this is the same cj who would have us believe that "silk" was conferred upon him without consultation, the whopping salary and pension increases the same "illiterate" people from whom the jury pool is selected should none the less shoulder the burden of him and his sidekicks benefiting from phenomenal pensions for life? We too stupid to listen and serve on a jury but our backs are broad enough to support taxes to pay you who insults us?
Sorry CJ - check the plank in your eye before casting aspersions!!
I will strongly recommend that the cj shut up

I have just posted a comment that contains a quote from the Shah article where the word jack@ is used - Shah's article is in the main paper. i got the infamous:
"Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly."
Lets see how long it takes this administrator to restore - if at all - my comment!!
TIME: 8:40 AM SUNDAY 31 AUGUST 2014
RESTORE TIME: ???
A HAPPY INDEPENDENCE TO ALL!!