Ignore Arthur, says Wickham

Pollster Peter Wickham is not losing any sleep over accusations levelled against him by former Prime Minister Owen Arthur.

Asked today to comment specifically on a charge by the former Barbados Labour Party (BLP) leader that the party had lost the last election because of the “tale of two polls”, Wickham simply sidestepped the allegation.

He also refused to respond to stinging charges made by Arthur that the BLP leader Mia Mottley had recently told her National Council that the party was “a tarnished brand and that the people of Barbados, based upon a Wickham poll, don’t want the party to be in Government but that they want her to be Prime Minister of Barbados.

“That is the most dangerous doctrine and people in the Barbados Labour Party should not just . . . fall in line just in case, but they should be strong enough to speak out against what I call that despotism,” said Arthur, who has also labelled as “madness” Sunday’s decision of the BLP National Council to expel Christ Church West MP Dr Maria Agard.

Peter Wickham
Peter Wickham

However, in response, Wickham said: “I am not commenting on Owen Arthur or anything that Owen Arthur had to say.

“Owen Arthur has been Prime Minister of Barbados for [14] years and I think the people of Barbados have come to a clear understanding of the type of person that he is. If not before, they have come to that now, and I think that the best thing for us to do is to move on and discuss other issues.”

As for Dr Agard and her expulsion, Wickham said: “I think that Dr Maria Agard has basically done this to herself [and] quite frankly I think her political future is pretty bleak right now  . . . I think she has made a grave error.”

When contacted today, Mottley said she would not be commenting at this time. BLP MPs Dale Marshall, Ronald Toppin and Kerrie Symmonds also refused comment.

20 Responses to Ignore Arthur, says Wickham

  1. Tony Webster November 26, 2015 at 5:10 am

    Mr. Wickham, you are an intelligent young man. Clever even, and very good with “numbers”, and highy articulate.

    There are also a few other intelligent folks “out here”, some of whom, can discern movements wind, which we cannot see, but which we can deduce, – by how the trees move, and the leaves…twist and turn. Others also can appreciate the ocean’s currents, hidden deep beneath the surface, by ocean currents, by how the waves changes thier movement , form, and direction.

    Your usual caveat, to all your prognostications, is the “margin of error”. This is acceptable, given the inherent ineaxictitude of your profession.

    This citizen shall continue to listen to your moderations and utterances, but Sir, I choose, this time, to “ignore your advice”: you see, it’s within “The margin of error”…and Sir, I also detect strange movements, both of the wind, and in the deep recesses of the ocean.

  2. dwayne jordan November 26, 2015 at 5:59 am

    If I was Mr. Wickham too I would avoid Mr. Arthur, and he is right, but her future may not be as bleak as you say depending on her and other people strategies, let’s wait and see.

  3. Samuel Morrison November 26, 2015 at 6:43 am

    Mr. Wickham is locked in a death wish with Mia Mottley. What is the strange attraction?. I know he has lost his integrity and is willing to promote the desires of kindred beings. Arthur is right. He is caught up in the tail (tale) of two polls.

  4. BaJan boy November 26, 2015 at 6:45 am

    Drunk man does say anything. Drunk man on free rum does interfere with everybody.

  5. Kent Bridges November 26, 2015 at 7:05 am

    Lol does anyone take peter wickham seriously, we all know you gotta sing for your supper

  6. Donna November 26, 2015 at 7:55 am

    I have a better idea. Let’s ignore Peter Wickham!

  7. Peter Margin November 26, 2015 at 7:59 am

    Owen is looking to provoke a fight, Mia is doing the best thing by not engaging him.

    Owen Arthur was rejected by the electorate.


    The BLP needs to move on.

    It is clear that he would like it to move on to a position where he can continue to pull the strings from behind the scenes, and is willing to “pull down the house” to achieve that end.

  8. zeus November 26, 2015 at 10:41 am

    Peter you sound like you running scared …why ignore when you are the one who did the polls defend yourself with the facts you have let the public know that Owen Arthur is a stranger to the truth ….after hearing Mr Arthur speak it sounds like he intend to tarnish your reputation …..for example is it true that you met with Arthur the Sunday at Kerrie Simmons campaign office the Sunday after the first poll came out the Saturday and by Tuesday there was a different poll in the media ….knowing you from school days you never ran away from a fight so don’t start now …..the public just can’t ignore Mr Arthur just because you say so

  9. Ralph W Talma November 26, 2015 at 10:50 am

    1. For many years now, I have listened to the considered utterances of the Honourable Owen Arthur with much Interest. His latest utterances, with which I am in agreement, are therefore worthy of very serious consideration.
    2. Perhaps, the youthful and clever Mr Wickham is on a fishing expedition. He has cast some sprats over the political side, and now waits with bated breadth to see if any fish will bite. There is something very fishy about the saga of the Honourable ladies’ Mottley/Agard, and the opinions of experienced and totally trustworthy politicians should not be so brusquely cast aside.
    3. Long live reasoned debate.

  10. dave November 26, 2015 at 2:37 pm

    I think that many Barbaadians fear Homosexuality as much as many Barbadians embrace and are Homosexuals–Paradox ??

  11. dave November 26, 2015 at 2:47 pm

    I love Owen Arthur but he should have exited the scene in 2003 because he said he wanted two terms as Prime Minister. He should have left it and let Mottley and whoever else fight for um
    I agree that the two polls caused the DLP to lose the last election and also the actions of a certain individual who campaigned against her own party in the 2008 elections–I aint calling nuh name !

  12. jrsmith November 26, 2015 at 5:19 pm

    If MIA was , leader, the BLP might have won the last election.

  13. jrsmith November 26, 2015 at 5:23 pm

    Our problem, our so call clever people, just give us lines and lines and pages and pages of junk , which makes no real sense, all just added to one or two lines.

  14. TRUFUL November 26, 2015 at 9:01 pm

    I think the the DLP seems to have some secrets holding on Mr Arthur and he seems duty bound to upset the apple cart when Ms Mottley seem to be on the upswing.His decision to take over the leadership last election was major part.The civil servants often spoke of the indecent way in which he dealt with them especially at estimates meetings and the polite way in which the current PM deals with them so there is no way they wanted to see him as PM again and he knew .

  15. Timothy m jones November 26, 2015 at 10:41 pm

    Mr. Arthur was a great Prime Minister, a man I admired for his skills. However, he is a man with many many flaws, one who will always have problems being lead. I quite agree with Peter Wickman to ignore the goodly gentleman. Person are clearly turning a blind eye to what really was in the works with Dr Agard’s issue. Owen needs to be honest, he too had to deal with Ms Agard and her issues with her council. All that happened is that the expulsion of Ms Agard have destroyed the plans again orchestrated by him. Sorry Mr. Arthur there is no coming back for you, please go and take your place is the seat of irrelevance. You care nothing about the BLP, you are clearly about Owen Arthur, so bent on destroying Ms Mottley that you will drag everything down to do it.

  16. Sunita November 27, 2015 at 1:32 am

    Mr. Arthur is the only person who caused the B L P to lose the last election . If he had allowed Mia to carry the party in that election he would not be so miserable today.

  17. sunshinecanada November 27, 2015 at 11:51 am

    It was always Owen and Mia, stick with her, it’s your BLP, MR Peter is good, even Canada, needs him, Amen

  18. Sue Donym November 27, 2015 at 5:27 pm

    If the BLP lost the government based on a poll on the eve of the election, maybe they deserved to be out of office.

    If the poll was accurate and honestly analysed, how can Peter Wickham be blamed for what it revealed? If there were sampling errors, incorrect assumptions or evidence that the results were manipulated, that’s a different matter.

    If Mr Wickham can be expected to state results that try to influence voters or put any party in a different light from what the poll suggests, how credible could he ever be after that? Look at it this way: if you could influence an officer to do something for you under the table, two things should be clear – you were already hoping he could be bought, and it is possible he could do it for someone else! So what is preferred? Honesty that hurts but lets you know what needs to be corrected or false hope that leaves you more vulnerable?

    Predictions and perceptions won’t always coincide but… men will be boys.

  19. David G. Brooks December 7, 2015 at 9:26 pm

    You know, the DLP started a trend of thought back in the 70’s or before and I heard it reinforced in recent years, that if you vote for the loser or whom it seems might lose, then you have wasted your vote and this caused many over the years not to go out an vote – it has worked for them and against and has been ingrained in supporters of both parties – but with Polls being part of the political landscape in the last decade or so this dynamic can be used to major effect.

    If I recall events accurately and not muddle events together, the poll before that last in 2013 showed a major turn around from the BLP to the DLP, when all of the former ones showed the BLP in front, was conducted and analyzed (and published) when Peter Wickham was out of the country and came back in time to conduct a quick follow up, on the eve of the elections, which showed the previous BLP preference was still there. Obviously, the damage was done and many may never have seen the final poll and voted or not based on the one that came out before.

    I also recall discussing the one-before-the-last poll with CC-West candidate (that I nominated for the 2013 elections) Maria Agard, right after her spot meeting in Brownes Gap, Rockley and her mood was that Wickham (and his poll) was intentional to confuse and lessen the BLP’s chances of winning. I was not convinced as something was not right with the last minute flip-flop and he (Wickham) was not around when the ONE reversal poll was published. Of course, it was his company and he had to defend it or mitigate an potential damage … but I wonder does he have the same employees working for him now?

  20. David G. Brooks December 7, 2015 at 9:31 pm

    BTW, when CBC did their walk about in CC-West regarding the Maria Agard issue, it was obvious to those who know that they were lead around by a certain person – even though the face was hidden – that was pro-Agard … maybe even the one who worked for her and the one whom was put up to run for high office at the Branch Exec. recently.

    So who approves of one-sided polling ???


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *