Branville ‘Baby Doc’ McCartney’s Record With the FNM Exposed


Forrester Carroll


Since forming his own green party this year, Branville McCartney has been desperately trying to get the “Ingraham monkey” off his back; he’s been trying to distance himself from the Ingraham-FNM mole but “no can do” and for good reason.

McCartney (as far as is known) grew up from childhood in an FNM oriented political environment. He was nurtured in FNM philosophy and ideals and it is fair to say that, from 1992 through 2010, he embraced, and was quite at home with, the culture and philosophical views of the Ingraham-style of FNM governance. When Ingraham won in 1992, McCartney would have been 20 years younger, than he is today, which means that he was barely a young adult, just finishing his schooling no doubt. It would be safe to assume that he watched Ingraham govern and admired him; even idolized the sucker, I submit. Ingraham admired the young McCartney, as well, for when the time came to challenge Tennyson Wells (that rebel Bamboo Town FNM member of parliament turned Independent) Ingraham chose (yes you guessed it) the young and promising member of that staunch UBP-FNM McCartney family, Branville McCartney. The young man was successful in defeating the former UBP-FNM giant (Tennyson Wells), in the 2007 general elections, and went on to be appointed one of the privileged (FNM) blue-eyed few to be bestowed the honor of serving, as a minion, in Hubert Ingraham’s cabinet.

For a little more than three years, young Branville served as a faithful STOOGE of his master; supporting him during cabinet meetings and ensuring that he was present, at all times (in the Honorable Parliament) to cast his votes in support of all of Ingraham’s budgets and policies. He served Ingraham faithfully up to just over a year ago, in 2010, when he claimed he couldn’t handle any more of Ingraham’s shenanigans and he quit. By this time, however, he had already sanctioned all of Ingraham’s bad, counter-productive policies which are primarily responsible for driving our economy into the proverbial ditch, along with the well-being of 90% of our people. He supported Ingraham’s policies of expanding the national debt; he supported the massive tax hikes in the 2008/2009 budget (when the entire customs tariff regime was changed which saw, for the most part, the doubling in some cases of the customs duty rates); he supported the elimination of Christie’s tax exemption for Bahamian first home buyers up to a maximum of $250,000.00 in value; he supported Ingraham’s elimination of Christie’s Venture Capital Fund which, heretofore, supported the start-up and maintenance of small businesses when they were only vague ideas in the minds of young Bahamians who had no way of financing these ideas or coming up with any collateral available; he supported Ingraham when he cancelled the pilot program for boys, initiated by the Christie Administration, which was located in Andros and administered by Deacon Jeff Lloyd of the Catholic Church; he supported the Ingraham Administration’s immigration policy (whatever it was) which essentially facilitated the raising revenue through the granting of work permits, many of which Branville himself was responsible for approving; he approved and handed out, like glasses of water to the thirsty, Bahamian citizenships; he supported Ingraham’s dismantling of Christie’s Urban Renewal program; he supported the firings and the contract cancelling of all Urban Renewal and Ministry of Housing department workers (certainly in Grand Bahama); he supported the FNM’s “Stop, Review and Cancel” policy which S & P opined, started the country’s economic downward spiraling trend; he supported Ingraham’s amendment to allow foreigners to now be able to compete with Bahamians in touristic related enterprises which, heretofore, were reserved exclusively for Bahamians; he supported Ingraham’s policies of forced firings and premature retiring of senior career civil servants; he supported all of Ingraham’s budgets from June 2007 to 2010, budgets which sought and secured parliament’s approvals for the borrowings of more than two billion dollars which was added to the country’s national debt. He supported this mess we are in today, no question about it, so any attempt now, on his part, to distance himself from the policies and practices of Ingraham’s FNM government is hogwash. He cannot, now, so easily (overnight) disassociate himself from the acts and deeds of this Ingraham Administration simply because he finds himself at odds with the creature? No can do; you cannot so easily get rid of this “Ingraham monkey,” young man. Where ever you go, (Branville McCartney) Ingraham’s actions and lack of them will follow you, ma boy. You were one with them when those bad decisions were made and you will have to share the blame for the mess the country is in today.

In further support of Ingraham’s policies Branville made it abundantly clear (in his letter of resignation from Ingraham’s cabinet) that, despite his feud with the brute beast monster, he nonetheless saw Hubert (still) as being the best man to lead the country; notwithstanding his view that the country, under the hedge-hog, was heading (he said) in the wrong direction. Have you ever heard of such silly mumbo-jumbo garbage, in all your life? What kind of hocus-pocus, bull-crap position that was for this, would-be leader (and he thinks) potential prime minister to take? I wish, during this election campaign, that someone, (anyone), would challenge this McCartney fellow and have him to explain, finally, exactly what he meant by his mixed-up ambiguous statement. Forgive me for my ignorance, but by my foolish logic, if someone is leading me (and I determine that, that someone is taking me in the wrong direction); and if I feel that there is eminent danger/disaster ahead of us if we continue on the path we are going, and there is no convincing my leader to change course do I continue to follow, convinced that, that person is still the best one to lead me? Hell no; in Long Island, when we were growing up that would be called hogwash. I thought, at the time Branville made this stupid, mixed-up, unclear assertion, that his was asinine and I have not changed that view. The picture was very clear to me that Branville hadn’t really lost confidence in Ingraham’s leadership at all; that he continued to support Ingraham’s ideas and his way of doing things but that the time had come for him (Branville) to take leadership instead. It was pure ambition, on his part, which he should have known would not go down well or be tolerated by the maximum leader. It was naïve of Branville if he thought that Hubert would take his ego lying down. Ingraham is not that kind of flesh and blood.

The ambiguity of his entire resignation statement convinced me that the story told me of his getting angry with Ingraham (during a certain cabinet meeting) over the way he (Ingraham) spoke to him like a dog; lead to him (Branville) getting up and leaving the room and not being permitted to return because Ingraham ordered the police guard, posted at the door, not to let him back in. That “McCartney Pride” (and I know it well) kicked in after being locked out of the cabinet meeting. It dictated, after finding himself in the stew with no maneuver room, that he had only one of two choices to make; either remain in his post and be totally brushed aside and ignored (with no real portfolio) or resign as a cabinet minister. He chose to resign but, at the same time, wanted to be careful that his resignation statement be crafted in such a way so as to, nonetheless, indicate some supporting arguments for Ingraham’s continued leadership; although (as he said) the country was heading in the wrong direction under the Hedge-Hog. His statement of being born an FNM and that he would die one (notwithstanding his resignation from the cabinet) was short lived, however, when he actually experienced how nasty, vicious and cruel Ingraham could be to those he (Ingraham) considered his enemies. I predicted, in an article subsequently, that Branville wouldn’t last very long in the FNM organization and I invited him, at that time, to see Christie immediately and discuss his dilemma.

Despite his resignation from the cabinet and his ultimate resignation from the FNM party, however, I hold that his emphatic and resolute statement of being born an FNM, and would remain one for life, has not changed; the man is FNM, to the core; one who can’t stand Ingraham’s guts (like most of the rest of us) but who found himself in a “no turning back” situation when he walked out of the BULLY’S cabinet meeting. There was no co-existing with Hubert Ingraham (who would have taunted him to death) following that sudden burst of courage and so he had no choice ultimately; no alternative but to go all the way and get out from around the mullet head. He reluctantly resigned, I submit, with blood in his eyes and with one mission in mind and that is to rid the FNM of its LOWLIFE embarrassment of a leader. Branville is obsessed with this mission; he doesn’t really expect to win the government; he doesn’t expect to win any seats either but, above all else, he wants to see Ingraham lose, and lose big, in the process of his DNA participation; he wishes, above all else, for his DNA side show to be the monkey-wrench in the way of Ingraham winning the government.

Now the man (Branville), having formed his own green party, is seen going about country pretending to be to the far right of the FNM (in his thinking) and more in line with the PLP’s centric philosophy. We hear him shouting now, all over the place, that Bahamians should be first, now and always; this is certainly not the mindset of his FNM tradition but the hallmark of PLP’ism. I contend that the young man is a pretender; Leopards could never change their birth marks, which identify them with their species, and neither could snakes their bad habit of biting friend or foe. McCartney, as I said earlier, is a born and bred FNM; he is steeped in UBP-FNM traditions and holds strongly, I submit, to the philosophical, mercantile view that “MARKET FORCES” should prevail and remain the order in our society. He believes that governments should stay out of the business of supporting free enterprise; that businesses should be left alone to compete freely and regulate themselves in the market place and that if the big fish eats up the little fish, so what. Their (FNM) conservative philosophy is after the order of Herman Cain’s (that silly embarrassment to the African race) the only black Republican candidate in the contest for the 2012 American Presidency. They believe that Governments should never intervene and or lift a helping hand in support of small business or the socially depraved in society; they believe, in fact, that the social services network should be abolished and done away with.

They are all conservative, in their thinking, who believes in the law of the jungle; that the strong should survive while the weak should be sacrificed for the good of the system. These endemic views are not easily eradicated from ones DNA and so it’s safe to assume that Branville McCartney (like Hubert Ingraham) is merely pretending that he feels and cares for the poor and needy and that Bahamians should be first. To advocate any other viewpoint (he realizes) will get him NO VOTES. The man is a Bahamian CONSERVATIVE who believes strongly (like Herman Cain) that all those Bahamians who do not have jobs or who aren’t rich have only themselves to blame and no one else. People of this mindset cannot believe or accept that anyone, but themselves, should be FIRST. They believe that social services should never exist; that there should be no social programs (funded by taxpayers) and that governments should extricate themselves from all assistance programs. That is the sum total of what the Market Forces driven Conservatives, in any country, believes.

I submit that Branville formed his DNA green party for all the wrong reasons. I am convinced that he is consumed with so much anger against Ingraham (and now Edison Key as well) that he is prepared to do anything to (as he said) “teach Ingraham a lesson.” His party, to date, has no clear direction or philosophy except for ridding the country of Haitians. My Bahamian barber who is of Haitian ancestry opined, a few weeks ago while I was sitting in his barber chair, that Branville McCartney developed a whole new political party around one single ISSUE. He said that the DNA is a “ONE ISSUE PARTY” meaning, of course, that it’s a party that, to date, has decided on one clear ISSUE and that is the Haitian migration problem with which we are plagued. I admitted to him that I never thought of it before, but that he was right; Branville’s DNA is in fact a “one issue” party; the only policy that he has made and adopted clearly thus far is the illegal migration of Haitians and their “Shanty Towns.” While this is certainly a priority matter for the next government (and I believe my barber understands it to be so, as well), McCartney has nothing else, in terms of developmental plans for the country.

McCartney’s now (exposed), flawed character was the subject of discussion, in the Hon. House of Assembly, the other day when the incident (we all witnessed) evolved between he and Edison Key involving the BAIC matter. I’ll admit here, from the outset, that I don’t believe a word of McCartney’s words, in defense of the role he reportedly played as outlined by the MP from Marsh Harbor and chairman of BAIC. His claim is that he knew nothing of the incident and didn’t have a clue about Edison Key’s revelations. I’ve known Mr. Key for many years; I’ve always known him to be a simple-minded, straight up kind of guy; I don’t believe, notwithstanding his association with Hubert Ingraham and the other FNM crows, that he would allow himself to be corrupted to the degree of accusing someone, deliberately, falsely. I believe that he is telling the truth about the role McCartney played in the affair. What unfolded in the Hon. House of Assembly, during the shouting match back and forth, between Edison Key and Branville McCartney, spoke very loudly to character; Branville’s character that is.

Here’s a guy who is going about the country pretending to be holier than thou; claiming that unlike anyone else, he’s the man to bring good, honest, “people-first” governance to the country but fails his first real test of honesty? In the Old Testament of the Holy Bible; in the Book of Job chapter 14 and verse 4; a simple question is asked; “Who can bring a CLEAN thing out of an UNCLEAN thing? And then it answers for itself: “Not one.” If in fact Branville McCartney, junior minister for immigration, begged on his hands and knees for some of BAIC’s legal work, like Mr. Key told the parliament, then the bottom line is that he is no different from Brent Symonnette and all the other FNM scoundrels. This act proves that he is just as much a disgrace and not fit for elevation to the highest office in the land. Apart from being prohibitive, for a cabinet minister to engage in the performance of government contracts for gain, it is morally and ethically wrong and it smacks of greed and selfishness. There are enough elected, greedy FNMs holding office already; we don’t need any more.  In a funny kind a way I was a little disappointed for the young man, on hearing Edison Key’s revelations, but decided that whatever the political fallout he deserves all.

Here is a man who wants to be prime minister; he comes out all suit up, with boxing gloves on, trying to knock out all his opponents, in a single bout, by speaking ill of both while setting himself up as somebody pure of character and special, but all the while harboring these kinds of skeletons in his closet. I noticed how boisterous he was, (shouting across the floor of the assembly), prior to Mr. Key pointing to the stack of letters he had, in front of him, which he said were letters with Branville’s signature affixed, inquiring about the BAIC legal work and a request for another $1200.00 payment. He certainly kept his mouth shut tight after seeing the letters in front of Mr. Key. People like you, (Branville McCartney), who aspire to public office (especially prime minister) should always guard against incidents like these becoming part of your records.

I spent 15 years, as a customs officer, and never once allowed my character and reputation to be sullied, as you appeared to have done to yours in this matter, and I’ve had many opportunities to do so, young man. Selfish greed will do it to you all the time, my young friend. Ministers in governments (in our system at least) are prevented from participating in government contracts and you should know better. Family members, close relatives, friends and associates, as well, are all banned from benefitting from such contracts (under the circumstances) so why would a purportedly honest and upright member of the cabinet seek to secure this contract from BAIC, knowing the implications? You, (Branville McCartney), are a classic case of tea pot calling kettle black. If you wish to hold high office, my man, there are some things you must resist; there are some sacrifices you must be prepared to make, and resign yourself to, one of which is to avoid benefitting in any way, shape or form, from government contracts. No one else will ever get away with what Brent Symonnette and Hubert Ingraham get away with. These two selfish rascals seem to be the only two in the FNM government (Oh! I forgot Zhivargo Laing as well) who are immune to the fall out of their dastardly behavior.

I have a prophecy this week and it is that when all of Bran’s candidates lose their deposits, after the next general elections, Bran himself will abandon his DNA efforts and foist himself onto what will be left of the tattered and torn, rag tag FNM party in an attempt to become its leader. This FNM rebel is an opportunist who will do anything; say anything; adopt any policy which he believes can woo him some votes, in his great push to win. He has no shame and he lacks ethics, just like his FNM leader.

Forrester J Carroll J.P

Freeport, Grand Bahama

November 2011


  1. Rollie: First of all, keep your foolish American analogies to yourself, i.e. Bahamian ‘conservative’, welfare state, castigating the successful for their ‘success’, left-wing socialist thinking. Who the heck do you think you are referring to us as having a ‘potcake mentality’? Are you even serious right now? Obviously, you are a part of the 1% problem we have in this country – daring to offer unwanted opinions on matters that do not concern you.

    My second observation is your defence of McCartney and his lackluster achievement concerning illegal immigration. Maybe, when a better administration is voted in, you can do us all a favor and carry your expatriate behind back to where you actually belong.

  2. I agree with most of the things said of Mr. McCartney, but my question is this. What’s so wrong with being a Bahamian conservative? Is it right that Bahamians should desire a welfare state? Castigating the successful for their success is as redundant as blaming the poor for their poverty. That kind of left-wing “socialist” thinking is the reason Bahamians are always looking to their M.P.’s for positions, jobs and favors. The Government is not “Daddy” and does not exist to give handouts.This is why Bahamians today have what I like to call a pot-cake mentality (If you feed a pot-cake once they then assume its your job to feed them), Bahamians are far too beholden to these demagogues we call politicians.
    My second query is, that you’re looking at the issue of Illegal Immigrants as if it were not the 800lb gorilla in the room. So what if it’s McCartney’s only issue, it’s the issue that causes or exacerbates most of the other problems in this country. #1) Getting rid of the haitians would ease the healthcare jam: Simply call the maternity ward at P.M.H. and ask any of the staff what percentage of children are born to haitian parents (the figures would shock you). Surely those resources (beds, nurses, doctors etc.)could be put to better use caring for Bahamians. #2Getting rid of the haitians would ease the crime problem, I’m not one of these people with the naivety to believe that “it’s the haitians committing all the crime”. But if you simply visit Her Majesty’s Prison and hear the amount of creole being spoken by inmates it becomes clear that those cells could be put to better use on Bahamians and tax-payer money would be better used boarding and feeding Bahamian offenders. Not to mention the backlog in the court system would clear up overnight. #3) Getting rid of the haitians would help the education system. Simply ask the teachers what percentage of their over-crowded classes are haitian students (by now I think you’re starting to see a trend). In a nation where the majority of Bahamian men do not graduate high school I think smaller class sizes and more personal attention given to students is not too bad an idea. Education, Healthcare and Crime or what I like to call “the big three” are just some of the issues which we can begin to address after we find a solution to the ‘Haitian Question’.

Comments are closed.