In discussions of logic and reason I usually use a simple litmus test to ascertain prima facie the coherence and credibility of an argument. That test is whether the conclusion is supported by the premise/s. The above conclusion and indeed the by-line of this editorial is "Time for Minnis to step down" . What are the premises? Is it that Mr McCartney agrees with Mrs. Butler-Turner and not Mr. Minnis and therefore what...... Mrs. Butler-Turner and Mr. McCartney love this country and are more selfless than Mr. Minnis? Or is it that the PLP failed to live up to its promises and the Editorial writer is absolutely certain that Mr. Minnis will likewise fail to live up to his promises, if given an opportunity? Or is it that the party has been divided for four years under Mr. Minnis because he has not reached out to Mrs. Butler-Turner? Is it possible that the divided party may have something to do with the fact that under Mr. Minnis the FNM has held three conventions in which the leadership was challenged by Mrs. Butler-Turner and she has been decisively defeated three times. The last time was just a couple months ago and Mrs. Butler-Turner was still nominated. Having been defeated at Party convention on three occasions, the last being just a couple months ago, is it not equally fair to call for Mrs. Butler-Turner to stand down. I am not fond of Minnis but the logic and reasoning in this story is a disgrace to professional journalism.

There is no plan here as it appears that their primary objective was to weaken and destabilize Minnis such that there would be a spontaneous groundswell of anti Minnis sentiment which would force Minnis to resign. What their refusal to resign signals and confirms is that this is being engineered by forces behind the scenes that I suspect would claim that they love the FNM and the Bahamas. I am not a Minnis fan but he was duly and recently elected by the rules of the FNM in convention, a convention and a leadership election that they instigated. If HAI or any of these seven wanted to be leader of the FNM they were fully aware of the established process to do so. This silly amateur political exercise is not only selfish but it damages the FNM party even more than Minnis and all seven should now do the honorable thing and resign in disgrace for this ignoble demonstration of cowardice and selfishness.

Someone like who?

Probably the most undemocratic process in our "Democracy" is the selection of leader of these political parties. It was universally accepted that most FNMs do not support Minnis as leader, yet his support amongst those persons eligible to vote for leader was overwhelming. What is wrong with that picture?

Open your eyes my friend. This is so much bigger than LBT. The FNM is in the midst of an all out civil war which is not being led by LBT nor any of these seven pawns. Minnis has done very little to positively distinguish himself, but the supposedly honorable men plotting his demise are nothing short of modern day cowards for the manner in which they are stabbing this man in the back. With friends like them who needs enemies. When they had an opportunity to contest the leadership fair and square they declined choosing instead to unleash their attack covertly.

I often do not agree with Mr. Miller, but for the record those "untrained locals" have been restoring power to these islands after hurricanes for as long as I can remember and their track record is unambiguously much more impressive than what BPL has accomplished following Matthew. Further it seem to me that you totally missed Mr. Miller's point. His point, as I understand it, was not that foreigners were unwelcomed as we have received foreign help before, His point was that experienced local resources are here willing to help, able to help and available and were not offered the opportunity to be be effectively utilized. That was unfortunate and in my view why persons are still without power almost three weeks after Matthew.

That is nonsense to the highest level and you know it. There is no evidence to support your assertions. At least let's have a substantive debate about these issues of national importance as opposed to talking pure nonsense.

I spoke about web shops but you speak about web shop owner.

Unfortunately this game is already over. The childish talk of "resisting" and standing strong is akin to a minor child standing strong against the rules their parents are enforcing in the household. We have been sold the bill of goods that the web shops are driving de-risking when all of the web shop transactions are domestic with no cross-border nexus. No one wants to talk about the real elephant in the room which is the hundreds of billions of dollars of cross-border grey money either domiciled or passing through our system primarily of Latin American origin. We have continued to hang on to a business model that not only is no longer viable, its basic premise is antithetical to prevailing global standards and in fact poses an existential threat to almost all G 7 countries where debt is exploding and tax rates realistically cannot be raised any higher. Some of you seem to be conflating the kyc/aml/Terrorist financing issue with the grey money issue.

The fact that the primary goal and objective of the OECD is to eradicate what they term "harmful tax practices" in international financial centers is and has been well known for about two decades. I am a bit surprised and somewhat baffled by the response from government officials and industry professionals to this article. Unfortunately, there are no good outcomes to these issues for us. To a large extent we can blame that charlatan Ryan Pinder and the Michael Paton's of the world for not recognizing that the issue is not about multi or bi lateral agreements but about the fact the Bahamas is prosecuting and following a financial industry business model that is no longer viable or acceptable in the global financial industry.