Chris Saunders, who was an unsuccessful candidate in the 2013 election when he ran under the United Democratic Party (UDP) umbrella, is reported as being one of the key organizers for a new political party group.

According to Saunders both the two parties we have, the ruling Progressives (PPM) and the former rulers UDP (now I believe called Cayman Islands Democratic Party – I suppose ‘United’ is not a suitable word to associate with them now) “are so interchangeable … they’re two sides of the same coin and [the coin] is losing its value.”

I don’t know what world Saunders is viewing the PPM and the UDP from but you couldn’t have two more different leaders nor two more different ways of running a country.

“Two sides of the same coin?” What a ridiculous statement.

He said there is dissatisfaction with the current two parties and that makes more sense. But the same side of a coin? Rubbish!

If that is his view his support from me has evaporated. And it should from anyone else who wants to tag along with him.

Names bandied in a Cayman Compass story (see “Third political party eyed for 2017 elections” at: http://www.compasscayman.com/caycompass/2015/08/11/Third-political-party-eyed-for-2017-elections/0 are: Garth Arch, Stefan Baraud, Johann Moxam, Walling Whittaker, Mike Adam and Kenneth Bryan.

Also named is Linford Pierson.

Saunders says he is keen to recruit Mr. Pierson to the team as an elder statesman to lead a group of younger political office-seekers. I bet he is.

“Mr. Saunders said the group’s general political vision would be one for a unified Cayman Islands, rather than one of divisiveness, which he said has too often plagued the political landscape over the past two decades,” the Compass article reports.

But are the Cayman Islands ready for a third official party group that has to be registered as such ahead of the 2017 election?

In the USA there are really only two parties. In the UK the emergence of third and fourth and even fifth parties have come to the fore in recent years. When I was a kld it was only Labour and Conservatives, even though there was a Liberal Party that rarely got more than 2 seats. Now things have changed but the smaller parties have had to form associations to fight an election – eg Lib/Dems.

The reason I am against a third party is it breaks up the votes and often you don’t get an outright winner. When another party has to join forces with a party that they were opposing in a general election in a coalition it is very difficult to get anything done. Not every decision, even very good ones, are popular. You normally see 4 years of no progress.

From “What is the history of “third parties” in the United States?”:

“The same features of the American system that have encouraged a two-party system also serve to discourage the emergence of third parties. When third parties have emerged in American political history, their successes have been short-lived. In most cases, the issues or ideas championed by third parties have been “stolen” by the candidates of one of the two major parties. Sometimes the issue position taken by the third party is even incorporated into the platform of one of the existing parties. By doing so, the existing party generally wins the support of the voters that had been the support base of the third party. With no unique issues to stand on and depleted voter support, third parties generally fade away.”

SOURCE: http://www.thisnation.com/question/042.html

I would welcome your views on this. Do we actually need a third political party? My view on this is NO.