Dear Editor,
Six letters in each name – both ending with ‘on’. There is the issue of which is ‘pro’ or which is ‘con’ for the current leadership role of the ‘Opposition’, despite the overwhelming disparity resulting from an acceptable voting process, about which there could be no logical argument within the ‘Party’. The ‘loser’ should recognise that he sets a poor example, albeit of conceit – that justifies his candidacy being so deservingly rejected. That he cannot reconcile to his being assessed as a mishap speaks volumes of his inability to conduct a critical evaluation of self – a pathetic weakness (leader or not). He therefore does not emerge as an exemplar. Indeed, he never was, allowing his limitations to overflow into those of the Party, and of course as representative of the Opposition.
There is so much need for self-analysis, in which case he should ask his marginalized support for advice, including about how neutral witnesses, local and overseas, view his obsession with failure. So it is appropriate that commentators should evaluate Harmon’s contribution to the present internal contest as no more than a ‘dead lock’! Whose ‘key’ is no longer viable or voteable. There is just no ‘harmony’. It is not about self, but the larger interests. This is not about Norton, but the larger interests. For that matter both can learn of humility from those who preceded them – like Desmond Hoyte.
Sincerely,
Civic Observer
