Last Updated: Monday, February 02, 2009 : 4:37 AM
Member Name:
Password:
NATION NEWS (Barbados' Leading Newspaper)
Nation News
Web
ISSUES & amp; IDEAS: Voting for change
Date April 25, 2008
Brief ISSUES & IDEAS: Voting for change

by EZRA ALLEYNE

Three-and-A-half months ago, the voters of this country voted for a change of Government and for dramatic change of policy within the first 100 days after the election. They chose the promises of the Dem

BY EZRA ALLEYNE

THREE-AND-A-HALF MONTHS AGO, the voters of this country voted for a change of Government and for dramatic change of policy within the first 100 days after the election. They chose the promises of the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) over the record of the Barbados Labour Party.

In so choosing, they proved, as some miscreant once said, that the voice of the people is as the voice of God; but, characteristically, he also recognised, that "where there is no vision, the people perish".

During the election campaign, the cost of living had been falsely portrayed as a double-headed monster, featuring "an unholy alliance" between the then Prime Minister Owen Arthur and corporate Bridgetown, and a large swathe of floating voters (I almost said fish) swallowed this tainted bait, hook, line and sinker. Democracy had worked if only because two prominent commentators had suggested that the people could put in the Dems for "one term" and then go back to the BLP.

Alas! The harsh "balanced budget" approach of the '90s has been resurrected in the DLP's 2008 Manifesto. At Page 25 it reads: A new DLP Government will "give priority to achieving and maintaining a balanced budget, while allowing for small manageable deficits where necessary . . .".

The balanced budget approach is mainly responsible for the steep increase in diesel prices, above what would have been the usual increase had the DLP adopted the BLP's energy policy.

Well, the past 100 days has clearly shown that there are significant policy differences between the BLP and the DLP when it comes to managing our island's political economy; and the recent changes in the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel, announced by Prime Minister David Thompson, may be a case in point!

Under these recent changes, the cost of diesel has skyrocketed; for the cost has now risen from $1.46 to $2.57per litre. That is a savage increase of 76 per cent, and diesel is now only ten cents per litre cheaper than gasoline, whereas under the policies crafted by Arthur, Mottley et al, the BLP had maintained the cost of diesel at 70 cents per litre cheaper than gasoline.

Now, therein lies a major policy difference, since fishermen, the inland distributors of food, operators of buses, minibuses and ZR vans, and in the construction sector many small freighters use diesel-powered vehicles; and these sectors have a direct impact on our cost of living! We all have to eat and all of us use some form of transport.

Under this new DLP policy the cost of fish, and other prices, generally, will therefore inevitably increase sharply.

Opposition Leader Mia Mottley, showing a clear grasp of the principles of economics with a human face, made the forceful point that the Government of Barbados could and should have used itself as a "buffer" between international market forces and Barbadian consumers, by absorbing some of the increase and continuing the bias in favour of lower diesel prices. That is how the BLP used to do it, the "bias" being an economic tool under our local control.

As another example: in 2001, Mr Arthur sheltered Barbadians from the ravages of the international recession, and not a single civil servant was sent home. The International Monetary Fund in particular criticised him. They preferred the balanced budget approach which caused such draconian hardships in the early '90s; but Arthur ran a slightly higher (overdraft) deficit, and saved the day. That too was under local control!

Further, Mr Arthur in 2005 promised and paid civil servants a one-off payment of $20 million if the cost of living rose higher than five per cent, but these increases will put about $7 million more in taxes in Government's pockets, from VAT payments on the higher prices. The BLP controlled that too!

Some assert that Government cannot afford it, but in the 1960s, expanded free secondary education was made possible ONLY through deficit financing.

Isn't the "balanced budget" the only "100-day promise" fulfilled, or have I missed something?

Ezra Alleyne is an attorney-at-law and former Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly.



Premium Space


Premium Space

Premium Space




© 1997-2007. Nation Publishing Company Limited. | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use
News | Comments | Lifestyle | Media | E-Paper& Archives | Subscriptions | Advertising | Classifieds | Nation Events