Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

Is Albert Brandford The Greatest Political Prostitute In The History Of Barbados?

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

The above article was published on the website GoWEB Blog which is increasing in popularity by the day. It was accompanied by the note below which is highlighted in red. We invite the BU family to have a read.

The article on the other end of the link below was submitted to the Daily Nation for publication on the 4th February 2008, in response to an article they published 2 days earlier. To date, the article has not been published. We spoke to a senior person at the Nation, who said he had not seen the article so we emailed it directly to him, being told that it would appear early in the week (this week). It is a now Wednesday and we have not seen the article. We wanted to release it in sync with the Nation’s release, since it is responding to something printed in the Nation. In light of the present situation, we have decided to do the Internet Publication first within in the BlogSphere and leave it up to the Nation if or when they publish it. The article is below.

Reason For Change (A Response To Mr. Albert Brandford)

(The following article was submitted to the Daily Nation newspaper on the 4th February 2008 for publication. The article has not been published to date and we are therefore making it available to the public.)

I am appalled at Albert Brandford’s article entitled “Lure Of Change” published in the Sunday Sun of 2/2/08 (See Article Here). This article is therefore my response to what is either a clear failure in analysis or ignorant disregard for the content of the DLP’s campaign, on the part of Mr. Brandford. In his article, Mr. Brandford stated that “the Democratic Labour Party’s theme – Time For Change – which to me was never defined”. I am left in puzzlement regarding the basis on which this view was derived. Let me assert that although a young man (in my early twenties), and as stated before on my blog, because this was the first election in which I was able to vote; I took a very keen interest in the election campaigns, and hence, I believe I am qualified to speak on this issue with the aim of taking the blinkers off Mr. Brandford’s eyes.

Read more…

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

30 responses to “Is Albert Brandford The Greatest Political Prostitute In The History Of Barbados?”

  1. Carson C. Cadogan Avatar
    Carson C. Cadogan

    The Nation newspaper continues to embarass Barbados and Bajans.

    On the front page of today’s Nation the print edition the headline reads:-

    “NEW THRUST”

    On the online version of the Nation the headline reads:-

    “NEW TRUST”

    by Albert Brandford

    Which is correct?

  2. Carson C. Cadogan Avatar
    Carson C. Cadogan

    http://www.nationnews.com/story/291589007100259.php

  3. Thomas Gresham Avatar
    Thomas Gresham

    In his zeal to support the DLP government – a legitimate preoccupation, dont get me wrong – the author has completely missed the point of Mr. Brandford’s remark.

    I am ambivalent to Mr. Brandford but when I read his article it was clear to me that he was not saying that “time” for a change was not defined, but “change” was not defined. And in that regard (at least) he is right.

    You can imagine a world in which 100% of the people agreed it was a time for a change, but no one agreed on what the change should be. This is why the new government did not wish to define change.

    Cost of living too high – yes, time for a change, hospital a disgrace – yes, time for a change. Highway taking ages – yes, time for a change. No one would disagree with the fact that change from the current situation would be good, the problem is that there are many ways to change something and each way brings some consequence that may not be desired.

    If we want to “revamp” the Hospital, it will cost millions, but we also want to balance the budget which means spending less. Lowering the cost of living by cutting duties but supporting agriculture through protective duties is change that will cancel itself out.

    So promising to change everything for the better, but not defining what that change is, allows everyone to agree, but when the time comes to do something, there will be many disappointed people. In economic policy, every change has a consequence, life is full of trade-offs, and when you start defining change, it becomes clear that some group will be worse off. By not defining change the government helped itself to power, but this will not help it govern.

  4. DLP Broken Promises Avatar
    DLP Broken Promises

    What happened to the minimum wage legislation which was promised “immediately”?

    Three weeks have passed and now they are saying it should happen “within two years”.

    Time for change indeed.

  5. David Avatar
    David

    We are always amused when we hear people expecting election promises to be delivered on the button. Whenever in history has this ever happened? Making promises is what politicians do from the Opposition benches and when they are confronted with the harsh realities of tackling the issues from the government side, perspectives always change.

    We don’t think that the DLP was not genuine in their approach, just that it is somewhat difficult to fairly grasp the issues from the wrong side of the fence.

    Business as usual then?

  6. The People's Democratic Congress Avatar
    The People’s Democratic Congress

    The last Barbados Labour Party Government having been presiding over the affairs of this country for just over 13 years, and having been there to see the start of many of the government’s own projects and business, and there to see the engendering of many serious national issues, was still, on being voted out of office, able to leave a very indecent catalogue of unfinished major projects and business, or unresolved serious national issues, most of which it should really have helped finished or resolved, before elections were called and held. The fact of the matter is that by now these things should have been finished or should have had closure brought to them!! As a result of their not being finished or resolved as yet, certainly these projects, these aspects of the people’s business and these issues are bound to continue affecting, to whatever extent, the overall governance of the country and how Barbados moves forward until properly concluded. Here are some of these things that remain seriously unfinished and unresolved:

    1) The so-called redeveloped Kensington Oval,

    2) The long delayed but still being constructed Halls of Justice,

    3) The Louis Lynch Memorial Secondary School saga, and the serious displacement and environmental issues that still surround it,

    4) The still to be created Fishing Pact between Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago,

    5) The still unresolved serious environmental and commercial issues affecting some Christ Church farmers,

    6) The stark slowness in the coming about of a Festival and Events Bureau to manage some of the country’s main socio-cultural festivals. Just check the current status of planning for the major event or festival on our cultural calendar – Crop Over – this year,

    7) The yet to be proclamation of certain pieces of legislation – which would have passed both Houses of Parliament – and which would have been seen by certain segments of this Barbadian society as being of some importance to their further growth and development.

    The expression that must be regularly thrown at the BLP must be that you out, stand to hell out!! And while we are here dealing with issues of governance please let us NOT the Knighting of Owen Arthur!! Please!!

    PDC

  7. The People's Democratic Congress Avatar
    The People’s Democratic Congress

    Insertion, second line, last paragraph: have after NOT and before the.

  8. Tony Hall Avatar
    Tony Hall

    Tony Hall February 13th, 2008 | 10:19 pm Yes, without a doubt he is. I know that he is an intelligent journalist but he is so clouded by his undying love for the BLP and his political hatred for David Thompson that he is unable to write objectively. What a shame!!!

  9. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    Thomas Gresham, you commented that the author “in his zeal to support the DLP government … completely missed the point of Mr. Brandford’s remark. ”

    In your own zeal to contradict the author, did you completely miss the fact of Mr. Branford’s persistent bias against David Thompson?

    Thomas, do you really accept Branford’s argument that Obama’s call for change is more defined than the DLP’s in the last election?

    The GoWeb article appears to me to be much better reasoned than Branford’s article. Branford suggests that the extent of the call for change was simply that the Owen Arthur administration had been in power for too long. The GoWeb article makes a credible attempt to debunk this, even if you do not agree with the author’s conclusions.

    However I find it revealing that Branford would accept Obama’s call for change on philosophical grounds (with no specifics), yet call for specifics on the part of the DLP.

    Is it not possible that many voters agreed that integrity in government was at a low and that a change was therefore needed?

    No accountability in government spending and poor project planning? Time for a change.

    Inadequate attention to domestic concerns like immigration policy, ZR madness, QEH, cost of living? Time for a change.

    Numerous questions raised by the opposition and no attempt by the government to respond intelligently? Time for a change.

    The BLP’s counter argument was “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Maybe what the electorate said was “But it is broken – time to change the BLP”.

    Thomas your examples were

    (1)”cost of living too high” – BLP did not try to deal with this until it became an election issue. In fact, Clyde Mascoll said the high cost of living was inevitable.
    (2) “hospital a disgrace” – BLP had enough time to try and improve this situation. Their final response on the eve of the election? Build a new $700M hospital.
    (3) “Highway taking ages” – that was not the issue Thomas and you know it.

  10. GoWEB Avatar
    GoWEB

    Even if Mr. Brandfrod was talking saying the “Change” itself was not defined, he was still wrong.

    The DLP had a whole host of advertisements on the radio as well as their website which all started “On the morning of January 16th, you will wake up to a government were……..”. Each of these ads CLEARLY defined what change or changes people were being asked to vote for.

  11. Straight talk Avatar
    Straight talk

    GoWeb:

    Iwas one of many who woke up to a DLP government on January 16th, and you know what, 4 weeks later, I still cannot detect any change in style.

    Perhaps it is time to go to sleep again, perchance to dream, of promised immediate implementation of integrity, transparency and accountability legislation.

    The onle discernible change has been a welcome respite from WIV’s tirades.

    I’m afraid we may have been duped again, and as they say on the other blog “Same old, same old”

  12. GoWEB Avatar
    GoWEB

    Straight talk:

    The GoWEB article was written to evaluate whether or not the change was delivered, but to show that the theme of the campaign was not “undefined”.

    As for if the change did occur. I’ve been approached by many Barbadians from all across the land saying that there’s “something different about the atmosphere”, or “outside feel real good and different”.

    If that is just a perception, a lot of people have it.

    For me personally, outside did feel different, but maybe that’s because it took a LONG time for the reality to sink in. For as long as I have intelligent memory, Owen Arther has been Prime Minister (I’m only 23) so maybe it’s because the reality of David Thompson being Prime Minister felt unreal for a few weeks.

    In closing though, I’m of the view that it;s too early to make any serious evaluations of the change. It’s one thing to say “I want to do this” while campaigning, but having won, these guys now have to evaluate the current situation of the treasury etc. and see what is in fact possible, so I’m still giving them their breathing room before forming a judgement.

  13. Thomas Gresham Avatar
    Thomas Gresham

    Dear Brutus and others,

    I tried to point out that I was not defending Mr. Brandford in general when I said that he was right to say that the DLP called for change, but did not define what change was and how they would achieve it.

    Any fool can tell you that if you elect him, when you wake up in the morning everything will change for the better. And any fool can list all the things that need to be changed for the better, but that does not define what better means and does not define how you are going to deliver that change.

    As an economist I can see that the new government has made a host of promises of change for the better, that are going to be impossible to deliver together. People will be disappointed.

    Take for example policies on reducing the price of food stuffs while protecting agriculture and lowering the budget deficit. These are all nice change, but they just dont add up. You protect agriculture either by higher tariffs (which increases prices for everyone) or by higher subsidies (which worsens the budget deficit).

    Trying to deliver change for the better for all will soon have them running in circles. A good example of this is what they have said about our distributive trades/retail sector in the throne speech. They say that they will introduce changes that will not impact existing retailers, but will bring new players and more competition. Er. It doesn’t take an economist to realize that if the new players and greater competition are having an impact it is because they have impacted the business of existing players. Can Darcy Boyce who I have a lot of respect for, support this economic mumbo jumbo?

    Now, Brutus makes some fine debating points, but they are not about the issue at stake here. There are many things that I would rather the last government changed, especially with regards to integrity legislation, but the issue at stake here is whether the DLP defined what change they would bring. I would not agree with Blandford that Obama has defined change clearly, though if I were debating I would say that a black man standing for the Presidency and invoking the ghosts of slavery in his speeches, embodies more change than a former Finance Minister turn Opposition Leader.

  14. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    Thomas Gresham, perhaps you need to rethink exactly what you are trying to say.

    “Take for example policies on reducing the price of food stuffs while protecting agriculture and lowering the budget deficit. These are all nice change, but they just dont add up.”

    In order to argue that the DLP’s changes will not work, you have to concede that they did propose specific changes.

    So are you arguing that they did not specify any changes, or are you arguing that the proposed changes are unrealistic? I don’t think you can argue both points.

    Regardless of what position you take, here is what Branford said:

    “Come back home now, and compare and contrast Obama’s message of change with the Democratic Labour Party’s theme – Time For Change – which to me was never defined, but stressed the Owen Arthur administration had been around for too long, and was seeking an unprecedented fourth term.”

    That statement alone is unbecoming of a professional journalist. He then goes on to say that:

    “These changing values have started to shape and fashion a new society that responds more to emotion than to argument or detail, and in this sense, the power of advertising and public relations was reflected in the general election results.

    I have, therefore, to repeat my proposition that general elections in Barbados are becoming far more presidential than some analysts care to admit. The major missing ingredient is the emphasis placed on the issues in the United States as identified by the number and quality of debates between the candidates. ”

    My own view of the local election campaign is that is was the BLP that did not address the issues, and seemed to rely more on negative campaigning (for example – trying to discredit Peter Wickham and his poll, Taiwan financing accusations with no evidence, unconvincing responses to charges of mismanagement of highway project). Did they respond well to any of the charges on DLP charge sheet?

    Thomas, did you see or hear the BLP Government’s response in Parliament to the Hardwood Housing charges? (A list of specific charges, by the way). It was embarrassing – there was absolutely no substance.

    Why is it that Branford could identify no weaknesses in the BLP’s campaign?

  15. Thomas Gresham Avatar
    Thomas Gresham

    Dear Brutus,

    I do not disagree with you substantially with regards to Blandford or the BLP.

    But that is not what is being debated. I have read the DLP manifesto and the throne speech.

    They said they will change the cost of living situation, they said they will change the position of agriculture and they said they will change the debt situation.

    They effective said they will change many other things for the better (hospital, conditions for the youth, sports). They did identify all the things they could be changed for the better – which any fool can do – but to spell it out, they did not define how they would make these changes.

    The consequence saying you will change everything for the better is that (a) people will get very disappointed and (b) we are likely to end up with a maze of contradictory policies, which will tend to raise prices, debt and lower growth.

    So, Brutus, are you confident that things will be different?

  16. GoWEB Avatar
    GoWEB

    I put forward the argument that if you ask people around the island what specific changes they wanted when they voted, they can all name something, even if it was just the protection of democracy or the placement of Character and Integrity at the helm.

    The main problem I had with Mr. Brandford’s article is that it suggested that the Barbadian public was stupid at best. For someone to say that the party which won the election by a wide margin did not define what the voters were to vote for, would seem to suggest that the mass majority of Bajans voted stupidly.

    I cannot concede that more than half a nation would vote for something they didn’t understand. If the DLP won by such a margin, I am inclined to believe that Bajans, who I believe to be intelligent, understood and identified what the Dems were asking them to do and why they were asking it.

    I’m open to other interpretations but my logic says that if Mr. Brandford is correct, then most of our population must be stupid.

  17. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    I agree with GoWEB because as someone who voted for change I too felt personally offended at what Branford wrote. He also wrote another article suggesting that the large scale buying of votes had a great impact on the election result.

    As an individual he can hold those views, but as a journalist, he needs to provide support for them in his writing.

    Thomas G., I voted for a change in approach, a change in direction, a change in emphasis. I am hoping that this will lead to a different result, but I recognize that this may not necessarily be so. People may be more intelligent than we give them credit for.

    Thomas G., you are an economist and like our last Prime Minister you see things through the prism of economic indicators. The message of the last election was that this is fine, but it is not the only approach. People need to feel that you genuinely care about them and not just about the economic indicators.

    The ongoing immigration debate is a perfect example. No economic argument is going to quell the unease among certain sections of the population. You need to convince people that you have heard their concerns and will move to address them (even if in reality you do very little). Thomas G., your error mirror’s the BLP’s error.

  18. GoWEB Avatar
    GoWEB

    Brutus, as Kid Site said in the chorus of one of the DLP’s campaign jingles….

    I want a party to take care of me
    I want a party to set me free
    A party to love me
    And care for me
    To come and represent me
    I want change

    I agree with you that people wanted a more caring and personal approach. The DLP reached out as “people’s party” and I do believe that was one of the changes people voted for.

  19. Thomas Gresham Avatar
    Thomas Gresham

    I hope the DLP Government will bring good changes to Barbados but let us be clear, if we want, as I do, a society where we look after the less well off, and provide the best possible public education and health, then that can only be afforded if we get the economics right. It is an illusion to think there is a long-run trade-off between compassion and economics.

    Do we want a government that panders to all of our concerns, promises us that it will make everything better with unworkable, inconsistent policies that have negative consequences, or a government which bases its policies on clear-headed thinking and tries to explain these policies to the public?

    If we want the latter, the DLP will need to come clean with the public and explain that we cannot have everything we want, we need to make choices and choose where we want to be in the trade-offs that come with every policy: want lower costs and a more competitive retail sector – then that comes with lower protection for existing retailers and producers and higher immigration. Want a better hospital and schools and a lower government defict? Who doesn’t? But that means either higher taxes which will lower growth and could lead to higher unemployment, or less spending which means, for example, no VAT off electricity bills and new buildings or new concessions for public sector workers.

    People voted against the BLP for a range of reasons, some well founded, others less so, but they did not vote for the DLPs plan for changing Barbados, a plan with strategic choices, because there wasn’t one. Where is the plan to boost growth that will raise the revenues that we need to afford our social commitment? If election day was time for a change, today we are overdue a plan of how to bring about change for the better.

  20. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    Thomas Gresham, I am not sure why you have concluded that the plan is now overdue, after 30 days.

    However you may read the throne speech on Barbados Free Press, and you may note that in the throne speech the government promised more details of their programme of change in the March estimates.

    The throne speech by the way describes some of the hard choices and the trade offs that need to be made. I get the impression that you have not read it.

    Remember though that what we were discussing was whether or not the DLP’s theme of change was defined. You still stubbornly insist that change must be defined only by articulating SPECIFIC economic policies.

    Do you think that the change that Obama is promising to the US is about specific economic policies? It is about a return to basic values, an abandoning of the governmental status quo, and a fresh approach to leading America. Once he is President, Obama can hire in all of the economic talent he needs to achieve those objectives. The same applies to Barbados.

  21. GoWEB Avatar
    GoWEB

    I don’t think Obama can discuss specific economic policies, unless he knows first-hand what he has to work with. It’s one thing to cry-down the people in power but you’ll never know what you have to work with until you get the reigns. I see it as premature to go into economic specifics during campaigning if you don’t know for sure what the exact state of the country and economy is.

    I’m open to other views though, that’s just how I see it.

    As for the throne speech, I haven’t read it but I’ll have to make some time and pop over to Free Press.

  22. Thomas Gresham Avatar
    Thomas Gresham

    Dear Brutus,

    I know you are a reasonable man and so I am not going to labour the point any more than this note.

    I have read the throne speech, which is even more inconsistent in policy and ill-defined than the manifesto. A good example is on the budget deficit. In the manifesto they say they would like a balanced budget. I think this is a good idea. But it requires substantial revenue raising or expenditure reducing policies. None were defined in the manifesto or throne speech. (Stalling capital projects will not do it as many are PFI projects). What expenditure plans there are will increase the deficit.

    In the throne speech it says that they will balance the deficit, while maintaining small deficits. A kind interpretation of that doublespeak is that they will balance current spending but run deficits on capital expenditure – which is the precise position of the previous government. So now they have defined policy, it represents no change.

    They claimed they will change conditions of pensioners for the better. But in the throne speech they spell out an increase in tax on pensioners (tax free to $36,000) compared to today’s tax free allowance to $40,000. Where there is defintion, it is not a change for the better.

    The things that the DLP said they wanted to change for the better were things the BLP would also have said that, if they could make better they would – the hospital, cost of living and the deficit. The key question therefore is how are the DLP going to deliver the kind of change that the BLP failed to do. This remains undefined and what definition we are getting is suggesting there will be no change.

    But Brutus I am not as partisan as you may think I am. I was a Barrow supporter (he was also a fan of Singapore’s approach) and if they do a good job, I will support the DLP next time around. Its early days, but I am not impressed yet.

  23. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    GoWeb, I agree with you that Opposition parties have to be cautious about getting into specifics. The government has the benefit of information on which they can base their policies, that the opposition does not. However they can explain what they will do differently at a philosphical level, or at the level of principle. Or they can simply say we won’t do what those guys did – that can represent very significant change.

    However Thomas G is anxious to speak about economic specifics, so I will venture onto his turf.

    Thomas G, I hope you are not referring to the following statement as doublespeak:

    “In light of this, my Government will give priority to achieving and maintaining a balanced budget while allowing for small manageable fiscal deficits where necessary to facilitate the development objectives of the country.”

    We will first see how they plan to achieve this when they estimates are laid in March and when Thompson brings a budget. We should not assume that they will reduce or eliminate government borrowing in their first year in office, but rather that they will aim to do this over a period of time. I disagree with you that stalling PFI capital projects will not help as this represents deferral of actual expenditure. However I believe that the DLP is also promising more efficient expenditure through better management of capital projects.

    I agree with you that they have erred by not updating the throne speech to reflect the fact the the BLP government increased the allowance for pensioners in December 2007. I can understand why the manifesto was not corrected but it is sloppy that this error was repeated in the throne speech.

    I honestly believe that the BLP failed miserably at addressing the issues at the QEH. What ever happened to the Haynes Commission report and how many of its recommendations have been implemented? My point is that we do not know.

    I have already pointed out to you that the BLP showed no interest in lowering the cost of living until it became an election issue. Clyde Mascoll stated plainly that he did not see it as an issue and said it reflected our high standard of living.

    On the deficit, based on the words of Clyde Mascoll again the BLP were not concerned about this. Mascoll said that the economy of Barbados (GDP) is much larger than the official statistics show and therefore the dificit was not as large a percentage of GDP as suggested.

  24. Thomas Gresham Avatar
    Thomas Gresham

    “In light of this, my Government will give priority to achieving and maintaining a balanced budget while allowing for small manageable fiscal deficits where necessary to facilitate the development objectives of the country.”

    This is doublespeak. You cant have a balanced budget while allowing for deficits. Does he means he is giving priority to balance as a target? Giving priority should mean at the very least explaining how revenues will be boosted or spending cut. Hoping it will happen over time, is not giving priority to it.

    What you can do is to have a balanced budget on current items, – current expenditure versus current revenues – but have a deficit where you think we need to make a capital expenditure today for our future development needs.

    This is sensible on paper, though it is harder to manage in practice (you find all the politicians will start redefining things as a capital expenditure with developmental impact). Indeed it is what the previous govenrment’s policy was and on current expenditure it sometimes ran surpluses. Its capital expenditure created the deficit. So No Change in policy then.

    Under PFI, the government effectively ear marks some current expenditure for the next 20 years say and a private contractor goes and borrows against that government commitment to pay for the capital expenditure. The PFI initiatives therefore have modest impact on the budget, which is why governments all over the world, including the previous BLP administration like using PFI financing to build big shiny projects like a new hospital rather than more poly clinics. (PFI does have an impact on the government’s flexibility in using its budget in the future because you have ear-marked expenditure – I am not a fan of PFI financing.)

    If David and others are right and the economy is choc-a-bloc with illegal immigrants then our unofficial economy probably is significant and the real economy may be 30-40% greater (a typical finding in studies on this subject), which means the the debt to GDP ratios are not close to 90% (to high!) but closer to 60%, which is considered sustainable (The European Maastricht Convergence Criteria has 60% debt to GDP ratio as the target for entrance into Economic and Monetary Union).

    So, maybe our debt levels are not as bad as they look, but they will get there unless we run a tight fiscal position and if we dont it will jeopardise the currency peg.

  25. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    Thomas G, you can have a balanced budget in most years but allow for the occasional small manageable deficit in some years. The time for explaining how expenditure will be cut or revenue raised is the March estimates and the budget respectively.

    I may be wrong, but I got the impression that the previous government did not target a balanced budget.

    Under the PFI arrangements the government has to find money to pay the private contractor each year. I am not sure how they would account for this but under a cash system I assume it would either it would either find its way into current expenditure or capital expenditure each year. I assume that under the accrual system of accounting now used by the government the present value of the future PFI payments would be added to government debt in the year the project is completed. In any event this represents cash that the government must find each year to pay the private contractor.

    FYI, the BLP in their manifesto said that overall debt is now 85% of GDP which is not unsustainable. However they promised to reduce it to 60% as soon as practicable, saying:

    “We will achieve this by growing our economy, by making responsible choices, keeping a tight lid on government expenditure and using the internationally accepted model of Public Private Partnerships to invest in public infrastructure. Such arrangements have become an accepted model for governments to fund roads, hospitals and schools because the financial risks are shared with the private sector.”

    I fail to understand how the risk is shared with the private sector when the private contractor borrows locally to finance the project, the debt is guaranteed by the government, and the project revenues are guaranteed by the government.

  26. Thomas Gresham Avatar
    Thomas Gresham

    Brutus,

    I share your instincts about PFIs, I think they are inducements to ill-thought out expenditure, but I also think you are being a little unfair to them.

    The way they are supposed to work, of course, is that the government says that they will commit the existing budget for maintaining the old hospital say, to a private contractor who will commit to building a new hospital and to maintain it to certain standards. If they do not achieve those standards they commit to paying hefty fines.

    I would say that there is a risk-sharing going on because the public sector is setting the standards and the private sector is committing to meet them, and to paying penalties if they do not. The private sector is bearing the not insignificant risks of changes in material prices, technology issues, labour and other disruptions etc that can impact costs even when there are no variations to contract. Incidentally, this is why it is hard to make fiscal savings from PFI arrangements. Almost every new hospital in Britain over the past 20 years has been built using a PFI arrangement.

    In terms of the national budget, I guess we can agree to disagree now, and wait and see what happens. I spent a fair amount of my professional career forecasting financial indicators and as a forecaster you quickly learn not to dig your heels in. I would simply say that whatever the Government claims their targets and policies to be, I have not seen any policy announced here that would substantially change the overall fiscal position and a few promises that are likely to worsen it. Here is an independent measure: if the DLP were serious in achieving the target of a balanced budget, S&P would be putting us up for a ratings upgrade once it appears we are heading in the right direction. Dont hold your breath.

  27. GoWEB Blog » » Web Roundup (Feb 10th – 15th 2008)

    […] run the story in conjunction with our blog and the public has had much to say. Be sure to look up the comments on Barbados Underground as […]

  28. Leviticus Avatar
    Leviticus

    Thomas, are you sane?

    Balanced but small deficits where necessary!

    What is wrong with that? Let me break it down: the overriding principle is a balanced budget. But WHERE NECESSARY a small deficit!

    Are you aware that a small deficit in equated in some instances with a balanced Budget?

    And, by the way, what is a balanced budget – do you mean on an IMF basis or on our traditional definition? In other words are you including amortisation of debt or not?

    Do you think you can fool all of us with your pretty words?

  29. Thomas Gresham Avatar
    Thomas Gresham

    Leviticus.

    I know you wish to distract from the main issue. You can debate with yourself on whether zero (balanced budget) is the same as a small (undefined) negative.

    Here is the bottom line:

    To improve our fiscal position – whatever your target – you need clear, thought out, impactful policies to raise revenues or lower expenditure or both. Not hope.

    We do not have these policies. The clear policies are for an increase in expenditure (e.g. on housing, feed subsidies, VAT reductions, duty reductions etc.)

    We have some vague promises to better control capital expenditure. That is far easier to say than to do and where the capital expenditure is through a PFI project, not often possible.

    This isn’t an election campaign any more. Please focus on the substantive issue and stop peddling words.

  30. GoWEB Blog » » Month In Review (February 2008)

    […] run the story in conjunction with our blog and the public has had much to say. Be sure to look up the comments on Barbados Underground as […]

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading