My heart goes out to those 17, 000 Puerto Ricans set to go on the breadline in a matter of days. The authorities say there is no alternative to cutting the wages bill. Those 16, 970 government workers to be axed follow a previous 7, 000 that were sent packing in May of this year.
Of course, 14 million Americans were thrown out of work over the past 20 months and claims on the U.S. unemployment scheme continue to climb. The same dismal picture emanates from Gordon Browne’s Great Britain, where joblessness is at its highest in more than two decades.
I take no comfort in these sobering, indeed depressing statistics, but they are timely reminders of how fortunate we are in Barbados to be staying and steering clear of the worse case scenarios associated with the current global economic downturn. Closer to home in several Caribbean islands, the International Monetary Fund has not only knocked, but in some instances, has knocked the door down in its haste to enter and remedy near calamitous situations.
We know from past experience that the IMF’s prescriptions are almost always harmful to the social fabric of society. Their recommendations have hardly differed over the years. When once you hear IMF, you are likely to hear of layoffs, tax increases, hikes in utility rates and a cessation of social services and conveniences. That perhaps explains why its most recent report on Barbados and its list of recommendations did not generate a significant stir, because to many objective onlookers, it was a case of more of the same. Once there is a threatening or even challenging situation, the IMF’s prescription will be the same.
That is why it was a little puzzling, the attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to score brownie political points by highlighting, in graphic detail, the specific recommendations made by the IMF and discounted, to a large extent, by the Minister of Finance and his advisors.
Ms. Mottley spoke in a manner as to suggest that by not following hook, line and sinker what the IMF had recommended, the Minister of Finance had sentenced this country to everlasting damnation and that we would pay a very dear price with our jobs, our standard of living and access to those social amenities we take for granted. The Leader of the Opposition could not understand how it was that the call had been made for an increase in bus fares and an end to free travel for school children, but yet the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance was reiterating his resolve to retain these concessions.
Mottley could not understand how the Minister of Finance was not giving second thought to the call for a cut in the national wages bill or an increase in utility prices. But, most of us who are not blinded by partisan, political subjectivity, understood clearly that such were not practical options at this time.
Indeed, even though former Prime Minister Owen Arthur has refused to sit on the eminent persons panel of economic advisors, he sharply rebuked Mottley last Sunday when he made the point that the Prime Minister would be il-advised to follow the recommendations of the IMF.
I wrote last week that the Leader of the Opposition was not helping her cause by speaking so ‘out of turn’ and without the benefit of careful and clinical analysis. It is one thing to want to keep one’s name in print and in the public domain, but it is another to continuously select the wrong balls at which to play.
Another classic case of poor topic selection was the Leader and her deputy’s intervention in the matter of fingerprinting for persons arriving and departing Barbados main port of entry. Clearly the opposition had not done its homework. Indeed, it is arguable whether clear mischief was intended.
Ms. Mottley, as then Attorney General, would have been familiar with the protocols and conventions entered into by the Government of Barbados in the lead up to the hosting of Cricket World Cup a few years ago. The finger printing initiative dates back then. Ms. Mottley can check her files and be reminded of the fact that it was under her watch that Barbados first signaled its intention to pursue initiatives such as fingerprinting in a bid to strengthen security at its borders.
Therefore, even though it can be argued that had the current government the will and desire to alter the plan it could have so done, the reality is that the start up of random, optional fingerprinting at the airport dates back to agreements entered into by the government of Barbados in the lead up to Cricket World Cup and Ms. Mottley was an integral player in the facilitation of CWC.
Former Prime Minister Arthur has not had his say on this issue as yet, but I am almost sure that when he does he will perhaps take a dim view of Mottley’s perspective on this matter. I do not believe that Arthur will set out to embarrass Mottley, but it must be difficult for him, as a former leader of the party, to sit still as she commits blunder after blunder.
But, all hope is not lost for Mottley. She has an opportunity now to distance herself from the award of the controversial 3S Road Contract which will no doubt become topical again, following a recent high court ruling against the predecessor to that mysterious company. Prime Minister David Thompson said a few weeks ago that the 3S mess was far from cleaned and done away with. He said the time for questioning would come and that Arthur in particular would have to answer with respect to the rolling Memorandum of Understanding that has to date cost Barbadian taxpayers a scandalous amount of money.
Mottley is not likely to do or say anything to shield any member of the former administration that might be implicated in overseas bribery allegations that have now led to a guilty plea by a company known to the leadership of 3S. Neither is she likely to attempt to answer the question of how it is that a company with no track record in road building could have been awarded such an open ended contract.
What we do know is that as the Roebuck street battle intensifies, persons will hit below the belt and useful information may fall from the back of a truck, to bring about the demise of one side and the triumph of another. Whatever happens, situations such as last Sunday’s, where two leaders of a party addressed two meetings held less than 100 yards apart, are likely to become the norm.
Hartley Henry is a Regional Political Strategist. He can be reached at hartleyhenry@gmail.com
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.