Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Opposition Leader Mia Mottley Accused Of Confusing Barbadians, Privatization Will NOT Lead To Advancement Of Political Enfranchisement

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Submitted by the People’s Democratic Congress (PDC)

 

Opposition Leader Mia Mottley

The idea that there will be “A New Beginning with Mia – A Chance for Barbados” is such a ludicrous flagrant idea to the PDC that it is not even worth considering on a piece of cheap, dirty foolscap paper. Now, let us a little show, commenters and visitors to BU why this is so.

In her address to the Barbados Chamber of Commerce And Industry recently, Ms. Mia  Mottley did talk, et al, about the Government and the People having to find “new models to fuel our future development” and did talk about this DLP Government continuing “to cling to old models of development that assumes that the its only levers of action are to TAX and SPEND”.

As well,  Ms Mottley spoke about the privatization of certain government controlled assets like that Airport, Seaport, Transport Board, BNOC, so that the process of so-called economic enfranchisement can be engaged – what a dangerous wretched fallacy though.

First, however, Ms Mottley must be told in no uncertain terms that – far from being disposed of under some false notion of economic enfranchisement, where a future PDC Government is concerned, these types of  government assets/businesses are the ones that will NOT ONLY be kept and reformed for national strategic political social reasons, BUT will  ALSO be some of the ones  out of those many  THAT WILL   become or will be wholly owned by a new state  partnership entity – that will be owned by those who are presently employed by the government or that are paid by the government – and  that will have – as one of its principal purposes – the  purpose of helping the government and people of Barbados generate more income.

 

So, where is the vision of this BLP leader? this new beginning that is being uttered by some BLP yardfowls? Where is this beginning, Ms. Mottley must be asked, when she herself already imagines continuing with old style privatization models that have failed before to generate sustainable levels of income generation for the country?

Mottley must also be asked, where have the old style privatization methods  worked in all or most spheres, in cases where Owen Arthur and she did privatize the Barbados National Bank, The Insurance Corporation of Barbados, to the benefit of the workers in those companies – who are still terribly exploited by these companies??

Worse yet, it is downright silly for her to suggest  that – with the idea of the NIS owning portions of shares in the Barbados airport, seaport that would be privatized under her ideas,  this would mean  some kind of guarantee of legal part-ownership BY THE PEOPLE in whatever kinds of ownership structures that will evolve under her lousy dream schemes!!

The fact of the matter is that SINCE  ALL OF  THE  PROPERTY  THAT  THE GOVERNMENT  POSSESSES  IS  VESTED   IN  THE   BRITISH  CROWN, the fact of the matter too is that – wholly legally – the people DO NOT own any properties that government  really and truly purports to possess on their own behalf in this country, and so, therefore, this means that right now  our Barbadian people are in NO POSITION to control or exercise control over them, and or control over any income flows into or out of them, even though they have to BASICALLY  underwrite them through evil wicked TAXATION.

Therefore, any so-called economic enfranchisement process that sees any private or government agency wholly owning and wholly controlling, or part-owning and part-controlling commercial entities in Barbados – without the members of these private and government enterprises actually legally individually owning and controlling whole portions of all of these entities that are to be privatized, or that are already in private hands, is A JOKE SHAM ENFRANCHISEMENT PROCESS.

The fact that there is nothing such a economic enfranchisement – it is a contradiction – given that economics also means the crown, elite and the government constantly getting far more (assets/resources, stolen income) for less/little of the same put in – and given that enfranchisement means greater rights and means to anyone-sector to access more (assets/resources/income);  means that instead of economic enfranchisement for the crown, elite and the government, there is really only political enfranchisement left for the masses and middle classes of this country – which itself speaks to the changing or putting  in place or removing of laws, rules and regulations to great effect to greater RIGHTS  or NEW RIGHTS that will make sure that greater wealth and income flows go to the – most productive people of our country – the broad masses and middle classes of this country – who continue to get proportionately little of this national wealth and income generation in this country – and away from the the least productive people in this country – the elite and the government.

That is why we in the PDC continue to say that a future PDC Government shall – within a reasonable time of its establishment –  make sure that legislation is swiftly enacted that makes sure that Barbados moves from being a constitutional monarchy to becoming a republic, and that legislation is enacted certifies that ALL multi-member corporate business entities in Barbados shall become PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, and that all foreign enterprises that will – at the time of the existence of a PDC Government – be operating in Barbados, shall do so in partnership with local partnership enterprises.

And moreso that is why too  a future PDC Government shall make sure that legislation is passed that certifies that ALL  PROPERTY  THAT  IS  NOW  VESTED   IN THE CROWN  OR ON THE BEHALF OF IT VIA  SUBSIDIARY  INSTITUTIONS shall become VESTED  – on Barbados becoming a republic, IN THE  NEW  STATE MANAGEMENT  ENTITY  that  will be owned philosophically, legally and otherwise by those who are now described as present-by workers or by those who are now paid weekly monthly by the state.

So, it is a pity that Mottley did NOT speak in such ways to those things but spoke rather conservatively!!! For, where in any part of her speech did she speak to the fact that any serious political enfranchisement process related to wealth and income redistribution among the social income categories in this country cannot be undergone without Barbados  moving from a constitutional monarchical system of government to a republican system of government??

Or speak to the fact that of giving, or that the giving greater OR NEW RIGHTS of ownership/control of wealth and income to  individuals of the broad masses and middle classes, cannot be properly engaged unless and at the same time the elite and the government are disadvantaged and disenfranchised, property-wise, income-wise etc. and in the interest of greater political enfranchisement of our broad masses and middle classes??  HUH!!!??

So where is this new beginning that Ms. Mottley is seeking to create?? Where?? Where are these new developmental models that she spoke about in her address to those persons who were present at the  Barbados Chamber Of  Commerce And Industry gathering??

Moreover, that is why even with the establishment of Credit Union Cooperatives in Barbados, there has been no real sense of ownership and control being derived to the members who are purported to be the owners of them.

For, even though these members in many ways  do make sure that  with the incomes that are saved, that with the homes and vehicles and other properties that are bought maintained on the basis of the amount of individual savings, that they are able to achieve the latter,  and that therefore are able to achieve some measure of upward social mobility, the truth is that they still cannot satisfy the criteria of having achieved greater political enfranchisement  in this country, simply because they don’t have as yet political freedom and liberation  from the evils, wrongs and scourges of TAXATION, INTEREST RATES, REPAYMENT  OF  INSTITUTIONAL PRODUCTIVE  LOANS, MORTGAGES, PRODUCTIVE DEBT, MOTOR  VEHICLE  INSURANCE, etc.

Finally, in the above regards and in our  going through the written copy of her speech at the Barbados Chamber of Commerce event on BU, it is very clear that – given our very logical arguments –  Ms. Mottley has made a fundamental colossal error in confusing the furtherance of the privatization process with the advancement of political enfranchisement process in Barbados.

So, where is the vision from her?? For, where there is no vision, the people of Barbados shall surely  perish, and without a chance for their betterment.

VOTE  PDC  NEXT  ELECTIONS!!!

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

5 responses to “Opposition Leader Mia Mottley Accused Of Confusing Barbadians, Privatization Will NOT Lead To Advancement Of Political Enfranchisement”

  1. David Avatar
    David

    No respite for Mia.

    PDC will have to read your submission fully once more. It was long.

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

    David,

    This post was originally supposed to have come under the thread: A New Beginning With Mia – A Chance for Barbados.

    But, because of a fair amount of thought that went into it then – when we were doing it under that particular thread, we spontaneously decided after it was finito to make it our column piece.

    Of course, owing to the spontaniety, there are some grammatical structural errors contained in it, which we take ultimate responsibility for.

    However, the partial analyses – which lie at the core of this response, have been duly made by the PDC, so as to open up the minds of many to just a few out of the many intellectual ideological argumentative flaws and weaknesses in the said address.

    For, many of these flaws and weaknesses – like her clearly confusing “the furtherance of the privatization process with the advancement of political enfranchisement process in Barbados” – seem to be ignored by some on here BU and elsewhere, esp. those who are academics in this country, to the detriment of the illusion that she has made a high quality contribution to intellectual debate discourse in this country – when in truth and in fact she has not.

    Now, the fundamental intellectual weaknesses made in her address must engender the idea that the many of the subjects to sought to and did deal with in her address were too high and too tall for her.

    Too, why her address was seemingly so significant was because the Leader of Opposition of the Government in Parliament is expected to deal with serious intellectual policy research matters and conversations of multifarious kinds about some things that are/have been taking place, or that are likely to take place in the country at the social, political, material and financial levels.

    However, what is also expected is that when such addresses are made by such persons and other senior political people, many academics and intellectuals in Barbados must – though not like in a feeding frenzy – but with dispassionate analysis and intelectual scientific rigour – go after such
    contributions by such people.

    So, that like in the USA where many presidential contenders make many intellectual theoritical contributions on foreign policy and other matters to the Foreign Affairs Journal of the Council On Foreign Relations, academic foreign policy wonks and writers in the USA and beyond would be in positions to know where they stand on the intellectual scale.

    Hence, Barbados must make sure that its political leaders are able to stand up to – in whatever forums – serious academic intellectual scrutiny via critical assessments by academics and others of their capacity to distill profound ideas or theories that can likely assist in the intellectual social political material financial development of this country.

    A similar thing happens in China where future Chinese leaders are expected to present serious ideas on Chinese intellectual political development. For instance, Jiang Zemin’s theory on the Three Represents, which was written into the Chinese Constitution alongside Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, and Deng Xiaoping Theory at the 16th CCP Congress in 2002. See Wikipedia. org.

    And check or remember, too, Stalin who had developed the Theory of Socialism in One Country, whereby it was espoused that “socialism can be built and consolidated by a country” as underdeveloped as Russia was during the 1920s. Stalin also put forward the theory of aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism. See Wikipedia.org. Also, check or remember Hilter’s Mien Kampf ( My Struggle).

    But, in the final analysis, where Ms. Mottley’s address is concerned, a thorough non-partisan analysis of that address would show that she fundamentally failed to deliver at the Barbados Chamber of Commerce and Industry event recently.

    A search around certain academic social discussion points in this country would also show that there has been no serious critique by anyone of what Mottley had to say either. None whatsoever!!

    Hence, the ultimate consideration for Mottley herself must be that she must raise the intellectual bar if she really wants to be taken more seriously – intellectually politically – outside of her forte – legal affairs.

    PDC

  3. David Avatar
    David

    @PDC

    Don’t worry about grammatical errors, sometimes crap happens.

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

    On page 12, in the Barbados Advocate of Thursday, October 7, 2010, there is a story under the headline – Beckles: More Efficient Public Service Needed, that is so atrocious in its reading that one wonders whether Mr. Tennyson Beckles is growing senile or not.

    We wonder whether this is so or not, because in regard of the question as to whether the size of the government is too big, he is reported to have said – in the same news story – that the size of the government is not the problem.

    Well, Mr Beckles is flipping well, absolutely dead wrong on this point. For, it is patently clear that the size of government has become a massive problem for the government, with it own adverse and destructive effects on many others in this country. Such a conclusion can be drawn from, et al, the last quarterly Economic and Financial Statistics of the Central Bank of Barbados.

    For, in table G 1, in the fiscal year 1981/1982, the following figures ( quoted in ‘000s of Barbados Dollars) for the Central Administration – Summary of Operations – of the Government of Barbados, were as follows, under the particular heads:

    Current Revenue $ 469, 432;
    Current Expenditure $ 450, 203;
    Current Surplus/Deficit $19 229;
    Capital Expenditure $ 173, 074;
    Net Lending $ 989;
    Total Expenditure and Net Lending $ 624, 266;
    Total Surplus/Deficit $ 154, 834;

    In the same Table G1 for the 1991/1992 fiscal period, the following figures ( quoted in ‘000s of Barbados Dollars) for the Central Administration – Summary of Operations – of the Government of Barbados, were as follows, under the particular heads:

    Current Revenue $ 989, 559;
    Current Expenditure $ 921, 941;
    Current Surplus/Deficit $ 67, 618;
    Capital Expenditure $ 113, 397;
    Net Lending $ 8, 998;
    Total Expenditure and Net Lending $ 1, 044, 336;
    Total Surplus/Deficit $ – 57, 777;

    In the same Table G1, for the fiscal period 2001/2002, the following figures ( quoted in ‘000s of Barbados Dollars) for the Central Administration – Summary of Operations – of the Government of Barbados, were as follows, under the particular heads:

    Current Revenue $ 1, 723, 605;
    Current Expenditure $ 1, 582, 077;
    Current Surplus/Deficit $ 141, 528;
    Capital Expenditure $ 334, 643;
    Net Lending $ 12, 014;
    Total Expenditure and Net Lending $ 1, 928, 734;
    Total Surplus/Deficit $ – 205, 130;

    In the same Table, the fiscal period 2007/2008, the following figures ( quoted in ‘000s of Barbados Dollars) for the Central Administration – Summary of Operations – of the Government of Barbados, were as follows, under the particular heads:

    Current Revenue $ 2, 477, 392;
    Current Expenditure $ 2,382, 357;
    Current Surplus/Deficit $ 375, 253 (-22, 933);
    Capital Expenditure $ 680, 082;
    Net Lending $ 25, 215;
    Total Expenditure and Net Lending $ 3, 087, 654;
    Total Surplus/Deficit $ – 610, 262;

    From these figures it can therefore be deduced that bigger and bigger government continues to be a massive problem in this country over the years. Such figures have not even included other administrative costs and stolen income transferred to such entities in government over the course of the period 1981 to 2007.

    A look at the total government debt – using the same Economic and Financial Statistics June 2010 – would show that this debt went from BDS $ 685 Million in 1981, to BDS 4 1947.9 Million in 1991, from BDS $ 3, 705.3 Million in 2001, and to BDS $ 5, 704. 9 Million in 2007.

    Hence, more figures ( above) to show that the bigger and bigger government is, the larger the total government debt has been over the years. And many of us in Barbados know what the repercussions are of a bigger government debt, including the spectre now of having the government’s credit status downgraded by Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s, etc.

    What these figures show fundamentally is that the government has NOT been able to properly manage its own financial and debt operations over the years. A clear sign that it is too big to manage its own affairs.

    Too, non-statistical approaches can be used by us to show that the government right now is too big in this country.

    The disturbing unwelcome situation that is seen by many people in Barbados whereby inputs, based on standards, are unable to measure or incapable of measuring up with outputs in various areas of the government, for many reasons. For instance, it takes very long for a certain group of MPW and T workers to build one stretch of road in Barbados.

    Which brings us to another very ungainly point that Mr. Beckles was reported to be making in the story: that the public service’s not being proficient – was really the problem.

    While it is true that this problem of not being proficient is rife within the public sector (more than in the private sector), the fact is that gross and reckless mismanagement ( a case of the lack of public service ) of the public service has been the major cause of big government in this country, and when aided by evil wicked TAXATION, the ability of the government to borrow above and beyond its means to pay back, etc., the point of gross mismanagement having been the major cause of the government being too big, then becomes clearer.

    And the picture must therefore be got by many people that once greater better management comes to the government sector, and that with the Abolition of TAXATION, INTEREST RATES, the Abolition of the government issuing government paper, etc., plus an entire overhaul of the public service to make it fully managed by those who will own a state partnership enterprise to manage the affairs of the public service, there must become the reality that the leaner and more manageable the government is, the better it will be in the long term in many ways for the government itself and the wider society.

    So, Tennyson Beckles stop talk utter rubbish!!

    PDC

  5. Robert Avatar
    Robert

    PDC,
    I just noticed that no one has responded to this article.

    The title suggests that this should have generated good discussion; but I think bloggers have overlooked it due to its length.

    Length does not mean quality. In fact, I once knew a UWI lecturer who always reminded us that whenever a paper came to him with overflowing material – the writer usually is off-target.

    I am not implying that you don’t know what you are saying; but I believe your articles can be more potent if you learn to abbreviate.

    As it presently is, you do a great injustice to yourself with these lengthy mini-theses.

    Develop the art of concise writing; to the jugular; making it interesting.

    I believe if you did this, the writers will take you seriously; for your topics usually have the potential for much debate.

    No malice intended.

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