DLP's Privatisation Dilemma

Caswell Franklyn, Head of Unity Workers Union

I have come to the conclusion that many local politicians seem to have an aversion to telling the truth, even when the truth would not hurt them; their default position is to lie. Nothing has borne that out more than the privatisation debate that is presently gripping the country.

Opposition Leader, Owen Arthur, articulated a policy on privatisation that almost mirrors previously stated DLP policy. Unfortunately, that policy inflamed the passions of a section of the community, particularly the trade union movement, to the extent that the president of NUPW called a press conference to reiterate his union’s opposition. Sadly, the DLP chose to shift gears and disavow their longstanding policy, claiming that it would lead to job losses. Interestingly enough, only Minister of Finance, Christopher Sinckler, had the courage to admit publicly that both parties are at one on the privatisation issue.

It is that either Owen Arthur is extremely clever or the DEMS are exceedingly dumb. He set up the DLP by outlining their well established policy, on privatisation, as his; and they, with the exception of Sinckler, were silly enough to repudiate everything that they stood for.

The DLP’s longstanding policy on privatisation was issued as a ministerial statement in the House of Assembly on November 10, 1992 by the then Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, David Thompson. The statement can be found at pages 2600 and 2601 of Hansard for the First Session 1991 – 96.

Please follow the link below to pages 2600 – 2601:

120 thoughts on “DLP's Privatisation Dilemma

  1. Do any of you DLP apologists know that IL was to be debated under a former BLP administration and the late great EWB said it was a waste of time and that he nor the members of his opposition would entertain the proposal.

    • @Gabriel Tackle

      Why did he say it was a waste of time?

      Perhaps at the time consideration for such legislation was not a priority?

  2. Miller you got a chock-full of request why did’.t you not request similiar of the BLP they had more than enough time to legislate IL and pay Barrack why the haste now, for an administration of five years.last time i check 14 was more than five

  3. @David
    I do not recall a reason being proferred for that decision.I recall at the time he was ‘going through the motions’ of representaion in parliament.He was without the customary challenges of office and appeared disillusioned with his comrades losing the election of 1976

  4. when it comes to the politics of fear.No one demonstarted it better than OSA now he gets on the campaign “bully pulpit ” to lecture the PM about “fear” gee he needs to take a hard long look in the mirror and see who is lookking back. the stories of intimidation by OSA are well known in barbados .

  5. @ David

    The privatisation issue has crystallised in the minds of the voting public in Barbados. Talk to most Barbadians and they will tell you that the BLP is on one of the issue and the DLP is on the other. Whether that is in fact true or not does not matter so much, politics is all about perception.

    The real matter left to be determined now is, with the BLP being on the wrong side of the issue (especially as the DLP’s position was/is to retain public sector jobs) is it fatal to their chances of being elected?

    I suggest to you that the answer to that question lies with the actions and political mouthings of the BLP since the public backlash to Owen Arthur’s 15-point plan, central of with is the issue of privatisation.

    The BLP knows the issue could and most probably is fatal and that is what account for their concerted efforts to do three things:-

    1. Show that privatisation will not result in jobs loses, and
    2. That the BLP and the DLP are both on the sime side of the issue, namely, the need to privatise certain services and statutory corporations.
    3. Distract the public’s attention with claims of squandamania against the DLP administration.

    I am inclined to think the privatisation issue is absolutely fatal and the BLP knows, that why they have dropped the recent mantra of “call the damn election Freundel”

  6. not only that notice at the brittons hill meeting the focus was on leadership the blp effort in trying to regain the edge as they had perceived they got after the poll. however i believe it is going to be a hard road to hoe as the blp has put an obstacle in their way one that clearly is seen by the public as one which will affect public sector financially in hard economic times .

  7. @ ac | November 28, 2012 at 6:30 AM |

    Ac, what is your view on the decision made by Government and NIS to sell the shares in the Republic Bank leading eventually to100 % foreign ownership of the National Bank previously owned by a once proud and industrious people?

    Now please no stupid talk about OSA started it so the DLP just aping him. Your party promised to use the money to upgrade the QEH. Or is this just another promise to be arrogantly broken like the many others? Will we see it being used to splurge for the elections or more critically to pay salaries of public servants for the balance of the financial year? What about that Dodds BOLT payment due next month; a BOLT arrangement similar to the Molasses tanks for locking away a dying rum industry?

  8. These songs and their lyrics are more than just iconic.
    I have appreciated every single comment, message board post, e-mail (including some
    awesome essays. Only a cat probably has more lives than
    this song and its lyrics have had.

Leave a comment, join the discussion.