← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

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:


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

120 responses to “DLP's Privatisation Dilemma”

  1. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ ac | November 26, 2012 at 8:53 AM |
    “.. therfore for the BLP to conclude that in the past David was in favour of such policy does not hold up well to scrunty as it is obvious it was not part of the DLP 2008 manifesto”

    But this was included though:

    “Barbados can and should rest assured
    that a Democratic Labour Party administration
    will do something tangible
    and meaningful about this vexing
    issue of the cost of living because
    we are beholden to no one.”

    Job No.1, Job No.2 & Job. No.3 is now pure “jobby” talk.

    For further “jobby” talk read pages 6-7 of the Damned Lying Party book of lies called its 2008 manifesto.

    What about the promise to be fulfilled by Mr. Molasses from Fake Integrity Hill?
    How long is too long if it is immediate? Can you blame this broken promise on the international recession or even the OSA 14 year old millstone around the DLP neck?

    The Democratic Labour Party will also:
    Immediately introduce integrity legislation
    Requiring:
    • a declaration of assets by public officials,
    • a Code of Conduct for Ministers,
    • a new Freedom of Information law,
    • amendments to the Defamation laws and
    • new constitutional provisions to rationalise
    the powers of the Prime Minister.

  2. We do not want back Owen Arthur Avatar
    We do not want back Owen Arthur

    Well we know one thing , Owen Arthur will never introduce Integrity Legislation and unlike Freundel (2 years as PM to get it done); Arthur had 14 years and a 26 – 2 mandate. If integrity legislation is something you want, you cannot in good conscience vote for Owen Arthur.
    He was not then and still is not now interested in that subject.

  3. millertheanunnaki Avatar

    @ We do not want back Owen Arthur | November 26, 2012 at 9:40AM |
    “If integrity legislation is something you want,you cannot in good conscience vote for Owen Arthur.”
    Listen up, idiot supremo, we are not talking about any Owen Arthur here. We are talking about the DLP promise made in its 2008 manifesto.
    You dismissive arrogance towards the electorate shines right through.
    God help Barbados if this arrogance continues. A level of arrogance it took the BLP 12 years to reach has been attained in less than 5 by this DLP administration and its supporters.
    We will not only nip this one in the bud but will also uproot the entire plant of arrogance and lying haughtiness being displayed.


  4. The hilarious part of OSA performance is when he concludes that he was againstPRIVATISATION then. however in a strange twist he finds himself agreeing withDAVID THOMPSON NOW .kinda funny way of trying to distant himself from the policiesof the DLP kind of similiar to his lame excuse on the VESCO project as he tries to unloose the PRIVATISATION knoot from around his neck..it seeems that the more OSA tries to wriggle his way out of PRIVATISATION debacle the tighter the noose gets


  5. miller unlike your leader the PM is not one to lie the integrity legislation is going ti be passed .

  6. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ ac | November 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM |

    Which ‘leader” you referring to? You mean the late great of “I will not lie, cheat or steal” fame?
    While he is thinking with great deliberation about the passing of IL let Mr. Molasses stop cogitating until the twelfth of never and pay Barrack as mandated by the Court along with the payment of principal to CLICO policyholders as a matter or urgency and principle as promised to that joker woman June Fowler.
    By his actions he will be judged not by promises alone.


  7. 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.


  8. @Gabriel Tackle

    Why did he say it was a waste of time?

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



  9. 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


  10. @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


  11. @Gabriel Tackle

    We need to know why to give context to his view.


  12. 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 .


  13. @David
    Point accepted.One assumes it was considered neither important nor ‘implementable’.

  14. 100% Hardcore Bajan Avatar
    100% Hardcore Bajan

    @ 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”


  15. @100% Hardcore

    A reasonable view.


  16. 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 .

  17. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ 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?


  18. Being a Newbie, I’m always doing a search online for articles that can help me. Wonderful Job, Chow!


  19. 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.

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