The George Brathwaite Column – Growing Distrust and DLP FACTS

George Brathwaite (PhD)

American Tom Daschle once said that “what we need is not more distrust and division. What we need now is acceptance.” This statement is applicable for Barbados given the heightened political rhetoric and the dismissiveness that is implied in the many utterances from governing officials. Increasingly, the Barbados society appears to be affected by a chronic failure of trust. Barbadians expect that politicians should come across as providing credible information, particularly as the national constituency relies on its institutions and elected officials for truth and facts.

Clearly, in our adversarial system of governance, finding consensus is as much a challenge as choosing wisely those persons who would eventually become elected to govern this small developing nation. It is ludicrous, for example, to hear an elected Member of Parliament suggest that citizens or groups are nuisances to development, simply because the secrecy or untenable actions of government are sometimes challenged through the court system. One can easily ask, from whom will the country seek truth and justice? It is a known fact that, at times, the government has acted ultra vires and effective recourse was only remedied through the involvement of the judiciary.

Barbadians have been experiencing a prolonged drift away from the civility that characterised the island’s internal affairs. Almost weekly, the current Democratic Labour Party (DLP) government seems at odds with one entity or another. Resolve is hardly determined by the procrastinating leadership, and the Cabinet’s arrogance often reflects intolerance to divergent views. While intolerance is not a new dimension in Barbadian society, it is the cavalier cutting down of Barbadians and groups mounting critique by Government ministers that bastardises governance on the island. Really, should the Barbadian people and the institutions that they operate through legitimate membership or association be demonised simply because an alternative view is presented?

The repetition of contemptuous behaviour by DLP spokespersons is alarming and is creating greater division in an already polarised society. The evidence is sighted in many recent episodes. For instance, the unnecessary verbal intrusion and imputations directed at union leaders in general, and certainly into the just concluded elections of the executive to serve the National Union of Public Workers (NUPW). There is the ongoing noise and scapegoating of teachers by an elected official who not too long ago, himself was forcibly defending teachers’ rights. Added to these prevarications, the business community has had a sequel of turbulence in which its inputs have hardly been taken seriously. The private sector is frequently told that it has not done enough to help Barbados despite the government has been exceptionally short on providing accurate and timely information on the state of the economy.

The ‘DLP FACTS’ mission is unlikely to reveal the truth about the things that have gone awry in Barbados. Daily, Barbadians are complaining about the dissonance happening in the economy and society. Serious crime, particularly gun violence, is setting a tone that minimises the efforts of the police and other law abiding citizens. Disrespect for authority and the church is becoming more everyday as certain political mouthpieces hypocritically look to assert a moral high-ground although many of their actions in government are collectively debased.

It is precisely that type of governance which makes for a worsening society. Fuelled by prejudices, the political rhetoric of the failed DLP regime is being exposed by many persons that are frustrated with special interests gaining favour above the many Barbadians who sacrificed during the years of no economic growth. Why should a restitution of pay fall to the political class when our public servants are forced to languish without having had a pay increase for almost a decade? Why should Barbadians still be crying out that they are ‘short of work for the past five years’ despite having the means and machinery to perform efficiently and contribute to this nation’s economy? Why should one entity surreptitiously get contracts for major government projects when a host of other contractors and businesses are left to wonder if they will even survive for another six months?

Policy-making in Barbados cannot continue to be informed by the kinds of institutional discrimination and marginalisation that have enveloped the society over the last few years. Nor can silence be the best mode of engagement when so many facts are pointing to an economy and society hurting from the lack of effective decision-making and leadership. Barbadians must find it increasingly difficult to accept the words of a government that boasts of everything seemingly positive but is quick to rubbish anything that reflects their shortcomings or incompetence.

Incidentally, it was Prime Minister Freundel Stuart who advised last year that: “We see the family put under enormous threat and pressure; our institutions, which were supposed to reinforce our attachment to the building of a society, have been operating under untold pressure as well. The school, church, family, the labour movement, our political parties; all of these reinforcing institutions have been under enormous pressure.” While Stuart may have placed “a very volatile global environment” as the causal factor, the perilous situation in Barbados equally has much to do with the increasing failures of government to innovate and address the problems in a timely manner.

In fact, growing mistrust in the society compounds the issues of governance. It is no respite for the DLP to commence a DLP FACTS mission when for far too long, the slippage was evident while the ‘sleeping giant’ rested in another phase far removed from ordinary people. Admittedly, PM Stuart is correct when he asserts that: “If you have alienated people who are not feeling a part of the dynamic that is operative around them, then your society is under threat because you cannot count on these people to rise up and defend something of which they do not feel a part.” Now is the best time for Barbadians to hear all those presenting themselves as a politics of change. Barbados needs vibrant and proactive leadership. Judging from the last nine years, the DLP disqualified itself and Barbadians can only hope the self-determined DLP FACTS do not create more distrust and division. The alienation that comes from growing distrust will hurt us all.

(Dr George C. Brathwaite is a political consultant. Email:


  • @ Vincent Haynes
    To be fair, the preliminary reports were submitted two weeks ago, and the final reports within the last couple days with the PM actually stating receipt and evaluation of the reports. He further stated that what can be done in the short term would be identified apart from those things that are of a medium term nature.
    I make no excuses for this procrastinating leader or Cabinet, but I think we need to be patient to see where all the efforts are going. But like you, I am concerned with the ‘urgency’ required versus that given.


  • @ Hal

    You wrote: “The minister of finance had, apparently, invited Owen Arthur to be his economic adviser; the prime minister, apparently without any consultation with the minister, went to the social partnership, agreed to the setting up of two working parties, who have now reported back, presumably with the intention of implementing their recommendations.”

    The Minister publicly stated that he was forming this committee without naming the person. As far as I am aware, Owen Arthur was the first to inform the public that Sinckler approached him. It has been publicly stated that the matter went to Cabinet and all were not on board with the initative. There have been no reallocation of ministerial portfolios, so fundamentally nothing has changed.

    I rather deal with the facts that the assumptions.


  • NorthernObserver


    For further clarity, I found a book at an auction some years back, authored by a female professor at UWI. which detailed the GEL history.

    It was J.N (Joseph Nathaniel) who started the business and to whom the stories of being a livestock prospector are accorded. His son Victor, was with him and later assumed the reins. After Victor, who never had children, John Stanley his nephew, so referred to not to be confused with John, Victor’s younger brother of cricket fame, became CEO.

    When Buggy said old man, I assumed he was referring to J.N the founder, as it was with JN the story/business began.


  • George

    Around 3 weeks ago the drafts were received(22&23March) as per above.

    Seeing the PM has never accepted that Bim is in difficulties,he is handling the matter accordingly and the term urgent was never intended to be used in this matter.


  • Northern

    Yes it was the original J.N.Goddard that my father would have been referring to and it was my error in confusing him with John Stanley with whom Buggy may have been referring to as married to the Mayers.


  • The soon to be delivered central bank quarterly report by the acting Governor should spur the government to action. The talk is the foreign reserves continue to fall.


  • @ Vincent

    Yes, just over two weeks ago. He has since received the final reports. He has indicated that he is reviewing with a view of implementation. While I have no problems taking a dig at the PM or current Cabinet, I prefer to be fair. I do not expect miracles. In any event, you would also recall OSA and others indicating that given the timelines and falling just before the estimates, it was hiughly unlikely of any speedy resolve.


  • Hal Austin April 13, 2017 at 11:11 AM #

    “The central bank does not make economic policy.”

    @ Hal

    What sentence or phrase in my comments led you to assume I suggested the Central Bank is responsible for economic policy?


  • George C. Brathwaite April 13, 2017 at 11:59 AM #

    Agreed…….which is why I stated …urgent…was never intended to be used.


  • We should step back and recall that the approach by the PM to the social partnership appears to be a bigfoot move to snuffout the Sinckler Arthur arrangement. Time will tell if it is being driven by political motive only.


  • The PM is smarter than any one of the blp operatives that frequent this blog. He prove so by putting the opposition on the back bench twice so much of an embarrsement that OSA high tailed from the blp.
    Come 2018 the same would occur listen to theman in the video he knows out to pick sense out of nonsense that is the nonsencial views of the blp leader Mia Mottley


  • Artax,

    Maybe I was misled when you stated that spokespersons on the economy were awaiting the central bank’s quarterly report., What for?

    @ George,
    If there was no truth in the Arthur as economic adviser, then it was fake news? I would have thought a more sophisticated argument would be that Arthur was not in a position to give anyone economic advice. Just look at his 14 years in charge. His was the worst mismanagement of the economy since the end of the second world war.
    Arthur may continue to fool Barbados Today that he is on top of current economic arguments. Take it from me, he is not.


  • @ Hal

    I neither share your argument or your conclusion. Arthur was not perfect but he surely did many more positives than negatives; he surely positioned Barbados for its next stage of development despite the external forces he battled against. Indeed, while some are quick to deny his grip on Barbados’ economic growth during 1994-2008, and the overall development, the fact is Barbados would have long folded as a failed state particularly with the inept DLP administrations that followed in 2008 and again in 2013.


  • George,
    We must agree to disagree on the notion of Arthur doing wonderful things for Barbados. The illusion of prosperity that accompanied the Arthur regime was just that – living on debt.
    Arthur got rid of the key institution that would have been in pole position to assist in the financialisation of the economy, the BNB; he got rid of the ICBL, another institution that would have assisted in providing the infrastructural investment the island so badly needs; he failed to introduce any radical legislation to catapult the island forward in the short, medium and long-term; he failed to radicalise our educational system so much so that it remains very much what it was when I was at school; he failed to reform the civil service, which is badly in need of change; the police, defence force, criminal justice system, health, housing, job creation – all these are policy areas that passed Arthur by.
    Stuart aside, Arthur will go down as our worst prime minister.
    The battle between the BLP and DLP is a major problem for the nation, a war between tweedledee and tweededum.
    @George As a nation we need better; nation before party. Your generation is the one to rescue us from the deadbeats that have gone before. But if our brightest and best put being an MP or being a party member before anything else then we are on the steps of Hell.
    I know you got the passion and vision. Step up.


  • @ Hal

    I would gladly debate you on several of the points that you highlighted. The BNB was offered buy-in to Barbadians first and foremost. They did not budge. We sold majority interests and the remaining that we kept were sold under the DLP again to boost foreign earnings. In essence we rid ourselves of the last stock not by Arthur but under Thompson/Stuart. As a matter of clarity, Barbados was earning more under the limited ownership than at anytime while owning the BNB. It is perhaps for non-economic reasons that I may have held a bit more of the ownership of BNB.
    Contrary to your claim of no radical legislation, I will contend that they were such. Nonetheless, 1997/98 and then 2001/2 were pivotal in what could be done based firstly on new global rules and the effects of the Asian crisis which flowed into the Americas. Secondly, the architecture of development changed substantially after 9/11 and small states like those in the Caribbean – Barbados included – were forced to grapple with security concerns not of our making and this moved into the scope of our limited exports.
    It was under Arthur that there was public sector reform, the NISE intiative, enhanced training for public servants, greater emphasis on entrepreneurship and incentives for the private sector. I can go on and on, but the beast that is almost always whipped was Arthur’s emphasis on integrated development within the context of the CSME. At that time, Barbados got to the point that more than 52 % of our exports were directed into CARICOM and although not perfect, the potential of manufacturing and services were beginning to show real progress in the region. That all lapsed, not under Arthur, but again under the post-2008 administration. Clearly, it was only after 2013 and thereabout that Barbados began to see the necessity of the regional market as a pathway for some success. The EPA, even with its limitations, was never fully exploited and utilised to our benefit. So that it is quite erroneous to come to the conclusions that you assert. Lots more to say, and lots more details, but I am not sure this median is the best for such a serious and NECESSARY debate. All I will say is that the national debt never exploded or never outstripped real economic growth in the Arthur years. That appears to be the real problem for which the country is now facing. Over to you sir.


  • George,

    The debate is on. In the meantime, there was nothing wrong with the BNB – management, profitability, – that could have forced Arthur to sell the bank, our only Barbados domiciled bank.
    You know that the reasons why banks have different insolvency regimes is because they are different, or as regulators say ‘special’. In any case all that could have been fixed.
    As to its sale, we have a one-dimensional way of privatisation, but we could have learned a lot from various forms of privatisation which we have seen in the UK during the noughties, there are lessons there for us.
    But the financial health of the banking system is central to the overall health of the macro-economy. This quite clearly passed Arthur by. He obviously assumed hat he had power over the courts to declare the bank insolvent or unprofitable. Have a look at the US National Bank Act.
    You say you would have held on to the BNB for non-economic reasons. I beg to differ. He should have held on to the bank for sound financial economic reasons, such as the funding of small and medium enterprises, provide residential mortgages and credit cards.
    The BNB might have earned more under Republic than when it was fully state owned because it has transformed in to a bancassurer without any public discussion or change in legislation.
    When didn’t Arthur introduce a Chapter 11-type law in Barbados, a safe harbour for troubled corporations?
    You mention the 1998 Asian financial crisis impacting on Barbados, how it did is beyond me, but in any case it would have been marginal.
    Nevertheless, as policymakers, the Arthur government should have responded to the lessons of the Asian crisis.
    You also claimed the architecture of development changed after 9/11. For your information, the global economy grew at the fastest in history after 9/11 and even after the 2008 crisis, there was a short recession it continued on its growth. Global capital is now valued at about a quadrillion (one thousand trillion), mainly in derivatives.
    The hoarding of foreign reserves is not sound macro-economic policy (see Joshua Aizenman and others).
    NISE is no a policy; it is smiling at tourists and genuflecting. In short more an embarrassment than a programme. Do you remember when Arthur got school children to write to their overseas friends encouraging them to visit Barbados? The man is a joker.
    As to Caricom/CSME, what positive came out of that so far; the reality is to flood Barbados with the middle classes from other Caricom nations who could not get in to Canada or the US.
    I am a big Caricom supporter, but along the right lines not the grossly incompetent organisation that we have.
    Arthur handed over a debt-ridden economy to the DLP wh, it must be said, went on to make things worse. I suggest you read Jasper Lukkezen and Hugo Rojas-Romagosa’s When is Debt Sustainable (CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis) .

    George, I will end with the building of a great white elephant of a high curt, while the old building remains unused; the great national library still not repaired; Glendairy prison building still unused; I can go on.
    I can talk about poor financial regulation (do you remember when Hank Greenberg, the chairman of the world’s biggest insurance company, AIG, said in evidence that he had opened a Barbados company in order to avoid US taxation and our brain dead insurance regulator said that we had the best system in the world?). We like to punch above our weight.
    George we must have that discussion, either in London or Barbados. There is a lot to talk about.


  • @George

    A debate should take place anywhere the opportunity presents.


    The exchange so far is anchored in the transactional. Where is the philosophy or vision driving the country?


  • @ David

    While I do agree and to take absolutely nothing away from BU, I still think that detailed information is necessary and such can be cumbersome given the format. Of course these are things that I am sure both Hal and myself are willing to put and defend positions.
    Your other statement was not directed at me, but it is clear that Arthur for example came in the height of the neoliberal period (e.g. WTO, non-preferential treatment, expnasion in Europe), and now we are seeing a return to nationalism, protectionism, etc. The times are changing driven by ideological forces. The philosophy of our survival and progress remains fundamentally the same since we are very small players in world events and our lack of real geopolitical significance at this times also minimises our knack for any international primacy. Hence, we must foremost have in our minds our people’s security and freedoms. Sounds simple, but it is not. The growing global uncertainty does not help.


  • David,
    The vision is what kind of society do we want? As an individual I can project the vision for the society, but the decision is a collective one.
    The philosophy is the kind of democracy we would want. This has never formed part of our political discourse, not since the Executive Council ruled the country.


  • @ Hal Austin

    Are you an idiot?
    I read the contribution Artax wrote and he/she did not mentioned nothing about the CBB implementing economic policy.
    Are you aware that economists and other interested groups use the estimates and Central Bank reports to analyze the economy?
    You need to step off your high horse believing yourself to be a know it all.
    Also, why would you want to compare debt in Holland with debt in Barbados, when the economies are different?
    As to BNB, anything operated by civil servants is usually inefficient. Because of poor management, people borrowed money from the bank and did not repay or gave difficulty in repaying.
    As long as it’s government, people say they don’t have to repay.
    BNB was just like the Barbados Development Bank, NHC, BWA, etc. Political interference and political operatives would always prevent BNB from being profitable.
    And are you suggesting BNB could have been used like how successive governments used the NIS?

    Hal Austin, I agree with Bush Tea & Pachamama, you are an ass.


  • Austin

    Your opinions about Owen Arthur seems to be based on your hatred for the man. Did he offend you?

    Read the reports on the Barbados economy written by the IMF, S&P, Moody’s, etc, during Arthur’s tenure.
    Who should I believe, reputable organizations or a two bit wanna be journalist like you, who claimed he set up all these things at universities, without proof?


  • Thomas Lynley,
    I will ignore your facile comments and deal with the substance. There is no economic data, or should be no data, in the central bank’s quarterly report that economic commentators could not get independently, apart from movement on the base rate and an accurate rate of inflation.
    But, if the central bank’s states that inflation is nil, then something is serious wrong with the accuracy of its reporting.
    The central bank can avoid any such suspicion by publishing its methodology, as most reputable central banks do. This will allow analysts to mimic their findings and reach their own conclusions. We do not have any such luxury in Barbados.
    Most reputable central banks use either of two main models: the Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) model, or the Bayesian Vector Autoregression (BVAR). Sometimes there is a distinction made between DSGE and neo-Keynesian models.
    Since Dr Worrell and others like to stress the nature of our ‘small open economy’, the model by Lubik and Schorfheide (2005) may be more appropriate.
    I must admit that until you raised the point, I was not aware why economists needed information at all; thanks for putting me on the right track.
    I stress the above not because I am on a high horse, although mucking about with such data was my job for a number of years, but to make the point that if we ant to play with the big boys we must get our game right.
    As a nation we are in serious economic troubles because the minister of finance is out of his league – and this is not a party political issue – and neither his Cabinet colleagues nor the wider general public have been able to bring the discourse back on track. This will be painful for future generations.
    The problem is that as a nation we have two prisms through which we interpret social experience: the legal and the party political. It is a sad reflection on our educational system.
    We either rush to the courts to settle differences, or we blame the corruption of the party political system for everything, from job appointments to the issuing of job contracts.
    Somebody must try and raise the level of the public debate; if it falls on me I am prepared to put my head above the parapet, and take the personal abuse.
    However, I know there are some very good people in this forum, so I am in good company.
    By the way, the academic paper by Lukkezen et al is about OECD countries, not just Holland, a small open economy.


  • For the record, Mr Lynley, I do not know Mr Arthur and we have never had a discussion about anything, personal, political or economic. I do not hate people. It is a word not in my vocabulary.
    As to setting up things at universities. I have said, and it is on the record, that the MA in Financial Journalism at City University was initiated by me as an outcome of the 2008 crisis. It started as a joint FT/City course with all students doing their work experience at the FT. I was the coordinator at the FT.


  • George

    Arthur got rid of the key institution that would have been in pole position to assist in the financialisation of the economy, the BNB; he got rid of the ICBL, another institution that would have assisted in providing the infrastructural investment the island so badly needs; he failed to introduce any radical legislation to catapult the island forward in the short, medium and long-term; he failed to radicalise our educational system so much so that it remains very much what it was when I was at school; he failed to reform the civil service, which is badly in need of change; the police, defence force, criminal justice system, health, housing, job creation – all these are policy areas that passed Arthur by.

    I will add restructuring Agriculture and Manufacturing.

    Hals point above and mine needs to be fuller addressed,other than 9/11 occurred and put the world in a tail spin.

    The above areas are what us on the sidelines need to have answers for and would be greatfull if you could provide them.


  • William Skinner

    @ Hal
    The party hacks posing as columnists
    ignore that the financial crisis showed
    it’s early signs from around 2005 it gained
    Momentum and was obvious by 2007 and
    by 2008 it was in full bloom. No serious
    Observer has as yet declared it completely
    over. Quite the contrary , some are saying
    another crisis is looming.
    We have these jokers writing so much uninformed
    and misinformed nonsense that it leaves us to
    question what is the purpose of UWI.
    These BLPDLP hacks are a bunch of inferior


  • @ Thomas Lynley
    Hal Austin, I agree with Bush Tea & Pachamama, you are an ass.
    Lord hav’est mercy!!!
    Not Bushie!!!!

    Bushie was at pains to commend Hal for asking great questions….. something that the local press consistently fail to do (except of course for Carl Moore who keep asking the name, NID and IP of any ‘anonymice’ who dare to ask such questions).

    Hal only has issues when he tries to ANSWER the questions….

    Why someone who has not lived in Barbados for forty years, feels able to answer questions that our present leaders, our intelligentsia on the Hill, our clergy, businessmen (except Frustrated B) and our journalists are unable to answer …is completely beyond the bushman.

    Bushie is really a very nice fella and would not normally be inclined to call Hal an ‘ass’…..
    …a BBBBB, (Black Brass Bowl Bajan in Britain)…. YES!!!
    ha ha ha


  • William,

    Something you know, but it needs repeating nevertheless. After the US dollar became over-valued in the early 1970s, they had two devaluations: one in December 1971, and one in February 1973. But the Bretton Woods system still collapsed in March 1973.
    At some historical juncture the US must account for its massive current account deficit which no doubt will lead to further depreciation. When this happens, the proverbial will splatter all over our faces in small island economies.
    But that would not be anything new. Between the end of the Second World War and the early 1970s, the US accounted for 30 per cent of global trade; it is now about 18 per cent, with China accounting for 16 per cent.
    Emerging markets account for 60 per cent of that trade, up from the post-war 40 per cent. Yet global finance does not reflect this. 60 per cent of countries, accounting for 70 per cent of global trade, use the US dollar as their reserve currencies. Along with those who invoice in Greenbacks and those who invest in US treasuries, you can see the problems just piling up. This is the lull before the storm.
    @William, there is disaster ahead and all those still putting their hopes in foreign reserves (meaning the Greenback) will be like the sinners running to the mountains in Revelations. Too late, too late, shall be their cry.
    By the way, according to all major institutions, the US is the single super economy, with China second; yet we still call China a developing economy. Funny that.
    We must have a serious public discussion about where we are going economically. The silliness of party politics must give way.


  • @ David
    You are so hooked on every cliche. By
    now you should realize that everything that
    is happening with our economy was
    predicted since the late 60’s. Do you
    seriously believe that all of this just
    By now you should have concluded that
    when all the shouting is done, that
    neither the BLP or DLP had the answers .


  • Seems as though the DLP made a decision to replace weak candidates, such as Patrick Todd, Kenneth Best and Patrick Tannis for the next general elections, which was confirmed by DLP’s FACTS man, George Pilgrim.

    I know the DEMS were wooing Rodney Grant from the days of Hamilton Lashley because of their close association and work with the Pinelands Creative Workshop. Over the years, Grant has been able to gain a similar amount of support and respect the St. Michael South East gave to Hammie Lah.

    As such, I believe, under these circumstances, there is a possibility the BLP’s Santia Bradshaw will lose her seat in the 2018 general election.

    I’m surprised the DLP’s hierarchy did not consider Michael Carrington to be first on the replacement list, or did not also consider replacing Irene Sandiford-Garner, Esther Byer-Suckoo, Jeptar Ince, Francis DePeiza and Verla DePeiza.

    Freundel Stuart will be 66 years old on April 27. Does the DLP’s hierarchy have enough confidence in him leading the DLP into the upcoming elections?


  • @ David

    Contribution is missing.


  • Artax

    Barring a political miracle……the swing will be against the govt which should carry Santia.

    Would agree with you that the others should be replaced as well.

    It was interesting to read Rev. Tannis in todays paper about his relationship with his party and how he was dumped……….who would join any of these parties?


  • @Vincent

    Do not be naive. Some candidates buck the swing. Rodney Grant has the personality and track record in the geography to transcend party affiliation. It is a smart move by the DLP tacticians.


  • @ Vincent

    I have to agree with David’s comments re: “Rodney Grant has the personality and track record in the geography to transcend party affiliation. It is a smart move by the DLP tacticians.”

    It was definitely “a smart move by the DLP tacticians,” as well as replacing Todd and Best with “home town boys.”

    Despite showing an initial interest in the BLP, Hammie Lah contested the St. Michael South East seat as a DLP candidate, easily defeating the BLP’s Delisle Bradshaw, the same man he canvassed for on previous occasions. Recall Lah subsequently “crossed the floor” to become a member of Owen Arthur’s cabinet and contested the elections for that constituency as a BLP candidate.

    Lah’s prowess as a “grass roots politicians” and community worker gave him the unique ability to be able to win the St. Michael South East seat as a candidate for the BLP and DLP, and clearly suggests his popularity in that constituency “transcend party affiliation.”

    Also recall Santia defeated new comer Tannis by 13 votes. However, and unfortunately for her, Grant presents a tougher challenge in that he canvassed, supported and worked closely with Lah when he (Lah) contested the St. Michael South East seat as a BLP and DLP candidate.

    Many people consider Grant as “heir apparent” to Lah.


  • Not disagreeing but time will tell re the swing.


Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s