In a rare public statement, Bruce Golding last night indicated that the Government is headed in the wrong direction and that while we may meet the IMF conditions it will not put us on a growth path.
He also indicated we have many government agencies , having staff sitting idle and being paid a salary, even as the mandate that these agencies have cannot be fulfilled due to lack of funds.
Basically what is being said is, we have agencies that are not able to do their job, but the Portia Simpson administration is keeping these agencies fully staffed and paid monthly salaries, because the PM refuses to take action.
Updated Sunday March 24, 2013
Below is excerpt from the speech made available by the Gleaner
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20130324/focus/focus7.html
Warren's Blog 
This is one issue that I can’t be neutral on. So I ridiculously say that due to my hatred of Mr. Golding Jamaica MUST be going in the RIGHT direction, just because he said we’re going in the wrong direction.
Given Golding’s cack-handedness as prime minister* I too would imagine that the truth is basically the opposite of anything he says. At the very least he has given us ample enough evidence to support such a view.
Once again though it seems odd that Golding finds his voice and has all the answers once he is out of government and out of parliament. Whatever happened to his promise to before the 2007 election to overhaul the government contracts system so that garrison politics would influence government contracts? Oops! I forgot, that had to get thrown by the wayside because his paymasters in the Shower Posse needed their front businesses to have contracts.
* and no, the Economist is not a good source on his abilities, one can easily prove where the Economist has shown bias and complete ignorance in articles about many other countries including Bangladesh, China and Russia and in the article on Golding the writer was puzzled over Golding’s resignation despite the fact that NO public opinion poll published in any newspaper in the country at the time had him having the slightest chance of leading the JLP to an electoral victory; he was and remains unpopular (quite possibly even within the JLP)
Your comments about the Economist are so true.It’s not once or twice that the Economist has shown that bias and proven itself to be oblivious to facts. When I read its release on Mr. Golding’s resignation I was so angry that the misinformation was being broadcast to the world.
You and Jon really like to talk, in 2008 Mr.Golding was graded by a number of analysts and they had good things to say. Portia was graded in 2012 and it was extremely dismal. Furthermore, even Bloomberg news liked Mr.Golding. Bruce Golding has the right to criticise the present administration, even if you do not like Mr.Golding it does not change the fact that the present administration is an epic failure. In addition, the pnp gave a number of contracts to jlp and pnp dons. Mr. msupdate you sound like one of those persons who live in Portia’s constituency but she has done nothing for you. The Economist has criticised countries like Russia and China, because some of their economic policies do not work. For example in the 1980s it was said that Japan was going to become the new superpower and it never did. There are two types of companies in China privately controlled oligopolies and state organizations which are subsidized even if they fail. According to Professor Ilian Mihov China should improve its business environment and create its own products in order to sustain growth. China’s debt to gdp ratio is 200%, that’s higher than Japan’s pre-economic crash debt to gdp ratio. If China continues to increase spending in order to stimulate growth the debt will increase, also domestic consumption in China is relatively low when compared to developed countries in 2011 it was only 36%. In China major buildings are established where noone shops or lives. The Economist magazine prefers to be objective and not sensational like other magazines which give readers the impression that countries like China and Russia have perfect economic system without analyzing them properly. Mr. Golding told Portia to sheild peter from his critics; Portia would have told people to attack Bruce Golding because she is a stupid political lackey who could care less about the country
I see someone is studying for CAPE.. There are lots more to learn young man, clearly you don’t know enough about the Economist.
Lipton, how about providing a source for these gradings?
And why is it that we have to go all the way back to 2008 for the gradings by Golding? What happened in 2009 and 2010 and 2011? Did they stop grading him? And for what reason?
And do you realize that if Richard Nixon were to be graded by analysts in February 1972 he would have been regarded as a political genius for visiting China, yet in by November 1972 he would have been regarded as a common crook due to Watergate?
Just as there is no possible way Nixon could have continued after Watergate without eventually being graded an abject failure there is no possible way Mr. Golding could have continued after 2011 without likewise being graded an abject failure.
Mr. Golding in 2008 said all the right things. Mr. Golding in 2011 looked very much like he was in the pay of gangsters. Period. The fact that he is on record from the past as having admitted associating with gunmen and claiming it isn’t a crime to associate with said gunmen is more than enough for me to question his moral values including his penchant for truth telling. And if you don’t believe me on this, then maybe you will believe a sourced reference or two: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20100525/cleisure/cleisure2.html (and Mr. Robinson has repeatedly written on the current administration’s failures, so it is not as if he has some kind of axe to grind) and http://lloyddaguilar.blogspot.com/2011/05/tivoli-massacre-one-year-later-analysis.html
And nobody ever said Mr. Golding did not have the right to criticize the current administration (that is a strawman argument on your part). What msupdate and I have said is that we simply cannot believe anything Mr. Golding NOW says as a result of his (mis)handling of the truth between 2009-2011 over an extremely important issue that resulted in over 70 people being shot dead (including at least 3 security personnel and quite possibly a dozen to two dozen persons who might have been killed by gangsters before the security forces went into Tivoli).
Are you trying to argue that msupdate and I don’t have the right to criticize Mr. Golding’s record from 2009-2011? Or that we don’t have the right to express our views that we find it difficult to believe what he says as a result of past experience? Perhaps you can tell me why I should listen to and believe a man who is versed in double speak. For example, this is Mr. Golding in 2010 on the issue of transparency:
“Every country that has attempted to regulate financing has had to confront these issues. It would be incongruous to require private contributors to political parties to have their contributions publicly disclosed. I am not rejecting the proposal I am just mentioning consistencies that would have to be addressed,”
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/PNP-wants-full-disclosure-of-political-contributions_7929298#ixzz2OL67dl4o
Note that “incongruous” means “inappropriate”. So in essence Mr. Golding was saying he wasn’t rejecting a proposal that he found inappropriate since the proposal was about FULL campaign contribution transparency.
Colour me skeptical, but I find it hard to trust anything that comes out the mouth of someone who can say things like that in apparent seriousness.
As for the Economist Lipton, perhaps you should inform yourself a bit more before saying “The Economist has criticised countries like Russia and China, because some of their economic policies do not work.” and ” The Economist magazine prefers to be objective and not sensational like other magazines which give readers the impression that countries like China and Russia have perfect economic system without analyzing them properly”
Here, read this (from a a blogger who can actually speak Russian by the way and can thus fact check anything the Economist publishes on Russia): http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2011/09/12/yet-another-example-of-the-economists-awful-russia-coverage/
And here’s an economist (actually a Professor at Harvard) who stopped reading the publication for the said same reasons myself and msupdate have outlined: http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/03/should-i-start.html
And ultimately Lipton, one of the biggest reasons I do not trust most of what is written in the Economist (save for a few of their articles on science and business/economics and their published indices) is that for most of 2012 and parts of 2011 the magazine had been basically predicting that Greece would be “forced” to exit the eurozone and reintroduce it’s own currency.
Now it was bad enough when The Economist was cheerleading for an invasion of Iraq alongside many other newspapers/magazines (The Economist later fessed up to being wrong in advocating for such an invasion based on the facts as presented by the Bush administration i.e. that Iraq supposedly possessed weapons of mass destruction; which as a British inquiry is now showing was basically based upon flimsy and even fabricated evidence). But when an economics magazine doesn’t do thorough research on an economics issue, it must bring into question the accuracy of everything else published in that magazine. Information on the subject is easily available, for free online and by early 2012 I was able to find a lot of information (some of it going back to 2009: http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scplps/ecblwp10.pdf) which showed quite the opposite of what The Economist and a lot of other publications were blaring: that Greece could not leave the eurozone unless it also left the European Union as a whole and that in turn would require the Greek electorate to support any Greek government in such a move. And since NO poll ever showed a majority of Greeks being in favour of quitting the euro (in fact, the deeper the crisis got the more support Greeks showed for keeping the euro as shown by various polls) then there would be no popular support for an exit from the euro and the EU. And since only one party out of the multitude that participate in Greece’s elections actually advocated quitting the euro and the EU (and that party is the Greek communist party and it has never stood a chance of forming a government) while pretty much all the other parties (which got over 60% of the votes in all the elections since the crisis) campaign on staying in the euro, then there would be no Greek government which would seriously pursue an exit from the euro and the EU. The Papandreou government did examine leaving the eurozone in 2010 but the advice of Harvard University Professor, Richard Parker, and Argentinian experts showed him that doing so and reintroducing a currency that would devalue would not benefit Greece based on the structure of the Greek economy.
It took the Economist until December 2012 (by which point Greece was obviously not leaving the eurozone) for it to come to the same conclusion that they could have reached in 2011 through proper research: http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21568769-euro-has-survived-2012-it-will-be-long-time-it-cured-all-hope-not-lost
That is lazy journalism (and is also sensationalism) and unacceptable from people who are paid to write these articles and who are supposed to research these issues before writing about them.
I happened to listen to the speech made by Bruce and I must say its better than anything I have heard so far from the leadership of the PNP.
Yes, I must regretfully agree that Bruce’s speech today was good.
Bruce usually delivers great speeches. It is the execution that he has always failed miserable at. Go back to his NDM days, always sounded good but when he was elected nothing.
Lipton, you seem to have an impression of me that I have some sort of obsession with the Prime Minister and think she’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. Not true. Criticizing the current government and the Prime Minister is an hourly task for me.
I cannot for the life of me see how in September 2011 the Economist could be reporting surprise among the Jamaican people of Mr. Golding’s resignation and implying that he was popular. Whether or not you have, I have noticed a certain bias within the Economist’s releases.
There’s also the fact that I personally very highly super strongly dislike the man, so if he says the sky is blue, I (il)logically conclude that the sky is CLEARLY red (like, duh).
Msupdate, don’t slap the kid so hard man (lol)
Acar, msupdate is not slapping me hard. He is just expressing an opinion, you claim that I have a lot to learn and I do; because I believe in continuous learning. However, when you read the policy documents of South Korea you will realize that state capitalism doesn’t work forever and The Economist is not bias; the newspaper is conservative. Mr. Bruce Golding had a number of good ideas which he clearly explained prior to winning election, but his administration suffered from policy inertia, but at least he was able to galvanise the private sector and the Redevelopment of downtown project finally went somewhere. Unlike most Jamaicans I expect very little from politicians; Bruce Golding did very well in the debate with PJ and Edward Seaga in the 1990s and a number of Jamaicans gained respect for him, they were really expecting a visionary and he was a visionary but like previous political administrations his administration suffered from policy inertia. The people had a lot of hope in Bruce Golding and he failed to deliver and his former admirers are really disappointed. I know msupdate types, they loved Bruce so much and when he disappointed them their love became a poisonous hate. I do not consider him a failure because he had only four years to govern the country and in that period there were minimal successes and some of his policies are know being implemented by this administration like the Brazil Jamaica Business Council. Furthermore, I am not a big fan of Bruce Golding because I am a strict conservative and like most politicians he engaged in populist politics and the opposition is not criticising populist programmes like JEEP enough. However, I am willing to support a leader who understands the “Third Way” a combination of free market economics and progressive social programmes (For example providing PATH beneficiaries with on the job training, this is an IDB programme Jamaica is apart of it). Portia is not a leader
You are entitled to your opinions my dear, but that doesn’t make them facts. I am of the opinion that the downtown kingston redevelopment is an abject failure. The park is filthy and has always been, the homeless people sinks my heart, the derelict buildings still exist, smelly water running from time immemorial, that’s a fail. Bruce did not even have four years in office because he became such a liability to the JLP and their financiers that he had to exit the scene, it is not what you say but what you do.
By the way, do you know that the IMF endorses the JEEP program? JEEP is no more populist that free health care and free education (all promises from from the political platform). THe Path program did not start under Bruce, remember that.
Whereas you do not think Portia is a leader, she is the Prime Minister and that is so because the majority of the electors who voted thought she was the better choice. This is a democracy, we have to respect that.
Lipton, i admire your passion and i am one of those that was VERY disappointed by Bruce because i still think he is what Jamaica needed and still needs but the lure of party politics was too great. Do not seek validation of your thoughts by quoting periodicals and books because it is obvious that you have the capacity to conceptualize your own thoughts and ideas. Our challenges can only be overcome if we “Jamaicanize” our solutions by looking at what has worked well within the context of our existence.
I am actually impressed with Lipton at his age being so aware and can articulate his views very clearly. He is definitely one for the future. Keep going Lipton.
Whether or not I can agree with his views at the time it’s impressive how we brings his points across and is knowledgeable about so many circumstances and statistics at his age. I see him going places.
Being a Prime Minister does not make one a leader and clearly deep down you know Portia has failed to lead thus far and will continue to be a an abject failure.
She is the worst Prime Minister this country has ever seen even though she had the potential to have made a significant difference. Her fear of not wanting to be seen as uncaring has made her the failure she has been thus far.
This country cannot progress with a leader who has no vision and very little leadership skills.
Oh by the way the majority is not always right and when one looks at the so called majority and ask ” is your life better today that it was 15 months ago, the answer is a resounding no.
She was a nightmare in opposition and now she is sheer horror in government.
Many of out Caribbean people when I travel in the Eastern Caribbean ask me how on earth did ” you guys have PSM for PM” . My response has been for the most ;part, it it were me alone she would not even be an party leader, much less Prime Minister.
She is an embodiment of our collective failure as a country !!
Mr Acar the findings of the FSC’S recent study vindicated me. It stated that 2/3 of the respondents are of the view that tomorrow should take care of itself. Jamaica’s electorate is very stupid, they elected PJ after his involved in the Shell Waiver Scandal and they voted for Portia who is extremely shallow. After 36 years in politics she is still unable to answer a question properly. Ronald Reagan was not a towering intellect but he was a greater president than Portia, neither was Lula and he was also a great President. Intellect does not make a leader, having integrity and vision does and when a leader lacks both the country is doomed. However, something is very wrong with any party which loses to the pnp, because the pnp has never governed the country effectively
Lipton, learn this, you dont have a monopoly on knowledge. You are very rude and out of order to say that the Jamaican electorate is very stupid. Dont go there yute. You may not agree with the outcomes but that doesnt mean they are stupid not to have seen things the way you do. That is quite a shallow reasoning. If you have political ambitions is these same stupid people you will be pandering to.
People are smarter and wiser than you think.
Stupid may be too strong a language, but you would agree they ignore real issue, lack critical thinking for the most part and vote directly across party lines irrespective of the policies being annunciated by their respective parties.
At a literacy rate of only 89.8% we lag behind countries in the Caribbean that are doing better than us, namely Barbados at 99.8% and Trinidad at 98.9%.
There has too be a link between education and economic development and choices made by the electorate.
Eg. Last night I say a lady on TV saying now that Miller(the gangster) was free “hungry days done”.
As long as our politicians or even gangsters promise to make ” people eat food” they will enjoy wide spread support in those communities.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device from LIME.
Jay, you speak about other Caribbean government, are you aware of what is happening in 98.9% literate Trinidad right now?
The example you raise is a moot point. A couple evenings before it was the lady from Tivoli who said she gave away her kids since Dudus was extradited. There is no point of differentiation when it comes to politicians who promise things to electors. The electors, smarty have decided all by themselves who they will “nyam out and vote out”. I happen to know a few politicians who wanted to repossess the gifts they handed out after they lost.
People are smarter than you think.
I was just re-reading your post and wonder on the relevance of the lady from TG and Dudus, but I just figured it was not in support of ,my point about the dependency syndrome of Jamaicans.
I cannot believe you thought for a moment I select Miller because of the affiliation of the Klansman Gang with the PNP.
Come on man, that is real shallow thinking.
I only selected this because it was very current.
(A blogger pointed out I missed your intent and so I went back and read it.)
Don’t know why you are even bother Acar. I for one am not surprised that Lipton termed the entire Jamaican electorate stupid. It’s actually par for the course considering that earlier Lipton identified himself as a “strict conservative”. These viewpoints are sadly widespread among conservatives (think of the JLP generally and the Republicans in America) nowadays. For what reason I do not know. But I do know that this viewpoint is one of the reasons conservatives will for the foreseeable generation have great difficulty winning elections in Jamaica and in America. I would hope it would not be so, but after seeing the similarities in how the Republicans and the JLP viewed and described their respective electorates, I came to the painful conclusion that the conservative movement in both countries (and quite possibly in Britain) has been overtaken by arrogance.
It’s an arrogance which leads to them being rejected by the electorate. They don’t seem to realize the difference between being ignorant (not knowing something) and being stupid (knowing that one is ignorant and being unwilling to change and learn). I would definitely term a lot of the Jamaican electorate as being ignorant and the majority of the electorate is actually indifferent/apathetic (since most of the electorate doesn’t actually vote because they don’t like politics even if they are not ignorant of the issues). So instead of attempting to persuade people with their viewpoints and well reasoned arguments that show how their ideas benefit everybody they approach it from the viewpoint that their ideas are self-evidently great and that anyone who apparently doesn’t instantly follow them blindly must be “stupid”.
Jon, most times I don’t bother. The last USA election was a big teaching moment for the Republicans. We will see how well they have learnt in the next election. I doubt very much that the JLP has learnt any lessons as they continue to sound off the same rhetoric.
The Imf indicated that it prescribed the wrong medicine for Greece, S&P has also made incorrect predictions. No organization will get it right all the time, however depending on your political leaning you will develop a bias for institutions
Acar, I doubt very much the Republicans have learnt anything. 2008 should have been lesson enough for them but they stuck to the same theme more or less this time around in 2012. Their party has been doing its best (intentionally and unintentionally it seems) to alienate minorities, women and pretty much anyone who isn’t upper class. Or perhaps alienate is too strong a word…they have just been far too open in showing that they do not take on the concerns of minorities, women and anyone who is upper class. They are thus restricting themselves to a narrower electorate than the Democrats and only (institutionalized) gerrymandering seems to have saved them from losing a majority in the House of Representatives. Unless they really turn things around I would not be surprised if in 2016 they end being defeated in the presidential, house and senate elections (which in the end might be a very good thing as it might finally hit home to them that they are doing something wrong).
The JLP as you said seems not to have learnt any real lessons. Note in the Gleaner yesterday we see a story about how Bruce Golding of all people is being considered as a viable alternative to Andrew Holness. Considering how much remains undisclosed in regards to the Dudus affair and that no US government is likely to look favourably on a Golding-led Jamaican government again (I have little doubt that US pressure helped ease him out in 2011), that Golding could even be considered remotely viable means the JLP really don’t seem to have learned. Audley Shaw being a contender is not as bad, but still a pretty poor option (his record on running a business outside of politics, the death of the previous IMF deal…) when you have the likes of Christopher Tufton and even Bobby Montague as alternatives. Note though that according to the latest news stories the main leadership contenders are all still following a particular pattern in regards to sex and skin hue which will not help the JLP dispel the notion that if you aren’t “right” then you can’t run the JLP. That alone probably ensures that 5-10% of the voters would be uneasy about voting for the JLP.
“The FSC stated that 2/3 of the respondents are of the view that tomorrow should take care of itself”. This thought pattern is more reflective of the religious brainwashing that has been the bane of our existence.
@ Acar you guys keep confusing the ” Jamaican smart” with intelligence. Jamaicans are indeed smart but quite devoid of intelligence in many areas.
I said in one publication Jamaicans are smart, while Bajans are educated .
Our smartness has not done much towards our development, while Barbados for example, its education has moved that country to developed country status. Trinidad is also on its way to developed country status while Jamaica had targeted 2030 to get to that level and with the current direction that may now be 2040.
Jamaicans are SMART indeed. 😦
Oonu suspicious bad, it is the everyday occurance of the dependency syndrome I was emphasizing. Sorry to disappoint oonu.
You know what really bothered me about the lady, is her “matter of factly” stating that she “gi whe di pickney dem”. Then I looked at the hairdo.
I think we are in agreement that the dependency syndrome is Jamaica has contributed the moral decline of the country.
Decisions are largely arrive at by the answer to the question ” will this allow me to eat a food” ?
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device from LIME.
Do not for a moment think that the “dependency syndrome” is confined to the garrisons??