Sometimes, to get the most out of a team, it is necessary to remove the most valuable player from the burden of captaincy.
That way he can concentrate on what he does best to deliver victory and consistent team success.
For the ruling Democratic Labour Party (DLP), that time has come. They need to consider moving their most valuable political asset, Chris Sinckler, out of the firing line to ensure his longevity in politics and the party’s continuation in power.
Sinckler was the most potent force in the Dems’ arsenal during the last general election, and now in his mid-40s, would be able to serve them effectively for another 20 years. And like the late Sir Branford Taitt get better with age.
However, unlike Sir Branford, whose tenure as Minister of Health was successful, Sinckler’s as Minister of Finance has been a failure. Under his watch, team Barbados was reduced to junk bond status while the economy continues to underperform.
To Sinckler’s credit, he inherited this hot potato ministry from late Prime Minister David Thompson and without being able to shape it, jumped in and got on with the job. That he has reaped little success may relate to the advice he received, as well as to his own inexperience. However, he tried his best.
On the political front though, Sinckler has been magnificent. He has continually and successfully taken the fight to the Opposition Barbados Labour Party (BLP) with his persuasive arguments in his inimitable style.
With general elections not due for another five years though, team Barbados urgently needs to address the economy and does not need so much political rhetoric. It needs someone who can infuse confidence in business people and the public to get the economy going. That individual is Donville Inniss. Speech after speech, he demonstrates his grasp of their concerns and seeks to reassure them that Government is very mindful of its need to cut spending to help the economy.
Inniss’ address last Wednesday at a luncheon hosted by the Barbados Employers’ Confederation was another example of this.
He stated that cutting Government spending “does not mean sending home staff. . . . There may come a time when it may have to happen if you don’t do the things that have to be done or don’t get support for the things you have to do in the right quarters. But I think the message is there within the public sector that we have to strive at every turn to keep our expenditure under control.”
This measured, realistic assessment did more to build confidence and assure investors than the sabre-rattling from Sinckler a day earlier in the House of Assembly.
Speaking during debate on approving a limit of $2.75 billion for Government to pay for treasury bills and tax certificates that have matured and are outstanding, Sinckler was adamant that there’s no crisis of confidence in the country, though he acknowledged issues with the growing fiscal deficit and a fall-off in revenue. Then he went to platform mode by challenging the BLP to tell Government where cuts across the public sector should be made in order to rein in the administration’s spending.
“Let us know what you would do to reduce the deficit,” he told BLP parliamentarians.
For all of his gusto, the reality was that if the economy was perking he would not have sought a hike in the limit for the fourth time since 2008.
Also, by dissing the BLP’s third offer for bipartisan talks with Government to rescue the economy, he sent a clear signal that he was not willing to veer from his strategy despite its limited success.
Business people and the public want to know what is the plan for rescuing Barbados; they don’t want the political long talk. That is not helping their businesses, saving jobs or reducing the cost of living. They want effective solutions as, for many of them, the situation has become critical.
From his persistent political posturing on economic concerns, Sinckler seems not to grasp that, while Inniss does.
Prime Minister Freundel Stuart should therefore consider moving Sinckler and placing him in a ministry where he can continue his successful political work for the party, and transfer Inniss to finance as he seems more adept at communicating with the business sector.
This move would be a win-win situation for all. Stuart would enhance his image as a manager by taking this decisive step; Sinckler would be able to get on organizing the party and building his profile; and business people would get, in Inniss, a minister who seems prepared to listen and act, rather than talk.
• Sanka Price is an editor at The NATION.
