Recent comments by Prime Minister Freundel Stuart with respect to the professional opinion of the firm Moody’s have caused considerable disquiet.
It is often said that Stuart speaks too little. However, an objective assessment of his tenure demonstrates the extent to which this suggestion is untrue.
Those who regularly follow People & Things would note that I have addressed this issue prior to February 2013 and, moreover, that I have made a determined effort to avoid such issues since.
Prior to 2013, I commented that Stuart’s communication challenges had less to do with the frequency of his comments and more to do with his choice of subject matter and his preferred mode of communication.
As such our leader has held a single news conference, an interview with one of “his own” and has often been “ambushed” by the media in a less structured manner. In addition he frequently speaks in Parliament and is always eloquent in his delivery.
In all of this, his choice of subject matter is often odd since he appears to miss the more critical issues and “hit” those less relevant.
In addition, Stuart can lay claim to an ever increasing list of “gaffes” which is almost as outstanding as that of his Minister of Education.
As shocking as it is that one so politically astute would exercise poor judgement, we can recall reference to the Government’s “nipples being sore” in response to a legitimate request for help from a local business.
A similar insensitivity was later reflected in the classic reference to a disinterest in “arithmetic” when asked about the numbers of public servants sent home. This was easily matched by the explanation of the meaning of the word “temporary”, lest government workers who were given such employment believed for one moment that they had been promised a “real job”.
Like those workers, we collectively demonstrated our intellectual retardation by assuming that our leader had only reached “phase I” in the Alexandra School issue when he had passed that phase “long, long, long ago”.
In a class by itself, however, is the recent statement which categorically ignores the obvious by suggesting that anyone who stated that workers would not be sent home would have to have been clairvoyant.
This comment forces us to question our hearing, recollection, sanity or indeed all three. In addition, our Prime Minister has effectively insulted several sectors of this society ranging from sugar workers whose work is apparently the antithesis of that which requires an education, to the homosexual who should be happy that Barbadians “buy food from them”.
Similar comments were made in the wake of the Myrie case, which reflected contempt for the opinions of the CCJ and a belief that any visitor seeking a legitimate timespan here was “up to no good”.
Clearly our Prime Minister has always and continues to be completely honest about the politician that he is, his views and opinions, his action and proclivity towards inaction. He is, like the Almighty, the same yesterday, today and will no doubt be the same tomorrow.
In the political sphere, honesty and sincerity are rare and valuable commodities and therefore politicians like Stuart who will behave “true to form” are few in number.
Stuart is even more unique since he has been re-elected and therefore vindicated and should therefore not feel compelled to change any aspect of his behaviour.
This critical point needs to be stressed as the critics of Stuart need to be frequently reminded that “we” have endorsed his style and will simply have to live with the consequences of our decision.
This brings us to the Prime Minister’s most recent gaffe which is as lacking in tact as it is consistent with the trend established above.
We therefore have no basis on which to condemn such comments and should instead reflect on the consequences of this political attitude.
To this end, economist Ryan Straughn’s analysis was very useful since he identified in simple language the “cost” of Moody’s “rubbish” opinion with respect of the US$225 million Credit Suisse loan.
This loan carries a variable interest rate which automatically adjusts upward to reflect periodic downgrades and as such our initial rate of 8.39 per cent has effectively moved to 9.89 per cent and the annual cost from US$18 873 990 to US$22 248 990.
This “rubbish” will therefore cost us an additional $3 375 000 each year.
Thankfully, Stuart has reminded us that his Government has no intention of embarking on any “orgy” of borrowing.