PJ weighs in on the Jamaica IMF debate

**evanovitch** · 09-29-2009, 02:43 PM

Amnesia, Mr Patterson?

Amnesia, Mr Patterson?

HEART TO HEART

With Betty Ann Blaine

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Dear Reader,
It is frequently expressed that voters have very short memories, but I think it is ridiculous for the People's National Party to think that we the Jamaican people have lost our memories in two short years.

PATTERSON... why would our people celebrate his return?
Obviously, former Prime Minister PJ Patterson thinks that all of us are suffering from amnesia. Coming out from political hibernation and conveniently finding his voice, Mr Patterson seems ready to assume the position of campaign manager emeritus, for the PNP's re-election of 2012.

Declaring that "I shall return" at his party's annual conference last weekend, Mr Patterson appears to be fired up about the reincarnation of the PNP, and the symbolic feeding of the cake at the conference between himself and Portia Simpson Miller is a clear indication that there is a re-consummation of the relationship between the two.

Already the former prime minister has sound advice for boosting recruitment to the party. In his own words to the gathering at the National Arena, "Make it a mission, make it a task, each day recruit one person to membership and get that one person to recruit another. Let it be like a chain letter, and if you do that, believe you me, with all the attempts to destroy and distort, you will return."

Somebody should tell Mr Patterson that the PNP needs no help in "destroying" or "distorting" anything, because the facts and the reality speak for themselves, and the PNP had done an excellent job in tainting its own image. If the former prime minister had any sense of reason, responsibility or remorse, he would first of all apologise to the people of Jamaica for presiding over what is now virtually a "failed state", before making unsolicited statements about "returning" to national political life.

We might as well let the chips fall where they may. What essentially happened in the last election was that Mr Golding narrowly hopped on the runaway train that had already been three-quarters of the way down the hill without brakes and without a competent driver, and all that has happened is that the "out of control" train has simply gathered more speed and is plunging precipitously downwards.

Jamaica's return to the IMF is the culmination of 20 1/2 years, cumulatively, of poor leadership, mismanagement and corruption for which both political parties are responsible - naturally the PNP being more culpable by virtue of their length of tenure. To put it bluntly, the PNP dug the grave, and the JLP is presiding over the burial.

The questions that must be put to Mr Patterson are: Can he show us how the people of this country benefited under the PNP's unprecedented 18 years of rule? Who are the people who got richer, and how many Jamaicans got poorer? How much wealth was generated and who benefited? Most important, with the dismal 18-year record, why would the people be happy that he is returning?

What was particularly striking to me in that picture carried in the media of the ceremonial feeding of the cake, was that one person represented the longest-serving prime minister of the country, and the other, the longest-serving MP, both achieving the highest positions in the land, yet both representing a party that has for many people become synonymous with the most retrograde period of Jamaica's history, barring slavery and colonialism.

The facts of the protracted PNP rule are there for all to examine. Not only was there virtually no economic growth, but the social indices, particularly crime and violence paint a dismal picture that defies the very idea of a return to the Patterson days.

As an advocate for children, I am particularly distressed about the deterioration of the state of Jamaica's children over the last 20 years. Under the previous PNP government, crimes such as carnal abuse, rape and the murder of children and young adults increased dramatically. It's pretty amazing that after almost two decades of PNP rule, there is not one single individual inside the PNP that we can point to as being a vocal and unflagging advocate for the children of Jamaica. Just for the record, one is hard-pressed to find any such person on the JLP side as well.

Add to the social and economic failures of the Patterson years, the blatant decline in the moral standards of the country, and what you get is a country that has been victimised by a regime in which personal gain and political expediency superseded good governance and the need to promote and sustain the rule of law and sound family values.

So the question is, why would our people celebrate the return of Mr Patterson, except perhaps party loyalists and diehard tribalists? Those of us who care about our country need to send a strong message to the former prime minister that what the country needs now are statesmen who can provide useful ideas on how to move the nation forward, and not partisan, political propagators whose only concern is to win another election.

With love,

[email protected]

**evanovitch** · 09-29-2009, 03:15 PM

The Patterson/Arthur Politics

The Patterson/Arthur Politics

What two ex-PMs have in common

RICKEY SINGH ANALYSIS

Sunday, September 27, 2009

In Jamaica, former long-term prime minister and leader of the now parliamentary opposition People's National Party (PNP), Percival Patterson, has sounded the political warning: "I shall return."

RICKEY SINGH
In Barbados, former long-term prime minister and leader of the parliamentary opposition Barbados Labour Party (BLP), Owen Arthur, has equally boldly announced to his opponents: "I am here to stay."

So what do they have in common - these two once highly rated politicians in the governance politics of the Caribbean Community (Caricom), and whose local political initiatives would be of interest to the ruling parties in Kingston and Bridgetown?

There are some significant differences between Patterson and Arthur, but what they are known to share in common is a determination to have their respective parties return to government and control the reins of state power.

Naturally, this would be of much interest to the two first-term prime ministers in Jamaica (Bruce Golding) and Barbados (David Thompson) currently heading, respectively, 25-month and 21-month-old administrations.

ARTHUR... I am here to stay
Do not expect, of course, Golding to signal any comfort to the PNP that Patterson had led to victory at three consecutive general elections before retiring from active party politics in 2006. He was succeeded by Portia Simpson Miller as both the party's first female leader and then short-term prime minister.

Nor, in the case of Barbados, is Thompson expected to reveal any sign of worry about Arthur's likely return to the leadership helm of the BLP, which Arthur had successfully led into three consecutive general elections before defeat came in January 2008.

Polls arithmetic

For one objective reason: Neither Jamaica nor Barbados has had a one-term government; two terms are normal, three exceptional.
However, for Jamaica's 2007 poll, the JLP had a big scare from the incumbent PNP which was unsuccessful in its bold bid to secure an unprecedented fifth consecutive term.

It was defeated by a 32-28 majority, with narrow margins in a few constituencies, and polled just less than one per cent of the valid votes obtained by the JLP.

PATTERSON... I shall return
In Barbados, Arthur walked away from the leadership of the BLP, though remaining politically engaged, on a much reduced basis, in and out of parliament.

The BLP had lost its bid for a fourth consecutive term - that never happened in the electoral politics of Barbados - by obtaining a third of the 30 parliamentary seats with 46.5 per cent of valid votes cast, to the DLP's 53.2 per cent - a seven per cent difference.

Now, after being relatively low-key in active party politics, speculations are rife of the likely return by Arthur to the leadership of the BLP, currently led by Mia Mottley, former attorney general and deputy prime minister.

She may soon face the tough decision of whether to make way for Arthur's return - some think this could be as early as next month at the party's annual conference, or - quite unlikely - square off in a straight fight with the politician who will be 60 years on October 17, and was prime minister for 14 years and four months before Thompson's DLP won a landslide 20-10 victory at the January 15, 2008 general election.

As if anxious to diffuse speculations about a leadership squabble, Mottley told the media last weekend that "there is no power struggle for leadership of the Barbados Labour Party". She feels that the more Arthur becomes involved in local politics, "the stronger the BLP will be", as it prepares to face the electorate at the constitutionally due election in 2013.

What has fuelled the guessing game about Arthur's likely decision to couple his status as an elected parliamentarian with a return to leadership of the BLP, was an opinion poll, conducted last month for the DLP, by Peter Wickham's Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).

The poll gave the former prime minister a 14 per cent (49 to 35 per cent) popularity rating against Mottley. The published results coincided with seemingly orchestrated media reports that the age factor might militate against a successful political come-back by Arthur.

'Age' politics

While Arthur will be 12 years older than Thompson next month, the reality is that age can hardly be a serious factor at the constitutionally due 2013 general election. It is not known to have been a barrier of significance to political leaders in any Caricom state.

Fiscal and economic management and quality of national leadership, yes. Age will remain a non-issue as party politics go in Caricom, long after the rarity of near octogenarian leadership examples of the 1980s and 1990s.

In Jamaica, for instance, there is no debate about PJ Patterson taking an active interest in party politics at age 74, even with his recent public declaration to leave the "retirement pavilion" to rejoin the "battlefield" to help the successful return to government of the PNP, "the party of Norman and Michael Manley", the party he led for 14 years before retiring in 2006.

That pledge of "I shall return" came from Patterson last Sunday at the PNP's 71st annual convention that turned out to be a showcase of unity among some once high-level estranged political comrades.
Among them were former national security minister and a primary challenger for the party's leadership, Peter Phillips, at last year's annual conference. Now he was sharing the platform and cheers alongside the leader, Portia Simpson Miller, both now using the same scathing language of attack against the first-time Golding-led JLP administration.

It was in that mood that Patterson, recognised elder statesman of the PNP, urged "unity and oneness" and pledged to "leave the pavilion" to which he had retired to help campaign with a united team for a change in government.

This should not, however, be confused with any intention on Patterson's part to stage a personal return to parliamentary politics.
Therein lies a fundamental difference between Patterson's "I shall return" warning, directed at political opponents, and Arthur's bullish vow that no one will "run me from active electoral politics. I am here to stay..."

Since, as he told a September 9 meeting of BLP members at the party's headquarters, he "did not get into parliament by someone pushing me in a boxcart", he would remain there until his St Peter constituents decide otherwise.

On the more immediate and critical issue of returning to the BLP's leadership, sooner rather than later, Arthur remains evasive, publicly, although aware of the mobilisation taking place to interest him in contesting the leadership post at the party's coming annual conference.

**britisha** · 10-03-2009, 02:25 PM

Re: PJ weighs in on the Jamaica IMF debate

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Xavier</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TSPWaksNsvU&feature=player_embedded"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TSPWaksNsvU&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object> </div></div>

Soh PJ ressureck himself? ***aye sah**

I tend to agree wid 'im doah...the best relationship wid di IMF is NO relationship at all...

<span style="font-weight: bold">Once bitten, twice shy</span>...mi noh blame 'im one iota.

**barosa** · 10-03-2009, 04:55 PM

Re: PJ weighs in on the Jamaica IMF debate

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Soh PJ ressureck himself? ***aye sah**

I tend to agree wid 'im doah...the best relationship wid di IMF is NO relationship at all...

Once bitten, twice shy...mi noh blame 'im one iota.</div></div>

It's pure "political grand standing"

<span style="font-weight: bold">I agree that the best relationship wid the IMF is NO relationship at all..</span> That said, the economic plight of Jamaica due to the "international meltdown" is more plausible a reason to borrow than when Michael ran Jamaica to economic ruination during his stewardship as captain of the ship of state.. Borrowing from the IMF now is NOT good, borrowing from them THEN was worse...
__________________________

"At a time of universal deceit," wrote George Orwell, "telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

**Dr.Dudd** · 10-03-2009, 05:07 PM

Re: PJ weighs in on the Jamaica IMF debate

you think this melt down affected Jamaica as much as the 70's oil control ian price increase, that caused even long lines in the good old USA???
Well think again.
You can't separate the 70's Mideast oil problem from the Manley economic problem because it was caused by the direct effects of that.
nothing happened,in the Jamaican economy until the Mideast governments nationalized their oil and the price increase more than 10 folds.

then the developed countries refused to play jamaicaynore for their primary products, while increase their exports to Jamaica.
history is a B...asis.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: barosa</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Soh PJ resurrect himself? ***aye sah**

I tend to agree with 'im doah...the best relationship with di IMF is NO relationship at all...

Once bitten, twice shy...mi noh blame 'it one iota.</div></div>

It's pure "political grand standing"

<span style="font-weight: bold">I agree that the best relationship with the IMF is NO relationship at all..</span> That said, the economic plight of Jamaica due to the "international meltdown" is more plausible a reason to borrow than when Michael ran Jamaica to economic ruination during his stewardship as captain of the ship of state.. Borrowing from the IMF now is NOT good, borrowing from them THEN was worse...
__________________________

"At a time of universal deceit," wrote George Orwell, "telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

</div></div>

**Dr.Dudd** · 10-03-2009, 07:32 PM

Re: PJ weighs in on the Jamaica IMF debate

I agree with him and the majority who are dissing him today will in the future, either change their mouth, or hide their faces.

Jamaica has other options,but it is because of the politics that the JLP follow, influenced by the plantocracy that is responsible for the erosion of the Jamaican economy and the in social milieu of the country.
The country's economy will never be sound other than on paper, like it was sound on paper,in the first 10 tears after independence.
When the PNP took over the international reserves was in the minus. Yet they are always harping about the growth.
Of Course there was growth.

But the growth was based on starting from nothing.

When Jamaica got independence, the British took every cent on Jamaica's treasury with them.
It start with nothing. when you start with nothing even a dollar, is growth. Bust as your earnings grow, it become harder to achieve similar growth rates, even while the levels of earnings are much more.
Since 10 dollar is 100% of ten dollar.
But 1,000 dollarss is only 1% of 100,000.
So you can achieve high percentage growth as Jamaica did while it GDP was lower.
but much lower growth rate while it is higher.
yet even with the lower growth rate the earnings in dollars is much greater.

**britisha** · 10-04-2009, 07:24 AM

Re: PJ weighs in on the Jamaica IMF debate

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: barosa</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Soh PJ ressureck himself? ***aye sah**

I tend to agree wid 'im doah...the best relationship wid di IMF is NO relationship at all...

Once bitten, twice shy...mi noh blame 'im one iota.</div></div>

It's pure "political grand standing"

<span style="font-weight: bold">I agree that the best relationship wid the IMF is NO relationship at all..</span> That said, the economic plight of Jamaica due to the "international meltdown" is more plausible a reason to borrow than when Michael ran Jamaica to economic ruination during his stewardship as captain of the ship of state.. Borrowing from the IMF now is NOT good, borrowing from them THEN was worse...
__________________________

"At a time of universal deceit," wrote George Orwell, "telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

</div></div>

Suh yuh really think dat dem want to borrow due to the "international meltdown"? What led you to believe this? Why aren't smaller nations that are also affected following suit?

Can you extrapolate on what you posted, including the "grand standing" statement? I want to make sure that I understand you. tks.

**barosa** · 10-05-2009, 05:22 PM

Re: PJ weighs in on the Jamaica IMF debate

<span style="font-weight: bold">Somebody should tell Mr Patterson that the PNP needs no help in "destroying" or "distorting" anything, because the facts and the reality speak for themselves, and the PNP had done an excellent job in tainting its own image. <span style="font-style: italic">If the former prime minister had any sense of reason, responsibility or remorse, he would first of all apologise to the people of Jamaica for presiding over what is now virtually a "failed state", before making unsolicited statements about "returning" to national political life.</span></span>

We might as well let the chips fall where they may. What essentially happened in the last election was that Mr Golding narrowly hopped on the runaway train that had already been three-quarters of the way down the hill without brakes and without a competent driver, and all that has happened is that the "out of control" train has simply gathered more speed and is plunging precipitously downwards.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Jamaica's return to the IMF is the culmination of 20 1/2 years, cumulatively, of poor leadership, mismanagement and corruption for which both political parties are responsible - naturally the PNP being more culpable by virtue of their length of tenure. To put it bluntly, the PNP dug the grave, and the JLP is presiding over the burial.</span>
__________________________________________

<span style="font-style: italic">Suh yuh really think dat dem want to borrow due to the "international meltdown"? What led you to believe this? Why aren't smaller nations that are also affected following suit?</span>

(a) To answer your questions directly, I'll say this: It's not that they WANT to borrow, but there is a NEED for them to do so... (b) You are right! Not everyone is borrowing, especially some of those nations smaller than JA. Many do not have anywhere near the economic and social plight of our population and maybe able to get by... (c) I've not heard that Trinidad & Tobago which is smaller than us is borrowing anything; at least not yet, and I'm sure there are others affected as well...

Re - PJ's "grandstanding: From the above, I've gleaned that PJ seems to believe that he can return in some way to help JAMAICA out of its "economic mess" The only thing he could do if allowed to return would be finished the job of the total Ruination of the Nation... By latching onto AND MAKING A BIG DEAL of the Govt. borrowing from the IMF, is indeed "GRANDSTANDING".. - He is using the issue to score political points because he knows it's never a popular choice that any country makes... You will noticed that he stays away from the "CRIME" issure why is that? ~ Your hint of his "self Ressurection" hopefully, will just be a dream in his own mind and others who still support him...
_____________________________

"At a time of universal deceit," wrote George Orwell, "telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

**evanovitch** · 10-05-2009, 05:28 PM

Re: PJ weighs in on the Jamaica IMF debate

<span style="font-weight: bold">When Jamaica got independence, the British took every cent on Jamaica's treasury with them.</span>

n still yet di noble politician did the Iran-Sugar bit....remarkable dont.

**Dr.Dudd** · 10-05-2009, 06:09 PM

Re: PJ weighs in on the Jamaica IMF debate

The Iran sugar deal was long after that.

It was during the time when Iran seized the staff of the American embassy,and there was a international trade blockade against them.
The problem was that the same America decided to quietly trade with Iran to curry favour to get back the abduction.
So it was a lot of mixup went on there.
The sugar was supposed to be sold to Iran as an under the cover deal as a favour for the US.

Why you think he could come back and enjoy so much peace, if he wasn't taking the fall for bigger fish.

He was regular go to man for certain covert runnings.
Just another aspect of the Arms for hostage ringings.
Remember that at that time Jamaica was stonebroke and was trying every avenue to get some foreign exchange.
And since it was big uncle of the north, he thought it would be smooth.
Well everything got out from the US congressional side and he went down with it. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovich</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style="font-weight: bold">When Jamaica got independence, the British took every cent on Jamaica's treasury with them.</span>

n still yet di noble politician did the Iran-Sugar bit....remarkable dont. </div></div>

**Dr.Dudd** · 10-06-2009, 01:16 PM

Most countries worse off after IMF agreement;US think tank

Jamaica Gleaner Online

IMF warning - US think thank says most countries worse off after IMF agreement
Published: Tuesday | October 6, 2009

Arthur Hall, Senior Staff Reporter
Weeks before Jamaica completes its application for a US$1.2-billion standby agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a United States think tank has issued a dire warning about the latest impact of the fund on developing countries.

While making no direct reference to Jamaica's negotiations with the fund, the Centre for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) yesterday released a discussion paper in which it argues that 31 of 41 of countries with current IMF agreements have been subjected to harmful monetary and fiscal policies.

That has been a fear of many Jamaicans since the Government announced plans to resume a borrowing relationship with the IMF.

However, Prime Minister Bruce Golding and Finance Minister Audley Shaw have sought to allay the fears by arguing that the IMF has changed since its 'one size fits all' stance of the 1970s and 1980s.

Golding and Shaw have further argued that the IMF no longer 'prescribes the pills' but allows countries to develop their 'individual prescriptions' to cure their ills.

However, that view is not shared by the CEPR which claims that recent IMF prescriptions have exacerbated economic slowdowns in some countries.

"More than a decade after the Asian Economic Crisis brought world attention to major IMF policy mistakes, the IMF is still making similar mistakes in many countries," CEPR co-director and lead author of the discussion paper, Mark Weisbrot, said.

Overly optimistic forecasts

"The IMF supports fiscal stimulus and expansionary policies in the rich countries, but has a much different attitude towards low- and middle-income countries," Weisbrot said.

Yesterday, CEPR said that while it could not comment directly on the Jamaican situation, it has found that in some cases the IMF has relied on overly optimistic growth forecasts - significantly underestimating the impact of the world recession on borrowing countries.

"Quite often, the negotiations aren't as transparent as they could be, so I'm not too familiar with what the IMF is putting on the table for Jamaica or what it is saying publicly," Dan Beeton, information officer at CEPR, told The Gleaner.

Beeton also scoffed at claims of a new-look IMF.

Shaw to return

"Really, it is more of the same old IMF. It is time for the fund to re-examine the criteria, assumptions and economic analysis that it uses to prescribe macroeconomic policies in developing countries," added Beeton.

The CEPR paper comes at a time when Shaw and other finance ministers from the more than 170 IMF member countries are meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, for the IMF/World Bank annual general meeting.

Shaw is slated to return to the island this week to complete the preparation of the medium-term macroeconomic framework which will form the basis of Jamaica's request for the standby agreement.

Jamaica's letter of intent should be with the fund before the end of this month with an agreement expected to be in place by November.

[email protected]

Copyright Jamaica-Gleaner.com

PJ weighs in on the Jamaica IMF debate

PJ weighs in on the Jamaica IMF debate

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads