Tweet
Re: Coming Soon - Elections!
THE MONDAY INTERVIEW Part II: Bruce Golding's new agenda
EM: Your critics in the media have sometimes said that the JLP wants to be all things to all people as it seeks to gain national office. How do you respond?
BG: I don't know what's the basis of that. As a matter of fact, one of the criticisms we get from our own people is that we're not making sufficient commitments to the people of Jamaica and I keep saying to them that we're not going to make commitments that we can't fulfil. When we speak, for example, of abolishing cost sharing (in secondary schools) we know how much that is going to cost. It costs $900 million a year because that is what is being collected from parents right now, and we know where that $900 million is going to come from.
EM: Where?
BG: Well, you're going to see that in our manifesto. When we say, for example, that we're going to abolish user charges in public hospitals; Earl, you don't know the agony that people go through ... I could pull a file here and show you several cases of people who go to hospital, they need surgery and they are told that they will have to pay. Some of them I have, up to $200,000 for the surgery! And the Government's policy says if you can't pay, you are to still get the surgery, but if you can't pay, you get put at the bottom of the list! So, how much will it cost us to abolish user charges? One-point-six billion dollars. We know where that money is going to come from! So the commitments we make are commitments we have thought through. There are some things we would like to do but we cannot commit ourselves because we know that those funds are not going to be available.
EM: Where would you find the money to afford the police a quantum leap in their compensation?
BG: Where did the PNP government find the money? I think it was just prior to the 1997 election, when the police wages were increased by almost 100 per cent.
EM: But the fiscal situation is even tighter now, a decade later; isn't it?
BG: You know why it is so tight? Because the Government has maintained a macro-economic policy where every single day of the year Dr. Davies has to pay out $575 million to service debt! We are going to be outlining (in the manifesto) how we could introduce and implement an effective, dynamic, debt-management programme that will significantly reduce that $575 million a day that we are paying in order to respond effectively to some of these things.
To be continued
EM: What concerns you most about the tenure of Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller, so far?
BG: The lack of direction. The fact that she has failed to define her prime ministership; because her prime ministership has to be about more than just dipping into the Housing Trust and dipping into the National Insurance Fund. People sort of knew where Mr. Patterson was headed. People clearly knew where Mr. Manley was headed, even though some of us were fearful of that direction. People knew where Mr. Seaga was going, even those who disagreed with his direction and his approach. Secondly, you continue to hear and to see signs that there is no cohesiveness in terms of the management of the country's affairs. You know, there was a rumour ... and I know the rumour (about Finance Minister Omar Davies resigning) has been denied, but it is an open secret that the comfort level that is required to make a government function (is absent).There are so many things that have to be done in government that involve collaboration among ministers and it has to be collaboration that is rooted in an acceptance and recognition of the fact that you are team players.
EM: Are you saying she is not up to the job?
BG: I can't make that judgement. She's only been there a few months. What I'm saying is that we are not seeing it and I believe that people are making judgements about it.
EM: Is she wrong-footing you? Is it that you find it so difficult to define what she is doing and the particular areas on which to attack her? Would you have found it easier to critique and criticise somebody else?
BG: No, I think it is early days yet. Everybody needs their apprenticeship period; some people need a longer apprenticeship than others. It doesn't mean that at the end of that apprenticeship, however extended it might be, that the apprentice would have learnt. I think people are waiting to see what difference she has made. Which comes back to the question of how has she defined her prime ministership that is peculiar to her?... And bear in mind that her government has not faced any major crisis yet. People wonder sometimes if we do face a crisis what would happen. If there was a crisis in terms of our economic programme that required tough decisions, are those decisions capable of being reconciled with the image that she has built up for herself? As Mr. Seaga reminded us, it takes cash to care!
EM: What are you going to do about Parliament - the physical facility - if you are elected?
BG: I don't believe the decision about Parliament can be a unilateral decision. I don't believe that either the PNP or the JLP, whichever is in government, ought really to make that decision. It really has to be a bi-partisan decision. I have indicated that I'm strongly opposed to relocating Parliament. That particular intersection of Duke Street and Beeston Street has been the seat of our Parliament since the 19th century. There was Headquarters House, which we have not done justice to because I think it should have become more than just a heritage site but should have become a place that we maintain as a living museum. We need to expand Parliament. What I propose is that we acquire the lands adjoining parliament - on the West and East and the North ... the lands bordered by Charles Street to the North; Mark Lane to the West, and John's Lane to the East, with Beeston Street, and develop a new Parliament complex straddling Duke Street. And I think it would be a good idea to have traffic passing through the parliamentary structure. I don't like the idea of isolating parliament and keeping it away from the people.
EM: Allied to that, what are you going to do to halt the slide in downtown Kingston in terms of the economy of the place; the social infrastructure etc.?
BG: Firstly, I think you need a comprehensive redesign of downtown. The business of doing a little thing here and a little thing over there can't work. You need to see the big picture: This is the downtown Kingston that we are seeking to recreate! Secondly, you have to put back some of the critical functioning institutions downtown. If you notice, Government has fled downtown! All the ministries now have to move to New Kingston and the appurtenances of New Kingston. We need to put it back down there, which is why I'm so opposed to Gordon House moving, because if you move parliament out of downtown Kingston, that would be the last of it. Thirdly, we want to tie in that redesign of downtown with the proposal that Mr. Seaga had put forward, which I am determined to implement, for that Freeport facility at Fort Augusta, tied in with the redevelopment of Port Royal for cruise shipping and so on. The whole of it has to be integrated. We would bring in all the professionals required to begin working on it as soon as we take office. Get that big picture; that vision created, because only then will you be able to market it and say to businesses that downtown is where the action is. Look at what has happened to Harlem in New York for example. My son lived in Harlem and told me that it got to a stage that he had to leave (despite the fact that he loved it there) because he could no longer live there because property values had quadrupled in the space of two years. (Bill) Clinton went down there and set up his office and so on. So, it is something that can be done and I want to move on it.
THE MONDAY INTERVIEW Part II: Bruce Golding's new agenda
EM: Your critics in the media have sometimes said that the JLP wants to be all things to all people as it seeks to gain national office. How do you respond?
BG: I don't know what's the basis of that. As a matter of fact, one of the criticisms we get from our own people is that we're not making sufficient commitments to the people of Jamaica and I keep saying to them that we're not going to make commitments that we can't fulfil. When we speak, for example, of abolishing cost sharing (in secondary schools) we know how much that is going to cost. It costs $900 million a year because that is what is being collected from parents right now, and we know where that $900 million is going to come from.
EM: Where?
BG: Well, you're going to see that in our manifesto. When we say, for example, that we're going to abolish user charges in public hospitals; Earl, you don't know the agony that people go through ... I could pull a file here and show you several cases of people who go to hospital, they need surgery and they are told that they will have to pay. Some of them I have, up to $200,000 for the surgery! And the Government's policy says if you can't pay, you are to still get the surgery, but if you can't pay, you get put at the bottom of the list! So, how much will it cost us to abolish user charges? One-point-six billion dollars. We know where that money is going to come from! So the commitments we make are commitments we have thought through. There are some things we would like to do but we cannot commit ourselves because we know that those funds are not going to be available.
EM: Where would you find the money to afford the police a quantum leap in their compensation?
BG: Where did the PNP government find the money? I think it was just prior to the 1997 election, when the police wages were increased by almost 100 per cent.
EM: But the fiscal situation is even tighter now, a decade later; isn't it?
BG: You know why it is so tight? Because the Government has maintained a macro-economic policy where every single day of the year Dr. Davies has to pay out $575 million to service debt! We are going to be outlining (in the manifesto) how we could introduce and implement an effective, dynamic, debt-management programme that will significantly reduce that $575 million a day that we are paying in order to respond effectively to some of these things.
To be continued
EM: What concerns you most about the tenure of Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller, so far?
BG: The lack of direction. The fact that she has failed to define her prime ministership; because her prime ministership has to be about more than just dipping into the Housing Trust and dipping into the National Insurance Fund. People sort of knew where Mr. Patterson was headed. People clearly knew where Mr. Manley was headed, even though some of us were fearful of that direction. People knew where Mr. Seaga was going, even those who disagreed with his direction and his approach. Secondly, you continue to hear and to see signs that there is no cohesiveness in terms of the management of the country's affairs. You know, there was a rumour ... and I know the rumour (about Finance Minister Omar Davies resigning) has been denied, but it is an open secret that the comfort level that is required to make a government function (is absent).There are so many things that have to be done in government that involve collaboration among ministers and it has to be collaboration that is rooted in an acceptance and recognition of the fact that you are team players.
EM: Are you saying she is not up to the job?
BG: I can't make that judgement. She's only been there a few months. What I'm saying is that we are not seeing it and I believe that people are making judgements about it.
EM: Is she wrong-footing you? Is it that you find it so difficult to define what she is doing and the particular areas on which to attack her? Would you have found it easier to critique and criticise somebody else?
BG: No, I think it is early days yet. Everybody needs their apprenticeship period; some people need a longer apprenticeship than others. It doesn't mean that at the end of that apprenticeship, however extended it might be, that the apprentice would have learnt. I think people are waiting to see what difference she has made. Which comes back to the question of how has she defined her prime ministership that is peculiar to her?... And bear in mind that her government has not faced any major crisis yet. People wonder sometimes if we do face a crisis what would happen. If there was a crisis in terms of our economic programme that required tough decisions, are those decisions capable of being reconciled with the image that she has built up for herself? As Mr. Seaga reminded us, it takes cash to care!
EM: What are you going to do about Parliament - the physical facility - if you are elected?
BG: I don't believe the decision about Parliament can be a unilateral decision. I don't believe that either the PNP or the JLP, whichever is in government, ought really to make that decision. It really has to be a bi-partisan decision. I have indicated that I'm strongly opposed to relocating Parliament. That particular intersection of Duke Street and Beeston Street has been the seat of our Parliament since the 19th century. There was Headquarters House, which we have not done justice to because I think it should have become more than just a heritage site but should have become a place that we maintain as a living museum. We need to expand Parliament. What I propose is that we acquire the lands adjoining parliament - on the West and East and the North ... the lands bordered by Charles Street to the North; Mark Lane to the West, and John's Lane to the East, with Beeston Street, and develop a new Parliament complex straddling Duke Street. And I think it would be a good idea to have traffic passing through the parliamentary structure. I don't like the idea of isolating parliament and keeping it away from the people.
EM: Allied to that, what are you going to do to halt the slide in downtown Kingston in terms of the economy of the place; the social infrastructure etc.?
BG: Firstly, I think you need a comprehensive redesign of downtown. The business of doing a little thing here and a little thing over there can't work. You need to see the big picture: This is the downtown Kingston that we are seeking to recreate! Secondly, you have to put back some of the critical functioning institutions downtown. If you notice, Government has fled downtown! All the ministries now have to move to New Kingston and the appurtenances of New Kingston. We need to put it back down there, which is why I'm so opposed to Gordon House moving, because if you move parliament out of downtown Kingston, that would be the last of it. Thirdly, we want to tie in that redesign of downtown with the proposal that Mr. Seaga had put forward, which I am determined to implement, for that Freeport facility at Fort Augusta, tied in with the redevelopment of Port Royal for cruise shipping and so on. The whole of it has to be integrated. We would bring in all the professionals required to begin working on it as soon as we take office. Get that big picture; that vision created, because only then will you be able to market it and say to businesses that downtown is where the action is. Look at what has happened to Harlem in New York for example. My son lived in Harlem and told me that it got to a stage that he had to leave (despite the fact that he loved it there) because he could no longer live there because property values had quadrupled in the space of two years. (Bill) Clinton went down there and set up his office and so on. So, it is something that can be done and I want to move on it.
Comment