Guest Writer

Trimming the fat (literally)

While I follow the current heated debate whether the size of civil servants can be reduced or what austerity measures can be implemented to save the government a buck or two, I must say that among all things that come to mind, the continuous 100% health care coverage for all civil servantsAND their dependents is what bugs me the most.

The reason this bugs me is not because I want to be spiteful, but over the last few years I have noticed that there seems to be an increasing trend among civil servants who are – let’s call it out of shape!

In this day and age, everyone knows that there are a many, many health issues which are directly linked to the poor lifestyle choices one makes (overeating, excessive alcohol consumption, smoking, lack of exercise, etc). This has been discussed so many times I think I can hold back on another lecture in this regard.

In real life (meaning for people working in the private sector or being self employed) the cost of  healthcare coverage is dictated by such things as whether one smokes, whether one is overweight or whether one partakes in any sports considered to be dangerous. Strangely, none of those factors appear to be issues when it comes to healthcare coverage for civil servants (which is fully funded by the government – hence the people of these Islands), despite it having been well documented that the cost of treating obesity-related ailments, for example, are sky high.

As a non civil servant, I feel that am being taking to the cleaner twice when it comes to healthcare cost. Firstly, healthcare cost is on the rise for everyone because there are way too many people who continue to make poor lifestyle choices, which then lead to certain ailments; those ailments are costly to treat and this leads to increased healthcare cost for everyone. Secondly, as a resident of these Islands, I am also paying indirectly towards the healthcare coverage for all civil servants, no matter if they chose to eat, drink or smoke themselves to near death.

If the premier decides that he cannot reduce the size of the civil service for whatever reason, so be it, and I am not discussing this here. However, I believe that the premier needs to also consider that it is not fair for the general public to continue to fund the healthcare coverage and the cost of treatment for people who themselves don’t seem to want to make an effort to try and stay healthy.

Now is a good time to look at the healthcare policies in place for civil servants, and consider whether civil servants who are clinically obese, who are smokers or who partake in dangerous sports should pay at least 50% of their own healthcare cost and a percentage towards their treatment. Also, civil servants should be paying a portion of the healthcare coverage for their dependents – this is pretty much the norm anywhere else. Perhaps then more civil servants would make an effort to live a healthier life style.

Continue Reading

How money movement creates revenue for government

Let’s look at a day in the life of a single Cayman dollar bill. As our smallest valued paper currency it doesn’t seem like much but as you will see it packs quite a punch: Transaction 1 – It begins in the early morning when the dollar wakes up and goes to the coffee shop to be used in part of the purchase of a cup of juice and a newspaper. It goes into the cash register.

Transaction 2 – A coffee shop customer receives the dollar as change from her transaction. She then goes to the drugstore to fill her prescription. The dollar is used to pay part of her bill.

Transaction 3 – The next customer at the drugstore receives the dollar as change and takes it to the hardware store to buy some tools. The dollar is used to pay part of her bill.

Transaction 4 – The next customer at the hardware store receives the dollar as change and proceeds to go for a mid morning snack with her friends. She goes to a café and uses the dollar to buy a lemonade.

Transaction 5 – The next customer at the café receives the dollar as change and uses it to as part of her payment for groceries at the supermarket.

Transaction 6 -The next customer at the supermarket receives the dollar as change and uses it as part of  a payment to purchase her son a pair of shoes after she picks him up from school.

Transaction 7- The next customer at the shoe store receives the dollar as change and goes to the drug store to buy some lipstick.

The dollar continues to move for the rest of the day from store to store. So how does this measly little dollar pack such a big punch? The secret lies not in its value but in how many times it moved throughout the day.

Each time this dollar entered a cash register to purchase dutiable goods it generated revenue for government. At normal retail mark up, about 10 cents of this dollar will be used to pay government duty in order to replace the goods which it purchased. (Remember, the retailer pays duty on the wholesale cost of goods not the retail value, which is why it is 10 cents and not 22 cents).

As you can see, if the dollar goes though 10 cash registers a day for the purchase of dutiable items, the revenue is 10 transactions times 10 cents per transaction or one dollar per day in government revenue via future duty. The next day this same dollar has the potential to do another 10 transactions and earn another dollar for government. So now this measly little dollar has the potential to generate 365 dollars per year for government just by constantly moving every day. 

To be more precise, the movement is not the important part, it is the sudden stop at the cash register where it comes alive and does its work. When sitting idly in a purse or wallet it is just a piece of paper waiting to be used.

Each blue dollar bill is like a goose that lays golden eggs. Like the goose, it has to be properly nurtured and looked after. Constant attention must be paid to it and it must not be neglected or set aside. It performs a most valuable task in our daily lives and we need to take care to assure it is constantly used since it is by use that it gets its strength.  Now let’s see what could hamper this process and put a damper on this revenue stream. The dollar's ability to perform such heroic feats every single day is dependent on several factors. This dollar is delicate and must be treated with care and respect.

So how do we kill or slow down such a productive little piece of paper? There are several ways. First is to put it in a piggy bank or a drawer and forget about it. It is now a prisoner and cannot be productive. It means that its brethren who are still free will have to work even harder to keep up the revenue stream to government. The more dollars that are hidden away for a rainy day means the remaining ones have to work many times harder to keep revenue production the same.

Another way is if the dollar is sent far way for spending elsewhere. It is the same as putting it in a drawer or under a mattress except it can’t be used in the future either since it has left forever.

So what makes people take these potentially valuable dollars and hold on to them like they are gold? High prices are the culprit. When goods become expensive to purchase due to inflation or taxes, people tend to spend less and hold on for dear life to the few dollars they have. Parting with them only takes place out of absolute necessity. Once again, fewer dollars circulate daily which means less revenue for government.

Government has bills to pay too so their only recourse in view of less dollars moving is to tax and take a larger portion of sales revenue through taxes to make up the shortfall. This of course causes even more dollars to go under the mattress and reduces their ability to buy the same amount of goods as before the taxes were levied. This in turn creates an even bigger deficit for government as this revenue stream dries up. Taxes are higher than ever but they are producing less revenue than when taxes were low due to the daily flow of the dollar being halted by their owners.

The good news is dollars never really die, they just go into hibernation. Once incentives are given to their owners in the form of lower prices and bigger bang for the buck from lower taxes, then the dollars come out of their deep sleep and go back to work producing many times their face value in revenue for government.

Moral of the story: Lower the cost of living by lowering taxes. Revenue streams will grow automatically. It is human nature and the hidden power of the almighty moving dollar.

Jobs are created by business when business grows. Business grows when there is increased demand for goods and services. Demand for goods and services increases when prices are lower and need exists. Lower prices come from lower government fees and taxes. Lower government fees and taxes increases consumer spending. Consumer spending therefore creates jobs. Consumer spending is controlled by government tax policy. Government does not create jobs. It may make temporary work for a few but its policies are what control  job creation.

The unfortunate part is that when government finds itself in a financial bind as we are now, they fear that cutting taxes will reduce their needed revenue. Hopefully, what I have shown above is that it is exactly what the doctor ordered. Reducing taxes and lowering the cost of living will result in the badly needed revenue increases and jobs creation.

Continue Reading

Minimum wage

I don't think the pros and cons of a minimum wage have been well discussed in Cayman. I have an opinion but I haven't seen a good logical argument made for either side of the debate. Perhaps this is a good time to start. My quick and somewhat disorganized opinions: A livable minimum wage will have no negative effect on our ability to compete for foreign income, i.e. offshore finance, tourism, hospitality, property management, construction.

It might increase our cost of living but when slavery was abolished the cost of living increased as well. It doesn’t make sense and it isn’t right that we should impoverish a quarter of our citizens so that the rest of us can save on our living and business expenses.

The cost of business goes up almost every year, yet entry-level wages are stagnant and mid-level wages are dropping. Obviously business is reducing its wage and salary expenses while the overall cost of living is increasing. The problem that we have with minimum wage levels will also affect the mid-level incomes soon. Thus, we are headed for ever-increasing levels of poverty. Expect the local residential real estate market to crash as well.

Mostly this is because there is no labour market competition in Cayman. Wages at the entry level and mid-level are lower now then they were 30 years ago when we had full Caymanian employment. Is there a connection between the 7,000 unemployed Caymanians and the unsustainable wage structure that exists in Cayman today?

Government is subsidizing the labour intense businesses in Cayman by enabling them to pay an unlivable wage (for Caymanians) to foreign workers while it supports the un- and under-employed through its social services programs.

If more Caymanians were working for more money then government would be spending less on social services. Caymanian wages are spent in Cayman, not sent overseas.

There are 75 million unemployed, educated, young people on the planet earth. Most would find Cayman’s low wage structure attractive compared to the situation that they face at home. With an open workpermit policy and no minimum wage, Caymanians must compete with a global labour force. It’s not too difficult to see who is winning and who is losing in this competition.

The ultra-low wages paid to foreign work permit holders still enables them to save enough money over seven years to buy a home in their native country. If there weren’t enough value at this level they wouldn't be here. Work permit fees for entry level jobs are in the $1,000 p/a range. What would change if they were $10,000 p/a?

Caymanians can't live and also save any money for a home in Cayman at the entry wage level paid to foreign workers. So we have displaced Caymanians' employment with a global labour force that gets much more value from their wages than a Caymanian does. A cheap undeveloped house lot in Cayman costs much more than a finished large 2-story fully furnished home in India or the Philippines. So the foreign worker making a straight $5 per hour for a 60 hour week is happy and a Caymanian would complain about the lack of overtime. A level playing field is also needed.

An entry level wage is suppose to be just that — entry level. After the new trainee gets some experience they expect to move up to the next level, eventually progressing to an income level that will support them and their family.

Cayman’s entry-level wage remains unchanged and employees don’t progress because local businesses don’t need to train or offer incentives to keep good employees. They just replace them from the global labour pool. Even a foreign worker who gets “rolled over” simply recommends a friend or relative replacement for the job.

OK, I’m sure there are a lot more “opinions”.  Let's make sure that we consider the entire labour situation in Cayman. For example, if we let foreign workers opt out of paying pension it will be come even cheaper for a business to hire a work permit holder than a Caymanian. Creating disincentives for Caymanian hiring, employment and advancement is what we are very good at, even if it isn't our intension.

My father often quoted the expression: “The road to hell is paved with good intensions.” Every decision that we have made in Cayman over the last 40 years has had unintended consequences, Maybe it's time to really examine Caymanian employment — all aspects of it — and make good policies and better decisions. Businesses will just have to pay more for employees. They pay more for everything else.

We wouldn’t be discussing the need for a minimum wage if we had more labour competition, just as we had in the 70s and 80s. Of course, work permits were so restrictive then that only the connected got them and a lot of businesses simply closed. So maybe favoritism is the cause of all of our problems.

What are we going to do about it? Who’s going to do it and how is it going to get done? Something to think about.

Related Viewpoint on CNS:

What will a minimum wage achieve? by 101

Continue Reading

Country First

As I listen to the discussion over the past couple days and I hear the criticism of the independents not acting in a manner or with the expediency that some of the public seem to want or feel entitled to, it really makes me wonder if we, the public, are being reasonable. I say this because: 1) Roy, Winston and Tara have never been greedy, nor are they doing this for personal gain.

2) Roy, Winston and Tara were all elected to use their best judgment and make sound decisions, and in order to make sound decisions one must consider all sides and not just take what seems to be obvious as fact.

3) All three of these people have pledged to put what is best for the country first, so I can only assume that the time it took to make these decisions and any negotiations were with the intent of putting the country first and not a personal or group agenda for personal gain.

I continue on with my thoughts of whether we, the public, are being reasonable in our expectations as we are now all living in the age of instant information. Never before has the “Marl Road" been more efficient. Regardless of fact or fiction, we get the gossip faster than the speed of sound. I would offer the argument that if we had the current level of communications and media involvement in military activities during WWII, we might very well may have a different world and potentially much worse than we live in today.  

We, the people, want information NOW! We want to know exactly what is being said minute by minute, as thoughwe are watching “Ed TV”. I personally think we, the public, are making demands that really are not necessary or appropriate, especially during the negotiation stages of these type of decisions.

I will offer a metaphor. I would say that if my car stops running, I am going to call my mechanic. When he tells me what is wrong (your transmission is shot), what it will cost and how long it will take to fix it, that is all I need to know. What he does to fix it, what tools he uses, and the when and how he proceeds with the work are not things I concern myself with. I just want my car back working for the amount and on the day agreed upon.

I would also offer the additional complication to the above metaphor for a person like me. I don’t want to admit it, but I am a person who knows how to do simple maintenance, knows what the transmission is, but have no clue how to rebuild a transmission. Risking serious condemnation, I would say that what I have learned over the past two years is that the general public is in the same position politically as I am mechanically. We, the voters of Cayman, really don’t understand how our government is structured and is supposed to work, yet we have expectations of actions by our elected representatives to act in a manner that is dictated by us but simply doesn’t fit into the format of our legislative structure.

Roy McTaggart has come under heavy fire recently for sitting on the opposition and has been labeled everything under the sun. This to me shows that we simply don’t understand our government structure. I will refer to the use of a metaphor again, and I will use my marriage as an example.

My wife and I both want the best for our family, however my perspective on where our funds should go on occasion does not line up with the perspective she has. A short discussion results in the facts being laid out on the table and the right decision being made as to what should or should not be priority (typically she wins). Her opposition to my perspective is healthy and is in the best interest of our family. It is opposition that is done in the context of the mutual respect and is openly accepted upon the facts being realized. 

Now I will also offer this: if my brother and I had the same conversation with the same facts, the outcome very well may be completely different, as the personalities and delivery would be completely different.

I feel completely comfortable with Roy making the decision he has made. He is a very level headed individual and he understands the legislative structure. He also has what is best for the country at heart.

At the end of the day, we need to trust in the people we have elected that they have the best for the country at heart and they will make us proud. We need to give them our support, and support them by enlightening ourselves to the facts prior to perpetuating negatives.  

Continue Reading

The trouble with ‘Miller time’

Ezzard Miller has done a few good things as an opposition member over the past few yeas, but his actions immediately after last week's general elections have resulted in an opposition which will likely fail to meet any expectations of effective checks and balance on the PPM government.

The day after the elections, even after the group of five comprising the three C4C candidates and the two wise men from the east agreed to essentially work together as a team, Miller made a 'suggestion' (his own words according to CNS) that an alternative government with his highness as premier could be put together, if only a certain PPM member and hopefully a few others would defect and cross over to this new group.

The plan not only backfired, as the PPM candidate shared Miller's email with various persons both within and external to the PPM, but it caused the C4C members to rightly question whether they could be a part of a successful opposition with a man who was trying to engineer his own government behind their backs. Furthermore, it is alleged that as Miller was telling others that he had five seats (being himself, Arden and the C4C members) it was interesting and ironic that Tara Rivers, who eventually ended up in the PPM's cabinet, was not one of the proposed cabinet members under Miller's 'Plan B'.

Miller managed to single handedly create a situation whereby five otherwise competent newly elected or re-elected members would become so fragmented in a swell of suspicion and mistrust that not only could they not see themselves working together but several of them "defected" to work with the government instead of forming an effective opposition.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with the C4C members wanting to form a coalition government. In fact, the situation which resulted with Ms Rivers in Cabinet and Mr Connolly being offered an opportunity to work closely with her in a sort of councillor/jr minister position, similar to those introduced by McKeeva Bush, seems reasonable. And everyone should hope that it all works for the betterment of the country.

But we now have a scenario whereby even Roy Mctaggart, who seems qualified to play a strong opposition role, may also consider joining the government. Sounds nice if you are really into the coalition thing but does absolutely nothing to ensure there is a balance in the LA over the next four years. And that's not a good thing.

The C4C brand took a bit of a hit with their to and fro about whether they wanted to work with Alden McLaughlin, but the public is likely to forgive them if the coalition (we should use that word lightly) works.

'Miller time' is to blame for the weakness of the opposition because, while the North Side tough guy claims to be happy in his "southeast corner" (and to be honest even that phrase is becoming tiring), one could imagine how easy it may become for the government to forget that he is there.

That leaves us with a man that faces court in a few months to lead the opposition, one newly elected member in Bernie and a captain that is known for not doing too much in the LA in any event.

The only person left is one Arden McLean, who stuck closely by Miller's side for the past couple of years and must now be wondering how he ended up standing next to Miller for another four years and with no seemingly effective way to play a meaningful role as opposition in the LA leading up to 2017.

What a shambles, and all down to 'Miller time'. 

Continue Reading

Don’t stop the party

Wherever you stand on this morning's election results, one thing is clear: party politics is here to stay. The C4C had a good showing but truth be told there were only 4 "real" independents that won seats last night: Ezzard, Winston, Tara and Roy. The others, while loosely speaking are independent, are either until recently members of a party or just individuals dominant in small or single member constituencies (such as Arden and Julie). Ezzard escapes that description only because he left the party system over 5 years ago.

Political parties got 12 of the 18 available seats (and if you remove Julie and Arden from that, the argument becomes even more compelling). One party was strong and the other as expected very weak. But both benefited from the block votes from the vote straight strategy and this was clear as independents and newbies just got swamped slowly but surely as party members got lots of "coat tail help" throughout the evening.

But while parties may be here to stay, the results also show us that the party concept can only be demonstrated on a national scale with one of the existing parties, that being the PPM. The UDP, as has been charged for several years now, proved that it remains a party for one district only with last nights results.

We also learned another important "party" lesson from the C4C: that clearly if they did not work together (ironically just like a party) they would not have had the success they achieved this morning. So the days of sole individuals working alone with their CI$35,000 budget seem to be behind us. Everyone now knows, based on the campaign, ads and posters, etc, that the C4C did not operate like seven sole individuals and anyone who tried that strategy (aside from those in single or near single member constituencies) was left in the dust.

The C4C, if it is to continue, must reconcile its anti-party message with its clear display of group/party type strategy and operational structure and it may be able to grow as a credible institution. Its confusion likely hurt several of the candidates, and if you look at the facts closely, it must discount some of the credit that it may rush to take regarding the success of some of its winners (for example, some say Tara's win in West Bay is a surprise, but we must recall that she did extremely well "all on her own" in that district two terms ago).

As for the UDP, it must find a future with a leader of integrity, strip itself of those members considered "baggage", and become far more professional as an organisation (hopefully a democratically run one). All of this will require almost gutting the organisation with a few exceptions.

The PPM have demonstrated that they are a very well organised political machine. They won and they now have a lot of hard work to do.

We now wait to see how the horse trading exercise goes but should not expect too much fireworks because Alden only needs one independent to step up to assist him in forming a government. But as the country's next premier, he will now need to demonstrate that, after all, he is the leader that many have charged he has not been during the past few years. The country has taught us since the introduction of the party system that it simply swings from one party to another if the country does not improve.

Alden and his team run the very same risk that the pendulum swings the other way in four years if they cannot get a grip on the current extremely difficult challenges that this country faces.The switch did not occur in 2009 because of corruption within the PPM (because integrity remains one of their strengths), but as we all recall, it did occur because of failure to manage the economy and government finances effectively.

We should all wish them luck so that the Cayman Islands situation improves.

Continue Reading

Did women really get the vote in our own right?

I was chatting with a friend on the weekend; this is a friend who is voting for the very first time in Cayman. Both she and her husband, after nearly 20 years here, have now been granted status, become naturalized and have signed on to the electoral roll. This particular friend told me that she was at home alone the other night and heard a knock on the door. When she answered the door, there stood one of the political hopefuls in the upcoming election. 

He asked if her husband was in; she said no, unfortunately he wasn’t yet home. This particular political candidate explained that he simply wanted to talkabout the upcoming elections and answer any queries her husband may have and just have a general chat.  She said, “Oh that’s great – it’s the first year that we’re both voting in theelections and we’re pretty excited about it – we’d love to chat to you a little more to help us make an informed decision.” To which he said, “Well, I’ll look forward to speaking to your husband later then,” and off he went.

I wondered if the candidate was being chivalrous and simply didn’t want to be in her home without her husband present, but then I thought about it a little more and decided that if that was the case he simply had to say that he’d prefer to continue the conversation with her husband present so that he could talk with both of them at a convenient time. And so I became quite offended by his behaviour, given the only two other reasons I can think of why he wouldn’t take advantage of the obvious opening she presented him with to help win her over are: he doesn’t consider her vote to be terribly important (because she’s a woman?) or that he’s only interested in talking to her husband because, as long as he can win the husband over, he must, of course, get her vote by default. Won’t the husband tell his wife which way to vote anyway!

Having spent a little more time pondering it, I realized that this is the third election I will be voting in. I have served jury duty (one of the ‘perks’ of being able to vote), and yet I’ve never received a visit from a political hopeful (not that I’m encouraging everyone to now come knocking but it’s interesting nonetheless). And now this year, the first year my husband is entitled to vote and has signed on to the electoral roll, having only been on the roll since February, he has received five letters/flyers in the mail addressed to him personally (not to us jointly) and I’ve received none – not in the past two elections or this one.

I’d be fascinated to hear if someone else has a different viewpoint but it certainly smacks of chauvinism and, interestingly, the political hopeful referred to above has lost any hope of getting not only the vote of the (girl) friend who relayed the story but also of her husband, and sadly for him he’s also lost mine and my husband’s vote. 

Other political hopefuls take note – not only did women get the vote but some of us may not actually even vote in accordance with how our husbands may choose to vote. And in extreme cases, some of us may even be able to persuade our husbands on the merits of certain candidates – at least those lucky enough to be married to men who realize we might be able to make informed decisions all on our own!

Continue Reading

Cayman flip flop

As a first time voter, I have made a solid effort to watch, listen and read all the different debates in regards to the upcoming election – and I must say I am extremely disappointed by everyone involved. I really hoped that in this election, some candidates (whether party or independent) would have had the guts to speak the truth, but unfortunately, everyone was beating the usual campaign drum as this is just the easiest and most popular thing to do.

So here we go once again, anticipating the new government, which will be the savior of everyone and will miraculously and single handedly, turn around the economic state of the Cayman Islands. The promises are big and as one could expect during every election all over the world: more development, more jobs, and lower cost of living …

The truth is that no matter what government will be put in place (and for all it’s worth, I really hope it doesn’t involve any UDP/PNA candidates), they are likely to fail just as the previous governments have because they have failed to realistically manage the people’s expectation during their campaign.

Unless people’s mindsets shift, we won’t be making any progress for the better. There has to be a message to the people that in the first instance, everyone is responsible for themselves and must do for themselves accordingly. If people want progress in the long run, there must be changes, and those changes may be uncomfortable at first. Cut backs and true enforcement of existing legislation will impact everyone and it may not be to the liking of many – but it will be necessary. If communities want to improve their district, they have to band together and put in the hard work themselves – don’t wait for government to come and do it for you. You want your beaches and streets to be clean, you will have to go out there and help clean them up!

Many people are suffering and struggling to pay their bills. Whilst they are many who really struggle despite trying their best, there are equally many who just continue to live beyond their means and have their priorities screwed up. Government must be able to distinguish and provide or deny assistance accordingly.

Business owners, who want their business to thrive, must be prepared to put in the work themselves accordingly. What I seen in Cayman is that Caymanians want to own a business, employ cheap foreign staff and sell a crappy foreign product to outrageous prices – and are then genuinely surprised that their business fails and hold government responsible. Unless you are prepared to be out-of-pocket for a number of years,  you sell a good product for a fair price, deliver great customer service and distinguish yourself from your competitors, your business will not likely be successful in the long run, no matter how much government will reduce red tape for you while setting up shop. That is a reality throughout the world.

As a society, we must stop looking to government to provide the answers for everything, to provide the funding for everything, to make things easier for everyone because we need to look at ourselves first and do the work accordingly.

I really wished someone would have made this very clear to the people before they head off to the polling stations next week. While it may have been a hard message to send, it would have been a very honest one. I am not sure how others feel, but I would have preferred the honest and realistic route rather than the empty sounds of the usual campaign drums.

The way things are going now, I would not be surprised whatsoever if in four years time we flip flop back again to another government because, as usual, the promises which have been made during this election campaign will be very unrealistic to keep and fulfill over the next four years. In the long run, the people will once again feel let down and betrayed because in the heat of the usual campaign trail madness, we have once again missed the opportunity to realistically manage the people’s expectations for the next four years and to make it clear that government alone cannot do it.

But I guess as a country we just don’t seem to want to learn and have never learned to look any further than tomorrow.

Continue Reading

The one man election

As we get closer to May 22nd, the political campaigns become more desperate as each group or individual tries (hopefully) to place one effective lasting point in our minds to ensure we vote for them. There is nothing unusual about this if it were not for the glaring observation that many of the arguments actually aim for the same result: the removal of McKeeva Bush from any scenario where he could regain his former position as premier.

Over the past few days the best example of this is the perfectly timed statements from virtually all of Mac's opponents telling voters that they would not work with the UDP if elected.

Very few, aside from Mr Bush's most ardent supporters, would take issue with that result. The problem is that voters are being manipulated to vote not just against the big man or the policies of his running mates, but to vote proactively for certain groups and in particular the PPM.

The argument seen right here on CNS recently goes like this: don't split your vote between the C4C, PNA, etc, because Mac and his colleagues have a reasonable size voter base so 'they might win'. And we don't want that. So, as beautifully articulated by Roy Tatum in a recent viewpoint, we should vote straight for the PPM. Don't vote for any independents, the C4C or PNA. Just vote for "us". In fact, voters should not even bother to assess any of the non PPM candidates; they would do well to ignore everyone but Alden and crew.

It's not just that this strategy is plainly a manipulative move by the PPM (or any other group that uses it to get your 'straight' vote), it's also a complete mockery of the democratic process and a complete lack of respect for a voter's right to exercise that very private choice on May 22nd.

If you feel that McKeeva needs to retire, by all means don't vote for him if you are in West Bay, and even if you aren't, say what you wish as loudly and effectively as you can to ensure he gets the least support. But don't water down your right to assess any other candidates that will be on the ballot in your district by swallowing the scaremongering tactic suited solely to help some other group win.

And what about all the non-PPM candidates out there? Are we saying there is nothing worthy of considering in the proposed solutions of any candidates within the C4C, PNA or even any of the true independents? And what about some of the new UDP candidates?

Democracy may not always give us the result we want, but nothing could be worse than
getting a government that got elected not by virtue of the policies they set before us, and not because we wanted to vote for them, but by default. Ironically, this is the point argued by the PPM regarding how the UDP got elected. But now they are advocating an equally absurd approach because it works for them.

The vote on May22nd belongs to you, not the PPM, PNA, C4C or anyone else. What you do with it and the consequences of your actions are but for you only. Vote for the person or group that convinces you that they can take this country out of the current mess and let the chips fall where they may. Anything else and we will all simply be reduced to being puppets due to the political strategy of one selfishly motivated group or another.

Vote in the CNS Poll: How will you be voting?

Continue Reading