Interpreting manifestos of PNM today

THE EDITOR: The insinuations proffered in the Parliament hot mic controversy are known to have been circulating in PNM ranks going back before 2010.

It now proves to be groundless and so it speaks very badly of them that that kind of chat could be nestling for so long, unquestioned. Is there not one man or woman among them who crossed paths with it, who could have corrected it already? Or did a PNMite correct it and they are silencing him?

How do we know if the new leader can deal with this party backdrop – norm, culture, totem – honourably and effectively? And if the next leader was ignorant all along about this side of PNM manners, how can we know if he will be ably suited to manage them?

We do know as a fact that the very policies that he will be expected to sustain and drive forward are built on at least one person attempting to domicile a wickedness to Parliament.

Recap PNM fundamentalism of the 21st century, to date:

* Pursuing ever elusive Dragon gas while deconstructing the economy subjugated to OFAC, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control, and a foreign, apparently single, bank.

Going into debt to use the nation's own wealth to pay for the debt to achieve some kind of wealth distribution, instead of distributing wealth without debt.

* Trying to normalise the IMF as a banking partner and the cornerstone for debt policy affirmation.

* Using Parliament's simple majority to dissect the public service and construct new reach and new domain for the executive in a seconding arrangement with the Privy Council – not in the Constitution.

* Toying with select labour persona concerning who gets the refinery.

As is, whoever becomes the new PNM leader has to commit to pretty dicey and unwholesome lifestyle and platforms.

E GALY

via e-mail