Give specifics of IMF deal
THE EDITOR, Sir:
I am a big fan of the legendary contribution to journalism that Ian Boyne has provided over several decades.
In Boyne's column ('Cabinet retreat, no IMF advance') in The Sunday Gleaner dated January 13, 2013, I agree with his statement that the people had no appetite for the People's National Party's achievements and that what is ahead scares them. Personally, that scares me as well.
We already know what happened in the past year, we don't know what is ahead. When the prime minister was in Opposition, she campaigned by telling the people what she would do. Hence, during her recent speech two Sundays ago, she should have done the same by telling us what she would do.
It is not unreasonable for people to have expected that an IMF deal would have been sealed by now. After all, if I'm not mistaken, the prime minister did say that negotiations would have started during her first two weeks in office.
Even though there may be sensitive matters in the IMF negotiations that cannot be made public, or at least, as yet, one has to appreciate that the IMF deal is the elephant in the room, and people want to hear about some concrete aspects about it.
Though I agree with Boyne that there are some tough decisions that we the people have to make - with or without the IMF - it seems the politicians don't have sacrifices to make. Politicians talk about austerity measures, but those measures don't seem to affect them. It seems as if no matter how bad our economy gets, the life of a politician is always flourishing.
Politicians purchase seven-seater Land Cruisers to do their job when a less-expensive and smaller-gas tank five-seater RAV4, Vitara, CR-V, or Tucson could do the same job. But then again, the prime minister did say that some politicians are used to living better lives.