THE POWERHOUSE IS GOING PLACES!
The Choiseul PowerHouse is “powering ahead” in Cyberspace with the speed of light. Some claim we are hard-hitting and controversial; some claim we are intellectual and academic! Some even claim we are political! Everybody is right! We are all of those things! We have a diverse global audience and it is our pleasure to stimulate your intellectual taste buds and we make no apologies for that. The bottomline is we are independent and have no affinity to any organisation: political or otherwise! We will continue to publish our "power articles"
We wish to extend special thanks to followers for their support. We also encourage you to post your comments and feedback on the Blog using the comments link following the Articles.
Welcome to the POWERHOUSE family blog!
Sunday, June 19, 2016
|DEPICTION OF THE NEW CABINET CONFIGURATION BY A SOCIAL MEDIA CONTRIBUTOR
Two fundamental questions have been either not been asked or have been largely ignored, except for the debate on social media.
When Kenny Anthony won the elections in 1997, the Press blindly hopped aboard his train and seemed to have remained there indefinitely until he broke the cycle of bliss by firing a Senator who was a publisher. Almost twenty years down the line, we haven't learned our lesson or have forgotten history.
The question is: is this our true and real St. Lucia or is it a historically momentary, anomalous quirk of fate? I pray it is the later!
Let's now look critically at the geometric configuration of the new cabinet and also its potential implications. Later, I shall argue that the reduction in the number of the ministries is only a hoax not grounded in rationality – one that was designed to have never happened.
In the meantime, we can only surmise: If it does result in cost savings, then the PM should be applauded and from a fiscal point of view, he is on his way to a fine term; but this however still remains an exceedingly grey area.
All ministers who spoke after the inauguration were saying “post hoc” what they should have said prior to the elections. Before the elections the UWP categorically said that it would remove VAT! After the elections, it is saying that it needs to conduct reviews and assessment going forward. The question is: Suppose those reviews and assessment say VAT cannot be reduced or removed, then what would the outcome be?