Black Immigrant Daily News

British Prime Minister Liz Truss resigned Thursday — bowing to the inevitable after a tumultuous six-week term in which her policies triggered turmoil in financial markets and a rebellion in her party obliterated her authority.

She said, “I cannot deliver the mandate on which I was elected.”

Just a day earlier, Truss had vowed to stay in power, saying she was “a fighter and not a quitter”. But Truss couldn’t hold on any longer after a senior minister quit her government with a barrage of criticism and a vote in the House of Commons descended into chaos and acrimony just days after she was forced to abandon many of her economic policies.

Her departure leaves a divided Conservative Party seeking a leader who can unify its warring factions.

A growing number of lawmakers had called for Truss to resign after weeks of turmoil sparked by her economic plan. The plan unveiled by the government last month triggered financial turmoil and a political crisis that has seen the replacement of Truss’ Treasury chief, multiple policy U-turns and a breakdown of discipline in the governing Conservative Party.

Earlier, Conservative lawmaker Simon Hoare said the government was in disarray.

“Nobody has a route plan. It’s all sort of hand-to-hand fighting on a day-to-day basis,” he told the BBC on Thursday.

He said Truss had “about 12 hours” to turn the situation around.

Truss had held a hastily arranged meeting in her 10 Downing Street office with Graham Brady, a senior Conservative lawmaker who oversees leadership challenges. Brady was tasked with assessing whether the prime minister still has the support of Tory members of Parliament — and it seemed she did not.

A growing number of Conservative members of Parliament had called Thursday for her to step down and end the chaos.

“It’s time for the prime minister to go,” lawmaker Miriam Cates said.

Another, Steve Double, said of Truss: “She isn’t up to the job, sadly.”

Legislator Ruth Edwards said “it is not responsible for the party to allow her to remain in power.”

Lawmakers’ anger grew after a Wednesday evening vote over fracking for shale gas — a practice that Truss wants to resume despite opposition from many Conservatives — produced chaotic scenes in Parliament.

With Conservatives holding a large parliamentary majority, an opposition call for a fracking ban was easily defeated. But there were displays of anger in the House of Commons, with party whips accused of using heavy-handed tactics to gain votes.

Chris Bryant, a lawmaker from the opposition Labour Party, said he “saw members being physically manhandled … and being bullied.”

Conservative officials denied there was manhandling.

Rumors swirled that Conservative Chief Whip Wendy Morton, who is responsible for party discipline, and her deputy had resigned. Hours later, Truss’ office said both remained in their jobs.

Newspapers that usually support the Conservatives were vitriolic. An editorial in the Daily Mail was headlined: “The wheels have come off the Tory clown car.”

International Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan, sent onto the airwaves Thursday morning to defend the government, insisted the administration was providing “stability.” But she was unable to guarantee Truss would lead the party into the next election.

“At the moment, I think that’s the case,” she said.

With opinion polls giving the Labour Party a large and growing lead, many Conservatives now believe their only hope of avoiding electoral oblivion is to replace Truss. But they were divided about how to get rid of her, and over who should replace her.

The party is keen to avoid another divisive leadership contest like the race a few months ago that saw Truss defeat ex-Treasury chief Rishi Sunak. Among potential replacements — if only Conservative lawmakers can agree — are Sunak, House of Commons leader Penny Mordaunt and newly appointed Treasury chief Jeremy Hunt.

A national election doesn’t have to be held until 2024.

In a major blow, Home Secretary Suella Braverman resigned Wednesday after breaching rules by sending an official document from her personal email account. She used her resignation letter to lambaste Truss, saying she had “concerns about the direction of this government.”

“The business of government relies upon people accepting responsibility for their mistakes,” she said in a thinly veiled dig at Truss.

Braverman was replaced as home secretary, the minister responsible for immigration and law and order, by former Cabinet minister Grant Shapps, a high-profile supporter of her defeated rival Sunak.

The dramatic developments came days after Truss fired her Treasury chief, Kwasi Kwarteng, on Friday after the economic package the pair unveiled September 23 spooked financial markets and triggered an economic and political crisis.

The plan’s 45 billion pounds (US$50 billion) in unfunded tax cuts sparked turmoil on financial markets, hammering the value of the pound and increasing the cost of UK Government borrowing. The Bank of England was forced to intervene to prevent the crisis from spreading to the wider economy and putting pension funds at risk.

On Monday Kwarteng’s replacement, Hunt, scrapped almost all of Truss’ tax cuts, along with her flagship energy policy and her promise of no public spending cuts.

He said the government will need to save billions of pounds and there are “many difficult decisions” to be made before he sets out a medium-term fiscal plan on October 31.

Speaking to lawmakers for the first time since the U-turn, Truss apologised Wednesday and admitted she had made mistakes during her six weeks in office, but insisted that by changing course she had “taken responsibility and made the right decisions in the interest of the country’s economic stability”.

Opposition lawmakers shouted “Resign!” as she spoke in the House of Commons.

Labour Party leader Keir Starmer accused the Conservatives of lacking “the basic patriotic duty to keep the British people out of their own pathetic squabbles”.

He said that amid a worsening a cost-of-living crisis, “Britain cannot afford the chaos of the Conservatives anymore. We need a general election now.”___By JILL LAWLESS

Associated Press

NewsAmericasNow.com

Black Immigrant Daily News

IS IT PRUDENT TO SELL NAMCO?

By Alvette E Jeffers

The Antigua Observer newspaper of October 15th, 2022 reported that the United Progressive Party (UPP) intends to “dissolve” the National Asset Management Corporation (NAMCO). The UPP, it says, will then sell to Antiguans and Barbudans, “the shares owned by NAMCO.” This latest announcement is consistent with UPP’s past endorsement, in 2021, of the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party (A&BLP) government’s decision to privatize some of the assets the nation state holds in the WIOC. The question, therefore, begs itself. Will it be prudent policy to sell NAMCO’s shares? There are indeed reasons to be dissatisfied with the operation of this entity. One of the major complaints is that its operation is shrouded in secrecy.

The coterie of government ministers who manage NAMCO, do not offer any account of their stewardship to the public. Therefore, not much is known about its investment portfolio or how and if it benefits the people. What is generally known is that the government has invested public funds in privately run institutions. But beyond that, everything else remains murky because of the lack of transparency and the absence of democratic accountability. But we do have an idea of the ideological premise on which NAMCO was constructed which is essential to determine, to an extent, its reason for being.

Prior to the establishment of NAMCO, Gaston Brown attempted to define something he introduced to Antiguans and Barbudans called “entrepreneurial socialism.” It seemed then and still appears to be a derivative of “market socialism.” Market socialism combines State planning thinking and free market ideas in the use and allocation of economic resources. Yugoslavia adapted this practice after the second world war.

The Chinese did the same in 1992. At the time that PM Gaston Brown adopted “entrepreneurial socialism,” Antigua and Barbuda was already an economy operating on some capitalist principles and a concept of the market existed. Economic “planning” in Antigua and Barbuda, remains restricted to the enactment of laws that govern local business relations which jibe with imperialist stipulations or to a degree, the granting of subsidies to investors as a means of influencing the rate of employment.

The State of Antigua and Barbuda is not, itself, engaged in commodity production as was the case in the 50s and 60s when the Antigua Trades and Labour Union (AT&LU) government committed itself to developing an industrial sector under the direction of the Industrial Development Board, established in 1952. As Paget Henry notes in his book, ‘Peripheral Capitalism,’ “manufacturing in Antigua came largely as a result of state initiative.” (p.109) There is now no direct State planning of commodity manufacturing occurring in Antigua or Barbuda as is the case in present day China and was the norm in Yugoslavia under Tito.

Gaston Brown’s “entrepreneurial socialism” is thus reduced to the investment of public funds in private corporations as a way to boost public wealth, and with it, the possibility to influence these companies’ investment strategies. The idea that government ownership of parts of the economy or a private/public cooperation constitutes socialism has long been debunked. To Gaston Brown, it imitates some aspect of “socialism.” For me, it is just plain state capitalism.

I am not ideologically committed to State capitalism nor do I think the counter to it is the privatization of, especially, a profitable public asset that was designed to create public wealth. From a nationalist point of view, and in the absence of local advocacy for the transformation of society and its political and economic relationships, NAMCO makes sense as a strategic instrument for wealth accumulation and a generator of funds for future capital projects.

It is saving something today so you can have something to spend tomorrow. When it occurs, those public investments in capital expansion and cultural life in general, should have an impact on the economy that should be positive and measurable. The underlying principle of NAMCO is credible as long as it, in actual fact, reproduces capital accumulation so essential for the renewing of the productive capacities of society and those other things that are its ancillary. States, all over, invest capital in bonds and other financial instruments. China owns an estimated $1.1 trillion in USA treasuries. In this regard, NAMCO is not a novel idea.

NAMCO’s investment should not be expected to pay for recurring expenditures. Revenues from taxes, license fees, customs duties etc. take care of those things. These revenue sources, if enhanced, may curb a natural inclination to depend on debt financing, which is now at the phenomenal amount of $3,334,175,407. But Gaston Brown and the A&BLP regularly undermine their own financial enhancement strategy when they deliberately lessen the intake of revenue by giving generous and unnecessary tax breaks to the business elites whose cupidity is unlimited.

At the same time, there seems to be no clear counter measure to mitigate the negative consequences such transfer of wealth can have on Antigua and Barbuda’s most vulnerable and exploited class.

What makes such transfer of wealth to investors appear so ill advised, is that there are no guarantees that the transfer will enhance economic growth, now or in the future. What the investors do with the additional capital, is beyond the government’s control or influence. A reversal of such errant policies and a NAMCO that is true to its declared objectives would help to increase the island’s wealth. Taxes and fees, of whatever type, have not been able to do that.

NAMCO must be assessed on the basis of its usefulness to economic investment and the collective wellbeing of the working class, whose existence is often affected by the ups and downs of the economy. When public wealth gets transferred to private individuals, there are no reasons to expect that these individuals will make a conscious decision to spur economic growth.

In fact, they would be just another group, added to those already in existence, who will feast on the profits that the working class creates, in the form of dividends. On the contrary, if and when the State uses such dividends to fix the roads, repair or reinvent the water system, invest in education, and perfect the operation of the hospital, more lives, individually and collectively, are positively impacted and those investments, will at the same time, increase levels of employment that will have a direct impact on the economy.

When we sacrifice the good of the many for that of the few, we are deliberately destroying what remains of a communal idea and in its place, we are promoting naked individualism, an egocentrism that has no empathy with working class aspirations, but sees itself in relation to foreign capital, its taste, its market driven ideology and its end product, self-aggrandizement. The attempt to destroy both the idea and practice of communal land ownership in Barbuda, by the Brown administration, has the same objective.

Finally. No one has asserted that NAMCO is not gaining returns on its investment. It is not known if it is a bane to the society. They simply do not know. Apparently, that is not germane. Its financial status will not determine its existence. MAMCO’s fate has already been predetermined. The bell has begun to toll. A UPP government will dissolve NAMCO because the party, I presume, believes, as a matter of ideology, that the State should not hold such valuable shares. By the way, if they are not valuable, no one will purchase them. I sincerely agree with those who say that NAMCO exist in secrecy. I concur that a public enterprise should be under the direct gaze of the public. I even go further to say, Cabinet should not be managing NAMCO.

All Cabinet is required to do is to establish the legal norms under which it operates and then turn it over to the appropriate authority to administer in the interest of the community. Correspondingly, similar indictments are made against the general way is which politics is conducted but no one calls for the end of parliamentary democracy or the overthrow of the system. The comrades who once advocated for the revolutionary transformation of Antigua and Barbuda in the 70s and 80s, are now the pretorian guards of either of the conventional parties. So why the call to end NAMCO?

My feelings are implicit in my reasoning. NAMCO as a concept is important. The way it functions, however, should be reevaluated and reinvigorated to achieve the same strategic objectives it was implemented to achieve. All the criticism against NAMCO should be noted and corrected in order to restore public confidence in its mission.

Antigua is in dire straits, financially. NAMCO cannot cure the problems that economic dependency and the principal reliance on foreign capital to stimulate growth produce. Even if those things are tackled, we will still have to find ways to save something today, so we can have something to spend tomorrow. That is common sense economics. So, the obvious? It is imprudent to suggest the dissolution of NAMCO.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP

NewsAmericasNow.com

Black Immigrant Daily News

The Barbados Licensing Authority (BLA) has suspended the issuance of heavy-duty, public service vehicle and motor tractor permits and driver licenses to persons under age of 25, to allow for legislative changes to be drafted to Section 69 (1) of the Road Traffic Amendments

But what does that really mean?

Let’s break it down.

1. Are you aged 16 through to 24 years old and have a heavy-duty licence?

If yes, you are fine. Your licence remains valid.

2. Are you between 16 and 24 years old and have a heavy-duty licence permit?

If yes, you are impacted by this change in law. (Keep reading to see how)

3. If you answered yes to Question 2, what do you have to do?

Wait. You have to wait because the government is stopping all learners who are age 16 through to 24 years old until the law is updated.

4. Are you a learner aged 16 through to 24 and your driving test was set for today, tomorrow, next week, next month or before yearend, what to do?

Wait. The Licensing Authority will not proceed with your tests until the law is updated. You will be given a new date.

5. How long do you have to wait? When will the amendment be completed?

So far, the Ministry Transport, Works and Water Resources (MTWW) has only shared in a press release that it is mindful of the impact which the suspension is having on affected persons, and is seeking to urgently resolve the matter. No exact date has been given.

6. Are you an employer and your driver/freighter is between 16 and 24 years old and has his or her heavy-duty licence already?

If yes, they are okay. Their licences are valid. They can continue to work.

NewsAmericasNow.com

Black Immigrant Daily News

British Prime Minister Liz Truss resigned Thursday — bowing to the inevitable after a tumultuous six-week term in which her policies triggered turmoil in financial markets and a rebellion in her party obliterated her authority.

She said, “I cannot deliver the mandate on which I was elected.”

Just a day earlier, Truss had vowed to stay in power, saying she was “a fighter and not a quitter”. But Truss couldn’t hold on any longer after a senior minister quit her government with a barrage of criticism and a vote in the House of Commons descended into chaos and acrimony just days after she was forced to abandon many of her economic policies.

Her departure leaves a divided Conservative Party seeking a leader who can unify its warring factions.

A growing number of lawmakers had called for Truss to resign after weeks of turmoil sparked by her economic plan. The plan unveiled by the government last month triggered financial turmoil and a political crisis that has seen the replacement of Truss’ Treasury chief, multiple policy U-turns and a breakdown of discipline in the governing Conservative Party.

Earlier, Conservative lawmaker Simon Hoare said the government was in disarray.

“Nobody has a route plan. It’s all sort of hand-to-hand fighting on a day-to-day basis,” he told the BBC on Thursday.

He said Truss had “about 12 hours” to turn the situation around.

Truss had held a hastily arranged meeting in her 10 Downing Street office with Graham Brady, a senior Conservative lawmaker who oversees leadership challenges. Brady was tasked with assessing whether the prime minister still has the support of Tory members of Parliament — and it seemed she did not.

A growing number of Conservative members of Parliament had called Thursday for her to step down and end the chaos.

“It’s time for the prime minister to go,” lawmaker Miriam Cates said.

Another, Steve Double, said of Truss: “She isn’t up to the job, sadly.”

Legislator Ruth Edwards said “it is not responsible for the party to allow her to remain in power.”

Lawmakers’ anger grew after a Wednesday evening vote over fracking for shale gas — a practice that Truss wants to resume despite opposition from many Conservatives — produced chaotic scenes in Parliament.

With Conservatives holding a large parliamentary majority, an opposition call for a fracking ban was easily defeated. But there were displays of anger in the House of Commons, with party whips accused of using heavy-handed tactics to gain votes.

Chris Bryant, a lawmaker from the opposition Labour Party, said he “saw members being physically manhandled … and being bullied.”

Conservative officials denied there was manhandling.

Rumors swirled that Conservative Chief Whip Wendy Morton, who is responsible for party discipline, and her deputy had resigned. Hours later, Truss’ office said both remained in their jobs.

Newspapers that usually support the Conservatives were vitriolic. An editorial in the Daily Mail was headlined: “The wheels have come off the Tory clown car.”

International Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan, sent onto the airwaves Thursday morning to defend the government, insisted the administration was providing “stability.” But she was unable to guarantee Truss would lead the party into the next election.

“At the moment, I think that’s the case,” she said.

With opinion polls giving the Labour Party a large and growing lead, many Conservatives now believe their only hope of avoiding electoral oblivion is to replace Truss. But they were divided about how to get rid of her, and over who should replace her.

The party is keen to avoid another divisive leadership contest like the race a few months ago that saw Truss defeat ex-Treasury chief Rishi Sunak. Among potential replacements — if only Conservative lawmakers can agree — are Sunak, House of Commons leader Penny Mordaunt and newly appointed Treasury chief Jeremy Hunt.

A national election doesn’t have to be held until 2024.

In a major blow, Home Secretary Suella Braverman resigned Wednesday after breaching rules by sending an official document from her personal email account. She used her resignation letter to lambaste Truss, saying she had “concerns about the direction of this government.”

“The business of government relies upon people accepting responsibility for their mistakes,” she said in a thinly veiled dig at Truss.

Braverman was replaced as home secretary, the minister responsible for immigration and law and order, by former Cabinet minister Grant Shapps, a high-profile supporter of her defeated rival Sunak.

The dramatic developments came days after Truss fired her Treasury chief, Kwasi Kwarteng, on Friday after the economic package the pair unveiled September 23 spooked financial markets and triggered an economic and political crisis.

The plan’s 45 billion pounds (US$50 billion) in unfunded tax cuts sparked turmoil on financial markets, hammering the value of the pound and increasing the cost of UK Government borrowing. The Bank of England was forced to intervene to prevent the crisis from spreading to the wider economy and putting pension funds at risk.

On Monday Kwarteng’s replacement, Hunt, scrapped almost all of Truss’ tax cuts, along with her flagship energy policy and her promise of no public spending cuts.

He said the government will need to save billions of pounds and there are “many difficult decisions” to be made before he sets out a medium-term fiscal plan on October 31.

Speaking to lawmakers for the first time since the U-turn, Truss apologised Wednesday and admitted she had made mistakes during her six weeks in office, but insisted that by changing course she had “taken responsibility and made the right decisions in the interest of the country’s economic stability”.

Opposition lawmakers shouted “Resign!” as she spoke in the House of Commons.

Labour Party leader Keir Starmer accused the Conservatives of lacking “the basic patriotic duty to keep the British people out of their own pathetic squabbles”.

He said that amid a worsening a cost-of-living crisis, “Britain cannot afford the chaos of the Conservatives anymore. We need a general election now.”___By JILL LAWLESS

Associated Press

NewsAmericasNow.com

Black Immigrant Daily News

NewsAmericasNow.com