Saturday, January 23, 2010

Labour-MMM Alliance Good for the Uteems Not for Mauritius

Good for them because that's about the only way father or son could get elected in the next polls. Not good for Mauritius because that alliance would win all the seats without a serious plan for our country before breaking-up one year later. 

President Uteem has yet to tell us how this is in the interest of our country. I suspect he'll have a hard time doing that because he doesn't seem to understand that a former President shouldn't go back into partisan politics.


Anonymous said...

probably good for Vishnu too as this could also be the only way for him to claw back his way to Parliament. By the way, didn't he share that bit with you over the main course ? Guess the fish dish was tasty.

Sanjay Jagatsingh said...

I believe Vishnu could and should be elected irrespective of any political configurations. He has a positive track record in the development of our country. He cannot be lumped together with Sithanen or Khushiram. You just need to check the interview of the latter in the Mauritius Times of last week. The guy is still talking about 'competitive depreciation' and singing the merits of 'supply side economics'. Hopless case.

We had a very long and interesting chat. The fish wasn't bad at all.

chets said...

Why drag Vishnu into this?
The guy has proved his mettle and earned his stripes. Definitely better than Rama. The latter is offering the private sector the luxury of an a la carte menu.

And besides, Vishnu still believes that the MMM should go without the LP.Kudos to him

Anonymous said...

Since elections are not so far away, I am keen to see if Vishnu gets elected with MMM fighting solo.On ne perd rien pour attendre.

I think I came across an article where you stated that the so-called economic miracle was in fact not that magical at all given that it coincided with a global economic upturn. Vishnu became MoF during that period itself!!!!..........

In case an alliance between Labour and MMM is forged, I expect to see Vishnu leaving immediately his current party. Because as you say, he is the fighting tooth and nail to convince his party leadership to go alone.That would be out of self-respect.

Sanjay Jagatsingh said...

It would be good to have Vishnu in our parliament: that would certainly raise the level of the debate.

Yeah, this is the post you are referring to. While he certainly benefited from one big rebound we have to give him credit for not doing anything stupid and for making Mauritius a bit more equal.

You should also take a look at the posts on income distribution to understand why Vishnu did a much better job than Dr Flat Tax See here.

And read this to get a good idea of why our country has never been so badly managed in its history as it has since July 2005. We have just lost 5 years, again!!!

Anonymous said...

The level of the debate could improve with him in Parliament. But I have yet to see what the MMM will propose in the economic chapter of its manifesto.

So far, I have only heard about converting half of our reserves into gold and the intended use of the GRA to " nettoye l"industrie du jeu".

Thank you for the links, I have read them all and as soon as they were posted.

But if my memory serves me right, Vishnu once proposed to abolish income tax. Does this not confirm the parental link that exists btw him and the bean counter??? ....

Sanjay Jagatsingh said...

Don't trust the manifestos of our 3 major parties too much. I have yet to find the page in Labour's Une Ile Maurice Pour Tous where they say that they're gonna make Mauritius a guinea pig of the Bretton Woods sisters and create maximum poverty and inequality.

Am also quite surprised to have seen Ramgoolam head a neocon government.

Anonymous said...

exactly.All the major political parties do not spell out clearly in their manifestos their real agendas. And we are served with measures that have counter effects on what was initially proposed. For example, the super star move to democratize the economy has proved to be a bag of hot wind since your figures have proved that income distribution has worsened and the flat tax has not benefitted much the middle class as per the research of Mrs. Juddoo.

All permutations between parties have now been exhausted: MMM/Labour, MSM/MMM etcc but such has not produced optimum results for Mauritius. As you have repeatedly exposed here, serious issues like traffic congestion,reforms of the electoral system and the like have not been dealt with. Probably because Mauritian politics is more about communalism/casteism. Candidates over here are chosen to satisfy ethnic/casteist requirements at the expense of meritocracy.

Forget abolition of the Best Loser System that will require a government with 75% voting power. Candidates who really have ideas to fight for need to stand in their own constituencies and not migrate to regions where there exists a concentration of their likes.e.g If Nita Deerpalsing is convinced that economic democratisation is so vital for the country,her views could well have been manisfested amongst citizens of Beau Bassin, the place where she lives. And if this is applied nation-wide, the cancer of scientific communalism would have ended and I am sure Beeharry and others would have left the land of Uncle Sam at full throttle to give a helping hand to tiny Mauritius.

Mamoujee said...

A couple of ideas to rattle the parties writing their manifestoes :

1. A PM should not be allowed to run for more than 2 terms

2. An MP should not be allowed to migrate to another constituency in the next election

3. All pensions should be abolished for MPs ( every MP has become a careerist working for his pension/ VRS...that's why they can change party, change constituency so easily)

Kozémotandé said...

I agree with Mamoojee's points no. 1 and 3. No.1 will clear the way for more real possibilities.

Political manifestos are uselees indeed because once elected the governing party is ruled by the personalities composing it. The FM and the PM will always do whatever they wish to do irrespective of what is contained in the Manifesto. That's why I think that the PM' s regret today is to have chosen RS instead of VL when he had the choice. The economic scenery would have been different today. He knows it.

Sanjay Jagatsingh said...

I agree only with point no 1.

I disagree with point no 2 for a simple practical reason: Navin, Paul and Pravin are neighbours so any other progressive candidate from that riding would practically not have any chance of getting elected.

I say no to no 3 because you would be depriving potentially hard-working politicians from a well-earned pension. The trick is to have good candidates that deliver in their Ministerial positions.

Yep, the PM calls all the shots. If he doesn't know how to then the FM calls them for him. I agree with Kozemotande: kind of really difficult to do worse than the bean-counter!!!

Anonymous said...

I agree with point no1.Restricting the number of terms should also apply to other MPs as well, not only to the PM.

Point 2.You are right, an MP must stay in his previous constituency and to fight "communalisme scientifique" an MP should stand as candidate in his own constituency.

Point 3. I also agree. @ Sanjay. How can you know before hand that the chosen minister will deliver? I came across an article where you say that the current government was well intentioned.That was practically at the start of the current term. I guess ministers are appointed to put the well intentioned plan into action. But then they fail miserably. So in my opinion, pensions should be abolished outright as it is impossible to know in advance how they will perform.

Anonymous said...

@sanjay. Could u please elaborate on this: disagree with point no 2 for a simple practical reason: Navin, Paul and Pravin are neighbours so any other progressive candidate from that riding would practically not have any chance of getting elected.?

Sanjay Jagatsingh said...

You may wish to restrict the number of terms of MPs but it has to be greater than the number of terms someone can be a PM otherwise you hit another practical problem: you will end up with governments and oppositions that are way too green forever.

Am not sure you're fighting against ethnic politics if MPs are required to stay in their own constituency: parties can always pick candidates in a riding based on their ethnic background.

Pensions should stay. They are one incentive to attract talent. Actually, if ministers were paid more that could attract stronger candidates into politics and reduce the level of corruption. Hey, the CEO of MK got paid a fortune for sinking our national airline. I don't think the population would mind paying exceptional pay for exceptional performance. A bit like Singapore. Besides they already pay big salaries for mediocre performance.

Yeah I wrote that back in November 2005 - at a time when I thought Navin would redeem himself and make his mark. What happened is that the finance minister decided for some reason to implement toxic world bank policies and the PM just let it happen. How do you know ministers will deliver? Well spotting talent is probably a Leader's No. 1 job. Which Navin is not and unlike his dad. And let's say one minister starts to falter. What should the PM do? Sack him or give him the highest decoration of the land and let him screw up the country for 5 whole years?

Berenger is a spent leader with a toxic agenda and Pravin is still quite green.

If Paul, Navin and Pravin all run in Vacoas how likely would someone else be elected given that we got to vote for only 3 people? And do we want to run the risk of having one or more parties in parliament without their leaders?

akagugo said...

"And do we want to run the risk of having one or more parties in parliament without their leaders?"
Yes, it happened when Pravind was not here. And when he was elected, did it make any difference?

Sanjay Jagatsingh said...

@akagugo: will have to check the hansard for an objective assessment. Berenger's performance has been dismal.

Sanjay Jagatsingh said...

A couple of things to add to our nice conversation here.

One is the case for the smaller parliament. The other is the suggestion to have a Senate.

The creation of a Senate was something included in the 1995 manifesto of the LP/MMM alliance. Ramgoolam should bring this back to the front burner. Instead of playing parrot of the indecent report of the toxic bean-counter.