The recent Supplementary Budget debate in Parliament was a turning point in our politics. By engaging the Government in a detailed analysis of the new Budget, the minority party determined the agenda of the House and even dictated the time when the prime minister made his 'mother of all speeches' to the nation. It was as if the Government had lost control and the Opposition had taken charge.

As I watched the lengthy parliamentary session, my mind raced back to the famous quotation from Shakespeare: "There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea we are now afloat, And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures."

The political maturity displayed by the Opposition strengthened the democratic process. Portia Simpson Miller and her united team appeared to have taken the tide at the flood and gained the fortune of the political momentum. For the Government, the debate was a voyage to the "shallows and miseries". A "wet squib" is how a prominent private-sector leader described the prime minister's speech in the debate. There is a growing sense of disappointment with and a feeling of bungling on the part of the Government among important segments of the population.

PANIC SETs IN

The Government had planned for two to three hours of discussion of the supplementary Budget to take place in the Standing Finance Committee of the Parliament on the Tuesday morning. Sources close to the Opposition revealed that two Fridays ago, Portia Simpson Miller, after discussions with Omar Davies, met with members of her party and declared to her fellow parliamentarians that such a schedule was inadequate to intelligently discuss the Budget, with its far-reaching impact on the Jamaican people.

The Budget was an essential precondition for a resumption of a borrowing relationship with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). My source said that arising from that meeting, a decision was taken to inform the Government that the timetable proposed for the discussion of the Budget on the Tuesday was unrealistic. Audley Shaw was scheduled to leave the island for Turkey the Wednesday after the debate. The timetable was set to accommodate the travel plans of the finance minister. It is that Friday evening message which set off alarm bells among the Government. The hastily called 'Protect me' meeting with JLP functionaries on the Sunday was the prime minister's response. Panic had indeed set in. The language of war rather than conciliation was the order of the day. Speaking to the nation when most people had long gone to bed was the culmination of the voyage to the "shallows and miseries".

In what some call a 'Nicodemus-style' speech, the prime minister spoke of tough fiscal measures to come. There can be no doubt that the Budget numbers reveal a real fiscal crisis. As the prime minister said, "Our persistent fiscal problems, only made worse by the current crisis, are merely the symptoms of a deeper, more fundamental problem that has long bedevilled us." Long bedevilled us indeed, but when did Prime Minister Golding realise this? Was it before or after 2006 when he spoke as opposition leader? Then, he said the following:

"We make a mistake if we think it is a choice between balancing books and balancing lives. We must balance the books in order to balance the lives, but painful experience has shown that balancing the books does not, of itself, balance people's lives. And there is no purpose in balancing the books if, in the process, we destroy the people's lives. To put it another way, while tough fiscal policies are necessary, they are not sufficient for creating economic development and generating growth.

"Indeed, our experience has shown that, used in isolation, they constitute an impediment to economic development and growth. The challenge, therefore, is how to pursue a targeted strategy of economic development while maintaining the thrust towards macro-economic balance. I speak of economic development, rather than economic growth. Develop-ment is the strategy. Growth will be the result."

In that famous and much-praised 2006 speech, Golding laid out a cogent case for significant salary increases and pension benefits for public-sector workers. He berated the Government for trying to be fiscally prudent. In addition, he said: "We need to become far more serious about a national energy policy that will facilitate economic development. Last year, we made it clear that we would oppose a gas-tax increase as part of an energy policy. ... I know of no country where increased gas tax is used as a tool to stimulate economic development."

The prime minister having first opposed a gas tax has now led his government in imposing a whopping $15 billion of gas tax in this year's Budget. He has clearly abandoned his myopic opposition view of a few years ago. Will he now flip-flop to embrace a policy that potentially will "destroy the people's lives"?

seeking answers

Some people have reminded me that in the 2007 election debates, then Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller told the nation, "I would never make a promise to the Jamaican people that I know I would not be able to keep." They ask how she could have responded in such a responsible manner to the challenges of an upcoming election without succumbing to the tactics of making wild promises or reckless election spending. They also ask, why did then Opposition leader Golding, in the face of an admitted long-standing fiscal crisis, make so many wild and unsustainable promises? To these questions I am still seeking answers.

Today, the glitter of unsustainable promises is being eroded and truth courageously battles with the eloquence of expediency, awaiting the flood of its tide. In the meantime, disappointment, depression and desperation wash the land.

Lambert Brown is president of the University and Allied Workers' Union and can be contacted at Labpoyh@yahoo.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.