Typical PLP.

Do better.

Nothing you’re accusing me of is true!
In fact, your final sentence (and the fact that you completely ignored my post) shows that you are, in fact, lying when you say that you “have been reading my blogs” (I haven’t blogged in years. What you’ve been reading are my replies on a news site), because A. an anti-PLP bias – based on an observation of their behaviours over the years – is as close as I get to partisanship. However, when the actual PLP has a good point, I have been known to support them wholeheartedly. THAT, sir, is a fact. and B. All I ever seem to do on here is ask questions! In fact, you lot have taken me to task time and again for only asking questions!

It’s interesting that, not only do you not address ANY of my points and change the subject to something else, after lying about equivalence, you also show ABSOLUTELY no evidence of your claims that “when the OBA/UBP was in opposition they done the exact same thing” and, in fact, did the usual thing that my initial post was about. You went on the attack, slinging mud, hoping it’ll stick.

Guess what? It won’t.
You wanna know why?
Because it’s all a lie. All of it.

PLEASE do better. Try honesty. Try integrity. Try to show some respect.

With hair brained ideas like that is it any wonder that the 14 year PLP experiment was such a miserable failure?

The OBA is too young to have a ‘history’. 14 years of PLP mismanagement, however, is more than enough history for a lifetime.

1) Wy is the issue of privatization even being bought up by the OBA and
2) Again, if the PLP think ithe DAB is so profitable, then why an Airport Authority?

(1) the previous govt. borrowed billions against our good financial record
(2) there was no plan to repay the borrowed funds (irresponsible)
(3) the OBA were elected because the majority of us understand #1 & #2
(4) the OBA have considered all options, with privatization being the only alternative to continued borrowing
(5) If you are an efficient and effective CS, you will make it in the private sector
(6) If you listen to Laurie and his crew, you won’t make it

If he does than he’s purposely obfuscating the facts for political gain. If he doesn’t than what has he actually learned while working at the airport all these years and what qualifies him to even speak on these matters?

Either way this opinion piece has created more questions than answers.

Still waiting for the PLP to list them.

Show me where they said anything remotely like “…but history has shown that to before you believe OBA promises, one should dig deeper, research and determine the truth for yourself.” and said it as often.

And then read the rest of this thread where the gentleman in question is debunked.

My memory isn’t short… but yours seems to be made up of complete fabrications.

It’s YOUR partisan beliefs that are the problem here. Not mine.

Take the blinders off and stop rewriting history.

While on page 80 the stats noted in my above post are related to the Airport Operations (which falls under Min. of Tourism & Transport).

It appears that Civil Aviation is not part of the money losing Airport Operations referenced above and that they make their money off of the aircraft registry. Am I correct?

So was Mr. Lawrence being intentionally misleading with the above article? Or did he misspeak and meant to address the recommendations to the Civil Aviation department as opposed to the Airport Operations department.

I followed Mr. Lawrence’s advice and dug deeper and this is what I found. Please clarify.

Come on, Lawrence, you know that is a 100% un-truth on your part.

Why can’t the PLP join the 21st Century?

What is the net income for the airport (i.e. revenue does not take into account expenses)? According to the SAGE report the airport loses approximately $9.5mn per year with revenues being circa $10.3mn and expenses of $19.8mn per annum. If SAGE was wrong why hasn’t Mr. Lawrence rebutted these figures when the report was first issued?

Also, the SAGE report notes that the airport already “outsources a large number of its key functions”. So privatization has already taken place over the past few years regarding airport operations. The report also notes that the department “has also given high-level consideration to privatization opportunities, including a proposal for a public/private structure which could potentially fund the reconstruction of its current facility.” So why didn’t Mr. Lawrence and the PLP make some noise about these facts (guess it was because they were the ones doing the outsourcing)?

Why exactly would an airport authority need to be created if airport operations are working so wonderfully as of now? Such a proposal makes no sense at all especially given the PLP’s disdain for the Tourism Authority.

And it would be great if the PLP would provide the studies that Mr. Lawrence referred to regarding the pitfalls of privatization. Sources are key when making regurgitating these so called “facts.”

So please, Mr. Lawrence, clarify the actual financial position of the airport operations, why you feel the need for an Airport Authority if all is so rosy and profitable at the airport and why you didn’t register any objection to past privatization/outsourcing of various airport operations of the last few years?

It’s really draining.

Well, please elaborate on what the PLP plans to do??

And further more, why is is that these editorials from PLP MP’s do nothing in the way of offering solutions, and rather pick a particular recent hottopic about the OBA, and (to quote yourself Mr. Scott) hammer away at it??

They just did it by hiring an army of “consultants” who were nothing more than non-unionised Civil Servants.

They also handed contracts to friends and family to do things that the Civil Service should be doing (emissions testing, ahem).