Gov't must provide cost/benefit analysis of London expenditure
Hopefully, Damion Crawford is finding out that flippant words in political life can negate good works. Two words, "shell dung" have created a firestorm in the body politic, and rightly so.
The dreadlocked junior minister had been lauded in this paper not so long ago for his statements and actions, showing his refusal to continue pork-barrel, or entitlement politics.
This stance had reportedly alienated entrenched members of his own party in his constituency, who apparently desired preferential treatment (whether for personal, or constituency use, at their own recommendation) in drawdowns on the budget. All well and good so far, especially as Crawford reported his use of funds available to promote the education of hundreds of young people.
However, this seeming dancehall approach to the use of taxpayers' hard-earned payments to the government's coffers has infuriated many people. Does Mr Crawford see government expenditure of £1 million on Jamaica House in London in a time of "yuh haffi band yuh belly"economic pressure, as the proper time to introduce statements such as "shell dung" the very structure built by said million pounds? If so, he is way off base, and this may well be the statement for which he will be most remembered.
There were already objections to the specific details of the expenditure, but people were in broad agreement that the "idea" was right. Such a PR opportunity scenario created by our braveheart athletes could just not be ignored. At the same time, Crawford's attitude seems to have reinforced the perception that the "House" was short on business planning and long on "drop-foot" entertainment. A complete and audited cost/benefit analysis should be provided by the government forthwith.