The views expressed herein are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of One News SVG. Opinion pieces can be sent to us at onenewsstvincent@gmail.com
Election season always comes with grand ideas, but lately the promises feel almost too sweet to swallow. Everywhere you turn it’s “free this, free that,” “discount here, discount there,” and now even talk about abolishing multiple fees altogether. On the surface, it sounds wonderful. But these proposals are being served one-sided; the benefits are loud, the economics are silent.
What troubles me is the deliberate focus on everything people are emotionally invested in. It feels like a strategy designed to catch the public off guard: find the pressure points, offer relief, and avoid explaining the fine print. Because let’s be honest, a promise without a plan is just marketing.
Countries that successfully offer major incentives such as free tuition, subsidized healthcare, reduced transportation costs, or lowered import duties did not get there overnight. Barbados went through painful restructuring. Jamaica spent years under IMF programmes tightening its economic belt. Grenada implemented strict fiscal responsibility rules. These countries took hard medicine before providing sweet benefits.
By contrast, the NDP campaign is now offering an entire basket of instant freebies such as abolished fees, VAT reductions, duty cuts, expanded subsidies, relief programmes, and other sweeping promises, all without outlining the foundation needed to sustain even one of them. These giveaways are not realistically feasible, even with their additional proposed policies. And if they do materialize, there is no guarantee they will generate the returns needed to support them in the short term. Development often takes years, but the problem is simple: they cannot balance this level of “freeness” without creating a financial gap. So the question becomes: Will we be taking loans to make all of this happen, or will these promises simply never happen at all?
All I’m seeing is major public spending paired with major losses in revenue. Yes, it may benefit people in the short term, but it still hurts them in the long run. You can’t cut income and increase expenses at the same time without consequences. The whole thing either sounds like a lie crafted just for a win, or a disaster waiting to happen.
We love freeness and we love a sweet deal. I genuinely wanted to give them a chance, but after Creators Alliance didn’t fool me for a second, these new promises give the same feeling — too good to take seriously. It doesn’t build confidence; it feels like an attempt to “trust” votes out of people by appealing to vulnerability. And let’s be real, the NDP is trying to get into power, so they’re flooding voters with promises of endless freeness. It’s overly generous to the point where it sounds less like a plan and more like a tactic to get elected.
And look at something else: did you notice Ralph offered just only 3%, and he is the one currently holding the purse? If “freeness” was so easy, why didn’t he offer an entire month’s extra pay? He didn’t even budge beyond that 3 percent , and he’s the one trying to win back the election. Thirteen months salary is usually based on financial performance. That alone tells us how tight the finances truly are — and how unrealistic some of these grand promises sound.
The only part of these grand promises that would materialize, if they win, is the flashy first 60 days pledge funded by a loan and adding to public debt. After that, we’re on our own. The so-called VAT relief will eventually circle back and bite us, unless there’s major increased economic activity to balance that loss, because incentives of this scale take years of sacrifice, discipline, and economic restructuring before a country can sustainably offer even one of them.
How do you intend to build the economy while keeping the economic plan itself a secret?
Development does not happen by magic; it requires structure, numbers, strategy, and accountability. Building the economy should be the focal point, with a few perks along the way, not a feast today and a recession tomorrow.
The pattern isn’t new either. It mirrors the way Ponzi schemes, with Creators Alliance being the most recent example, swept through the region: big promises, shiny returns, and soft-spoken fine print. People weren’t fooled because they were naïve, but because the dream sounded too good to question. The same formula is evident in modern politics: promise big, hide the workings, and hope people focus only on the reward.
We also conveniently forget how quickly politicians can shift narratives. The call to “give us a chance to see what we can do” gets repeated every cycle, as if lack of opportunity was ever the problem. In reality, the issue has always been transparency and credibility, not opportunity. And this election, the political machinery is working overtime and the NDP’s motive appears singular: to win the election at all costs. The intensity alone should make the public more alert, not more trusting.
At the end of the day, it’s easy to be swept away by promises of “free.” But somebody, somewhere, always pays the bill. If we aren’t being shown who, how, or when, then the sweetness is likely masking something sour.
Because let’s be real, they’re not about to “fix” the country, more like mess it up entirely. And that’s exactly why we have to look at our options harder, because if we want change, the changes we choose need to actually make sense. And if they win, it’s a continuation, not a blank slate. They will inherit all the public debt, all the financial obligations, all the economic pressures. So make it make sense — you can’t promise major new freeness while taking on old burdens.
The Quiet Analyst
One News SVG 