Social Media Post By Strong Blackman
WHY THE UNC IS NOT THE RIGHT PARTY TO GOVERN AND RUN THE AFFAIRS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO!
I have been sitting on the sidelines, quietly observing the ongoing banter among supporters of the various political parties—particularly the two main ones. What has surprised me most is the absence of serious debate or sober reflection on the actual offerings of these parties, whether in their manifestos or in light of their past performance.
What follows are my own observations—drawn from the last 15 years of watching how both parties have governed, managed the economy, and positioned this country for the future.
When the UNC assumed office in 2010, annual national expenditure stood at $43 billion. By the 2012/13 budget, that figure had already risen to $50 billion, and by 2014, it reached $64 billion. This increase in spending occurred during a period of exceptionally strong petrochemical prices—particularly for methanol and ammonia—driven by global demand and favourable market conditions. That boom brought significant revenue into the Treasury and presented a golden opportunity for fiscal consolidation and strategic investment.
Yet, during this period of high income—including years when oil prices during 2013 and 2014 were among the highest on record—no deposits were made into the Heritage and Stabilization Fund. Instead, public debt grew substantially, ballooning from $70 billion in 2010 to $109 billion by the end of 2015—a $39 billion increase, despite the revenue windfall. That was not prudent fiscal management; it was, frankly, irresponsible.
Now, it’s true that with prudent management, governments can responsibly fund social programmes and provide targeted benefits. But history has shown that when entrusted with public finances, the UNC has demonstrated a troubling tendency toward overspending, poor prioritization, and weak fiscal discipline. Today, the government continues to maintain a substantial social safety net and provides wide-ranging subsidies on fuel, electricity, tertiary education, and more. Sustaining this in a responsible way requires difficult, forward-looking decisions—ones grounded in economic reality, not political ambition.
When the PNM took office in 2015, it inherited a nearly depleted Treasury and an energy sector in decline—particularly in natural gas, which had fallen from 4 billion cubic feet per day in 2014 to about 2.6 billion today. This wasn’t the result of mismanagement but of natural depletion in our gas fields. And it matters because that gas feeds our petrochemical sector—a major source of government revenue and foreign exchange. These are facts—publicly available and easily verifiable.
So when gas production declines by roughly 35%, it follows logically that government revenue and foreign exchange inflows would fall too. What has made this more difficult is that, as a country, we made few adjustments to how we live or spend. Subsidies remained largely untouched, and expectations stayed high. As a result, our foreign exchange reserves have steadily declined. Today, they stand at a level that covers roughly six months of imports. That is manageable—but should reserves fall below three months, we may be forced to turn to the IMF. And we know the weight of that burden. Countries like Jamaica, Barbados, and Grenada have faced it. It is not theoretical—it is real, and the consequences are painful.
Yet over the past decade, even under these challenging conditions—including during the COVID-19 pandemic—the public has not been asked to make dramatic sacrifices. We still enjoy significant subsidies for electricity, petrol and water, and Public servants kept their jobs. Widespread social disruption was avoided.
But let’s be clear: this stability was only possible because of deficit financing—spending more than we earned. These deficits were largely covered through borrowing and the sale of non-strategic assets. In addition, some difficult but necessary decisions were taken—one of the most significant being the closure of Petrotrin’s refinery. It was not a popular move, but it had become a major, unsustainable drain on the public purse, and allowing it to continue operating would have further jeopardized the country’s finances. Its restructuring led to the creation of Heritage Petroleum, which successfully refinanced the Petrotrin’s US$850 million bond that was due to mature in 2018 and is now comfortably servicing that debt.
Trinidad and Tobago has run budget deficits in 16 of the last 17 years. Now, running a deficit isn’t inherently bad. In difficult times, it can serve to cushion the population and preserve stability. But deficits must be supported by a realistic plan to restore balance—otherwise, the result is a vicious cycle: rising debt, inflation, austerity, and pressure on the currency.
That’s why the work done over the past decade is so important, even if it’s not always obvious. Stabilizing gas production, improving tax compliance, and laying the foundation for economic diversification are not headline-grabbing achievements, but they are the kinds of steady, necessary work required to build a more resilient future. Until diversification efforts bear fruit, the energy sector still has to carry the load.
So when I hear proposals for increased spending, reduction of corporation tax, and the elimination of property tax—all without a credible plan for replacement revenue—it’s deeply worrying. At best, it’s wishful thinking. At worst, it’s political fantasy.
If we genuinely care about protecting the vulnerable and building a future our children can be proud of, then on April 28, we must demand leadership that treats financial responsibility as a duty, not an afterthought. A country’s strength lies not in how much it promises, but in how well it protects its resources and plans ahead..
This is not the time for reckless hands at the wheel. It is a time for steady judgment, honest leadership, and disciplined planning. Your vote should be a sober decision to stay the course—not because it’s the easy road, but because it is the responsible one.