Tweet

In a heated on-air exchange, Prime Minister Drew’s Special Advisor Austin Edinborough called into WINN FM’s Island Tea Programme to defend his recent outrageous comments about the attitudes of poor and vulnerable citizens receiving the Poverty Alleviation Program (PAP) benefits. The program, hosted by PAM Deputy Leader Azard Gumbs, became the stage for a spirited back-and-forth between Edinborough and Gumbs, following widespread backlash and public condemnation of Edinborough’s remarks.

Edinborough’s statements suggesting that citizens on PAP had developed an “attitude of entitlement” sparked significant controversy. In his call to the show, Edinborough sought to clarify his position and address the criticisms leveled against him by Gumbs, who had previously issued a statement condemning Edinborough’s comments. Gumbs accused Edinborough and the Labour Party of hypocrisy, highlighting that Prime Minister Drew had promised to increase PAP benefits from $500 to $1,500, thereby encouraging the very mindset Edinborough criticized.

The conversation began with Edinborough acknowledging the backlash and expressing his respect for Gumbs. However, he struggled to justify his statements, especially given the Labour Party’s previous promises to enhance social benefits. Gumbs pointed out the contradiction between Edinborough’s criticism and the Labour Party’s campaign promises, emphasizing that the Labour Party had contributed to the sense of entitlement by pledging significant increases in PAP benefits during the election.

Throughout the exchange, Gumbs maintained a strong and comprehensive defense of his position, arguing that citizens’ expectations were based on promises made by the Labour Party. He noted the increasing cost of living and the need for social benefits, challenging Edinborough to recognize the legitimacy of the public’s reliance on these promises. Gumbs also pointed out the inconsistency in the Labour Party’s stance, accusing them of encouraging entitlement when in opposition and then criticizing it when in power.

Edinborough attempted to redirect the conversation towards the government’s current efforts to promote wealth creation, entrepreneurship, and independence, arguing that these initiatives were aimed at reducing dependency. However, Gumbs countered by asserting that the government’s promises had created a sense of entitlement, and it was hypocritical to now criticize citizens for holding onto those expectations.

The on-air debate ended with both parties agreeing on the importance of creating opportunities for wealth and development while maintaining different views on the handling of entitlement and social benefits. The exchange highlighted the complexities and challenges faced by the government in addressing social welfare issues and managing public expectations.

As the discussion concluded, Edinborough invited Gumbs for a more in-depth public discourse on the topic, signaling a potential continuation of the debate in the future.