Reading comprehension is escaping you...

If there is one reason that I hope the FNM loses, it is because I won't have to deal with this little mutt bloviating on government issues.

Neither ignorant Jamal nor the uninspiring Henfield should receive the nomination. If this is the best that the FNM has, then I am afraid this will be a PLP tsunami.

This has nothing to do with being the leader. Geez, it is like ya'll lack reading comprehension.

Your argument is a red herring. We are not talking about if he was the leader, but rather if he was the standard bearer in Killarney. Two different things. But, yes, I agree with you: if he were the leader of the FNM, then the party will stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election.
FNM will not win Killarney if Minnis runs as an independent.

Don't be daft.

The purpose of elections is to win. 1) The FNM stands a much better chance of winning Killarney with Minnis in the caucus as opposed to his running as an independent (in fact, the FNM will lose Killarney if Minnis runs as an independent, as he will siphon FNM votes); and 2) There is not a voter in any constituency that will say: "you know, I was going to vote FNM in Marathon, but because Minnis is still with the FNM, then I am going to vote PLP."

Pintard needs to be the leader that he pretends to be and give the nomination to Minnis.

I don't disagree with what you wrote. But, like it or not, Fred has a point. This group unveiled by the FNM is a rather ho-hum, uninspiring group.

I was thinking more Feb/Mar. But you may be right.

We will have to respectfully disagree. VAT was/is neither logical or well thought out. The successive increases to VAT are clear evidence of that. VAT was implemented because it is the easiest to implement, not the most efficient. Income tax, in my view, can be easily implemented and would be more than a sufficient replacement for VAT. I will go one step further - within 15 years, the government of the time will have no choice but to switch to income tax. (Cant continue to raise VAT as a source of revenue.)

Simple fix: 1) Non-banks cannot make loans, unless it is a part of their existing business (car dealerships/furniture stores, etc.). There is no justifiable reason why a non-deposit taking institution should lend money outside of the scope of their substantive business - none.

2) Lower the maximum interest rate that a bank can charge (while keeping service ratio constant). This simultaneously makes debt more affordable and keeps additional funds in the hands of people, which they will either spend (money multiplier) or save (thus leaving more money for banks to lend out/invest). Either scenario helps the economy.

No need to regulate these predatory businesses.