Pathways, Mr Editor, can be a very useful way for the Bermuda Government to signpost the direction in which it intends to lead us. The 2015-16 Budget is a very good example of this — and, yes, this reference to pathways is deliberate; to make a point. Read on.

The finance minister and his colleagues are going to stick with the two-tier strategy that they adopted soon after they came to office: trim government spending where they can, implement fiscal discipline and grow the economy, all with a view to bringing an end to budget deficits and biting into public debt that keeps on growing, sadly. And, oh yes, their plan is going to require an increase in taxes and fees as well as an overhaul of the entire tax system to make it more progressive, which will lead to the introduction of a new tax, GST — short for general services tax.

Their overall objective has some impressive support, the most recent addition being those wise heads that make up the Fiscal Responsibility Panel, which pretty well tells us much the same thing that the Sage commissioners did.

Remember them? No mention for them, their work or their recommendations in this year’s Budget statement; nor of the so-named Civil Service “reform”, which by necessity is required to achieve the kind of discipline that the Government is looking for.

Still, the Budget approach on some key issues is worth highlighting, whether you agree or disagree with what is set out. It factors in consultation where consultation is possible and necessary.

Take for example, the proposed GST, which was a big talking point the next day. Anything new usually is. All we know is that it is being pursued to “broaden the tax base”, “a new services sales tax”, that will be levied at a rate of 5 per cent, but will not apply to banking, insurance, healthcare and small service providers.

Still not clear? No worries. This new tax is not set to be introduced until April 1, 2017 — and not because that is April’s Fools Day, people; it’s the start of the financial year for the Government.

The Minister of Finance tells us that it is going to take time to put in place the necessary changes for the tax to actually work. The one-year delay also gives his ministry time to consult further with stakeholders who stand to be affected. They will get a chance to air their views and possibly even make some sensible and worthwhile recommendations.

This will ensure, the minister was reported to have explained later at a press conference, that no one is blindsided and — who knows? — that consultation may lead them to an agreement that everyone can work with.

Say what? Say bravo. Because this makes for a welcome approach on major decisions. It also makes a good point. Why limit the approach to just a new tax?

I can think of any number of other proposed new changes that could benefit from just such an approach — and, yes, I have in mind here the Pathways to Status plan of the One Bermuda Alliance government.

It was not difficult to foresee the emotion such a decision was bound to evoke. We have seen instances of it before. Immigration is often described as a third rail of local politics for good reason. There is a history here that divides our community — not just on political lines, but racial — and when handled poorly feeds into and builds distrust.

These are tough times for a lot of people. The corner has not been turned for everyone. It is hard to accept that we are headed in the right direction when you are still out of a job or making less money — if you do have a job — and the cost of living keeps increasing. The admitted gap between the haves and the have-nots also widens.

People like to think that they are no less important than businesses.

What’s so difficult to understand? People want to be heard before their government makes a big decision, not after; and, yes, this has to also mean giving ministers the opportunity to be heard and to explain themselves. That is consultation. That encourages dialogue.

By extension, our representatives should be engaged in just this sort of process on the Hill: leading the way, airing the facts and opinion by means of bipartisan parliamentary committees, and all of it in the sunshine of public scrutiny. Immigration reform and the matter of permanent resident’s certificates and status should have been at the top of the list — years ago.

It is just the sort of pathway that could make for better governance in the long run; maybe not for the party in power or for the one competing to get in, but for the community that they each seek to serve.

There is always a chance for consensus and compromise, too, but we will not ever get there if we don’t try.

Simply telling people that they are short-sighted, or worse, stupid and ridiculous, because they do not agree with you is just a sure-fire way to continue to sow discord and to cement division — and that, Mr Editor, we do not need.