quoted as saying that the Progressive Labour Party's reply to the Budget would highlight "glaring errors'' in the Budget. He also said: "It will provide an ideal opportunity for us to make our points as the Government-in-Waiting.

"I think we have to show people in the next few months that not only are we capable of running the Government but we are also prepared to run the Government.'' It sounded good and we hoped it was true. It is entirely healthy to have a "prepared'' Opposition. We were anxious to see what the PLP would come up with, given its weak Budget replies of the past.

Everyone knows that it is very difficult, especially for a socialist party, to be critical of a good people's budget or to find "glaring errors'' in an economy which is being internationally acclaimed as one of the best in the world.

The PLP's "reply to the budget statement'' has not come up with any "glaring errors'' nor has it demonstrated that the PLP is prepared to run the economy.

The PLP reply we did get yesterday was not a reply to the Budget at all but some 16 pages of waffle and political propaganda laced with claims that the Budget was based on PLP proposals.

If you want a real insight into shallow PLP thinking, read the section headed "The Global Economy'' which starts off with the least original statement of all time, "We must be mindful of events in the United States'', and includes such enlightening statements as "when America sneezes, Europe gets a cold and so do we''.

At one point, under the heading "Tourism'', the reply deals with what it sees as "the need to address the significant income disparity between those employed in the international business sector and the hospitality sectors of the community''. In the process the PLP makes it clear that it has no understanding of the very different staffing needs of the two industries and the very different levels of education and talent required. Of course there is a difference in the average incomes in the two sectors. One requires bright, well educated Bermudians and the other provides valuable and lucrative jobs for those less well prepared. Both are vital to this economy but they are not the same. If they were, Bermuda would be much less well off.

Interestingly enough, the PLP which has offen accused the UBP of producing rich man's Budgets, advocates reducing the high licence fees paid by non-Bermudian purchasers of local real estate. We agree that the tax is too high and often prevents the sale of such properties but it seems a strange stand for the "Bermuda for Bermudians'' oriented PLP.

But then too the PLP resurrects its call for a National Youth Corps to be developed through the Bermuda College, the Bermuda Regiment and sporting bodies. Presumably the young people will be expected to march in step and obey the PLP.

Once again the PLP talks about "tax review'' without answering the question every Bermudian wants answered: Does the PLP mean income tax? If this Budget reply demonstrates anything, it shows clearly that the PLP has not the slightest notion of how Bermuda's economy works.