failing to listen to the public on a range of "people'' issues including housing and education.

There was some justice in the accusation, and it was a primary cause of the UBP's defeat.

The economic debate in the House of Assembly last Friday shows that the Progressive Labour Party is still beating the UBP with that particular stick.

It is a wise tactic for a "people's'' government, -- to suggest that the UBP has not changed its stripes and is still putting "business'' before "people''.

But it is also predicated on the notion that the PLP will deliver on its promises and, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, will do so without running the economy into a ditch.

So far, the jury is out on the first question and the next 12 months may show what will happen on the second.

But Shadow Finance Minister Grant Gibbons was right to question whether Finance Minister Eugene Cox is trying to have it both ways on the economy.

On the one hand, Mr. Cox says the US economy is slowing, so the Bermuda Government needs to spend more to keep the local economy growing. On the other hand, the Bermuda economy is growing at a relatively healthy 2.7 percent, so residents can afford to pay more -- happily, according to Mr. Cox, in taxes.

As Dr. Gibbons says, Mr. Cox cannot have it both ways. The economy is either growing or it is not.

There is plenty of evidence to show that the Bermuda economy is continuing to slow down. Tourism is struggling, and international companies actually employed fewer people last year than they did in 1999; hardly an encouraging sign except to those who are totally dedicated to so-called sustainable development, although even they would surely balk at employment actually falling as it did in 2000.

In the circumstances, is it right for Government to spend more? In certain areas, yes. Education is one. Some capital spending on building might be justified where it is needed (Berkeley) if the construction industry was weakening. Certainly, education has to be improved as a social and economic imperative.

But it does not mean Government should spend more across the board without any evidence of belt tightening.

Why does the Premier need $450,000 worth of protection from the Regiment? By all means spend more on the schools, but why is more and more being spent on the civil servants in the Ministry of Education instead? And what are those 211 new civil servants doing to improve Government services? Government spending may boost the economy, but that money comes from taxpayers' pockets and those same taxpayers could be using it to boost the economy themselves by improving their homes, spending money in local shops, starting new businesses and creating jobs.