Chaguanas West MP Jack Warner usually proves interesting to listen to, and so it went in the budget debate, although Mr Warner spoke after 9 p.m. on Monday, and did so with a heavy heart and a small audience.

He was glum because, he said, there were 15 government MPs in the House at that time, and three on the Opposition benches. There were three people in the public gallery; the largest number he had seen there at any time during the debate was eight.

He could hear the member for Diego Martin Central snoring; and even if the other 14 members on the other side were listening to him, his words fell on deaf ears.

’Whatever we say on this side is irrelevant,’ he lamented. ’The ayes have it. It’s not important for anyone to listen. Not a comma will change. This is an exercise in futility.’

Mr Warner was not the only big gun to speak late on Monday. He was relegated to that time because he and the UNC have parted ways. But Leader of the House Colm Imbert spoke even later that night-not because he was in the doghouse, but because the Government wanted to wrap up the budget debate.

A number of other ministers didn’t speak at all, among them Minister of National Security Martin Joseph. This was even though the Finance Minister had given the impression that he would take part-for one thing, he was expected to reveal the latest anti-crime plan, this one the brainchild of General Cameron Ross, for which Mr Joseph and the Prime Minister have been doing advance publicity for months.

Mr Joseph will no doubt speak when the budget debate in the Senate begins on Tuesday morning. But it’s customary for ministers to account to the House during the budget debate.

This year, however, only 17 Government members spoke, including two senators. The Prime Minister, unusually, was not among them. And Energy Minister Conrad Enill didn’t come to explain how he had handled the energy sector since the last budget. He dropped by on Monday evening to respond to Dr Keith Rowley’s query about the huge cost overruns on several Petrotrin projects. As Mr Warner complained, Mr Enill spent a mere seven minutes explaining what had happened to $700 million (or $6 billion, according to Dr Rowley’s arithmetic). And even then, Mr Warner didn’t understand what he said.

Indeed, it’s doubtful whether Mr Enill understood it either, so jargon-riddled was his contribution. He couldn’t pronounce the word ’isomerisation,’ let alone explain what it meant, and after several attempts he gave up and left, with nobody much the wiser for his intervention.

Silent in the House for many months, on Monday Dr Rowley had reverted to his natural mode-opposition-and warned of the perils of corruption and squandermania. But like Cassandra, he’s a prophet without honour, at least in his own party. His warnings go unheeded, and as far as the Government is concerned, he’s a Trojan horse. Dr Rowley wondered why, a few years after two multi-million-dollar refurbishments, it was now necessary to spend a quarter of a billion dollars to spruce up Maracas Beach still further. Meanwhile, $150 million could not be found to build four schools.

Dr Rowley said the Government was making the wrong choices. He also pointed out: ’Every single one of us has a stake in this matter. All decisions about our lives are political decisions.’ His illustration-that the money to be spent on redecorating a beach could have built schools instead-was intended to bring this home to his hearers.

You’d think that was obvious. But people seem to imagine that if they don’t get involved or take an interest in politics, it won’t affect them; and they only get worked up about things that touch them directly and immediately-which is why the sole talking point of the budget has been the increased property taxes. The deeds of politicians are regarded as if they were acts of God, and can’t be averted or changed. People grumble about them to each other, to no avail.

Hence the Government felt it could rush through a truncated version of the budget debate, with less than a third of MPs taking part. Many of them couldn’t if they tried, having barely opened their mouths in Parliament since they were elected almost two years ago. There has not been a full account of the management of the country’s money over the past year, or planned spending for the year to come. The Review of the Economy was only laid in the House-with no apology or explanation-on Wednesday morning, just before the Finance Minister wound up the debate. And she contemptuously dismissed as ’propaganda’ the objections to the increased property taxes.

Jack Warner understands that the budget debate is an important event. But if no one listens to it, and no one protests at government decisions on spending, or demands more accountability, if there’s no outcry over the disrespect shown to Parliament and the people, then no one can complain. The country has got the politicians it deserves.