…for different marriage partners
No…your Eyewitness’s interest in the marriage of the PNC and its multiple partners isn’t prurient. For POLITICAL marriages, they matter to all of us – if for no other reason than when they’re fussing and fighting, they’re not spending time taking care of the nation’s business. Which is OUR business, if you don’t mind!
So, is the APNU/AFC marriage on the rocks or not? From the very beginning when the pre-nup was announced at the old-line Georgetown Club – rather than, say, the Palm Court – your Eyewitness wondered whether it was a marriage of convenience or a marriage of commitment. With the terms of the marriage explicitly spelt out in an “Accord” and all, it did seem to be a marriage of convenience. Plus they kept their name. After all when the WPA and other smaller parties hitched up with the PNC, they decided to call themselves “APNU”.
That’s commitment, no? One name, One programme, One stance. But even marriages of commitment have rough spots especially if, like theirs, it’s polygamous. Invariably, one of the partners will feel they ought to be “first among equals” and receive more attention. In the marriage of commitment that’s APNU, the WPA has played this role.
That party – apart from its executive, Rupert Roopnaraine who’s in the Cabinet – early on complained it wasn’t consulted enough on decisions by “APNU”. WPA executives outside of the Executive –David Hinds and Clive Thomas notably – brought up the matter of “consultations” with the APNU marriage outside of the Cabinet meetings. Then Thomas got some official positions and Hinds was left on his own.
Yesterday in his column in the Chronic – which he complained was being censored – Hinds returned to the demand that all the parties to the APNU marriage and its subsequent one with the AFC meet on a structured manner – outside the Cabinet – to decide on nettlesome issues. But if followed up, that would present a scenario where members wouldn’t be bound by the hierarchical and undemocratic rules of “Cabinet Governance”. It would also bring in representatives who would not be muzzled by the trappings of office.
Over in the AFC, after its power play for more democracy fizzled because some leaders were interested in pelf and power more than principles, party leader Khemraj Ramjattan brought up the Accord’s written pre-nup stipulation for a “three-man commission” to arbitrate differences between the marriage partners. Their pre-nup, of course, excludes the WPA et al, as explicit partners. But since when was the AFC its marriage partners’ keepers?
Which path will “the coalition” choose? The well-trod one they’ve gone down since the elections? PNC uber alles!!
…for different liquors?
Or is it different cutters for different liquors? Your Eyewitness’s referring to our Opposition Leader’s point about DDL’s billions and billions excise tax write-off from the Government. DDL had a beef with GRA’s calculation of its alcohol tax – which was the same as for other companies that used alcohol. Like say, Banks. For companies making medicinal products with alcohol, your Eyewitness already pointed out they never should’ve been taxed: they produce a “virtue” rather than a “sin” item.
Anyhow, apart from the windfall to DDL, what Mr Jagdeo pointed out is the other liquor folks will be lining up to the trough to get back the excise taxes they hadn’t protested.
When that happens will your Eyewitness get refunds for all the beer he bought at the higher rate?
…for different contractors?
So when are we going to be told who’s the contractor at D’Urban Park preparing for the grand Jubilee Bash. We know who paid for it ….and he can’t take back the money now!! The contractor has to be special since he’s gotten a free pass on design, materials, inspection and all other standard procurement rules.
While that’s a fait accompli, will there be insurance for occupants of the stands come May 26?
Just asking.
