Skip to main content

FM
Former Member
APNU willing to rotate Speaker position with AFC
Written by Kwesi Isles
Thursday, 05 January 2012 13:02 DEMERARA WAVES


Opposition coalition, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) says its is prepared to rotate the Speaker of the House position with the Alliance For Change (AFC) or find a consensus candidate from outside the parties to break their current deadlock.

The two parties control the House with the APNU securing 26 seats and the AFC seven at the November 28 polls. The APNU has proposed PNCR chairman Cammie Ramsaroop or attorney Deborah Backer as its choice to become the Speaker while the AFC is adamant that the position should go to its member Moses Nagamootoo, a former PPP stalwart since APNU will have several other positions.

At a news briefing on Thursday APNU parliamentary candidate Annette Ferguson, reading from a prepared statement, said they will continue to discuss the Speakership as part of a larger menu of talks with the AFC.

“APNU is also favourably disposed to the two parties holding the Speakership on a rotational basis, with APNU holding the position for the first term. Should the parties fail to find agreement on the candidates proposed thus far, APNU has suggested that a consensus candidate from outside the ranks of the parties be considered,” she said.

Contacted by Demerara Waves Online News (www.demwaves.com) AFC Leader Raphael Trotman said the party is sticking to its principled position that Nagamootoo should be accepted as the Speaker but noted that the APNU latest position is somethin the party leadership will have to discuss.

"This, however,introduces a new and interesting aspect to the negotiations which the leadership will examine and respond to in due course," he Trotman stated.

The failure to date of the two parties to arrive at a consensus on the Speaker of the opposition-controlled National Assembly has not escaped the attention of the ruling PPP/C minority government which has proposed the return of former Speaker Ralph Ramkarran.

“The effort to forge an alliance to confront the governing party is proving for these two other parties much more difficult than they ever imagined. The first hurdle, the selection of the Speaker, reinforces the perception that their politics is not based on reason,” Cabinet Secretary Dr. Roger Luncheon told reporters on Wednesday.

The opposition parties believe that the Speaker should be appointed by them since they control the 65-seat House while the PPP has called for the practice of the ruling party naming the Speaker to be observed. The PPP has also said that the position is one that could be filled by consensus among the three parties.

But according to dr. Luncheon, the opposition's abandonment of consensus seeking embodied in the government’s proposed tripartite arrangement “does not auger well for the future.” The government has lamented the opposition parties’ failure to appoint two high representatives to begin tripartite talks.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Oh me Laad, dem dis a real PNC trickstas.

Seriously, I wonder how a once honourably perceived Rupert Roopnarine continues to go along with this most disgraceful charade. Perhaps he has found himself too deep in the conspiracy concocted by APNC and is unable to get out.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Spice Girl:
Oh me Laad, dem dis a real PNC trickstas.

Seriously, I wonder how a once honourably perceived Rupert Roopnarine continues to go along with this most disgraceful charade. Perhaps he has found himself too deep in the conspiracy concocted by APNC and is unable to get out.
spice girl you read what the article say,they is discussing more that the speaker issuse.every day they have the government guessing and making wild statment,this is what you call a sign of desperation and uncertainty.the government after 20 yrs want tripartite talks.payback is a bitch
FM
This process would represent the opposition gerrymandering the constitution no less than the PPP has done with the PM position ( especially since the PM can never become the president in the PPP)
FM
quote:
Originally posted by albert:
The P.P.P/C was democratically elected and will govern in the best interest of all Guyanese...


This is what these ungrateful bastards fail to realize. You can't trust ANPU-AFC to have the speaker's influence.
FM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spice Girl:
Oh me Laad, dem dis a real PNC trickstas.

[QUOTE]

SG 7 seats gets you exactly that. No way will the PPP reward AFC wfor stealing their majority and they blame Nagamootoo for that.

So the AFC will only get a chance if the APNU allows them to.

It might well be the case that APNU mkight prefer Ramkarran as Speaker than Nagamootoo. You will recall an occassion when he ruled in favor of the PNC and Rohee threatened to beat him up outside of Parliament buildings.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by ABIDHA:
You can't trust ANPU-AFC to have the speaker's influence.


You are right because they might join up to ensure that corrupt PPP officials are PUNISHED.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by caribj:
quote:
Originally posted by Spice Girl:

Oh me Laad, dem dis a real PNC trickstas.


SG 7 seats gets you exactly that. No way will the PPP reward AFC wfor stealing their majority and they blame Nagamootoo for that.

So the AFC will only get a chance if the APNU allows them to.

It might well be the case that APNU mkight prefer Ramkarran as Speaker than Nagamootoo.

You will recall an occassion when he ruled in favor of the PNC and Rohee threatened to beat him up outside of Parliament buildings.


Interesting developments, Cainsta.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Demerara_Guy:
quote:
Originally posted by caribj:
quote:
Originally posted by Spice Girl:

Oh me Laad, dem dis a real PNC trickstas.


SG 7 seats gets you exactly that. No way will the PPP reward AFC wfor stealing their majority and they blame Nagamootoo for that.

So the AFC will only get a chance if the APNU allows them to.

It might well be the case that APNU mkight prefer Ramkarran as Speaker than Nagamootoo.

You will recall an occassion when he ruled in favor of the PNC and Rohee threatened to beat him up outside of Parliament buildings.


Interesting developments, Cainsta.



What? WHo? EH?
cain
quote:
Originally posted by albert:
The P.P.P/C was democratically elected and will govern in the best interest of all Guyanese...
They are corrupt and need to be watched closely. They governed for 20 years taking graft left and right so now they pay the piper.
FM
D2, Burnham govern for 28 years and you have nothing to say about it. Guyanese would have been far better off had he given any attention the people's needs. Guyana didn't start with the PPP, it started way before them. You just can't run a country's business like a clap hand church. Certain things may not suit everone at the same time, but the end game speaks volume who did better or worst.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra:
quote:
Originally posted by cain:
Who's dis Burnham y'all blaming for the PPP's misdeeds?


Your deniable grandfather who ruin Guyana for 28 yeras.



Ok, so we'll go dig the banna up and take him to court.
Now, what are we going to do with those who up until recently, had their fingers in the cookie jar.
cain
quote:
Ok, so we'll go dig the banna up and take him to court.
Now, what are we going to do with those who up until recently, had their fingers in the cookie jar.


I've said it before and I'm going to say it again. You have to share the damn cookie to get things done. If you're going to play Godly Ramjattan, you will never get anything done just like they're doing right now in parliament with the every day fighting over the speakership. If they cannot agree on one person in January of 2012, what can they get done by December this year?
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra:
quote:
Ok, so we'll go dig the banna up and take him to court.
Now, what are we going to do with those who up until recently, had their fingers in the cookie jar.


I've said it before and I'm going to say it again. You have to share the damn cookie to get things done. If you're going to play Godly Ramjattan, you will never get anything done just like they're doing right now in parliament with the every day fighting over the speakership. If they cannot agree on one person in January of 2012, what can they get done by December this year?
" They" includes the PPP who has presented a candidate. If they care not to be "fighting" as you put it they can say they support either the APNU or the AFC candidate and the matter is over. But yes, they want it as well so let the games begin.

I think the AFC should hold out. The PPP cannot let APNU get the position. The AFC can. If the PPP thinks it can hold out and it will by default get the position they will lose. The AFC cannot let them have it either since it defeats their purpose.

The APNU, in terms of payoff, is in the best position. It knows the ACF cannot let the PPP have it. It is therefore the PPP's move but you idiots are too stupid to see this.

If the PPP knows what is best for them they should support the AFC. They will never get the position so supporting the AFC in this gives them the best payoff. The APNU as the speaker gives them the worse payoff. Since they cannot win, they have only one option. cut a deal with the AFC.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by D2:
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra:
quote:
Ok, so we'll go dig the banna up and take him to court.
Now, what are we going to do with those who up until recently, had their fingers in the cookie jar.


I've said it before and I'm going to say it again. You have to share the damn cookie to get things done. If you're going to play Godly Ramjattan, you will never get anything done just like they're doing right now in parliament with the every day fighting over the speakership. If they cannot agree on one person in January of 2012, what can they get done by December this year?
" They" includes the PPP who has presented a candidate. If they care not to be "fighting" as you put it they can say they support either the APNU or the AFC candidate and the matter is over. But yes, they want it as well so let the games begin.

I think the AFC should hold out. The PPP cannot let APNU get the position. The AFC can. If the PPP thinks it can hold out and it will by default get the position they will lose. The AFC cannot let them have it either since it defeats their purpose.

The APNU, in terms of payoff, is in the best position. It knows the ACF cannot let the PPP have it. It is therefore the PPP's move but you idiots are too stupid to see this.

If the PPP knows what is best for them they should support the AFC. They will never get the position so supporting the AFC in this gives them the best payoff. The APNU as the speaker gives them the worse payoff. Since they cannot win, they have only one option. cut a deal with the AFC.

D2, how does GUYANA win if the AFC cuts a deal with the INCUMBENT, criminal PPP??!
FM
quote:
Originally posted by cain:
quote:
Originally posted by Demerara_Guy:
quote:
Originally posted by caribj:
quote:
Originally posted by Spice Girl:

Oh me Laad, dem dis a real PNC trickstas.


SG 7 seats gets you exactly that. No way will the PPP reward AFC wfor stealing their majority and they blame Nagamootoo for that.

So the AFC will only get a chance if the APNU allows them to.

It might well be the case that APNU mkight prefer Ramkarran as Speaker than Nagamootoo.

You will recall an occassion when he ruled in favor of the PNC and Rohee threatened to beat him up outside of Parliament buildings.


Interesting developments, Cainsta.


What? WHo? EH?


You will see. Big Grin
FM
quote:
Originally posted by redux:
quote:
Originally posted by D2:
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra:
quote:
Ok, so we'll go dig the banna up and take him to court.
Now, what are we going to do with those who up until recently, had their fingers in the cookie jar.


I've said it before and I'm going to say it again. You have to share the damn cookie to get things done. If you're going to play Godly Ramjattan, you will never get anything done just like they're doing right now in parliament with the every day fighting over the speakership. If they cannot agree on one person in January of 2012, what can they get done by December this year?
" They" includes the PPP who has presented a candidate. If they care not to be "fighting" as you put it they can say they support either the APNU or the AFC candidate and the matter is over. But yes, they want it as well so let the games begin.

I think the AFC should hold out. The PPP cannot let APNU get the position. The AFC can. If the PPP thinks it can hold out and it will by default get the position they will lose. The AFC cannot let them have it either since it defeats their purpose.

The APNU, in terms of payoff, is in the best position. It knows the ACF cannot let the PPP have it. It is therefore the PPP's move but you idiots are too stupid to see this.

If the PPP knows what is best for them they should support the AFC. They will never get the position so supporting the AFC in this gives them the best payoff. The APNU as the speaker gives them the worse payoff. Since they cannot win, they have only one option. cut a deal with the AFC.

D2, how does GUYANA win if the AFC cuts a deal with the INCUMBENT, criminal PPP??!
I do not trust the PPP or the APNU, This is about power and influence. Granger, if he cared for a partnership with the AFC would let them have the speaker position. The same can be said of the PPP. Granger has no option but to seek that partnership if it cares for change. He knows the AFC cannot let the PPP have it so he will sit it out simply because he has the advantage, It is therefore his move to be magnanimous as it is the PPP's to limit their loss. The AFC does not have any pre emptive move here. It has to take first comers. I would take the first offer that comes if I were in the AFC, It is about the Party's interest and I believe they are the mediating voice,
FM
There is a blogger on Stabroek News with the nick "Cummins". He is one of the best presenters on the site. Here is one of his suggestions to AFC on this latest APNU offer"

I think you guys are right to hold firm on Nagamootoo. While the APNU has a protest agenda the party doesn’t have a governing agenda-- or at least they are yet to present one-- so only God knows why they want this speakership so bad. My guess is that they are more interested in a rabid confrontation with the PPP and you guys will serve as their reinforcements. You must have noticed they want first rotation, and the reason for this might be 19 years of pent up anger ready to be released. Like a referee standing in between two fighters, AFC has a responsibility to Guyana to keep these two parties apart. To protect your party’s image and its reputation, do not even consider an APNU speakership in any form unless that party can satisfy you that their intention is to govern in a responsible way. But then again, nothing that party has done since the election can be labeled “responsible”.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Spice Girl:
There is a blogger on Stabroek News with the nick "Cummins". He is one of the best presenters on the site. Here is one of his suggestions to AFC on this latest APNU offer"

I think you guys are right to hold firm on Nagamootoo. While the APNU has a protest agenda the party doesn’t have a governing agenda-- or at least they are yet to present one-- so only God knows why they want this speakership so bad. My guess is that they are more interested in a rabid confrontation with the PPP and you guys will serve as their reinforcements. You must have noticed they want first rotation, and the reason for this might be 19 years of pent up anger ready to be released. Like a referee standing in between two fighters, AFC has a responsibility to Guyana to keep these two parties apart. To protect your party’s image and its reputation, do not even consider an APNU speakership in any form unless that party can satisfy you that their intention is to govern in a responsible way. But then again, nothing that party has done since the election can be labeled “responsible”.
The AFC has a right to play the card dealt them. The PPP may be criminals but the APNU has a chance to do the right thing, The speaker position in the hand of APNU or the PPP is not an option that helps Guyana. Why should the AFC capitulate to any of them? The AFC does not need the PPP. Given that why does the APNU hold out if not to marginalize them to begin with? It is in the interest of the AFC to get the position and the party that offers it is the one it should make the deal with, It does not of necessity mean a Faustian deal. The PPP would be helping themselves. It can trust the AFC to be fair, Can it trust the APNU, its eternal adversary?
FM
quote:
Originally posted by D2:
quote:
Originally posted by redux:
quote:
Originally posted by D2:
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra:
quote:
Ok, so we'll go dig the banna up and take him to court.
Now, what are we going to do with those who up until recently, had their fingers in the cookie jar.


I've said it before and I'm going to say it again. You have to share the damn cookie to get things done. If you're going to play Godly Ramjattan, you will never get anything done just like they're doing right now in parliament with the every day fighting over the speakership. If they cannot agree on one person in January of 2012, what can they get done by December this year?
" They" includes the PPP who has presented a candidate. If they care not to be "fighting" as you put it they can say they support either the APNU or the AFC candidate and the matter is over. But yes, they want it as well so let the games begin.

I think the AFC should hold out. The PPP cannot let APNU get the position. The AFC can. If the PPP thinks it can hold out and it will by default get the position they will lose. The AFC cannot let them have it either since it defeats their purpose.

The APNU, in terms of payoff, is in the best position. It knows the ACF cannot let the PPP have it. It is therefore the PPP's move but you idiots are too stupid to see this.

If the PPP knows what is best for them they should support the AFC. They will never get the position so supporting the AFC in this gives them the best payoff. The APNU as the speaker gives them the worse payoff. Since they cannot win, they have only one option. cut a deal with the AFC.

D2, how does GUYANA win if the AFC cuts a deal with the INCUMBENT, criminal PPP??!

I beg to differ, the AFC has a right to play the card dealt them. The PPP may be criminals but the APNU has a chance to do the right thing, The speaker position in the hand of APNU or the PPP is not an option that helps Guyana. Why should the AFC capitulate to any of them? The AFC does not need the PPP. Given that why does the APNU hold out if not to marginalize them to begin with? It is in the interest of the AFC to get the position and the party that offers it is the one it should make the deal with, It does not of necessity mean a Faustian deal. The PPP would be helping themselves. It can trust the AFC to be fair, Can it trust the APNU, its eternal adversary? I

I don't know what you "differ" with me about . . I asked a question.

First thing, the PPP and APNU are NOT equivalent . . . APNU has no power without the AFC; the PPP has executive power regardless.

I happen to believe that Moses Nagamootoo would make an outstanding Speaker; I also happen to understand that the new dispensation in Guyana should not be jeopardized by shallow considerations of PEROGATIVES and ego . . . big picture here!

Frankly, an APNU Speaker CANNOT/DOES NOT disempower the AFC . . . . If APNU decides to retrogress and use the Speakership to go rogue, the AFC has it within its power to STOP them cold in the interest of GOOD GOVERNANCE.

Which is why I consider the 'offer' of a shared Speakership by Granger to be welcome movement in a dialogue that the opposition should have been engaged in behind closed doors from the OUTSET!

The greatest danger here is that APNU and the AFC become so alienated from each other over foolishness [yes, foolishness] that one or the other does a deal with the PPP out of spite . . . guaranteeing another 5 years of criminality and an equally criminal frittering away of the unprecedented gains this past election.

APNU is a race based party, it can survive such a betrayal; likewise the PPP. Can the AFC? . . . can Guyana??!
FM
quote:
Originally posted by redux:
quote:
Originally posted by D2:
quote:
Originally posted by redux:
quote:
Originally posted by D2:
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra:
quote:
Ok, so we'll go dig the banna up and take him to court.
Now, what are we going to do with those who up until recently, had their fingers in the cookie jar.


I've said it before and I'm going to say it again. You have to share the damn cookie to get things done. If you're going to play Godly Ramjattan, you will never get anything done just like they're doing right now in parliament with the every day fighting over the speakership. If they cannot agree on one person in January of 2012, what can they get done by December this year?
" They" includes the PPP who has presented a candidate. If they care not to be "fighting" as you put it they can say they support either the APNU or the AFC candidate and the matter is over. But yes, they want it as well so let the games begin.

I think the AFC should hold out. The PPP cannot let APNU get the position. The AFC can. If the PPP thinks it can hold out and it will by default get the position they will lose. The AFC cannot let them have it either since it defeats their purpose.

The APNU, in terms of payoff, is in the best position. It knows the ACF cannot let the PPP have it. It is therefore the PPP's move but you idiots are too stupid to see this.

If the PPP knows what is best for them they should support the AFC. They will never get the position so supporting the AFC in this gives them the best payoff. The APNU as the speaker gives them the worse payoff. Since they cannot win, they have only one option. cut a deal with the AFC.

D2, how does GUYANA win if the AFC cuts a deal with the INCUMBENT, criminal PPP??!

I beg to differ, the AFC has a right to play the card dealt them. The PPP may be criminals but the APNU has a chance to do the right thing, The speaker position in the hand of APNU or the PPP is not an option that helps Guyana. Why should the AFC capitulate to any of them? The AFC does not need the PPP. Given that why does the APNU hold out if not to marginalize them to begin with? It is in the interest of the AFC to get the position and the party that offers it is the one it should make the deal with, It does not of necessity mean a Faustian deal. The PPP would be helping themselves. It can trust the AFC to be fair, Can it trust the APNU, its eternal adversary? I

I don't know what you "differ" with me about . . I asked a question.

First thing, the PPP and APNU are NOT equivalent . . . APNU has no power without the AFC; the PPP has executive power regardless.

I happen to believe that Moses Nagamootoo would make an outstanding Speaker; I also happen to understand that the new dispensation in Guyana should not be jeopardized by shallow considerations of PEROGATIVES and ego . . . big picture here.

Frankly, an APNU speaker CANNOT/DOES NOT disempower the AFC . . . . If APNU decides to retrogress and go rogue, the AFC has it within its power to STOP them cold in the interest of GOOD GOVERNANCE.

Which is why I consider the 'offer' of a shared Speakership by Granger to be welcome movement in a dialogue that the opposition should have been engaged in behind closed doors from the OUTSET!

The greatest danger here is that APNU and the AFC become so alienated from each other over foolishness [yes, foolishness] that one or the other does a deal with the PPP out of spite . . . guaranteeing another 5 years of criminality and an equally criminal frittering away of the unprecedented gains this past election.

APNU is a race based party, it can survive such a betrayal; likewise the PPP. Can the AFC? . . . can Guyana??!
We are to reform the constitution not subvert it as the PPP has done with respect to succession in the PM position. I do not agree that there should be any sharing the position. It is not designed to be shared but designed to function as part of a whole for the tenure of the administration until and unless the speaker selects to step down for reasons not having to do with strategy. The APNU and the AFC are also here not the last bastion of good men, We cannot frame our world that way. After all, as much as they are detested, the PPP represent people, The task is to coerce them to represent those people honestly. One therefore has to coerce cooperation of all to be responsible. That means not treating the PPP as the enemy by default. This is about conflict transformation so they must be treated with respect,
FM
quote:
Originally posted by D2:
quote:
Originally posted by redux:
quote:
Originally posted by D2:
quote:
Originally posted by redux:
quote:
Originally posted by D2:
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra:
quote:
Ok, so we'll go dig the banna up and take him to court.
Now, what are we going to do with those who up until recently, had their fingers in the cookie jar.


I've said it before and I'm going to say it again. You have to share the damn cookie to get things done. If you're going to play Godly Ramjattan, you will never get anything done just like they're doing right now in parliament with the every day fighting over the speakership. If they cannot agree on one person in January of 2012, what can they get done by December this year?
" They" includes the PPP who has presented a candidate. If they care not to be "fighting" as you put it they can say they support either the APNU or the AFC candidate and the matter is over. But yes, they want it as well so let the games begin.

I think the AFC should hold out. The PPP cannot let APNU get the position. The AFC can. If the PPP thinks it can hold out and it will by default get the position they will lose. The AFC cannot let them have it either since it defeats their purpose.

The APNU, in terms of payoff, is in the best position. It knows the ACF cannot let the PPP have it. It is therefore the PPP's move but you idiots are too stupid to see this.

If the PPP knows what is best for them they should support the AFC. They will never get the position so supporting the AFC in this gives them the best payoff. The APNU as the speaker gives them the worse payoff. Since they cannot win, they have only one option. cut a deal with the AFC.

D2, how does GUYANA win if the AFC cuts a deal with the INCUMBENT, criminal PPP??!

I beg to differ, the AFC has a right to play the card dealt them. The PPP may be criminals but the APNU has a chance to do the right thing, The speaker position in the hand of APNU or the PPP is not an option that helps Guyana. Why should the AFC capitulate to any of them? The AFC does not need the PPP. Given that why does the APNU hold out if not to marginalize them to begin with? It is in the interest of the AFC to get the position and the party that offers it is the one it should make the deal with, It does not of necessity mean a Faustian deal. The PPP would be helping themselves. It can trust the AFC to be fair, Can it trust the APNU, its eternal adversary? I

I don't know what you "differ" with me about . . I asked a question.

First thing, the PPP and APNU are NOT equivalent . . . APNU has no power without the AFC; the PPP has executive power regardless.

I happen to believe that Moses Nagamootoo would make an outstanding Speaker; I also happen to understand that the new dispensation in Guyana should not be jeopardized by shallow considerations of PEROGATIVES and ego . . . big picture here.

Frankly, an APNU speaker CANNOT/DOES NOT disempower the AFC . . . . If APNU decides to retrogress and go rogue, the AFC has it within its power to STOP them cold in the interest of GOOD GOVERNANCE.

Which is why I consider the 'offer' of a shared Speakership by Granger to be welcome movement in a dialogue that the opposition should have been engaged in behind closed doors from the OUTSET!

The greatest danger here is that APNU and the AFC become so alienated from each other over foolishness [yes, foolishness] that one or the other does a deal with the PPP out of spite . . . guaranteeing another 5 years of criminality and an equally criminal frittering away of the unprecedented gains this past election.

APNU is a race based party, it can survive such a betrayal; likewise the PPP. Can the AFC? . . . can Guyana??!
We are to reform the constitution not subvert it as the PPP has done with respect to succession in the PM position. I do not agree that there should be any sharing the position. It is not designed to be shared but designed to function as part of a whole for the tenure of the administration until and unless the speaker selects to step down for reasons not having to do with strategy. The APNU and the AFC are also here not the last bastion of good men, We cannot frame our world that way. After all, as much as they are detested, the PPP represent people, The task is to coerce them to represent those people honestly. One therefore has to coerce cooperation of all to be responsible. That means not treating the PPP as the enemy by default. This is about conflict transformation so they must be treated with respect,

I spoke of "movement" and "dialogue" regarding a shared Speakership. If it shreds the constitution . . . well, let's cross that bridge after it is determined that there is a bridge.

Now, you are correct that the PPP represents a plurality (sometimes majority) of the Guyanese people . . . they always have!

They have also governed the country like a Mafia family these past dozen years, and you know fully well that, were it not for the race factor, they would have long ago been turfed out, and their leading lights put in jail!

I don't know when this became a conversation about treating the PPP with respect . . . They control the (very powerful) executive, and have the advantages of a dozen consecutive years of criminal incumbency. You do not coerce good behavior from such power by [the opposition] cutting your own throats - bickering over who gets what plum assignment . . .

If the PPP attempts to continue governing Guyana Jagdeo style [and I think they will] . . . treating the Opposition with contempt, they deserve EVEN more opprobrium, not respect.

Lest we forget, the AFC/APNU's most important job in the new parliament is to rein in the PPP and facilitate good governance . . . that's what a responsible OPPOSITION does!
FM
I am against side arrangements as quid pro quo for future action. We do not have merely a PPP problem. We have an APNU problem as well. Both have strung us along for 6 decades.

The AFC either get the position of speaker or not. They cannot be seen as making arrangements with the expectation of their support all the time. That would be the message if they promise to share an important position as this.

Reining in the PPP is not to be seen as facilitating the APNU. The objective is independence and sharing means perpetual alliance. It also means circumventing the Constitution via political arrangement, I am strictly a constitutionalists and this should not happen.

It allowed the PPP to keep the presidency reserved for Indians with the PM position a bench warming position for placating blacks. That is what happens with extra constitutional political arrangements. It should never happen and we should never let it happen even in stop gap circumstances.

Once again, the AFC is to be independent, If they do not get the position then so be it. If the APNU gets it, the PPP deserves what they will get. If the PPP gets it, it would mean a failure of the AFC. They cannot let happen but it means the APNU is like the PPP, seeking only their ends and not the moral space the AFC represents. The AFC is in a spot here but they should play the hand they are dealt independently and not because a quid pro quo exists, Tell the two party they want the position and the will take it with the help of any of the two party but not because of the expectation of future support.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by D2:

The AFC is in s spot here but they should play the hand they are dealt independently and not because a quid pro quo exists,


Action time for the AFC.

The AFC must always be totally independent as it has stated during the elections.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by D2:
I am against side arrangements as quid pro quo for future action. We do not have merely a PPP problem. We have an APNU problem as well. Both have strung us along for 6 decades.

The AFC either get the position of speaker or not. They cannot be seen as making arrangements with the expectation of their support all the time. That would be the message if they promise to share an important position as this.

Reining in the PPP is not to be seen as facilitating the APNU. The objective is independence and sharing means perpetual alliance. It also means circumventing the Constitution via political arrangement, I am strictly a constitutionalists and this should not happen.

It allowed the PPP to keep the presidency reserved for Indians with the PM position a bench warming position for placating blacks. That is what happens with extra constitutional political arrangements. It should never happen and we should never let it happen even in stop gap circumstances.

Once again, the AFC is to be independent, If they do not get the position then so be it. If the APNU gets it, the PPP deserves what they will get. If the PPP gets it, it would mean a failure of the AFC. They cannot let happen but it means the APNU is like the PPP, seeking only their ends and not the moral space the AFC represents. The AFC is in a spot here but they should play the hand they are dealt independently and not because a quid pro quo exists, Tell the two party they want the position and the will take it with the help of any of the two party but not because of the expectation of future support.

The 1 seat [combined] Opposition majority BY DEFINITION requires 'arrangements' between AFC and APNU for the election results to represent meaningful change . . . recall legislation makes that so!

Therefore, I don't know what is objectionable about "facilitating APNU" or 'facilitating the AFC' for that matter in this context, as long as it is PRINCIPLED and above board. To compare these kinds of necessary negotiations to the PPP's PM arrangements [not a constitutional question at all] is . . . strange.

Also, you have not yet made the case that a [proposed] APNU/AFC "sharing" arrangement is unconstitutional . . . I will wait on input from more learned counsel out of Guyana before commenting further on this.

Fact is though, dressing up a dismissive 'all or nothing' demand regarding the "Speakership" issue as an avatar of "independence" is really no different from the 'bullyism' that has justifiably dogged the PNC all these years.

The PPP is slyly stoking this nonsensical 'feud' while laughing their collective heads off at the short sightedness of those who would be their 'opposition.'
FM
quote:
Originally posted by redux:
quote:
Originally posted by D2:
I am against side arrangements as quid pro quo for future action. We do not have merely a PPP problem. We have an APNU problem as well. Both have strung us along for 6 decades.

The AFC either get the position of speaker or not. They cannot be seen as making arrangements with the expectation of their support all the time. That would be the message if they promise to share an important position as this.

Reining in the PPP is not to be seen as facilitating the APNU. The objective is independence and sharing means perpetual alliance. It also means circumventing the Constitution via political arrangement, I am strictly a constitutionalists and this should not happen.

It allowed the PPP to keep the presidency reserved for Indians with the PM position a bench warming position for placating blacks. That is what happens with extra constitutional political arrangements. It should never happen and we should never let it happen even in stop gap circumstances.

Once again, the AFC is to be independent, If they do not get the position then so be it. If the APNU gets it, the PPP deserves what they will get. If the PPP gets it, it would mean a failure of the AFC. They cannot let happen but it means the APNU is like the PPP, seeking only their ends and not the moral space the AFC represents. The AFC is in a spot here but they should play the hand they are dealt independently and not because a quid pro quo exists, Tell the two party they want the position and the will take it with the help of any of the two party but not because of the expectation of future support.

The 1 seat [combined] Opposition majority BY DEFINITION requires 'arrangements' between AFC and APNU for the election results to represent meaningful change . . . recall legislation makes that so!

Therefore, I don't know what is objectionable about "facilitating APNU" or 'facilitating the AFC' for that matter in this context. To compare these kinds of necessary negotiations to the PPP's PM arrangements [not a constitutional question at all] is . . . strange.

Also, you have not yet made the case that a [proposed] APNU/AFC "sharing" arrangement is unconstitutional . . . I will wait on input from more learned counsel out of Guyana before commenting further on this.

Fact is though, dressing up a dismissive 'all or nothing' demand regarding the "Speakership" issue as an avatar of "independence" is really no different from the 'bullyism' that has justifiably dogged the PNC all these years.

The PPP is slyly stoking this nonsensical 'feud' while laughing their collective heads off at the short sightedness of those who would be their 'opposition.'
I object to "arrangements" as a euphemism for "collusion". The AFC is to act in the interest of the people and that can mean aligning with the APNU on some issues and the PPP on others. As much as I think the PPP acted like consummate crooks these past 2 decades I do not exclude them ever from having a good idea. The AFC is to be about good ideas from whomever as that is the desired ends.

I know the PPP arrangement with respect to their arrangement with CIVIC for the PM post is a fix and contrary the constitutional imperative as to lines of succession. I also think the idea of taking turns with the speaker position similarly demeans it. The AFC should not make "arrangements" of any kind even if it means losing the position.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by D2:
quote:
Originally posted by redux:
quote:
Originally posted by D2:
I am against side arrangements as quid pro quo for future action. We do not have merely a PPP problem. We have an APNU problem as well. Both have strung us along for 6 decades.

The AFC either get the position of speaker or not. They cannot be seen as making arrangements with the expectation of their support all the time. That would be the message if they promise to share an important position as this.

Reining in the PPP is not to be seen as facilitating the APNU. The objective is independence and sharing means perpetual alliance. It also means circumventing the Constitution via political arrangement, I am strictly a constitutionalists and this should not happen.

It allowed the PPP to keep the presidency reserved for Indians with the PM position a bench warming position for placating blacks. That is what happens with extra constitutional political arrangements. It should never happen and we should never let it happen even in stop gap circumstances.

Once again, the AFC is to be independent, If they do not get the position then so be it. If the APNU gets it, the PPP deserves what they will get. If the PPP gets it, it would mean a failure of the AFC. They cannot let happen but it means the APNU is like the PPP, seeking only their ends and not the moral space the AFC represents. The AFC is in a spot here but they should play the hand they are dealt independently and not because a quid pro quo exists, Tell the two party they want the position and the will take it with the help of any of the two party but not because of the expectation of future support.

The 1 seat [combined] Opposition majority BY DEFINITION requires 'arrangements' between AFC and APNU for the election results to represent meaningful change . . . recall legislation makes that so!

Therefore, I don't know what is objectionable about "facilitating APNU" or 'facilitating the AFC' for that matter in this context. To compare these kinds of necessary negotiations to the PPP's PM arrangements [not a constitutional question at all] is . . . strange.

Also, you have not yet made the case that a [proposed] APNU/AFC "sharing" arrangement is unconstitutional . . . I will wait on input from more learned counsel out of Guyana before commenting further on this.

Fact is though, dressing up a dismissive 'all or nothing' demand regarding the "Speakership" issue as an avatar of "independence" is really no different from the 'bullyism' that has justifiably dogged the PNC all these years.

The PPP is slyly stoking this nonsensical 'feud' while laughing their collective heads off at the short sightedness of those who would be their 'opposition.'
I object to "arrangements" as a euphemism for "collusion". The AFC is to act in the interest of the people and that can mean aligning with the APNU on some issues and the PPP on others. As much as I think the PPP acted like consummate crooks these past 2 decades I do not exclude them ever from having a good idea. The AFC is to be about good ideas from whomever as that is the desired ends.

I know the PPP arrangement with respect to their arrangement with CIVIC for the PM post is a fix and contrary the constitutional imperative as to lines of succession. I also think the idea of taking turns with the speaker position similarly demeans it. The AFC should not make "arrangements" of any kind even if it means losing the position.

This business of the PPP never having a good idea is a red herring.

How does any principled deal between APNU/AFC regarding the Speakership force the AFC to oppose good legislation by the PPP? Do the math . . . AFC + PPP = 39 seats! Where does that leave APNU - even with an APNU Speaker??!

BTW, the PPP's arrangements regarding the Prime Ministership represents intra party (PPP/CIVIC) corruption but is not contrary to any "constitutional imperative as to lines of succession" . . . even though, in practice, it mocks the SPIRIT of the law.

What I find distressing is that we seem to be missing the forest for the trees . . . the PPP is the incumbent power to be constrained. The APNU coalition is in opposition and is powerless to do ANYTHING on its own!
FM
What makes you fellows think that the AFC is manna from heaven?

The AFC is made up of REJECTS from the APNU and PPP. They are wannabees who didn't make it in the big parties. They are the ones who have a chip on their shoulders. Not the APNU and PPP.

I think you guys give way too much praise on the AFC. What has the AFC done the last 5 years while in parliament?

They promised a big upset during elections and barely pulled off gaining 2 more seats. Now ... I realize the importance of the AFC and its 7 seats. But as I said ... if they want to take their 7 seats to the PPP so be it. I see the two big cheeses at the AFC as PPP stalwarts (Ramjattan and Moses) so I don't trust them any further than I could throw them.

I think floating the speaker position between the AFC and APNU is a good move. The APNU is going to get the position first just in case there's a no confidence vote within the next year. Big Grin
FM
quote:
“The effort to forge an alliance to confront the governing party is proving for these two other parties much more difficult than they ever imagined. The first hurdle, the selection of the Speaker, reinforces the perception that their politics is not based on reason,” Cabinet Secretary Dr. Roger Luncheon told reporters on Wednesday.


Well said, Comrade. APNC has injected race and gender in the matter. Now it wants rotation, but says it has to have the first rotation. In other words, their distrust for Comrade Moses is not whether he qualifies for the post as speaker, but he is not qualified for the first half on the term.
I was told that APNU believes that the government will not last out the whole 5 year term. It may be there for 2 years, and new elections will be held. This rotation therefore rotates the AFC out of the speakership. Why does APNU feel it is sooooo smart?
On the other hand, the PPP is sitting back and hoping this thing will drop in its lap for nothing as APNU and AFC fighting. This is poor politics. PPP ought to get into talks with AFC and support it for speaker (could be some other person other than Comrade Moses) and take the Deputy speaker.
If the APNU gets the speaker, PPP in trouble. If the APNU agree to someone else than Comrade Moses, PPP is still in trouble -- double trouble.
As simple as that, Comrade Luncheon. So where is the PPP "reason" in all of this?
My friends told me that at the end of the shadow boxing between APNU and AFC, an opposition speaker will be nominated anyhow.
PPP will be left in the cold, and should brace itself for the no confidence motion after the budget.
comrade
If a confidence motion brings down the government, APNU and the AFC will get less seats in any rerun of the election. That's because the PPP will get more votes next time round. APNU is making quite a clear case with its behaviour why it is unfit to lead a government in the next 25 years.

If I was making the decisions in the AFC, I would threaten to vote with the PPP on each and every issue, unless APNU woke up to the fact that the latter did not win the election and cannot therefore decide how to play the game.
Mr.T
Let the AFC go vote with the PPP. It will show their true colors to the people who voted for them in during the 2011 elections.

In fact the AFC will be forced to merge with the PPP in future elections if they go that route, because their base will be eroded. They will lose their supporters. The AFC is part of the opposition, or maybe some believe they are part of the ruling party.

That's why I don't lean towards the AFC, because I don't really understand where they stand. I know exactly what I am getting with the PPP and APNU.
FM
To share the speakers chair is counter productive.

The Combined Opposition has the votes to choose. The PPP will name their choice. However the CO must select one person and not this stupidity that they practicing.

APNU ONLY HAS 26 SEATS. THE AFC WITH ONLY 7 SEATS has the upper hand.
S

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×