Tuesday February 9th, 2010
- Last update:13 hours 54 min ago
Manning, Panday to meet
Published: 1 Nov 2009
Constitution reform and crime are among matters Prime Minister Patrick Manning and Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday will meet to discuss on Tuesday. The meeting is set for the Diplomatic Centre, St Ann’s, to talk about matters of national interest, according to a release from the Office of the Prime Minister yesterday.
This is it folks.
This is it folks. -
Here is where the deals will be struck about what will be done by PNM agent Panday to keep Manning in power - or worse as executive president. A nice possible trade-off would be, "Bas, you remain as opposition leader so that I can remain as Prime Minister and I will make sure you stay out of jail!"
WELL WRITTEN SCRIPT
WELL WRITTEN SCRIPT -
Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. UNC had concerns about the crime bills and stated their reservations that the problems were not the laws but PNM'S political will to implement them. They were accused of civil disobedience and supporting crime. They met with PNM supported the crime bills, some are still not assented to and the crime has gotten progressively worse.UNC is on record as to having concerns about Crime and the Constitution. Whether we like Panday personally or not he is the duly elected the Leader of the Opposition and should be respected as such. He was invited by the duly elected PM to discuss these issues. If he said no the spinners would say it was civil disobedience, he says yes they say deals would be struck. They want to paint Panday into a corner so no matter what he does it will be seen in a negative light. If Dookeran had done the same thing it would be seen as in the National Interest. When Lucky accepted a government appointment to a commission it was seen as country before party. When Sharon Gopaul Mc Nichollas accepts a Senatorial position from UNC she is given an ultimatum and removed from the post of Deputy Leader. This is a pure case of flip-flop double-standards. After all the criticism of other political leaders I would have thought that Dookeran would have behaved differently.
Let's hope it's not a deal
Let's hope it's not a deal they're going to strike to maintain the status quo.
Some of you might recall that in 1970 Opposition leader Bhadase Maraj did a deal with Eric Williams to prevent Sugar and Oil from uniting. As the marchers proceeded past Champs Fleur, an armed Bhadase stood menacingly on his verandah as a show of his own force to help prop up Eric. The following year when Jamadar, the official leader of the Opposition went along with Robbie who knew he was sure to lose his Tobago seat, to boycott the elections, Bhadase led his break-away faction into the election, and Eric won all the seats. Mercifully, he did not abuse his position and shred the existing Constitution. Though misguided and a bit like a benevolent dictator, he still had the people's interest at heart deep down. Williams even got Dr Price and Roy Richardson to defect and form an Opposition.
Not so this dictator; all he cares is about himself, an obsession with his delusions of grandeur and self importance, his family and friends and his puppets. Nobody else matters and anyone getting in the way is expendable. You have to wonder what somebody did to this man when he was a child for him to turn out to be what he is today. He should seek psychiatric help before it's too late.
LET'S HOPE
LET'S HOPE -
Let’s hope it's a deal to help resolve the problems of Crime and the Constitution. Do you remember the many times the opposition has supported laws brought by the Government in the National Interest.
According to the Express,
According to the Express, Panday says protocol would prevent him from discussing help for HCU depositors as the matter was before Parliament in the form of a motion.
What kind of protocol would prevent you from raising such an issue where many of your poor constituents lost their life savings? Isn't this some kind of crime perpetrated against these people by HCU, and isn't crime and constitution reform on the agenda?
You say when the PM summons you you have to respond. Did you respond to the President's letter about the appointment of members of the Integrity Commission?
Was it good protocolar practice to glaringly wipe your hand with a handkerchief after shaking the PM's hand, whatever your feelings? Will you bow before the Queen when you are presented to her?
You have to be consistent in what you say or do or else people will think that you either vapsy, whimsical or opportunistic.
YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE
YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT -
An explanation was given about the letter, do you have proof otherwise or is it being tried in the court of public opinion, you might come across as an opportunist.
We know that an explanation
We know that an explanation was given. An explanation for the disappearance of court exhibits was given: rats ate the cocaine. Did you believe that explanation?
DO YOU HAVE PROOF?
DO YOU HAVE PROOF? -
Rats cats whatever. Do you have proof otherwise or is it conjecture on your behalf in this specific situation. You are a good blogger, but you are waffling. Do we still operate in an innocent until proven scenario or is it guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion? You see you are the one who called for consistancy.Is it do as I say but not as I do.
In law it is not a hanging
In law it is not a hanging offence so it's left to the Court of Public Opinion as you suggested. The Court of Public Opinion seems to rule that the Office of the President hand-delivered a letter to the Office of the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition claims that he did not receive it. Sabotage? Unlikely.
The highest officer in the Land says he sent such a letter and did not receive a reply. Was he being economical with the truth? Did rats eat the letter? I think not. Now you tell me what YOU honestly think.
IN LAW
IN LAW -
In law it is not a hanging offence so it's left to the Court of Public Opinion. I do not know that as a fact.
WHO DOES DOOKERAN THINK HE
WHO DOES DOOKERAN THINK HE IS -
Who does Dookeran think he is a man who cannot even win his seat? He gets up and cast aspersions against the meeting, stating he hopes no political deals are made. Don’t the Oppisition and Government make political deals in the parliament every week? If the concerns are of a sensitive nature why should it not be a one on one? Hearing such arrant nonsense from Dookeran does nothing for his political stocks. Panday invited him to talks he refused. He is sounding like a jilted lover. When he and Warner met and made political deals anybody said anything. When he and Warner shored up each other’s political career anybody said anything. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. WHAT UTTER HYPROCRISY. This man is a failed leader and should be immediately replaced by the young, dynamic, articulate non divisive Prakash Ramadhar.