Latest update February 23rd, 2025 10:50 AM
Feb 18, 2016 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
The Budget debates are over. By this time this is published, the Committee of Supply should be wrapping up its work. This is therefore a good time to assess how the debates went.
The government side allowed itself to be drawn almost entirely into responding to the PPP criticisms of the Budget by the PPP. There has to be some room for this but the government side allowed the opposition to set the tone of the debate.
The government side should have used the debates not just to counter the criticisms made by the opposition but they should have spent more time explaining more their policies in the respective sector for the next year.
Insufficient attention was paid to this area within the result that the debates were reduced to a tit-for-tat between the two sides of the House.
If anything, the PPP got the better of them. They used powerful slogans to brand the Budget. The government side could not do the same because they were concentrating too much on defense and too little in creating their own brands.
The content of the Budget played right into the PPP’s hands. Many of the projects, including the infrastructural projects, were projects which the PPP had either in stream of lined up. The PPP capitalized on the fact that the new administration came up with little new ideas and was essentially engaged in a policy of continuity of PPP policies and projects.
The few areas of deviation did not seem to be well thought out or were based on a misunderstanding of what went before. When the government came into power it dumped a major project which provided income for Amerindians. But what has it replaced it with? The Marriott Hotel should have been up for sale by now. The Marriott Hotel is still around contradicting all that the government said it would have done.
It was said that there will be no sole sourcing in the health sector but the MOU signed in relation to the hospitality sector was described by the opposition as being a case of sole sourcing.
It is left to be seen if and when a contract is consummated whether this will indeed be the case.
APNU said before it came to office that the economy needed to grow at faster rate. It is projecting a growth rate for 2016 of over 4%. This is based almost entirely on the increases anticipated in gold production from investments which were made under the PPP.
The issue of course is not when the investments made, it is lack of details on what major investments the new government hopes to achieve.
It cannot afford to sit on its laurels and hope that the PPP investments in the petroleum will deliver a windfall. There has to be growth strategy and one had anticipated that this growth strategy would have been outlined in the new Budget.
All of this served as fodder for the opposition. They went to work against a politically inexperienced opposition which was forced to defend itself against a well-planned and orchestrated attack. The opposition came out looking and smelling good. The government side showed its inexperience.
These are early days yet but the government must convince the people of Guyana that this growth rate that they have projected and which is far below what they said was needed for the country, is achievable.
If the economy underperforms then the PPP will win and win big the next time.
Feb 22, 2025
Kaieteur Sports- Slingerz FC made a bold statement at the just-concluded Guyana Energy Conference and Supply Chain Expo, held at the Marriott Hotel, by blending the worlds of professional football...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- The folly of the cash grant distribution is a textbook case of what happens when a government,... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Ambassador to the US and the OAS, Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News-Two Executive Orders issued by U.S.... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]