Check this stroke out from APNU-AFC....President intends to make formal invitation for PPP to join the Coalition

President intends to make formal invitation for PPP to join the Coalition

  • Wednesday, 20 May 2015 17:19

President intends to make formal invitation for PPP to join the Coalition

President intends to make formal invitation for PPP to join the Coalition
The People's Progressive Party (PPP) will be left with the option of joining the unity movement as President David Granger is preparing to make a formal offer to the ousted party.
Following the swearing-in of a number of ministers to function under the A Partnership for National Unity +Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) government at the Ministry of the Presidency formally Office of the President (OP), President Granger made it clear that he has every intention to make a formal invitation to the PPP which loss to the Coalition days ago at the General and Regional Elections 2015.
While he noted that he would be speaking with his colleagues in the Coalition about the PPP coming onboard, he suggested that by this weekend, the former Administration should be hearing from him on the matter of unification.
Even before his swearing-in as President of the country, Granger has extended the invitation for the PPP to join the Coalition to create a political atmosphere of inclusionary governance and national unity. However, the PPP dubbed the president's verbal invitation as "deceptive" since according to them, they "received no formal or informal invitation from the APNU/AFC on the issue" of a national unity movement.
President Granger on May 20, told reporters that, he has not formally invited the opposition to join them, but stated that he made a declaration at the time of the swearing-in.
"I intend to do that," Granger stated when responding to the accusations of not being genuine in his offer to the PPP.
The PPP claimed that Granger was only engaging in political gimmicks when he made the announcement.
The new APNU+AFC government based their political campaign on the unification of all the races and securing a bright future for Guyana under an Administration of national unity.
Original Post

And I hope that the PPP says no.

 

I suggest that APNU AFC focus on transforming Guyana, while the PPP focuses on transforming themselves so that by 2020 they will not be the "coolie party".   That way if the coalition fails the PPP will gain support based not on race, but on offering a better option.

Originally Posted by Ramakant-P:

The Indians won the election for Granger. .

If you base this on race then Indians get little because they probably didn't account for more than 5% of the coalition votes.

 

I suggest that you therefore drop that conversation.

Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Ramakant-P:

The Indians won the election for Granger. .

If you base this on race then Indians get little because they probably didn't account for more than 5% of the coalition votes.

 

I suggest that you therefore drop that conversation.

I don't think so!

Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Ramakant-P:

The Indians won the election for Granger. .

If you base this on race then Indians get little because they probably didn't account for more than 5% of the coalition votes.

 

I suggest that you therefore drop that conversation.

5% Indians cross over to coalition, coalition won by 1%.  Guess who decided the new prezzy?

Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Ramakant-P:

The Indians won the election for Granger. .

If you base this on race then Indians get little because they probably didn't account for more than 5% of the coalition votes.

 

I suggest that you therefore drop that conversation.

5% Indians cross over to coalition, coalition won by 1%.  Guess who decided the new prezzy?

How come when the Amerindians gave the PPP their wins you didn't demand that Amerindians be given every thing?

 

Only Indians, the "special people".

President intends to make formal invitation for PPP to join the Coalition
 
The People's Progressive Party (PPP) will be left with the option of joining the unity movement as President David Granger is preparing to make a formal offer to the ousted party.
 
President Granger on May 20, told reporters that, he has not formally invited the opposition to join them, but stated that he made a declaration at the time of the swearing-in.

"I intend to do that," Granger stated when responding to the accusations of not being genuine in his offer to the PPP.

The PPP claimed that Granger was only engaging in political gimmicks when he made the announcement.
 
 
President intends to make formal invitation for PPP to join the Coalition, Wednesday, 20 May 2015 17:19

If David Granger do make the formal presentation to the PPP/C to join the coalition, will he-Granger restructure the cabinet relative to the PPP/C and PNCR each having about fifty percent of the votes.

The president said that his government is a national unity government. is this reflected in the cabinet selection so far? Are we to expect a greater diversity as he appoints other ministers. Or, what we see is what we will get. Waiting!

Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
President intends to make formal invitation for PPP to join the Coalition
 
The People's Progressive Party (PPP) will be left with the option of joining the unity movement as President David Granger is preparing to make a formal offer to the ousted party.
 
President Granger on May 20, told reporters that, he has not formally invited the opposition to join them, but stated that he made a declaration at the time of the swearing-in.

"I intend to do that," Granger stated when responding to the accusations of not being genuine in his offer to the PPP.

The PPP claimed that Granger was only engaging in political gimmicks when he made the announcement.
 
 
President intends to make formal invitation for PPP to join the Coalition, Wednesday, 20 May 2015 17:19

If David Granger do make the formal presentation to the PPP/C to join the coalition, will he-Granger restructure the cabinet relative to the PPP/C and PNCR each having about fifty percent of the votes.

oh lawd you ppp na tired thief 

Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
 

If David Granger do make the formal presentation to the PPP/C to join the coalition, will he-Granger restructure the cabinet relative to the PPP/C and PNCR each having about fifty percent of the votes.

Did the PPP ever make an offer to the PNC?  NO!  So APNU isn't obligated to do a thing.

If the PPP accepts the invitation, where does that leave the AFC. Will it be like a one night thing then move on. It will be interesting if he does make the formal offer and it is accepted, though I think that it is unlikely that it will be.accepted.

Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
If David Granger do make the formal presentation to the PPP/C to join the coalition, will he-Granger restructure the cabinet relative to the PPP/C and PNCR each having about fifty percent of the votes.

Did the PPP ever make an offer to the PNC?  NO!  So APNU isn't obligated to do a thing.

Immaterial, as usual.

 

The issue is specific to the past few days, when David Granger specifically indicated that a written offer will be made to the PPP/C..

Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Ramakant-P:

The Indians won the election for Granger. .

If you base this on race then Indians get little because they probably didn't account for more than 5% of the coalition votes.

 

I suggest that you therefore drop that conversation.

5% Indians cross over to coalition, coalition won by 1%.  Guess who decided the new prezzy?

It's actually more - 10%! I told you so!

Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
If David Granger do make the formal presentation to the PPP/C to join the coalition, will he-Granger restructure the cabinet relative to the PPP/C and PNCR each having about fifty percent of the votes.

Did the PPP ever make an offer to the PNC?  NO!  So APNU isn't obligated to do a thing.

Immaterial, as usual.

 

The issue is specific to the past few days, when David Granger specifically indicated that a written offer will be made to the PPP/C..

All you need to do is to tell us why the PPP didn't get 54% of the vote.

Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
If David Granger do make the formal presentation to the PPP/C to join the coalition, will he-Granger restructure the cabinet relative to the PPP/C and PNCR each having about fifty percent of the votes.

Did the PPP ever make an offer to the PNC?  NO!  So APNU isn't obligated to do a thing.

Immaterial, as usual.

 

The issue is specific to the past few days, when David Granger specifically indicated that a written offer will be made to the PPP/C..

All you need to do is to tell us why the PPP didn't get 54% of the vote.

Your are fossilized with irrelevant issues.

Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
 

Your are fossilized with irrelevant issues.

I agree.  Discussing why we have President Granger and Prime Minister Nagamootoo must truly be a huge stress for you.  I can see why you don't want to talk about your complete ineptitude at making forecasts.

 

 

In Sept 2011 you screamed that the PPP would get 60%.  In April 2015 you screamed that they were GUARANTEED to get 54%.

 

Well even you know how wrong you were.

 

Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Ramakant-P:

The Indians won the election for Granger. .

If you base this on race then Indians get little because they probably didn't account for more than 5% of the coalition votes.

 

I suggest that you therefore drop that conversation.

5% Indians cross over to coalition, coalition won by 1%.  Guess who decided the new prezzy?

How come when the Amerindians gave the PPP their wins you didn't demand that Amerindians be given every thing?

 

Only Indians, the "special people".

Bai, this about Indian and Black.  Accept it, if was not for that 5% cross-over Indians, you would still be in the wilderness.  All the minority races will fall in behind the ruling party.  This is how they survive.  They will now fall behind the PNC and Indian cork duck fuh good.

Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Ramakant-P:

The Indians won the election for Granger. .

If you base this on race then Indians get little because they probably didn't account for more than 5% of the coalition votes.

 

I suggest that you therefore drop that conversation.

5% Indians cross over to coalition, coalition won by 1%.  Guess who decided the new prezzy?

It's actually more - 10%! I told you so!

Well imagine that.  10% crossed of a 42% population base.  PPP got 49%, so who made up the 17%?  Seems the numbers do support the premise that the PPP has a much wider appeal than just the Indian base.

 

Caribj, any thought?

 

TK, so when you going back, I'm sure the ruling party appreciates your contributions to bringing home the bacon.  UG is in great need.

Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Ramakant-P:

The Indians won the election for Granger. .

If you base this on race then Indians get little because they probably didn't account for more than 5% of the coalition votes.

 

I suggest that you therefore drop that conversation.

5% Indians cross over to coalition, coalition won by 1%.  Guess who decided the new prezzy?

It's actually more - 10%! I told you so!

Well imagine that.  10% crossed of a 42% population base.  PPP got 49%, so who made up the 17%?  Seems the numbers do support the premise that the PPP has a much wider appeal than just the Indian base.

 

Caribj, any thought?

 

TK, so when you going back, I'm sure the ruling party appreciates your contributions to bringing home the bacon.  UG is in great need.

The PPP is able to get some non-Indo votes. I've said that 100 times. Problem is Granger will not offer low hanging genips...they will have to produce rebuttals showing IQ with nuff nuff dhal. I have to preserve the value of my assets first. Nothing was given to me freely...so asset value preservation first.

Originally Posted by baseman:
 

Bai, this about Indian and Black.  Accept it, if was not for that 5% cross-over Indians, you would still be in the wilderness.  .

But for the Amerindians the PPP would have lost other elections. But Amerindians don't matter so its Indian take all in your world.

Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
 

Your are fossilized with irrelevant issues.

I agree.  Discussing why we have President Granger and Prime Minister Nagamootoo must truly be a huge stress for you.  I can see why you don't want to talk about your complete ineptitude at making forecasts.

 

 

In Sept 2011 you screamed that the PPP would get 60%.  In April 2015 you screamed that they were GUARANTEED to get 54%.

 

Well even you know how wrong you were.

What were your predictions for the elections?

Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Ramakant-P:

The Indians won the election for Granger. .

If you base this on race then Indians get little because they probably didn't account for more than 5% of the coalition votes.

 

I suggest that you therefore drop that conversation.

5% Indians cross over to coalition, coalition won by 1%.  Guess who decided the new prezzy?

It's actually more - 10%! I told you so!

Well imagine that.  10% crossed of a 42% population base.  PPP got 49%, so who made up the 17%?  Seems the numbers do support the premise that the PPP has a much wider appeal than just the Indian base.

 

Caribj, any thought?

 

TK, so when you going back, I'm sure the ruling party appreciates your contributions to bringing home the bacon.  UG is in great need.

Baseman the African population is much smaller than the Indian population, and yet the PPP was beaten.

 

APNU AFC grabbed more non African voters than did the PPP grab non Indians.

 

This is what the PPP got for running the most racist campaign since 1964.

Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by baseman:

5% Indians cross over to coalition, coalition won by 1%.  Guess who decided the new prezzy?

It's actually more - 10%! I told you so!

Well imagine that.  10% crossed of a 42% population base.  PPP got 49%, so who made up the 17%?  Seems the numbers do support the premise that the PPP has a much wider appeal than just the Indian base.

 

Caribj, any thought?

 

TK, so when you going back, I'm sure the ruling party appreciates your contributions to bringing home the bacon.  UG is in great need.

The PPP is able to get some non-Indo votes. I've said that 100 times. Problem is Granger will not offer low hanging genips...they will have to produce rebuttals showing IQ with nuff nuff dhal. I have to preserve the value of my assets first. Nothing was given to me freely...so asset value preservation first.

"Some", 17% is a bit more than "some".

 

I hope you take your sorrowful "asset preservation" case to the vast majority of Indians, their kids and grand kids who are at risk of living under perpetual PNC "military" rule.  I'm sure they will perfectly understand your "Moral dilemma."

Originally Posted by baseman:
 

"Some", 17% is a bit more than "some".

 

 

Baseman explain to me why the mixed population increased by 70% between 1991 and 2012.  Note that any one born in 1992 was 23 in 2014.

 

Waiting your answer.  Because this will determine what you think that the ethnic composition of the voting age population is, relative to those too young to vote.

Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Ramakant-P:

The Indians won the election for Granger. .

If you base this on race then Indians get little because they probably didn't account for more than 5% of the coalition votes.

 

I suggest that you therefore drop that conversation.

5% Indians cross over to coalition, coalition won by 1%.  Guess who decided the new prezzy?

It's actually more - 10%! I told you so!

Well imagine that.  10% crossed of a 42% population base.  PPP got 49%, so who made up the 17%?  Seems the numbers do support the premise that the PPP has a much wider appeal than just the Indian base.

 

Caribj, any thought?

 

TK, so when you going back, I'm sure the ruling party appreciates your contributions to bringing home the bacon.  UG is in great need.

Baseman the African population is much smaller than the Indian population, and yet the PPP was beaten.

 

APNU AFC grabbed more non African voters than did the PPP grab non Indians.

 

This is what the PPP got for running the most racist campaign since 1964.

My question still stands.  TK (a man close to the election) says AFC pulled 10% Indian votes.  So who made up the 17%.

 

Now, if I take your numbers of 5% Indians crossing, then they [PPP] got 50% of the non-Afro/non-Indo vote as the two groups make up approx 75%.

 

This does not support your premise that the PPP is an "Indian." party.

Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by baseman:

5% Indians cross over to coalition, coalition won by 1%.  Guess who decided the new prezzy?

It's actually more - 10%! I told you so!

Well imagine that.  10% crossed of a 42% population base.  PPP got 49%, so who made up the 17%?  Seems the numbers do support the premise that the PPP has a much wider appeal than just the Indian base.

 

Caribj, any thought?

 

TK, so when you going back, I'm sure the ruling party appreciates your contributions to bringing home the bacon.  UG is in great need.

The PPP is able to get some non-Indo votes. I've said that 100 times. Problem is Granger will not offer low hanging genips...they will have to produce rebuttals showing IQ with nuff nuff dhal. I have to preserve the value of my assets first. Nothing was given to me freely...so asset value preservation first.

"Some", 17% is a bit more than "some".

 

I hope you take your sorrowful "asset preservation" case to the vast majority of Indians, their kids and grand kids who are at risk of living under perpetual PNC "military" rule.  I'm sure they will perfectly understand your "Moral dilemma."

Military rule? Granger will smash all y'all negative stereotypes...the man could become the greatest President of Guyana ever if he lives long enough...he isn't hanging any low Buxton spice mangoes...why don't you go ask Ramotar why he did not accept a better form of governance when we knocked PPP down to 48.4% in 2011. The ball was in his court with the Burnham constitution on his side. The burden of history is not on me...it will be Jagdeo and Ramotar.

Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Ramakant-P:

The Indians won the election for Granger. .

If you base this on race then Indians get little because they probably didn't account for more than 5% of the coalition votes.

 

I suggest that you therefore drop that conversation.

5% Indians cross over to coalition, coalition won by 1%.  Guess who decided the new prezzy?

It's actually more - 10%! I told you so!

Well imagine that.  10% crossed of a 42% population base.  PPP got 49%, so who made up the 17%?  Seems the numbers do support the premise that the PPP has a much wider appeal than just the Indian base.

 

Caribj, any thought?

 

TK, so when you going back, I'm sure the ruling party appreciates your contributions to bringing home the bacon.  UG is in great need.

Baseman the African population is much smaller than the Indian population, and yet the PPP was beaten.

 

APNU AFC grabbed more non African voters than did the PPP grab non Indians.

 

This is what the PPP got for running the most racist campaign since 1964.

My question still stands.  TK (a man close to the election) says AFC pulled 10% Indian votes.  So who made up the 17%.

 

Now, if I take your numbers of 5% Indians crossing, then they [PPP] got 50% of the non-Afro/non-Indo vote as the two groups make up approx 75%.

 

This does not support your premise that the PPP is an "Indian." party.

What is your point? PPP gets a substantial number of mixed votes and almost 66% Amerindian votes.

Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by baseman:
 

"Some", 17% is a bit more than "some".

 

 

Baseman explain to me why the mixed population increased by 70% between 1991 and 2012.  Note that any one born in 1992 was 23 in 2014.

 

Waiting your answer.  Because this will determine what you think that the ethnic composition of the voting age population is, relative to those too young to vote.

My Arithmatic is based on the larger picture.  The two main groups (Indian/Afro) constitute 75% of the total population.  So it's 25% up for grabs.  PPP seem to have grabbed 50% of these, even by your own WAG.

Originally Posted by baseman:
O

My question still stands.  TK (a man close to the election) says AFC pulled 10% Indian votes.  So who made up the 17%.

 

Now, if I take your numbers of 5% Indians crossing, then they [PPP] got 50% of the non-Afro/non-Indo vote as the two groups make up approx 75%.

 

This does not support your premise that the PPP is an "Indian." party.

 

 

You insist on using 2002 census numbers which indicate Indos at 43% and Afros at 30%. 

 

38% of the voters were PPP Indo voters (assuming that 90% voted PPP) and 11% were  PPP non Indo voters.

 

29% were APNU AFC Afro voters meaning that 22% were APNU AFC NON Afro voters.  This assumes that 97% of the Africans voted PPP.

 

Now looking at these numbers even you will see that APNU AFC did a better job of attracting voters outside of the PNC base than the PPP did in attracting people from outside of its base.

 

PPP got 22% of their votes from OUTSIDE their Indian base.  APNU AFC got a 43% of their base from outside of their African base.

 

 

I suggest that rather than crying all day about APNU AFC you tell the PPP that they will not get any where with the mixed population rejecting them to the extent that they are.

 

Originally Posted by TK:
O

What is your point? PPP gets a substantial number of mixed votes and almost 66% Amerindian votes.

Using your numbers the PPP got only 22% of the mixed vote.  They do WORSE with mixed voters than the GOP do with Hispanics.

Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by baseman:
 

"Some", 17% is a bit more than "some".

 

 

Baseman explain to me why the mixed population increased by 70% between 1991 and 2012.  Note that any one born in 1992 was 23 in 2014.

 

Waiting your answer.  Because this will determine what you think that the ethnic composition of the voting age population is, relative to those too young to vote.

My Arithmatic is based on the larger picture.  The two main groups (Indian/Afro) constitute 75% of the total population.  So it's 25% up for grabs.  PPP seem to have grabbed 50% of these, even by your own WAG.

I suggest you adjust your arithmetic.  APNU AFC got 51% of the votes when the African population is 30%. 

 

You are using the 2002 numbers to assume what the ethnic vote is.  So PPP

is 39% Indian, 7% Amerindian, meaning 1% African and 2% mixed.

 

APNU AFC will be 29% African, 3% Amerindian, 4% Indians meaning 15% mixed.  That is basically all of the mixed vote, using your 2002 numbers.  APNU AFC captured almost 90% of the mixed vote.

Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by TK:
O

What is your point? PPP gets a substantial number of mixed votes and almost 66% Amerindian votes.

Using your numbers the PPP got only 22% of the mixed vote.  They do WORSE with mixed voters than the GOP do with Hispanics.

Agree! I am not arguing with that. Fact is Guyana is changing for the better...hope the PPP can modernize and enter the 21st century.

Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Ramakant-P:

The Indians won the election for Granger. .

If you base this on race then Indians get little because they probably didn't account for more than 5% of the coalition votes.

 

I suggest that you therefore drop that conversation.

5% Indians cross over to coalition, coalition won by 1%.  Guess who decided the new prezzy?

It's actually more - 10%! I told you so!

Well imagine that.  10% crossed of a 42% population base.  PPP got 49%, so who made up the 17%?  Seems the numbers do support the premise that the PPP has a much wider appeal than just the Indian base.

 

Caribj, any thought?

 

TK, so when you going back, I'm sure the ruling party appreciates your contributions to bringing home the bacon.  UG is in great need.

Baseman the African population is much smaller than the Indian population, and yet the PPP was beaten.

 

APNU AFC grabbed more non African voters than did the PPP grab non Indians.

 

This is what the PPP got for running the most racist campaign since 1964.

My question still stands.  TK (a man close to the election) says AFC pulled 10% Indian votes.  So who made up the 17%.

 

Now, if I take your numbers of 5% Indians crossing, then they [PPP] got 50% of the non-Afro/non-Indo vote as the two groups make up approx 75%.

 

This does not support your premise that the PPP is an "Indian." party.

What is your point? PPP gets a substantial number of mixed votes and almost 66% Amerindian votes.

Well, that's a cock fight between you and Caribj who rants the PPP is an "Indian" party.

Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by TK:
O

What is your point? PPP gets a substantial number of mixed votes and almost 66% Amerindian votes.

Using your numbers the PPP got only 22% of the mixed vote.  They do WORSE with mixed voters than the GOP do with Hispanics.

Agree! I am not arguing with that. Fact is Guyana is changing for the better...hope the PPP can modernize and enter the 21st century.

In fact using an ethnic distribution based on the 2002 census as you and baseman insist on using to assume the ethnic composition of the vote the PPP must have done much worse than 22% with the mixed vote this past election.  Try 12%.

Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by TK:
O

What is your point? PPP gets a substantial number of mixed votes and almost 66% Amerindian votes.

Using your numbers the PPP got only 22% of the mixed vote.  They do WORSE with mixed voters than the GOP do with Hispanics.

Agree! I am not arguing with that. Fact is Guyana is changing for the better...hope the PPP can modernize and enter the 21st century.

In fact using an ethnic distribution based on the 2002 census as you and baseman insist on using to assume the ethnic composition of the vote the PPP must have done much worse than 22% with the mixed vote this past election.  Try 12%.

Well...I hope the new government will finally release the 2012 census so we don't need to speculate.

Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by TK:
O

What is your point? PPP gets a substantial number of mixed votes and almost 66% Amerindian votes.

Using your numbers the PPP got only 22% of the mixed vote.  They do WORSE with mixed voters than the GOP do with Hispanics.

Agree! I am not arguing with that. Fact is Guyana is changing for the better...hope the PPP can modernize and enter the 21st century.

Well, well, is it substantial or is it 22%.  You cannot be all things to all people.  Guyana changing for the better, but you staying 3,000 miles away, wealth preservation you called it while Indian property burns in GT.  Well, I guess the human is a complex animal.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×