The current government is in no way like the PPP. They are a progressive group who put aside their personal ambitions to join together for the better of Guyana. They as well as their supporters saw the PPP as a racist and exclusive group not interested in inviting the opposition into governance with them while they occupy office.

The indications if not manifestations I am looking for is this new progressive government doing something very revolutionary in Guyana politics. Asking members from the PPP who they believe are capable of being part of the government to actually partake in that government. Maybe dole out a few minister positions to them. Maybe even a Vice President position since those are readily available. Show in actions that they are not as exclusive as the PPP were. That is how you address a Unity government. You don't ask the Opposition to be part of a Unity government which would render potent the machinery of descent because it is that element of descent which protects those (the general public) who can fall victim to a political machinery where all become the virtual rubber stamp of the leader.

I don't expect this to be feasible nor do I expect the national unity drive to be either. Not in the political arena. That kind of effort is best dealt with at the local civic and religious, etc. level.

There is never an expectation that the party which wins have to demonstrate anything to the losing one. In-fact, Obama once spoke about "elections have consequences". Except in this current drive in Guyana, the government is seeking the PPP's participation in a model they designed. It is therefore not unreasonable for the PPP to have some clear indications of what that participation entails.

give it a rest . . . it was you, not the PPP, who made the below silly statement:

"There aren't any clear indications that the government is really interested in national unity."

like i said, give it a rest

I don't know what in my comment give you the impression that I was disowning my comment.

never said that . . . i was pointing to your invention that u sourced it from the PPP

nice try mr fake

Except that I never stated that I sourced it from the PPP. While the conversation had progressed, you unfortunately were still stuck several steps behind.

what then do you mean by the below?:

"It is therefore not unreasonable for the PPP to have some clear indications of what that participation entails."

are you the PPP?

I am certainly not the PPP.

Regarding your problem above, the PPP made reservations about why they don't care to participate in any national unity drive with the government. I used those reservations to formulate my argument that the government has not shown any clear indications that they are serious about national unity. It is called processing information. Both while together form a consensus are still independent of each other.   

OH RASS yUH GUN HUT UP DAT fool HEAD.

what exactly were these PPP "reservations" u are talking about? . . . the actual pertinent shit leading u to a conclusion that the need for "clear indications" to the PPP was "not unreasonable"

thanks

No one....let me repeat no one gets the option to make a determination as to who has good faith or not. They simply admit they have problems and decide to sit down and talk. Then they can decide what are the problems, clarify them and craft a mutually agreeable understanding as to how it can be solved.

Your difficulty is that you missed the PPP announcements. I can't help you there. I have moved on.

In the real diplomatic world maybe. Too late for that regarding the issue at hand. The perception that the PNC screwed the AFC (as mentioned by Jagdeo during the budget debates) as well as the government ministers shouting at Jagdeo (as well as other PPP members) during that same debate that they will jail them has not provided the circumstances to facilitate the environment you expect. That bridge as been burned. Not that it cannot be repaired but that repair would need to come from the ones who burned it.

Jagdeo cannot decide what is the status of the relationship in between coalition partners. That is for them to decide.

If the commit crimes that can be proved they will and should go to jail. That is another matter than resolving long standing problems that keeps Guyana stagnated.

lol . . . i actually have no "difficulty" at all; i bring only the facts sir

i paid attention to the PPP "announcements" and i happen to know exactly what 'Dr' Jagdeo had a problem with when he responded to Granger's invite

c'mon, you should know by now that i am not one to bluff when dealing with low-hanging fruit alyuh does leff exposed while stumbling around trying to patch up holes in stupid argument

but u are not as stupid as u so often come across . . . at least u are smart enough to blow smoke and run around, being careful not to fall into the trap u unwittingly crafted for yourself with idle outpourings of mealy-mouthed PPP-inspired bilge

indeed, you are wise to "move on"

Other than cut and paste ,what's your POINT!!!Express yourself.

You are a troll.

You are so dignified.I could have predicted your reply.

Keep on trolling. Your foolishness is much more scary than your male counterparts.

The idea of a government of national unity is alien to the PPP. It sees national unity as different from a government of national unity. The latter it seems, as a means of other parties forcing themselves onto the PPP and trying to nudge the PPP out of power- that was when it had power.

Nagamootoo to Jagdeo: “You can’t be loser and chooser” on unity talks

By Staff on September 13, 2015

In a facebook post on Saturday,

the Prime Minister said

“Jagdeo cannot be the loser and chooser at the same time.

This is OUR initiative and

Jagdeo must not choose our negotiators.”