THE national budget, usually  declared annually, is a government’s  blue print and guide  for its  yearly expenditure and general economic planning in respect of the State that it governs.
Therefore, no state can properly function without this financial plan. Suffice it to say, that such a document calls for careful planning, with inputs from various stakeholders, then presented to Parliament for debate/discussion, before its contents are finally   approved.
It therefore means that if there is no budget, there is no money for public spending. The opposition needs to understand this practicality, due to their unprincipled, anti-national, and dilatory conduct, and not because their inputs are mandatory.
It was to be expected that the national budget would be a source of contention, in this new political era of a minority government, and at the suggestion of particularly APNU’S David Granger, a tripartite committee was established for discussion of this important state paper, apart from other pivotal national concerns.
But the opposition parties wanted more than budgetary discussions – they requested actual participation in its crafting, which is an executive prerogative. Of course, such was correctly refused by the administration.
Now, almost two  months after, David Granger has issued a statement, complaining that to date, there has been no invitation from the PPP/C government  with regards the proposed consultations on the national budget. Was this really true?
Then came the response from Minister of Finance, Ashni Singh, that  not only sets the government’s  record straight, but also highlights the seemingly  chaotic and discordant ties, that mimics working relations, between APNU and the AFC.
The erudite Minister explained that both Gerhardt Ramsaroop and Winston Jordan of APNU and AFC, respectively, had requested deferrals, with the latter’s reason being, the unavailability of Carl Greenidge, the leading opposition spokesperson on finance. Further, the minister added that he had proposed an alternative date, in response to Jordan’s request, to which the latter indicated his acceptance. But not so with Carl Greenidge, who was yet to confirm his position.
How can an opposition that has spoken so much as to the leading role that they would like to play in this new dispensation, at this most critical time of the nation’s history and particularly given their peculiar parliamentary position, treat the nation’s business in such an irresponsible, haphazard  and disjointed manner?
It is even more shocking that such details as to the status of the proposed discussions are not even privy to David Granger, the leader.
Who is really in charge of the opposition, particularly APNU?  And who is coordinating parliamentary strategies between the two sides?
Also, the attitude of Carl Greenidge leaves much to be desired. One would have thought that as a former Minister of   Finance, Secretary General of the ACP states, and former Senior Deputy Director of CARICOM’s Office of Trade Negotiations, he would have treated with the utmost prompt, such a delicate matter as budgetary consultations, to which he is no stranger.
Instead, he behaves as if he is the de facto minister, which he is not. But really, he is mirroring the brinksmanship and power play politics, which has become the trademark of opposition parties in this new Parliament, thus far. Again, the nation cannot afford such antics, indifference, as well as sloth, as exhibited with this most recent example.
This is certainly not inspiring, nor even encouraging, on the part of either opposition  party, even jointly, and should once again  bring home in an unambiguous and irrefutable  manner to their many constituents that  their respective parties are not only definite political amateurs, but are incapable of conducting in a proper, businesslike  and trustworthy manner, the nation’s affairs, even when invited to assist by  the nation’s elected government.
This has been the balance sheet of APNU and the AFC so far.