The absence of Carl Greenidge from this year’s budget talks is deliberate

and sinister, and many believe it is an attempt to derail the nation’s socio-economic advancement.
Something strange and unusual seems to be occurring within the senior hierarchy of the  A Partnership for National Unity (APNU)  that obliges the inevitable question – Who is in charge? For if what is stated in a section of the media is indeed true, then there is a crisis within that main Parliamentary Opposition party. But then one must curiously question whether this perceived crisis, if it really does exist, is not contrived or deliberately hatched, for a larger sinister design on the part of the APNU, especially.
From the many public releases from APNU, one has been led to believe, including its constituents, that government has not responded to its many requests for discussion as it relates to suggestions for the proposed 2013 budget. It took a response from the Honourable Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh, who detailed that government has been examining submissions from both APNU and the Alliance For Change (AFC), and that there will be further discussions between the two sides, but this depended on when opposition spokesperson on finance, Carl Greenidge will make himself available.
What was also very interesting, and puzzling, was the revelation that Greenidge had requested several postponements to these very important consultations, without indicating when he would be available. In the meantime, ominous threats about cutting the budget emanated from both parliamentary parties.
It stands to good reason, that since Greenidge is the official opposition representative, then he ought to have been meeting Minister Singh ever since on budgetary issues that are of pivotal interest to the political opposition, inclusive of his party.
How can he still be absent at this crucial hour? Is leader David Granger cognisant of what impression such a questionable behaviour on the part of Greenidge is conveying to the nation?
As a matter of fact, if Greenidge’s strangely inexplicable action had conveyed the impression that he is unmanageable, thereby calling into question Granger’s leadership, influence and control, the latter’s  statement that “the opposition will cut expenditures  that are ‘unlawful’ or do not conform to financial regulations”, lends to the conclusion that Greenidge is following an  official party line of deliberate non-opposition cooperation.
This is power play and diktat being primed for use again, if one is to be guided by the issued threats.
Why deceive the nation, inclusive of its many followers, into believing that the Government is the guilty party for not responding, when in fact it the opposite? But here is a contradiction, so common these days in the parliamentary opposition’s modus operandi. Given that Greenidge has not entered for further discussions, how can APNU decide on such an outright position of cutting a budget, details of which it is not yet privy?
This is beyond intransigence, for which there is no credible reason for the two parties adopting such a line; nor even irresponsible, for such is being charitable against the background of acts that have clearly been without cause, vindictive and spiteful. Rather, this   latest manifestation from the parliamentary opposition reflects its clear, deliberate, and   sinister intention to derail the continuing socio-economic advancement of the nation.