TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
UML wrote:UML wrote:Wah bout the Debates Commission controversy?
Sabga, Father Harvey and other known pnm supporters in key positions
DC facilitating the date of the PNM over the PPG
A secret panel deciding on questions to be asked (why the secret is the panel from Balisier House?)
How are we to trust that the PNM is not given the questions in advance? Seeing the blatant bias in the DC
Debate mistake, storm in tea-cup
By Andre Bagoo
Saturday, July 18 2015
THE TRINIDAD and Tobago Debates Commission (TTDC) yesterday confirmed it had issued a letter to Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s negotiating team stating that it was decided that a debate will take place on July 30, however this was done in “error”.
At the same time, the error was not made in representations by the Commission to the Opposition over the scheduling of the debate.
“There was an error in the wording of the letter,” said the TTDC chairman Andrew Sabga yesterday at a press conference held at the Chamber of Industry and Commerce, Westmoorings. “The letter that went out to the People’s Partnership (PP) said we had decided on 30th July. In the letter that went out to the PNM, it said that it was proposed, which was the right wording. There were many different issues that still needed to be handled prior to confirming any date in July. In fact, there was no consensus on that date. There was an error of wording which may have been misleading.” At the same time, he said the matter was a “storm in a tea-cup”.
Sabga did not say which officer had issued the letter or account for the discrepancy between the wording of the letters to the PP and the PNM. He said the error was only picked up by the Commission after the Prime Minister’s negotiating team went public with the date. He confirmed that the TTDC booked air-time for July 30 at CNMG, but said this was one of many provisional bookings.
While it entertained talks for a July debate, the TTDC chairman said it was now reverting to its “original criteria” which would see a debate take place in August. He said the July debate would have been separate from an August debate.
“We are going back to the original criteria that has been accepted by most of the participants,” Sabga said. “We are still hopeful that we will get all the players to the table. The door is not closed as far as we are concerned.”
Sabga said the Prime Minister’s negotiator, attorney Larry Lalla, had proposed the Mondays of the month of July as possible dates and the latest Monday, July 27 was initially identified, but shifted to July 30 given that the date is the anniversary of the 1990 terrorist attack on the Parliament and the media.
“We tried to secure consensus from the other side, who had already agreed to the August dates,” Sabga said. “It was very difficult to get us to get them to shift from those dates.”
At the same time, Sabga chided Lalla for making public the communication from the TTDC in which it was stated that July 30 had been decided.
“We realised that the error was made when Mr Lalla went public and announced the date, to our horror,” the chairman said. “In our discussion with all parties we have kindly asked them to kindly keep the negotiations that we are having with them out of the public eye until things are finalised and settled. How the July 30 date got derailed is because one party went public before it was decided.”
Sabga continued, “Whether rightly or wrongly so, whether there was an indication or belief that it was decided rightly or not, the fact that it went public before it was secured created a lot of anxiety. We need to appreciate that the stakes are very high. This is a very heightened and heated election.” The members of the TTDC are: Sabga (chairman); Ronald Harford; Fr Clyde Harvey; Moonilal Lalchan; Kiran Maharaj; Angella Persad and Professor Rhoda Reddock. The project manager is Lorraine O’Connor.
Lalla yesterday evening said all faith in the Commission was now lost.
“Unfortunately, we have lost faith in the so-called Debates Commission,” he said in a media release. “Are they really so careless that they don’t double check the correspondence which they send to the representative of a political leader on such an important matter? If their explanation is true that they wrote to the me and stated that the 30th July date had been “decided” but wrote separately to the PNM and said the date was only “proposed” then it brings their impartiality into serious question.”
Lalla further stated, “I regret their false claim that the notion of a 30th July debate originated with the People’s Partnership. The record in the public domain shows that such date originated with their email which stated a decision had been taken to hold a debate on that date.”
The attorney further said, “I regret too their demonstrably false claim that in some way I broke an agreement of confidentiality. To so state is offensive and wrong. I gave no undertaking to keep the date confidential. In any event, if the date was meant to be kept from the public, Ms O’Connor’s email to me would have said so. It did not.”
Sabga said the TTDC will not step aside and a debate will take place once two or more persons participate.
Reddock said the estimated $1.5 million cost for the debate is in order to produce a “quality debate” and covers costs such as advertising, live TV production, venue rentals, air-time costs, communications, administration, secretariat and support staff costs. The proposed debate would see a secret panel of four choose questions. Questions sent by the public to the leaders would be shifted by this secret panel.
http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,214300.html
DC "storm in a tea cup comment" very similar to Rowley’s and highlights their PNM arrogance and bias!!!
UML wrote:UML wrote:UML wrote:Wah bout the Debates Commission controversy?
Sabga, Father Harvey and other known pnm supporters in key positions
DC facilitating the date of the PNM over the PPG
A secret panel deciding on questions to be asked (why the secret is the panel from Balisier House?)
How are we to trust that the PNM is not given the questions in advance? Seeing the blatant bias in the DC
Debate mistake, storm in tea-cup
By Andre Bagoo
Saturday, July 18 2015
THE TRINIDAD and Tobago Debates Commission (TTDC) yesterday confirmed it had issued a letter to Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s negotiating team stating that it was decided that a debate will take place on July 30, however this was done in “error”.
At the same time, the error was not made in representations by the Commission to the Opposition over the scheduling of the debate.
“There was an error in the wording of the letter,” said the TTDC chairman Andrew Sabga yesterday at a press conference held at the Chamber of Industry and Commerce, Westmoorings. “The letter that went out to the People’s Partnership (PP) said we had decided on 30th July. In the letter that went out to the PNM, it said that it was proposed, which was the right wording. There were many different issues that still needed to be handled prior to confirming any date in July. In fact, there was no consensus on that date. There was an error of wording which may have been misleading.” At the same time, he said the matter was a “storm in a tea-cup”.
Sabga did not say which officer had issued the letter or account for the discrepancy between the wording of the letters to the PP and the PNM. He said the error was only picked up by the Commission after the Prime Minister’s negotiating team went public with the date. He confirmed that the TTDC booked air-time for July 30 at CNMG, but said this was one of many provisional bookings.
While it entertained talks for a July debate, the TTDC chairman said it was now reverting to its “original criteria” which would see a debate take place in August. He said the July debate would have been separate from an August debate.
“We are going back to the original criteria that has been accepted by most of the participants,” Sabga said. “We are still hopeful that we will get all the players to the table. The door is not closed as far as we are concerned.”
Sabga said the Prime Minister’s negotiator, attorney Larry Lalla, had proposed the Mondays of the month of July as possible dates and the latest Monday, July 27 was initially identified, but shifted to July 30 given that the date is the anniversary of the 1990 terrorist attack on the Parliament and the media.
“We tried to secure consensus from the other side, who had already agreed to the August dates,” Sabga said. “It was very difficult to get us to get them to shift from those dates.”
At the same time, Sabga chided Lalla for making public the communication from the TTDC in which it was stated that July 30 had been decided.
“We realised that the error was made when Mr Lalla went public and announced the date, to our horror,” the chairman said. “In our discussion with all parties we have kindly asked them to kindly keep the negotiations that we are having with them out of the public eye until things are finalised and settled. How the July 30 date got derailed is because one party went public before it was decided.”
Sabga continued, “Whether rightly or wrongly so, whether there was an indication or belief that it was decided rightly or not, the fact that it went public before it was secured created a lot of anxiety. We need to appreciate that the stakes are very high. This is a very heightened and heated election.” The members of the TTDC are: Sabga (chairman); Ronald Harford; Fr Clyde Harvey; Moonilal Lalchan; Kiran Maharaj; Angella Persad and Professor Rhoda Reddock. The project manager is Lorraine O’Connor.
Lalla yesterday evening said all faith in the Commission was now lost.
“Unfortunately, we have lost faith in the so-called Debates Commission,” he said in a media release. “Are they really so careless that they don’t double check the correspondence which they send to the representative of a political leader on such an important matter? If their explanation is true that they wrote to the me and stated that the 30th July date had been “decided” but wrote separately to the PNM and said the date was only “proposed” then it brings their impartiality into serious question.”
Lalla further stated, “I regret their false claim that the notion of a 30th July debate originated with the People’s Partnership. The record in the public domain shows that such date originated with their email which stated a decision had been taken to hold a debate on that date.”
The attorney further said, “I regret too their demonstrably false claim that in some way I broke an agreement of confidentiality. To so state is offensive and wrong. I gave no undertaking to keep the date confidential. In any event, if the date was meant to be kept from the public, Ms O’Connor’s email to me would have said so. It did not.”
Sabga said the TTDC will not step aside and a debate will take place once two or more persons participate.
Reddock said the estimated $1.5 million cost for the debate is in order to produce a “quality debate” and covers costs such as advertising, live TV production, venue rentals, air-time costs, communications, administration, secretariat and support staff costs. The proposed debate would see a secret panel of four choose questions. Questions sent by the public to the leaders would be shifted by this secret panel.
http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,214300.html
DC "storm in a tea cup comment" very similar to Rowley’s and highlights their PNM arrogance and bias!!!
What would you do?
Redman wrote:The 29 non negotiable demands are BS?
.I got it off CNC3
rfari wrote:By tmmrw we'll know the full details. Uml, you think kamala can handle herself in a debate against growley?
UML wrote:rfari wrote:By tmmrw we'll know the full details. Uml, you think kamala can handle herself in a debate against growley?
A lawyer vs a geologist?
UML wrote:Grande looking gooooooooooood
Blue fete looks like u alone living in a fool's paradise and not seeing progress
UML wrote:Rowley can't control his anger. He can't debate. He will do more harm than good. Bring on the debate!!!
UML wrote:So apparently the unrealistic demands is to veto the secret panel, to veto the moderator (which the pnm has also requested), to have the questions in a guarded deposit box, to be referred to as PM, a prep room, etc.
#pnmpropaganda
bluefete wrote:UML wrote:So apparently the unrealistic demands is to veto the secret panel, to veto the moderator (which the pnm has also requested), to have the questions in a guarded deposit box, to be referred to as PM, a prep room, etc.
#pnmpropaganda
I suppose the request to have the questions placed in a guarded box at CNMG is also PNM propaganda?
What foolishness is that? Everyone knows that CNMG is state controlled and what would stop anyone there from going into the box?
Kamla and Rowley just need to tell the people that they are not interested in debating and stop wasting flecking time.
UML wrote:bluefete wrote:UML wrote:So apparently the unrealistic demands is to veto the secret panel, to veto the moderator (which the pnm has also requested), to have the questions in a guarded deposit box, to be referred to as PM, a prep room, etc.
#pnmpropaganda
I suppose the request to have the questions placed in a guarded box at CNMG is also PNM propaganda?
What foolishness is that? Everyone knows that CNMG is state controlled and what would stop anyone there from going into the box?
Kamla and Rowley just need to tell the people that they are not interested in debating and stop wasting flecking time.
U wasn't the same one that used to bray the PPG eh do nuttin for nobody?!! The only major projects this government started were the Couva Children's Hospital and the UWI Law School in Debe. And NO! I did not look in the Government Achievements thread that you started.
Especially toco sangre grande
Corruption in life fund?
An employee stole $20,000 and the matter is before the fraud squad is corruption? When the life fund saved 200 lives? That is what they told you? There is much more to come.
A secret panel is more secure than a guarded box in a public building? In a government controlled office? Yeah, right!
No wonder u never see nuttin
UML wrote:Oh yes my bad. Sorry bluefete.
UML wrote:rfari wrote:By tmmrw we'll know the full details. Uml, you think kamala can handle herself in a debate against growley?
A lawyer vs a geologist?
Kamla to represent Partnership in local govt elections debates
Published on Oct 3, 2013, 9:17 pm ASTUpdated on Oct 4, 2013, 5:45 pm AST0 CommentsArticle
Share:FacebookTwitter
All political parties contesting the local government elections have presented their nominees and now the Trinidad and Tobago Debates Commission (TTDC) has invited senior party representatives and leaders to participate in “2013 Local Government Elections Debates”.
Two debates are scheduled in the lead-up to the October 21 elections—on October 10 and 15.
The first will be held at the Caribbean New Media Group (CNMG) studio at Maraval Road, Port of Spain and feature senior party representatives.
The second will feature political leaders and will be held at The University of the West Indies, St Augustine.
The debates will be broadcast live.
The main themes for the debates will be Local Government Reform and Local Government Representation.
The criteria for participation require parties having nominated candidates contesting 75 per cent of municipalities, or more than ten, or if a party’s inclusion and participation are a matter of public interest.
“The TTDC has paid careful attention to the nomination of candidates and the number of contested municipalities from the various parties. The TTDC met today following Nomination Day and agreed to exercise its discretion in the public’s interest as cited in The Criteria for Participation to include the Movement for Social Justice (MSJ) in the 2013 Local Government Elections Debates. The People’s Partnership (PP), People’s National Movement (PNM) and Independent Liberal Party (ILP) have also been invited,” the commission said in a release.
The People’s Partnership will participate as one unit, not split between the United National Congress (UNC), Congress of the People (COP) and National Joint Action Committee (NJAC).
This would mean that in the political leaders’ debate, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar will be the coalition representative.
Prakash is PP’s choice
By RACHAEL ESPINET Monday, October 14 2013
click on pic to zoom in
[http://www]
« prev photo next photo »
PRIME Minister and leader of the People’s Partnership (PP) coalition government Kamla Persad-Bissessar will not represent the PP in the Local Government National Leaders debate tomorrow. In her place, Congress of the People (COP) leader Prakash Ramadhar will represent the PP.
This was announced yesterday at the launch of the COP’s Local Government Manifesto at Flagship House, Tragarete Road, Port-of-Spain. “The Prime Minister and I have spoken and she has asked me to represent the People’s Partnership at the debate,” Ramadhar said.
The TT Debates Commission (TTDC) is the host of two national Local Government debates. Last Thursday, the first debate between senior party members was held on the theme “Local Government Representation.”
Tomorrow’s debate will be on the theme “Local Government Reform”, and will be debated by the respective parties’ leaders.
Persad-Bissessar, the United National Congress (UNC) political leader was assumed to be the PP’s representative in tomorrow’s debate which is expected to see Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley represent the People’s National Movement (PNM) and Jack Warner, the Independent Liberal Party (ILP).
The COP, which has candidates contesting the local government elections had expressed anger at not being allowed to enter the debate on the ground that only one person can represent one entity in the debate. The PP, which is a coalition of the UNC, COP, the National Joint Action Committee (NJAC), can only have one person represent it at the debate.
At last Thursday’s debate, UNC deputy political leader Dr Suruj Rambachan represented the PP in that forum which had representatives from the PNM, ILP and even the Movement for Social Justice (MSJ) which is not in the Local Government elections.
Persad-Bissessar yesterday said the decision was taken to let Ramadhar appear in the leaders’ debate to underline the fact that the COP remains a part of the partnership. “The COP had been locked out of the debate, even as the MSJ was allowed to participate and so, the decision was taken to give the COP a chance. The COP remains a part of the Partnership and Mr
Ramadhar is a leader,” Persad-Bissessar told Newsday.
A release from the Communications Ministry yesterday stated, “The People’s Partnership is a democratic institution in which each member is equal. In this context we felt that it was the proper thing to do to allow Mr Ramadhar to represent the Partnership in Tuesday’s debate since UNC Deputy Political Leader Dr Suruj Rambachan represented the Partnership in the first debate last Thursday.
“We are confident that Mr Ramadhar, as a senior member of cabinet and a leader of one of the parties in our coalition, would professionally present the Partnership’s position during the debate.”
At yesterday’s COP Manifesto launch, Ramadhar said the main focus of their Local Government Manifesto was to listen to the people so that they could serve them better. Making reference to the Eddie Hart Ground on which a new sporting facility is to be built, Ramadhar said it should be the main priority of any Government to listen to what the people want.
Acknowledging a “large number of the community are saying they do not wish to have a development of that ground,” Ramadhar promised the COP would listen to the people’s grievances and see how the party could help.
Dismissing statements that the COP is no longer relevant in government, Ramadhar said, “We have been working, maybe too quietly, in the face of all the criticism, denigration, personal attacks and innuendos put on the party...we say, ‘bring it’.”
Asked to comment on the issue of the St Joseph bye-election, Ramadhar said the COP has agreed not to put up a candidate for that seat, made vacant after former UNC member Herbert Volney resigned the seat. “You would remember that the UNC won St Joseph and although I know we have a candidate, we will let the UNC send a candidate for this seat,” Ramadhar said.
In an immediate reaction, the TTDC in a release expressed disappointment over Persad- Bissessar’s decision to opt out of the debate. “As stated in the Fyzabad Declaration dated April 21, 2010, ‘the partners agree that the leader of the Partnership and Prime Ministerial candidate is and shall be Mrs Kamla Persad-Bissessar.’ The TTDC invited leaders of the PNM, the MSJ, the ILP and the PP to participate in the Leaders’ Debate.
“Given the current political dispensation, the views of those appointed to lead the parties/coalitions are important for Local Government Reform. Based on the feedback from the people via the wider media, it is clear that the public also expected Mrs Kamla Persad-Bissessar to be the one to debate. The TTDC strongly urges the Leader of the People’s Partnership to reconsider her decision not to participate,” a TTDC release stated.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests
