Opposition Leader Pennelope Beckles’ marathon three- hour-long response to the 2026 Budget was wide-ranging, and, at times, deeply emotional—a clear attempt to position herself as both the defender of the “small man” and the conscience of the nation.
Yet, while her speech hit several pressure points—rising taxes, fiscal credibility, and the Government’s silence on the deaths of two T&T nationals in a recent US strike—its impact ultimately depends on whether citizens see her words as more than political theatre.
Beckles’ central charge was clear: that the United National Congress (UNC) Government’s Budget is a “mash-up for the small man.” She accused Finance Minister Dave Tancoo of punishing ordinary people through steep tax hikes, fines, and fees, particularly the proposed 100 per cent increase in excise duties on locally produced spirits.
In her estimation, this is not merely a revenue measure—it is a cultural assault. She framed the issue as one of fairness and social understanding, portraying the “occasional drink” at a river lime or weekend gathering as a symbol of the working-class escape, not an indulgence to be taxed into oblivion.
It was a deft populist appeal, designed to tap into everyday frustration with rising living costs. But behind the political theatre lay a deeper challenge Beckles posed to the Government: its credibility on fiscal management. Her assertion that the numbers “don’t add up”— that the State plans to borrow more than it admits, with a hidden deficit possibly twice the official figure—deserves serious attention. If accurate, this would point to troubling opacity in the Government’s accounts and undermine its claims of responsible stewardship. Transparency and accountability in public finance are not partisan issues; they are the bedrock of trust between citizens and the State.
Beckles also widened her critique beyond economics. Her comments on the deaths of two T&T nationals in a US military strike on a suspected drug vessel off Venezuela struck a rare moral note in a budget debate. She warned that the Government’s silence on the matter and its unquestioning support of US regional security actions could erode national sovereignty and endanger citizens abroad. In a political climate where foreign policy issues are now paramount, Beckles’ intervention reminded the nation that leadership must balance diplomacy with dignity.
Yet, despite these strong moments, Beckles’ reply was not without weaknesses. Her rhetoric often outpaced her reasoning. Phrases like “fake and fraudulent budget” and “collapse of the economy” echoed the hyperbole that voters have grown weary of. The speech, while passionate, lacked a coherent economic counter-narrative. It was easier to detect what she opposed than what she proposed.
If Beckles wishes to rebrand the People's National Movement as a credible government-in-waiting, she must move beyond the politics of outrage. Her best moments came not from shouting down the Government but from asking pointed, evidence-based questions. If she leans into that strength—marrying moral conviction with clear policy—she can redefine her leadership and her party’s relevance.
For now, Beckles’ Budget rebuttal will resonate most with those already sceptical of the UNC administration. But for the wider public, struggling under economic strain and political fatigue, it may not yet be enough. Citizens want more than a warrior—they want a planner. Beckles has shown she can fight; her next test is to show she can lead.
The small man deserves a champion, yes—but he also deserves a plan.
