Dear Editor,

Powerful and influential voices have been calling for a smaller government. I interpret it to mean an overall government of Executive and Parliament. To date, there is no indication that any change will occur or will be attempted.

Ironically, the advice is proposed where the change could easily be effected in the House of Representatives, but action has been taken to increase the numbers to address the fear that a tie might occur in a general election. If such a fear could be entertained, then the practical thing to do would have been to reduce the number from 60 to 59. Of course, this would mean some dislocation and replacement, or the split would mean one or two larger constituencies and increase parish council representatives somewhere.

What has been announced is most unacceptable and opens the door to fix boundaries for political advantage, and certainly not to reduce the size of government which would help decrease cost.

As I write, the thought came to me whether the Westminster model of our government would entertain representatives from the opposite side on the Executive. To me it would prove advantageous and reflect government not as a majority in the house but for all members. This perhaps would engage the House in more meaningful governance, greater understanding and sharing, quicker decision making and less bickering.

Another issue is reflected in the British Parliament which runs without a Constitution and has more than two parties in the House. It omits the tribalism and may even aid in the balance of power and resolving the tie of two major parties.

Finally, the issue of taxpayers paying for the election of these representatives should never be contemplated. It offers more problems than it resolves.

RA Young

grupyoung@cwjamaica.com