The Editor, Sir:

The prime minister's invitation to the Opposition for a debate on the national economy has attracted much comments. It did not take much time to create camps of proponents and opponents. Howard Hamilton, QC,would prefer to have a dialogue (Gleaner, November 21, page A11).The Gleaner editorial of November 18, has also thrown out the idea, while your columnist Ian Boyne is promoting a Golding/Davies matchup with apologies to the leader of the opposition and the minister of finance (Sunday Gleaner, November 22). Senator Mark Golding has welcomed the invitation as long as the debate did not include issues pertaining to past administrations.

Yet another of your columnist had this to say: "Faced with 'unfixable' problems, as The Economist magazine puts it, the prime minister /JLP party leader, addressing rockstone Labourites ... has foolishly challenged the Opposition to a public debate. Labourites, recalling the trouncing which their leader gave the other leader (Mrs Portia Simpson Miller) in the election campaign debates of 2007, might very well be warmed by the challenge. The rest of the country is saying with this newspaper, "Forget the debate, get on with the job" (Martin Henry, Sunday Gleaner, November 22 ).

A debate on the economy at this time would not only be opportune, but also should be informative. It should not be predicated on a Golding/Davies matchup, dialogue, dismissed as being foolish or perceived as a David/Goliath duel. And one becomes cynical when Martin Henry argues that "Parliament is the proper platform for the Government and Opposition to debate the country's affairs and to seek solutions".

Get on with the job

Too often, what passes in Parliament as a debate would degenerate into both sides hurling insults at each other, eruptions of laughter, evasive responses, puerile behaviour and voting strictly along party lines.

A critical element is often not accounted for whether government initiatives are announced and implemented or not, their effects or impacts are measurable. The Opposition, on the other hand, seems to confine itself to the role of criticisms. The electorate, in turn, is left without a slate of alternative policy initiatives from the Government-in-waiting and nothing on which to do a comparative analysis and to make informed decisions.

What is, therefore, needed is not more or a repetition of what is already known but a purposeful and structured debate which would have at its centre alternative policy initiatives from the Opposition or Government-in-waiting. It does not make any sense focusing the light every time on the same side while on the other side, we do not know what is awaiting us. If this is not forthcoming, then one would have to support the advice 'Forget the debate, get on with the job'.

I am, etc.,

LIONELL RUSSELL

Ensom City

St Catherine