Fissiparous was a word that had readers thumbing through their dictionaries last week, Mr Editor. It had them thinking and talking too. Good. So, too, did the challenge of trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. It ain’t easy.

This week, same subject, but a different approach to change things up, a bit. This is a favourite line of mine that originates in the southern United States, I believe, first employed on the ‘big stage’ by LBJ and more recently, and frequently, by James Carville, he of Bill Clinton fame: that dog won’t hunt (or don’t hunt) no more.

It comes to mind as we continue to hear calls to put Jetgate behind us, to join hands and work together, all of which ring pretty hollow. Curiosity was more than just piqued around here. There remain concerns too, over what really went down and why. A Premier resigned after a long weekend of private meetings. There were unconfirmed news reports of threats and counter-threats. Internal inquiries had been launched (now some two weeks ago) with promises that the results would be made public. In the circumstances, nothing less than full disclosure will do; and from a party and now a government that campaigned hard and long on the need for greater transparency and accountability.

A buoyed Opposition has promised censure motions in the House of Assembly. This is not so surprising. A motion of no-confidence in Government may or may not follow. That may depend on what’s said and how the vote goes. But here’s the point: a strong Opposition is not only entitled to test the mettle of the Government at this time, arguably, it is their duty. Such motions are very much a part of and feature of the Westminster parliamentary system of Government. In other, shall we say, more mature jurisdictions, time is actually set aside for Opposition motions and debates. They are not regarded as unusual, and are accepted as part and parcel of a vibrant, working Legislature. Just another day at the office, you might say.

Governments tend to welcome such challenges too — or should. They get to prove that they are united and with the necessary strength (read numbers) to continue to govern. An ideal time to put them to the test is when there has been a change in leaders in between elections. This is perhaps particularly true for Bermuda where under the Constitution Order 1968 the man on the other Hill, our Governor, is called upon to appoint as Premier the MP who “appears to him best able to command the confidence of a majority of the members [of the House of Assembly].”

Privately the Governor must have been convinced: a list of the signatories of a majority of members is usually sufficient. But there is nothing like a public display of strength, by vote, in the House. There are a couple of added benefits too. Once the motion is introduced, debate on the subject matter comes to an end. First, there is a rule in the Standing Orders which prevents members from “anticipating” any scheduled debate by speaking on the matter before the motion comes on for debate. Secondly, and finally, there is also another rule that prevents members from “reflecting” by speaking again on a matter that has been debated and decided.

That is the way they can put the matter behind us in the House on the Hill.

You may or may not agree with it, or even like it. But these are the tools in the parliamentary toolbox as blunt and as clumsy they may be, all part of the system of government which we inherited and with which we continue to work. There is scope for change, it has been a cause of mine for years, but so far, to date, few others have shown much appetite for actually rolling up sleeves and doing it.

One reader picked up on the point in his online comments last week. He was one of two Davids to write in. Check them out if you haven’t already.

David Johnson made out the argument for change (he thinks the introduction of proportional representation or some form thereof may be the answer) in his comments, but leaves off on how we can actually bring change about — as so many of us do.

First, I can tell you, it is going to take a lot of hard work, most likely off the Hill in the first instance. Secondly, we will need to have broad agreement on (1) the problem and (2) the solution. But on that, we may be part the way there.

Finally, I pick up on one of the points made by the second David, David Sullivan. He reminded us all of a very famous and great line uttered by Jack Nicholson in the movie “A Few Good Men” which was actually rattling around in my head when I penned last week’s column: The truth? You want the truth? “You can’t handle the truth”, Jack said. Maybe so, but after all we went through, and after all we were promised, it seems like a pretty good place to start.

* Share your views either on line on The Royal Gazette website or write jbarritt@ibl.bm.