ALTHOUGH General Elections must be held at least every five years, a four-year gap is commonplace.

This means that we are now probably at the mid-point of this parliament.

Our interests at Westminster are represented by MP Dr Richard Taylor. We sent him there because we felt that he was best-placed to champion the cause that was uppermost in our minds at the last election (Kidderminster Hospital).

Since then other big issues have arisen locally including the incinerator and fair funding for Worcestershire schools which our MP has embraced on our behalf.

Of course, he has also had to deal with the many other issues that affect our lives from day to day - both local and national.

I believe the question we should now consider is whether we wish to repeat the "Dr Taylor experiment" and continue to have an independent MP at Westminster, or whether we are ready to return to mainstream party politics, letting the "big three" slug it out in the Wyre Forest constituency at the next election.

In order to reach a conclusion we need to resolve the following:

* Are there any advantages in having an MP from the governing party?

* Is our experience that when we were a "government constituency" we received a better deal from the government?

* Does his/her influence at Westminster on local issues depend on the size of the Government's majority and the inclination of the MP to defy the government whip on locally important issues?

* If a government MP does defy the whip, is his constituency likely to suffer in the future?

* Does the position change if the local MP becomes a government minister?

* Have our interests at Westminster been represented any less well having returned an independent MP at the last election?

Through the columns of your paper can I invite a public debate?

Dr Taylor's view will plainly be of great interest. However, I hope that many local people will think it appropriate to make a contribution.

HUGH RICHARDS

Woodrow

Chaddesley Corbett