Sir, – Jason Mordaunt (October 17th) writes that Gay Mitchell ought to have joined the Labour Party, rather than Fine Gael. In a recent interview I heard Mr Mitchell give three reasons why he did not do so. First, he was attracted to Fine Gael by Declan Costello’s “just society” policies.
Second, he said he could not join a socialist party while the Berlin Wall existed, forcing people in East Berlin to be part of a so-called socialist state. And third, Mr Mitchell said that there were two swimming pools in the area he grew up, one was for public use, the other was in the front garden of the local Labour Party TD, the so-called party of the workers.
Mr Mitchell showed courage by deciding to join Fine Gael on the grounds of his genuine beliefs, rather than joining Labour for no reason other than class stereotyping. He’ll be getting my vote. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – If Mr McGuinness or Ms Scallon is elected can we look forward to a second election to “get it right” before the year is out? – Yours, etc,
A chara, – In Fianna Fáil, the job of someone elected as a constituency delegate to the national executive is to represent the views of constituency members at those meetings. Seán Gallagher, however, says he only sought the job in order to advance some legislation relating to property developers. He further says he attended only two meetings in a year and has given numerous different versions of how and when he resigned.
As a party member, this says to me that Mr Gallagher doesn’t fully understand the positions to which he seeks election, fails to represent the people that put him there, shows poor commitment to the job and can be more than economical with the truth when it doesn’t suit his political agenda at that time.
Given our current woes, a Celtic Tiger candidacy may well have its superficial attractions. However, we should not forget that the worst excesses of that era, all flash and no substance, helped bring about its ultimate demise. – Is mise,
Sir, – David Enright misses the point (October 18th) The “3am question” is not just about who can or cannot fight back against oppression and immediate violence perpetrated on a defenceless community.
It is about who conducted a reign of terror, sometimes on their own people to advance political ends. It is about knowing why, and who, calmly and coldly, strapped a man into a van full of explosives or murdered civilian, police or army personnel in pursuit of political gains on either side of the Border.
It’s about being able to answer the questions of the sons and daughters of the victims.
It’s about facing and explaining the past regardless of the circumstances, so that the future can be more inclusive of the truth to the next generation, who need to know the gory detail rather than just the glory detail that sometimes is all that remains in a nation’s memory. And that is the same for both sides of the conflict. – Yours, etc,