I write in response to Conn McLaughlin’s letter dated January 14th on how Eamonn McCann (right) should change his tune.
First of all I don’t agree but I take comfort in that you recognise his tune has always been consistent with the main chorus in support of the rights of people.
When Eamonn suggests an alternative, it is always backed up with a solid proposal. The cuts alternative would remove the burden from the poorest in society and place equal responsibility on the rich which in my opinion is fair and just.,
The cuts will mean a mass of redundancies within the public sector, which will send unemployment figures soaring through the roof andmore importantly reduce our access to our beneficial services. So it’s important our workers keep their jobs. So I feel Eamonn is right when he insists on fighting these cuts because, let’s not forget, we are being forced to pay for the recklessness of the financial institutions.
As for your comments about the water infrastructure, we watched people over the Christmas period spend weeks without water. Many were forced to go and collect water from storage tanks in order to drink and wash etc. The infrastructure that failed to deliver over the harsh weather conditions is appalling and it represents thirty years of neglect due to money being diverted elsewhere. An infrastructure that delivers a basic human right should have been prioritised at all times. I feel to come out as many politicians did and suggest the responsibility for upgrading the infrastructure should rest with people is ridiculous. This, coupled with Sammy Wilson’s Christmas present (draft budget/insult), will add to the struggle of the poorest in society.
What I do find hilarious is how the majority of your letter is attacking the various banners Eamonn stood under. I mean variety is the spice of life and you yourself hit a crucial point, -the banners have changed but the message remains the same, unlike some parties who keep the same banner and change the tune according to the offer. I felt duty bound to respond to your letter as I see this as little more than an attack on a very reliable, trustworthy messenger.