Sir, - David Andrews's column of December 23rd, arguing against the state funding of politics, failed to convince. Had his party enjoyed slightly less fortune in staying in power, he mightn't be so worried about politics being "disabled in the face of special interests". He seems quite happy to be so disabled for the time being.
For the information of those not lucky enough to have read Mr Andrews's piece, the special interests he does worry about include trade unions, farmers, and anti-mast, anti-dump, anti-halting site, pro-life, and something called "pro-abortion" campaigners. But doesn't political funding by the "special interest" of business mean it has gained a monopoly over what gets on the political agenda?
At the "grassroots" level that Mr Andrews talks about, it is money and not votes that wins representation. Who is going to be heard: a company with the means to construct a block of apartments and therefore also make generous donations, or, for example, a housing action campaign? I suggest to Mr Andrews that the 60 per cent extra homeless people in the past two years might not be able to show their support for their party with a monetary donation. - Yours, etc.,
Alan Caulfield, Dalkey, Co Dublin.