THE recent Postbag contribution ('Senior Tory’s conference speech was unsettling', October 18) is interesting.

In his first eight paragraphs or so the writer attacks Conservative policies, leading Conservatives and, indeed, potential Conservative recruits.

So far, so good.

But the Postbag contributor then uses his next seven paragraphs to attack Labour candidate, Martin McCluskey.

Even then, the writer’s argument is not at all clear.

He cannot cite even one instance of anything reprehensible Martin McCluskey has said or done. Apparently, Martin McCluskey’s ‘crime’ is his failure to speak out on things which your correspondent thinks important this week.

Unsurprisingly, the writer has overlooked the fact that Martin McCluskey has addressed each of the issues which so unsettled the same writer.

It is a matter of record that Martin McCluskey has been deeply critical of the UK Government’s approach to immigration and the forced accommodation of refugees and asylum seekers in hotels.

Finally, the writer’s last six or seven paragraphs are, to say the least, obscure.

Again he rehearses Tory immigration policies and names ultra-right politicians. But then, inexplicably, he throws Martin McCluskey’s name into the mix.

I don’t think the writer is attempting to smear by association. I know he’s better than that. However a better grasp of the narrative would ensure fewer errors.

Martin Brennan

Address supplied