Thursday's Letters: Trams are viable, but Governments sell our region short

The Leeds Supertram scheme was cancelled by the New Labour government in 2005 ostensibly because of "spiralling costs". What was in fact happening was that the Department for Transport, overseen by the Treasury, constantly changed the financial goalposts after every revision and slimming of the scheme by Metro so that it constantly appeared well over budget. This gave them the excuse to axe a well-planned system that would have been of immeasurable value to the city, and to channel the funds into transport infrastructure for the London Olympics.

Therefore I suspect that the reason for withdrawing funds was political rather than financial and this implacable refusal to commit to essential transport schemes continues under the even more despicable Con Dems, including essential suburban rail stations and the Leeds trolleybus NGT project (the less effective blueprint successor to Supertram).

Supertram was, and still would be, an essential element in an integrated transport strategy for Leeds, involving rapid, high quality, high capacity modern transport, creating a backbone service which buses would feed into and complement. Interchanges with bus and main line rail services would also be created.

Systems such as this have been established in cities such as Manchester, Croydon, Sheffield, Nottingham and Dublin, All have significantly reduced traffic volumes and have been extremely successful. Similar schemes also have been successfully established in France, Spain, North Africa, Turkey and the US.

Manchester has in the past year embarked on a huge expansion of its now indispensable tram system. Why is it that the North West receives money for transport and Yorkshire doesn't? Is it because Manchester's political landscape consists mainly of marginal seats, and governments of any persuasion like to keep them sweet with investment? Whereas Leeds, with its predominance of safe Labour seats, was taken for granted by the previous administration and now is not considered worth indulging by the Con Dems because of a lack of electoral return for Government investment.

Or, is it because Leeds councils simply are not as assertive and energetic as their counterparts in Manchester?

Either way, we are being sold short on transport and treated with palpable contempt by Transport Secretary Philip Hammond who believes Leeds ought to be cravenly grateful for 9m funding for a new station entrance instead of calling for a rapid transit system, more rail carriages and new vital suburban rail stations – needed more than that which we have been given funding for.

Something drastically positive must be done about transport. Lack of investment means holding back the economic growth of West Yorkshire and harming the environment.

From: Dan Laythorpe, Little Woodhouse, Leeds.

Coalition's unique sense of priorities...

From: Trev Bromby, Sculcoates Lane, Hull.

WITH so many people knocking the coalition, it is only fair that someone stands up for them. In these austere times when all looks bleak, these champions are looking to the future.

They have started negotiations with Commonwealth governments to ensure equal rights of accession to the throne of England. With so little going on at the moment, they are taking the opportunity to ensure (should Will and Katy's first born be a girl) that the right person is crowned monarch in 50 or so years' time.

Now, if only their insight could see the damage that 20 per cent VAT is going to cause the consumer. Every supplier, transporter and handler is adding their own little bit on, all those "little bits" accumulate and land on the toes of the consumer, condemning many into poverty.

At least my impoverished, yet to be born great-great grandchildren will see justice in the Monarchy.

Real business of government

From: Max Nottingham, St Faith's Street, Lincoln.

ANDY Coulson's resignation and Tony Blair's Iraq oration will capture many headlines (Yorkshire Post, January 22). But the real story of the week was the million 18-25 year- olds being affected by unemployment.

I enjoy a bit of true gossip, but the nitty gritty of Government is policies on unemployment, prices, care of the elderly, education and social house building.

Departing high-flyers in politics usually go to other highly-paid jobs, so shed no tears for Andy Coulson.

Devaluing the New Deal

From: Tim Mickleburgh, Boulevard Avenue, Grimsby.

BRIAN Ormondroyd (Yorkshire Post, January 25) says that the unemployment situation in this country calls for job creation measures like Roosevelt's New Deal.

Alas, the term New Deal has somewhat been marred by its use for cheap labour schemes introduced in Britain over recent years, when the jobless got an extra 15 a week (at least initially – participants on New Deal now receive no extra payments) for working 30 hours a week on a placement.

So while I wholeheartedly agree with radical measures that will give the jobless proper work while helping rebuild Britain, I hope that the phrase "New Deal" can be left to Roosevelt from now.

Who speaks for the people?

From: P Wade, Locksley Gardens, Birdwell Barnsley.

JAYNE Dowle's article sets out the qualities Barnsley people might look for in a new candidate to replace Eric Illsley. When first accused of improperly supplementing his income, Mr Illsley had no hesitation in going straight to the press stating forcefully and categorically that he had not broken any rules.

This had been exactly the response of some local solicitors sometime earlier to accusations of topping up their income from miners' claims.

When the behaviour of Labour MPs has become indistinguishable from that of greedy solicitors, then who is representing ordinary people? The answer is no-one.

Lessons from recent history

From: JW Smith, Sutton-on-Sea.

IT is a pity that the bedtime reading of correspondent Bernard Robinson (Yorkshire Post, January 21) appears to place more emphasis on the orations of a Roman in 55BC rather than looking at more up-to-date history.

While acknowledging some of the words are indeed apposite to present times, I find it very surprising that people were living on public assistance so many centuries ago.

On the question of assistance to foreign lands, a look back over the 1980s and 1990s would reveal that privatisation and decimation of our industrial base have left what remains in the lands of foreign owners.

To be more up-to-date, it was not the Labour Government that got us into the financial mess, as prior to the worldwide recession, the state of the nation's finances was naturally better than when Labour came into office in 1997 even taking into account the massive costs of the London bombings, swine flu, bird flu and two years of nationwide flooding.

It would be very interesting if someone could produce an analysis of the actual cost of these events which obviously, placed a huge strain on finances.

This is not to say the last government made no mistakes, it certainly did.

Cut crime by letting the NHS supply addicts

From: Ken Cooke, Wheatley Road, Ilkley.

ENOUGH pussyfooting. Jonathan Reed's front page article (Yorkshire Post, January 24) was no surprise to me. It must be clear to everybody that there is no decline in the number of addicts in this country – just continued crime to fund their habits.

Personally, we have suffered two burglaries of our home in the last 15 years, which I am sure were drug related, and I have witnessed addicts collecting prescription methadone from a pharmacy only to trade it on to cars waiting at the kerb outside. This is commonplace in Leeds.

A group of former presidents from Latin America have pleaded for a more radical approach to managing the drug trade. Their countries are ravaged by the criminality of drug production and trade. In Mexico, there is total mayhem between the cartels and government forces. Thousands die each year in the contorted process of supplying the North American market. Our police report that 80 per cent of burglaries are drug-related. We hear that 80 per cent of heroin supplied to the West originates in Afghanistan, where we are spending money and lives in containing the Taliban and Al-Qaida – only to perpetuate opium production. To me it seems clear. Forget the supply. Stop the demand.

We need to consider supplying our addicts with NHS prescription drugs. The NHS could source and supply drugs of reliable quality at reasonable prices and so eliminate drug-related crime in our country. This would surely be cost-effective and in the longer run would avoid the need for expenditure on troops in Afghanistan. If the US and the rest of Europe adopted a similar policy we could see the end of the troubles in Afghanistan and Latin America.

Green Bank pledge vital

From: Simon Bowens, Yorkshire and Humber campaigner, Friends of the

Earth, York Place, Leeds.

THE deal between Siemens and ABP to develop an offshore wind manufacturing site in Hull is great news for the Yorkshire economy – and the environment (Yorkshire Post, January 21).

The UK has one of the biggest renewable energy resources in the world – developing this would reduce our reliance on overseas fossil fuels and create new green jobs and industries. But investment is urgently needed to make sure this huge green energy potential is developed.

Friends of the Earth is calling on the Government to ensure its proposed Green Investment Bank is properly funded so it can kick-start the prosperous low-carbon economy needed by Hull and other East Coast ports.

This Government has promised to be the greenest ever. Its commitment to a green bank will be an early signal of its determination to achieve this goal.

Is that too much to ask?

From: James Bovington, Church Lane, Horsforth, Leeds.

YOUR correspondents Sweeting, Parr and Kinsman (Yorkshire Post, January 17) seem to agree on the need for Britain to quit the EU to prosper but can't agree on what the fee is for membership of this union of free interdependent democracies. Let me clarify matters.

Although websites disagree on the exact amount, the highest figure given for the EU budget as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product is 1.3 per cent, which probably means that the UK Government at most transfers about three per cent of tax revenues to the EU.

Quite right of course that we require that this money be spent most carefully but let's get some sense of proportion into the debate. Is that too much to ask from our eurosceptic compatriots?