Why are UK troops in Afghanistan?

Since the country is so short of money perhaps we could save some by bringing our troops out of Afghanistan now? Can anyone say what our military objectives are in Afghanistan? Can anyone define when the conflict is to end or how? If those in power cannot set an objective for our troops, should we have any troops there? Is it fair to give our troops a mission and yet be unable to say what that mission is?

It appears from the television news the government in Kabul have difficulty maintaining control even of the city. The government in Kabul appears to have no authority in the country side. We must ask ourselves if this is true and if so why is it so? The people of Afghanistan must come to their own arrangements and a system of laws and justice they wish to support maintain and subscribe to. Those are not our laws or the laws of the United States. We might find some clue in their history. Can we attempt to turn the clock back to 1982? Is the answer to be found in the monarchy that existed before the soviet invasion? Is it for us to try? Or should the Afghans be discussing this? To justify maintaining troops in Afghanistan the PM must be able to tell us what our military objectives are. I do not believe he can do so. Do you? Why then does the coalition Government continue to support a deployment of troops?

Another fine mess ...

From: Robert Reynolds, Dixon House, Harrogate.

It has been reported that the coalition is preparing to pump £50bn into infrastructure projects, such as social housing, to get our economy moving. Should this be welcomed? The answer is No!

The coalition is trying to attract private money which will want a sizeable return – or profit – to participate in the scheme. This will raise the final costs to you the consumer. For too long governments have raised the cost of living in this country, with their feeble policies.

The coalition should print the money, at no cost to taxpayers, and build social housing. Not to do this, by instead attracting private money, will have a two-fold impact.

First, higher rents will result in higher housing benefits and cause our clueless Prime Minister to complain about the soaring cost of this benefit. Second, poorly paid jobs and high rents will cut the residual income of poor people, thus reducing their consumption in an economy that depends on it.

If the coalition progresses with this half-baked scheme, then the mess we’re in will increase.

Merely a publicity stunt

From: John Turley, Dronfield.

Philip Smith (Yorkshire Post, November 11) should have more faith in David Cameron and not doubt him. The new offer on public sector pensions, at least as far as the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) is concerned, was simply restating what was in the agreement negotiated in 2008 with the previous government, that employees within 10 years of their normal retirement age (which in the case of LGPS is 65 and not 60), would not be adversely affected as to when they could take their pensions.

As regards the main stumbling block, an average increase in contributions of over 50 per cent on top of a two-year pay freeze, equivalent to a pay cut of over 3 per cent, (or taking inflation into account nearer 10 per cent), the government have not moved one millimetre. The latest offer was in fact a publicity stunt, aimed more at the general public, to give the impression that they had made a new generous offer, when in point of fact they had done no such thing.

Online film pays tribute

From: Bridget Morris, Executive Secretary, The Rowntree Society, Nunthorpe Road, York.

Following your article on Joseph Rowntree becoming an honorary freeman of York (Yorkshire Post, November 11), your readers might like to know that a short film is available on the Rowntree Society’s home page. It contains an abbreviated version of Joseph’s acceptance speech, illustrated by about 100 photographic images of York in his day.

This film was first shown as a “3Sixty” installation projected onto four walls at the Ron Cooke Hub, University of York, on 17 May this year, the exact anniversary of the day when the award was made.

PM’s Swiss perfection

From: David Quarrie, Lynden Way, Holgate, York.

On a recent BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine programme, while discussing the European financial crisis, our Prime Minister David Cameron said to Jeremy: “We are not perfect, like Switzerland.”

Why is Switzerland so much better off than us and the rest of Europe? She is not in the EU, has her own currency, not the euro, and is the only truly fully democratic country within Europe, and probably, in the world. Enough said !