In a decade’s time they may have reached a point where their debt burden is at last shrinking because they have paid enough interest.It was a struggle to get the meagre HIPC initiative approved by the international community – a struggle in which both Gordon Brown and Kenneth Clarke, his predecessor as chancellor of the Exchequer, have played an honourable part. By any calculation the debt burden on poor nations is crippling and inhuman. For example, Mozambique’s debt service last year amounted to double its combined spending on health and education. But we will give generously to the ranks of the nearly-rich, when they get into a bit of financial bother, because of the risk that their crisis will spill over into our economies.This is short-sighted as well as immoral But let us start with the morality. For it has taken the IMF, following the lead set by leaders of the Group of Seven industrial countries, most of this decade to agree grudgingly on less than $10bn-worth of debt relief for some of the poorest countries in the world, to be eked out over several years.The only conclusion you can draw from this is that we, in the richest countries in the globalised world economy, collectively don’t give a hoot for the poorest. And then, funnily enough, the purse strings loosen again when the New Year sales start.
It may be just me, but I take comfort from the fact that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is just as bad.

It has spearheaded a massive rescue package to save South Korea from a catastrophic financial crisis, making available emergency funds of up to $100bn over the next few months.Philanthropic enough, you may think, except that it reveals a starkly selfish set of priorities. I spend cheerfully on my nearest and dearest, then find myself skimping on the presents bought more from a sense of obligation than affection. I may be an unusually mean-spirited person, but there always comes a point during the Christmas shopping season when I balk at shelling out more money. It was found that the problem would take two years to sort out. To keep the taxation records straight for the future it was necessary to eliminate the 0-2 year olds.
JOHN PICKINCheltenham,Gloucestershire. The policy arose from the great abacus crisis in the Roman taxation department.

For years these had counted down from BC dates and could not easily be reversed when it came to AD. In this case the meteorite is essentially destroyed.ROBERT HUTCHISON.Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire. Sir: Miles Kington’s explanation of King Herod’s policy for the 0-2 year olds (22 December), according to recent new evidence from deciphered scrolls, is in doubt. Friction with the air causes the surface to melt and, as above Greenland, a bright fireball is produced. The melt on the surface is carried into the atmosphere and takes the heat with it, and the inside keeps the cold of space.
If the object breaks up or is small, it decelerates, the fireball goes out and it falls to Earth fairly gently, under gravity It would make a shallow pit in soil or ice.

If the object is large – over about 100 tonnes – and stays intact, it is hardly braked by the atmosphere and may strike the surface at hypersonic velocity to produce an explosion crater. When a natural object enters the atmosphere from space, its minimum velocity is about mach 40. Whilst it is certainly not Paddy Ashdown’s style to shun risks, he will expect those risks to be spread. Tony Blair will at least need to back PR in the expected referendum.STEVE HITCHINSLeader, Liberal Democrat Group, Islington CouncilLondon N1. Sir: Charles Arthur (“Search for Greenland’s thunderbolt”, 16 December) perpetuates a popular misconception when he states that “On landing [a meteorite] would be incredibly hot, and melt its way through the icecap” Meteorites are cold when they land Hence they preserve a record of their history in space. In our current electoral system the power of patronage for Cabinet places for individuals from minority parties lies with one party leader. But the not so distant future may bring proportional representation, when it would instead be up to the electorate to confer opportunities for coalitions between parties.

That would mean formal negotiations on agreed programmes, not a blank cheque. And PR-based coalition politics would make merger unnecessary.
If Paddy Ashdown is offered a Cabinet post and accepts it he may make a significant statement about abandoning tribalism in British politics in favour of parties working together, but he will also be judged to have concluded that the Liberal Democrats have reached a high water mark of 46 Commons seats with nowhere else to go.I look forward to some robust negotiations if such an offer is made. Sir: According to Donald Macintyre (“Why Blair will soon invite Ashdown into the Cabinet”, 30 December), Paddy Ashdown and Menzies Campbell would have subjected a post-election Blair offer of Cabinet posts to a test of “What’s in it for the Liberal Democrats?” So why is it unreasonable to ask that question now? For that is the central question all party members will rightly want answered. Sir: It must be a matter of regret for you that some of your readers are capable of, indeed proud of, blatant discrimination against people who happen to have been born in a different place from them. Whether one is born north or south of a particular line in England is no more of a choice than whether one happens to have been born with a different skin colour or gender.
I suppose the best that can be said about your correspondents Derek Magrath and Tom Valentine (Letters, 27 December) is that they had the misfortune to have been raised in that most intolerant of cultures, Yorkshire, and therefore their ignorant bigotry stems from nurture not nature.JOHN DUGGANLondon SW11.