Tony Blair is much more in the middle now but I would not have voted for Neil
“Tony Blair is much more in the middle now, but I would not have voted for Neil Kinnock.”Mr Thompson’s disenchantment reflects the findings of an opinion poll at the weekend which suggested that Labour could win a comfortable majority on 27 February. But as the poll also hinted he is not so sure who to vote for in the general election – though he will probably still opt for Labour.Many Tories have still to make up their mind. Brian Sumner, 49, a clerk, is concerned about the NHS, and also law and order. “The health service seems to be deteriorating and it appears more dangerous as far as policing is concerned.
I fear that the fabric of society is beginning to crumble at the edges,” he says.But as a new homeowner, Mr Sumner is unsure what a change of government might bring. “Is the cost of living going to rise under a Labour government? Will interest rates go up? I just don’t know who to believe.”The Conservatives have fought the campaign by trying to localise national issues and in particular have hammered aggressively on the likely fate of grammar schools in the constituency under a Labour government. Helen Owen, 35, a Labour voter, said grammar schools were the first issue raised at her door by a Tory canvasser, who said the schools’ fate would be uncertain under a Blair administration “Doesn’t that worry you?” he asked her. After a brief conversation the canvasser left telling her: “You should stay indoors more and watch more TV.”Mrs Owens said: “I was quite surprised by the attitude. He was quite rude.”Though the strategy has provoked a further “clarification” of Labour’s stance on selective schools and despite claims by the Conservative candidate Les Byrom that the message is getting through, The Independent found little evidence that the grammar school debate is influencing votes – though many voters were worried about the general standard of education.One Tory supporter who asked not to be named said it would not decide her vote “What worries me is John Major. He is just a puppet.”Roy Clarke, 51, an engineer, once voted Conservative but now feels they have gone too far over privatisation and sees Labour as a party of moderation and Conservative values – with a small c. “The unions needed taming but the Tories are now out of touch.
They call themselves Conservatives but they are the radicals.”There is a feeling among Labour voters that the tide is turning their way and claim that friends and family are helping switch votes. Andrew McGuffie, 52, an insurance agent, said: “My father-in-law has always voted Conservative. He is now talking about voting Labour.”Yet many Conservatives are finding it hard to contemplate changing sides despite their anger at the party. Ivor and Helen Pierce said they would “grudgingly” vote for John Major again even though they did not much like him.
They said they did not trust Tony Blair.Such die-hard sentiments are the reason why Labour activists caution against too much optimism in a seat which does not feature in their list of “must-win” target constituencies for the general election. But in their more sanguine moments they are hoping that the voters of Bebington might just swing it for them.. Russia yesterday threatened that it might use nuclear weapons pre-emptively in future conflicts, in response to conventional attack. The move was clearly designed to put increased pressure on Nato at the start of historic negotiations about alliance expansion to the east and a linked Nato-Russia charter.
Ivan Rybkin, the Secretary of Russia’s Security Council, told the Rossiiskaya gazeta daily that “in case of a direct challenge our response will be fully-fledged, and we will choose the means – including nuclear weapons”.The announcement was reported as a threat to end Russia’s policy of “no first use of nuclear weapons”, though many Western observers doubt whether it ever really had such a policy. There had already been indications that the idea, based on a promise by Mikhail Gorbachev, was abandoned in Russia’s 1993 military doctrine.The 1993 doctrine implied that nuclear states or states allied to them might be nuclear targets, whether or not they used nuclear weapons first. Yesterday’s statement was clearly directed against neighbouring countries like Poland which, if it joined Nato, would be an ally of nuclear states.Such a policy makes sense, given the appalling weakness and decomposition of Russia’s conventional forces, with low morale and troops unpaid for months. Officers are now failing to turn up for work in order to earn money elsewhere.In such circumstances, any serious attack on Russia could force the Russians to respond with nuclear weapons which intelligence sources say are still carefully controlled, despite last week’s reports to the contrary.But diplomatic and Nato sources believe yesterday’s statement forms part of a classic Russian negotiating technique.
At the Madrid summit in July, Nato is likely to issue invitations to some east European countries – including Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, to join. The Russians like to take the strategic offensive – establishing an extreme forward position – and then exploit the tactical advantages of the defensive.Negotiations between Nato’s Secretary-General Javier Solana and the Russians started on 20 January. Since then, the Russians have made a series of statements designed to alert the West to their predicament.On Friday, the Secretary of the Defence Council, Yuri Baturin, and the Defence Minister, Igor Rodionov, said the nuclear forces were in danger of going out of control.Russia has between 7,000 and 8,000 strategic nuclear weapons and an estimated 2,000 tactical warheads. But the Russians will strive to keep control over these weapons above all others. Western experts dismissed the claims as exaggerated, while admitting that the disintegration of conventional forces could make nuclear first-use more likely.In fact, nuclear weapons security is still the responsibility of the FSB (heir to the KGB) which receives better pay and conditions than the armed forces.
