ridicule by the Tory press: under fire heralded arms policy savaged by Times.
Telegraph.
The reason Labour go tself in the mess, and Kir nock made his ridiculous remarks about 'occupation', is built into the very core of Labour's present defence policy. defence campaign grounded in its support for NATO. That is, it actually the ridiculous nonsense, which believed by a single NATO general incidentally, that there is a Soviet threat to attack Western Europe or 'occupy' Britain.
Given that policy accepts point the Tories are able to tie Kinnock in knots. Their manifesto explains: "The determination of other countries to improve their defence - in Cruise and Perming of missiles - has brought the Soviet Union back to the tables made possible progress on arms control... Kinnock's 'Dad's Army' interview. Asked on a TV-AM show of Sunday 24 Mey how Labou's convencupation totally untenable.' This led to immediate 'Dad's Army Kinnock the Daily Mail.
opponents' crowed the 'Attacks on "guerilla" Kinnock' jibed the threatening Soviet hordes.
The lily-livered would not only render us powerless before Soviet threat but remove the proceen ol 'friends' the loving United States.
During the campaign further refinehave been added The Tory manifesto's section • defence 'The first duty of government is the defence of the realm and the preservation of peace. Nuclear weapons are vital to that task. In the 40 years since 1945, more than people have died in wars around the globe. But there nas been peace in Europe 'Conventional weaDOIS • 610 not succeed in deterring war. But nuclear weapols lave preventea. not only nuclear war, but conventional Woll Europe as well. A strong defence policy has be the most effective peace policy.' Others have joined in the attack. In the wake of we wads Army attacks on defence policy, the Guardian editorial developed this theme. 'If they are honest, those who answer yes (to nuclear disarmament) will admit that •decision carries a high cost.
It does make the risk - no, the probability of conventional greater. It must mean that, saving DUllIC change in human nature, future generations will see their homes and families devastated again: even in Europe.
Not only is Thatcher trying to present herself as a'strong' leader of a party with 'strong' policies, but beginning to develop case tha "weapo bies not only but lead to war.
course, are nonsense.
Soviet Union has never invaded anyone in Europe, although it itself has twice been invaded by the west - once by Britain and the United States after the revolution then Nazi Germany War Neither has the Soviet Union any purpose Western Europe. motive for attacking It is the Soviet Union which is trying to bring nuclear negotiating table' by offering to limit types weapons, nuclear and conventional Europe. The USSR doing so against the tide of pro-nuclea propaganda which resurfaced in Feb ruary of this year onwards response Gor bachev's offers. It is the West which is stocking up nuclea anna ens creating the war threat. Alternative The truth IS that Labour will never get its 'defence' policies across so as main framework is pro-NATO alle pro-American Spokespeople like Denzi ridiculous inanities putting the nuclear disarmament case, like explaining that Ronald thinks nuclear weapons are immoral! He should be explaining that It is the United States which is the threat to peace In fact, despite 40 cold war years, Thatcher's anti-Soviet, pro-nuclear policies popular. Guardian
----- pull-quotes -----
LABOUR SCORED the first serious 'own goal' of its campaign with what has now become termed Neil
tional forces would combat a nuclear war in Europe, Neil Kinnock replied 'you've got to make any oc-
Reagan, Thatcher et al to 'the