The paradox is that Tony Blair and his party are now so far ahead

The paradox is that Tony Blair and his party are now so far ahead that they can afford to have a frank and open conversation with voters. Indeed, they would benefit by doing so, and so would our democracy.This huge lead could be an excuse for Mr Blair and his colleagues to slam down the hatches, dive dive dive, order battle silence, and then surface to celebrate watching the whole Tory fleet go down around them. But what about the rest of us? We want - need - to know what Labour intends in power. Instead of clamming up, Labour should open up - use its advantage to prepare us for Blair's Britain Warn us about the difficulties that lie ahead. Invite us to understand the harder choices that must be made. Voters will, if anything, feel flattered at not being taken for granted.

And they will be less shocked when Labour in power turns out to have a new and unexpected face. Good government will mean educating people about how much can be afforded, and what a government can accomplish, over how long.Labour should behave like an agent who has won the contract, but needs to show how keen she is to close the sale Voters are clearly saying they want a change. But government is not just about laying out a pitch, making sure to keep your tie straight and never saying anything except the obvious. It is about re-educating a country in Labour's view of the potential for change. Wirral South means Labour can anticipate government with some confidence It shows that Labour has done enough to get elected Enough, however, is not enough.. Sir: Dr Dunrabin of St Edmund Hall, Oxford (letter, 24 February) mistakes the occasion and character of the West's undertaking not to advance Nato eastwards. It was made during discussions about the reunification of Germany, by John Major as Foreign Secretary and James Baker as US Secretary of State.

Unfortunately for the Russians it was made "informally", not written down or recorded in any subsequent aide-memoire, let alone treaty, and therefore neither the British nor the American government consider themselves bound by it. I put down a question in the House of Lords about this, after Russian officials had begun complaining about it - including Mr Gorbachev in London last year - and the answer came from the Foreign Office that there was no "formal undertaking". There was no denial of the informal undertaking, of which the Russians have apparently produced a rather confused tape.That the Russians should have thought an Englishman's - or an American's - word might still be his bond showed naivety and a lack of diplomatic professionalism. All the same, there is a sense of betrayal, and it is no wonder they are not too keen now on any simple "political charter" with Nato which might turn out no more binding than this other "political" undertaking.Lord KENNETHouse of Lords. Sir: Stephen Goodwin reports (22 February) that WG Armstrong was "suspected of pirating" the Victorian gun barrel design of Captain Alexander Blakely. This "tale of murky dealing in the arms trade" seems more appropriate to a Tod Slaughter melodrama than to historical fact. Armstrong addressed the problem of artillery design at the request of the Duke of Newcastle, Minister of War, in December 1854.