Interview with GMTV's Sunday Programme

Could I begin by asking you for your reaction to the terrorist attacks in Istanbul, and what the implications of those attacks are?

I think we've got an unfolding and cumulating tragedy that is dreadful for everyone in the world, that was predicted by many, many serious people before the Iraq war, if the problem of Iraq was mishandled, and that is that it would create more anger and act as a recruiting sergeant for Al Quaeda-linked organisations, because clearly it's not one thing. I think that's what's happening, and it's dreadful, and the risks of death and suffering and more bitterness and division are very serious for the world.

So you make a connection with the war against Iraq, because Tony Blair and others have been quite emphatic that they see no connection between the two?

Well ... he would, wouldn't he? He couldn't conceivably see a connection without the implication that he might have been part of mishandling the situation. The International Institute for Strategic Studies did a report a month or so ago saying "there's little doubt that Iraq and the way it was handled has led to an increase in recruitment to Al Quaeda-linked organisations" – this isn't contentious. It's a tragedy. I think that really, the thing that all decent people have got to work for is that people who feel angry about injustice in the Middle East, the failure of the US to use its influence to get a decent settlement – Israel-Palestine – and get a safe state for the Palestinian people alongside a safe Israel, need to find a way forward that isn't either being drawn to the excesses of Al Quaeda or having to go with Bush – Blair. We need a decent settlement, we need a place for all people who know the Middle East is unjust and being mishandled, to come together and demand a just settlement.

So what do you think was in Tony Blair's mind on this issue? We know your view about the weapons of mass destruction, but this is something different. We know he received intelligence warning him that the war could actually heighten the terrorist threat; why given that warning, do you think he still proceeded and still insists now that it was "the right thing to do"?

I think, number one, if you've made a mistake, a spectacular mistake like this, you either have to go away and crawl and hide in a hole, or you have to keep saying you did the right thing – so he has to keep saying it, doesn't he. Secondly I think what's notable is, if you go and read the writings of the neo-conservatives in America, which have been proved to be really foolish in Iraq, in their sort of first test – Tony has swallowed the whole argument, and it really is, it's about the Middle East, and it pretends to be about democracy and decency, but we know America has used its influence to not have democracies in the Middle East, because democracy in the Middle East would be anti-American and anti-Israeli. The neo-Cons are about allowing Israel to dominate the Middle East, and taking out any state that can threaten them, instead of getting a settlement, two states, and then getting all the WMD out of the region. And despite the comments Tony Blair makes about the road map, but does nothing about it, I think he's swallowed the neo-Cons argument, and he's with their mistakes. They talk "democracy, liberty, democracy, liberty", but actually it isn't justice for all people, and equal respect, and that's why it's going to exacerbate tensions until some better leadership comes along out of the US and understands that the way the world will deal with Al Quaeda is going for justice, and a settlement of the Palestinian case in the Middle East, and then getting the whole world to co-operate and stop the excesses of this Al Quaeda organisation. At the moment, everyone's who's angry about the Middle East is sort of being thrown into their arms, and that's terribly dangerous.

It's interesting that you believe that he's genuinely swallowed their arguments. Is he on one level, now, in your view, a neo-Conservative himself?

I think yes, and it sort of suits Tony. He wants to be sort of messianic, and say everything's about moral principle. He likes to be sort of right-wing, and he's quite shallow. I think he's very pro-American, pro-American in his DNA as they say. He's just taken this in, hook, line and sinker. He can say all the nice words – it's not thought through. I don't think he means the kind of dreadful consequences that it's bringing – I think he just hasn't thought through the consequences thoroughly.

How serious do you think Istanbul is in terms of it being a marker – that opponents of the war like yourself warned of the dangers of Britain becoming a target? How significant in that context do you view what happened in Istanbul?

Well I think it's a continuation of what's happening in Iraq; and let me be clear: opponents of the war like me were for dealing with the crisis in Iraq, and not having another 12 years of sanctions, and not allowing Saddam Hussein to go on and on defying the UN and hurting his people. But I was for dealing with it properly, and not being dishonest about it, not having to rush, and attending to Israel-Palestine as we went forward on dealing with Iraq. So let's be clear, because people are now trying to pretend that those who say "you didn't handle it right" wanted Saddam Hussein to go on forever – that is not the case. But I see Istanbul as a continuation of what's happening in Iraq, and the horrible suicide bombs there – don't forget, the attack on the UN, the attack on the Red Cross, all sorts of other attacks that have killed lots of Iraqi people, as well as lots of UN people and Red Cross people. And then what's going on in Saudi Arabia, I see this as the danger of a growing, growing disorder, violence, killing, bitterness that will spread and grow, destabilise across the world, create more bitter division ... very dangerous. A tragedy. Bad leadership – Bush-Blair, terrible errors, and the sooner we can correct and come back to justice for the Middle East, settle Israel-Palestine, let Iraqi people lead the rebuilding of their country and stop trying to control and manipulate them to get the democratic outcome you want, we'll be able to pull back from the ever-growing confrontation that otherwise is going to hurt people right across the world.

We should say in fairness that the Government has said very, very strongly that September 11th happened before the war against Iraq – that this was a huge issue anyway. Have they not got a point there?

I've just said that. I just said ... . oh, well, of course the American people were absolutely lied to, and I think 70% of them still believe that September 11th was organised out of Iraq, and that was Vice President Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld and so on ... gave that impression to the American people – so, unsurprising then that they thought they had to deal with Iraq. Iraq was a separate issue, and yet we know that Rumsfeld, immediately after September 11th, went into meetings and said "right – time to deal with Iraq now". So the neo-Cons had Iraq on their agenda, and wanted to use the excuse of the crisis of September 11th to go for regime change in Iraq. And they've done it in this reckless "rush the war" ... dividing the international community in a way that exacerbated tension and is damaging to Iraqi people, American soldiers, threatens and has taken the life of some of our soldiers, and has made the Middle East more tense and dangerous.

Could we move on to some of the domestic items that will be raging – we've got the Queen's Speech coming up this week and so on. First of all, one issue that's going to clearly dominate the latter stages of this Parliament is Europe – not the euro, but the revised constitution. Is it your view that it's fine for it to be ratified by Parliament, and for it to reach legislative form in that way, or do you share any doubts as to whether that is the right way to proceed?

Personally, I think we should remain part of Europe, and I think the widening of Europe and the drawing-in of the Balkans, and the attractiveness of Europe, taking the poison out of the history of ethnic hatred in the Balkans, is a wonderful aspect of the European project. But I think, juts to debate on the constitution and growing integration is not enough. The people of Europe are going off bureaucratic Europe, Europe regulating everything – sausages, ice cream – trying to control, control. I think we need a debate about what kind of Europe, and the people of Europe need to express their doubts. It's not just in Britain – I think the referendum in Sweden is significant. So I'm torn on the question of the referendum. I mean those who are against Europe are calling for it, but all across Europe the people are going to have referendums, and to say the people of Britain can't have an intelligent discussion about what kind of Europe, what's the role of Europe, where do you get subsidiarity, and where are we multilateralist, globally – I think we need a discussion that's not taking place, and, I don't know, I'm going to work at trying to find the space for that. But part of me say if you can't win a referendum across Europe, then the European elite is not getting the European project right, and I fear that and think that.

So, given that, you think there is a strong case for a referendum here?

I haven't concluded, but I think that those who just dismiss it ... I don't think that's good enough. How can it be that it's right for most people in Europe, but British people can't have a referendum? And we know that pro-Europeans are scared of a referendum because they're scared they wouldn't win it. Now, I'm not sure of that. I think if we can make an intelligent case, you can win it. I remember the Harold Wilson referendum – we started off in Britain being against, we had an intelligent debate, and the country very decisively was "for". So I think if the elite hangs on to Europe, and says everything's perfect when it isn't, and the bureaucracy in it and so on, and the fraud and the lack of clarity of how Europe fits into a stronger, multilateral global order – I think Europe will just stumble and get into more and more trouble, which I think it's going to as it widens. I think it's going to find a lot of difficulty making decisions and running itself in an effective way.

What's your broad assessment of the Government, vis-à-vis its domestic agenda with the Queen's Speech this week; we know roughly what's going to be in it – top up fees, more asylum measures and crime measures and so on. What do you think it tells us about the broad direction of the Government?

I'm afraid that I think Blair is making comparable mistakes on the domestic agenda as he's just made so spectacularly internationally. The foundation hospital thing is just not thought through – it's hubris, second term, a few clever advisors come up with an idea, ignore everyone who works in the health service, ignore all the doubts of the Parliamentary Party, don't consult, shove it through. Same with top-up fees, and I'm afraid our handling of asylum is a mixture of incompetence and bureaucratic inefficiency, so that the Home Office is incapable of saying no to people who clearly aren't qualified very quickly, and then absolute cruelty to people who are here from destroyed countries across the world and want to work. I'm afraid we're going to get just more cruelty that will be very shameful, and I'm very worried about losing a sense of judgement and getting total hubris, and trying to just drive anyone who doesn't agree out of the way, rather than listen.

When you resigned you made clear then that for his own sake, in your view, Tony Blair should stand down, for his own reputation. But I get the impression listening to you now that your worry is that if he stays on it's going to do damage to the Government and the Labour Party?

I think it's for everybody's sake. I think for his sake, because there's a lot of things he can proudly say he's achieved, and if we get a new leader we can correct the mistakes. I think the Labour Government has been tarnished and damaged really quite badly, and there's a lot of deep, deep unhappiness in the Parliamentary Party and on the ground – people are leeching away and leaving. And I think it's damaging the Government of Britain. I think we've got classical second term hubris. There's shades of what happened to Thatcher. I feel very worried about where we are, and the Government and the Labour Party and Tony losing his way very badly.

What do you say to those – and there'll be some in the Labour Party watching – who say "Clare Short is handing the initiative to Michael Howard just when he's on a roll by criticising Blair and the Government in this way"?

I think that's nonsense. I think it's better for us to have a stronger Opposition, I really do – I think arrogance got into the Government, and arrogance always leads to mistakes, so having stronger Tory Opposition will test the Government more, and therefore hopefully improve it. But I think honestly if Tony could step down with some dignity, we could get anew leader and we'd be like a new Government. Remember when Thatcher went to Major? And I think we could win easily. I think if Tony hangs on, it'll be a sort of tired, cynical election with a very low Labour turnout and a struggle, and a lot of despondency. And I think next June's elections are going to be very difficult too.

In what sense?

Well, we've got European elections all over the country and we've got all councillors out in all the big cities because there's been boundary reorganisations, rather than a third – a third – a third, and I think we'll lose control of many many cities in Britain. The electorate will give us a kick in that classical way that they do to Governments they're getting fed-up with before they make up their mind what they want to do in a General Election. So I think that's coming, and I'm fearful that we'll lose Birmingham, for example.

Do you think, though, that politics is curious at the moment – you've made these criticisms, and no doubt some would agree with them, yet come the General Election there is a widespread assumption that if Tony Blair stays, he will win, and the polls point to that as well – and so that in spite of all those concerns, you're talking about someone who most people will assume will lead Labour into a third election victory?

I think there's a lot of complacency in that assumption. I think strange things are going on in politics – break-up, disgruntlement – I think, the traditional Labour vote – you can't take it for granted any more. I think you could get very low turnout, you could get ... I don't know. I think taking it for granted that Labour's got a third term is very dangerous, and we shouldn't treat the electorate like that. It was very much the mood of the Blair speech at Conference, and the general mood of the Labour Party at Conference. It's possible for Labour to win a third term. I think if Blair goes on we could win with a very, very much reduced majority – but something strange could happen as well. Don't take it for granted – never take the electorate for granted. Politics is breaking up, new things are going on. I don't know how it's going to break, but you can feel the difference.

Clare Short, thanks very much indeed.