by Kieran Meeke
The Metro
4 November 2004
Clare Short has been MP for Birmingham Ladywood since 1983. Following Labour's creation of the Department For International Development, she became its first Secretary Of State. She controversially resigned from the Cabinet in protest at the war in Iraq, the background to which she covers in her new book, An Honourable Deception?
An Honourable Deception - a bit too nuanced a title for our sound-bite culture, perhaps?
The problem is that, when you say it, it hasn't got the question mark in it. People ask: 'But why did he [Tony Blair] deceive?' And I really think he must have thought: 'I'm doing the right thing and it's right engaging in these half-truths and deceptions to get the country to war.' I'm trying to tell people this is how it happened and ask: 'What do you think? Should we allow our political system to run like this?'
Is Blair the best or the worst thing to come out of the Labour Party? Or both?
A very complicated and damaging thing. The evidence is overwhelming that Labour would have won under John Smith but the New Labour propaganda says it's only Blair who brought in the victory. There's no doubt that Blair brought in extra votes but the price was the concentration of power, the personalisation of power, the trashing of democratic traditions in the Labour Party. That concentration of power leads to errors. Iraq shows that. Top-up fees and other things, too.
Was Iraq a legal war?
Kofi Annan said recently that it was illegal. Most of Britain's international lawyers think that Tony's advice was wrong. That will go on being contested. Is it a safe system having the attorney general appointed by the Prime Minister and accountable to him? We're going to have to look at that.
About a million people came to London to protest against the war but they couldn't stop it. You and Robin Cook left the Cabinet and couldn't stop it. Is it time to give up on democracy?
There were more than a million there - the largest demonstration ever in British history. No, it's time to look at our political institutions. Our electoral system exaggerates majorities massively. So, in 2001, Labour was the largest single party but, for every five votes cast for Labour, seven were cast for other parties and yet we had a 68 per cent majority in the Commons. That exaggerated majority not reflecting the opinion of the country - it happened under Thatcher and it's happened under Blair - creates enormous arrogance about power and lack of consultation.
Our system should offer subtle checks and balances, yet the pendulum massively swung from Thatcher to New Labour. Why?
But it hasn't swung in the opposite direction, has it? The Tories are a very poor opposition and one of their problems is that Blair keeps stealing their clothes. One of the frustrations with the country, the majority of whom think they were deceived on Iraq, is that there is no opposition to vote for. People are buying political books, but they're not going to party political meetings. They're talking about it at the kitchen table, but they're feeling contemptuous about our political arrangements because they don't see a way of correcting it immediately.
Would things improve with Gordon Brown as Prime Minister?
We should have Brown, not because I like him better than Blair, but we need a change to correct what's gone wrong. Brown has a stronger feeling of social justice both internationally and at home and a commitment to Labour's history. It's just not true that he's Old Labour and that we would be going back 20 or 30 years. It would also give us a chance to modify our policy on Iraq and the Middle East, which we need because it's a mess.
Is it true to say that people voted overwhelmingly for New Labour because they wanted rid of Thatcherism and they've ended up with Thatcherism-lite?
People voted for big change in 1997 and didn't get the change they expected and there is an overwhelming sense of disappointment. They got some change. Unemployment was a big part of Thatcher's years, especially in my city. We got rid of high unemployment, we've got the minimum wage, we've got improvements on education and health, so there are some things that are distinctly different. But lots of other stuff hasn't changed in the way that people hoped and there is a sense of disappointment out there.
Should one of the changes be that people get to elect the Prime Minister?
Well, that would make it into a presidential system. I think we need to have a prime ministerial system but we need to change the electoral system so the PM couldn't take the Commons for granted and would have to consult Parliament. He would have to respect the Cabinet as a way to keep Parliament in line. The alternative is a presidential system - and, of course, Blair is behaving in a presidential way - where we directly elect the president and then have a Parliament that checks the president. We should do one or the other. We're stuck with the automatic majority of a parliamentary system and the concentration of power of a presidential system and we haven't got enough checks.
Is monarchy part of the problem or part of the solution?
There are some who think we should get rid of the Royal Family completely. I'm not one of those. I think we should slim it down and send the young ones to work and get them to pay taxes. I don't think it does any harm. It's part of our history and our institutions.
People placed a lot of hope in John Kerry. Do you think he could have made a difference had he been elected?
It would have given us the chance for a fresh start; he kept on stressing that he wanted to work with the international community on Iraq, Kyoto and international criminal court and other important things. It would have given us a chance to reconsider Iraq policy. And he talked about an exit strategy, whereas the Bush administration wants long-term bases in Iraq and that was made clear before they took power, which I think means long-term resistance and occupation. I think it was not the automatic answer, because Kerry's speeches on Israel and the Palestinian question, which is one of the core problems of the anger in the Middle East, were almost as bad as Bush's. So he was not the magic answer.
Why do the Americans want long-term bases in Iraq? Is it so they can move out of Saudi Arabia?
Yes, absolutely.
Isn't that a concession to terrorism?
Well, no. To be fair, the neo-conservatives - Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and so on - wrote a document about American military strategy before they went into power. It said, besides getting rid of Saddam Hussein, they want long-term bases in the Gulf. And, of course, because Saudi Arabia is the land of the most sacred places in Islam, it is seen as offensive to have American bases there. It's what would be the equivalent of having military bases in Vatican City, for example. And they were only there from the time of the first Gulf War. So they wanted long-term bases, not in Saudi Arabia, and they thought Iraq would be the place and they misled themselves into thinking that the attack on the Twin Towers meant they could walk in.
If you ruled the world, what would be your first three laws?
Get rid of all the targets that are a dead weight on doctors and teachers and police. There is far too much bureaucracy in our public services. It's killing people. That's one. I would also change the electoral system so that Parliament reflected a bit more of the country and therefore the Government would have to listen to Parliament and you would have a real Cabinet.
Would you take the Whip away?
I think that change in the electoral system would weaken the Whip. The Whip is powerful because more than half the votes are there for Labour and, therefore, the Prime Minister has all the patronage. If they don't keep their noses clean they don't get anything, and that gives the Whip his power. So changing the electoral system is my way of making MPs have more of a voice. That's two. The third thing I would do is re-focus Britain's foreign policy from being the best friend of America to being the voice of strong multilateral institutions, just cause for trade, stronger UN, progress and development. That is the only way to govern this post-Cold War world. We could be a leading player in building that new consensus instead of the transparent fig leaf that we are.
What are you proudest of personally and politically?
Politically, I'm proud of my six years at the head of the Department For International Development. We were very influential internationally, giving the whole system more focus on the systematic reduction of poverty. Personally, I am most happy about the return of my son, but that is the other side of the terrible error of him being adopted when he was a baby.
