The Blair revolution remains well on course despite charges of complacency, argues Labour's chairman, Charles Clarke. He dismisses the criticisms of Mo Mowlam and others and tells Frank Millar not to expect cabinet rows over how to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein
If Clare Short is the cabinet minister licensed to parade her conscience, Charles Clarke has quickly earned an equally attractive reputation for talking straight and telling things as they are. So, straight to it then.
There is a perception out there that Britain's Labour government has lost its way, is strong on promise but short on delivery, and now - amazingly - is considered as sleazy as the Tories. What does Mr Blair's party chairman say to that?
Unsurprisingly, he finds it "fundamentally untrue". From the outset Labour has had a clear and fundamental purpose: first, to ensure economic stability and growth, try to eradicate poverty, increase employment and keep inflation low. And second, to provide high-quality public services, particularly in the fields of education, health, crime and transport.
"On the first, I don't think anybody could charge we have lost our way. I think we've had a very successful policy. We've gone through a potentially very difficult situation following September 11th where the UK economy is widely believed to be one of the strongest in the world, and throughout it all employment has gone up, inflation has stayed low and so on. I think most people would acknowledge we've been successful economic managers and have delivered increasing prosperity across the country.
"There are major issues in the future, of course, but I think any charge that we've lost our way is without foundation."
But could he make the same claim about the second of those two, about the public services? He does. Invoking the Prime Minister's favourite mantra about the need to "invest and reform", Mr Clarke anticipates the forthcoming spending review will maintain investment in the key services, and says people acknowledge the extra money is going in, while himself acknowledging "differences of perception in some services about how much it's hitting the actual front where the services are delivered."
Having "done very well" in the first term on primary education, they have it "all to do" on secondary education in the second. People see new hospitals being built but now want "to see the doctors and nurses coming on stream from the training courses we've started funding".
While he claims advances in terms of regional transport, Mr Clarke admits "a serious lack of progress" in respect of commuter services into London. And of course street crime has literally shot its way back to the top of the priority list.
With a lot done but a lot more to do, Mr Clarke maintains that Labour has "a good story to tell about what has been achieved and how we're achieving it".
And that's the story on which the electorate will judge the government - not "the media feeding frenzy" over the Mittal affair, or the Moore/Sixsmith tale of warring spin doctors.
Others seem not so sure. A distinguished journalist, Peter Killner, with an inside track to New Labour, this week warned the government on three issues: Mittal (where the PM backed the Labour donor's takeover of the Romanian steel industry), protecting workers rights under public-private partnerships, and the possibility of war against Iraq.
Recalling Mr Blair's "I am a pretty straight sort of guy" declaration soon after entering Downing Street, Kellner observed: "That is not how he looks just now."
The chairman respects Kellner and had read the piece. There was no doubt that that "media frenzy" over issues like Mittal and Moore/Sixsmith (the former was "basically nonsense", the latter "more than nonsense") could "lead to a serious corrosion of trust in key areas" and consequences of the kind described.
"I think the Prime Minister is a straight kind of guy and somebody you can trust, but obviously it's a matter for us to see how we can make sure we do better on that if that perception is about."
Mo Mowlam, once the epitome of New Labour, has been rather less delphic. She quoted a cabinet minister confiding: "People think we're a load of shysters." She claims Blair and Gordon Brown are still fighting over who is in control.
On the euro, she says nobody knows what is happening or cares. And on Iraq, she charges, Labour "seems to be drifting into an offensive war."
"I love Mo," says Mr Clarke: "We've been very good friends for a long period of time."
Unfortunately, however, he hasn't seen his good friend since the last election, and therefore doesn't know how much she's been around or talking to people: "I don't know how much she's in touch with those things. She's a person whose opinions I respect but I don't agree with her on the three points."
Mr Clarke, a famously loyal Blairite, sees no evidence of tension between Brown and Blair, either over the euro or who should be running the government.
As for Iraq: "I don't think anybody's drifting into anything. What we're observing is a range of speculation around various hypotheses, some of which are being advanced by advisers to the White House and others . . . about actions which, according to everything I hear, aren't remotely on the agenda for months into the future."
If it is accepted that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and capacity to use them, and is not prepared to allow inspections, then "we have to consider how to deal with it".
He respects the pacifist view within Labour, but does not share it. Citing the example of Afghanistan, he is certain Mr Blair will again work for "an internationalised response" in the case of Iraq.
He rejects the suspicion of many Labour MPs that this is about the "unfinished business" of the first President Bush. "I don't think you can say that Bush's father is the issue: the issue is Saddam Hussein and how he operates."
And whatever about backbench Labour reluctance to work with a right-wing Republican administration, Mr Clarke says: "I think everybody thinks it's better if the US administration, whatever its colour, works in an internationalised environment and to the extent that George Bush is doing that, and did do that, we welcome it and want to encourage it."
The Labour chairman understands the generalised concern about military action and does not criticise it. However, he does not admit the potential for Mr Blair's biggest rift with his own party. Asserting there is no strand of Labour opinion supportive of Saddam Hussein, he replies "absolutely not" when asked if there is the potential for a cabinet split.
"The reports of cabinet splits and rifts which took place after the meeting we had two weeks ago were seriously over-written."
So he wouldn't anticipate any cabinet resignations? "Not at all," he says, while allowing that all is speculation and everything will turn on decisions finally made.
RECENT speculation has it that some members of the cabinet fancy avoiding the potential damage of a divisive euro referendum by holding it on the same day as the next general election.
Mr Clarke has heard the argument and says he doesn't give it any particular credence: "The idea is certainly not current in government, let me put it like that."
But would he be personally disappointed if the decision was not taken to join the euro before the election? "I'd be more disappointed if we took a decision to go into the euro which was not economically well founded," he says, in deference to Gordon Brown's famous five economic tests.
"If we went into the euro and the economics of it were wrong I think it would be more damaging to the European ideal than delaying a decision to go in until the economics were right."
In addition to his reputation for plain speaking, Charles Clarke's promotion to cabinet has been quickly followed by speculation that he might be a future leadership contender.
Here, he says, we're backto the media gossip circus: "The only time it adds up to a hill of beans is when there's an actual vacancy or something of that kind . . . I personally don't think there will be a vacancy for a very considerable number of years."
Frank Millar is London Editor of The Irish Times