They may be furious with Clare Short. But they should thank her

Clare Short is making waves again. Downing Street is said to be furious with her. In the sunny climes of Seville the men from the Foreign Office are far from pleased. Back in Britain, David Blunkett has hit the roof, having just got down after his previous outburst at the media.

No wonder they are angry. In an interview with me for GMTV's Sunday Programme, the Secretary of State for International Development described a proposal that they had all been floating as "morally repugnant". The proposal – to cut aid from Third World countries that refuse to co-operate with asylum policies – was on the agenda of the EU summit at Seville this weekend. This is hardly an example of collegiate spirit on the part of Ms Short. Even Tony Benn in his more daring days as a cabinet minister did not apply such a damning term to his own Government's policies.

It is not always easy with Ms Short to assess whether such interventions are calculated or are moments of spontaneous candour. I interviewed her shortly before the 1997 election, when she launched an attack on Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson, famously calling them the "people in the dark". At the time, this was the equivalent of a prominent cardinal launching an attack on the Pope. The text of the interview as a whole was a devastating indictment on New Labour, claiming the party had not really changed and questioning whether Tony Blair was in control or being controlled by those "people in the dark".

Yet the attack was made with considerable skill. She did not mention Campbell or Mandelson by name. She avoided a direct blow against Tony Blair, one that would have given him no choice but to sack her. She got her views out, purged her frustrations, and was still in her job. There was considerable thought given to the spontaneity.

In taking on the titans in Downing Street and other government departments over the aid for asylum policy, Ms Short, I suspect, is again being calculatingly spontaneous. The interview for The Sunday Programme was mainly about the need for affluent countries to do more for Africa. Only when asked about the proposal to cut aid did the Secretary of State leap. But it is the view of those raging against her this weekend that she had planned to kill off the proposal the moment that she heard about it.

In which case Ms Short should take a bow. The proposal was not only morally questionable, it was silly. Like some of the populist proposals that occasionally float out of Downing Street, this one would have had the bizarre consequence of undermining government policy. Indeed Ms Short could argue that in calling one government policy "repugnant" she is defending other government policies. In her calculating spontaneity she has probably thought of this.

With some cause Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Clare Short have made much of the Government's relative generosity in giving aid to Third World countries and in leading the way on reducing debt. Aid organisations, highly critical of some aspects of government policy, acknowledge the unusual commitment of the trio (previously, the Third World was usually a matter for an obscure junior minister toiling away in the Foreign Office). If the proposal on asylum/aid had been implemented, the Prime Minister would have celebrated his Government's contribution to combating poverty on the one hand, while taking away some of the cash with the other. More perversely, taking away money and destabilising a precarious Third World economy would lead to more migrants rather than fewer. Mr Blair's hands would have been waving in different directions again, heralding an anti-asylum policy that created more asylum-seekers.

But there is a wider issue here, one that goes well beyond this particular proposal. There are considerable doubts within parts of the Cabinet about Mr Blair's response to the rise of the right in Europe. This is a strategic dispute of supreme importance. The Prime Minister's instincts are to march on to the right's terrain and make sure the likes of the BNP or the Conservative Party cannot occupy it. As part of that strategy, he tends to favour headline-grabbing initiatives that prove the Government is being tough on asylum-seekers, or on crime. Until the fear of "spin-mania'" took hold in Downing Street the Home Office was being bombarded with demands for anti-crime initiatives, however tiny they would turn out to be in reality. Similarly, hitting countries where it hurts on asylum also has a populist ring to it. Who needs the right when the Government is acting tough?

There are some in the Cabinet who are uneasy about this strategy. Gordon Brown is almost certainly one of them. Probably he is one of the few senior cabinet ministers who is not cursing Clare Short this weekend. My guess is that, like her, he would have been wary of a proposal that threatened to undermine other initiatives in the Third World. More widely Mr Brown and Ms Short, who are strong allies, are part of a cabinet group that questions whether taking on the right in this way risks legitimising the very forces that the Government is attempting to undermine.

I detected similar tensions when the Prime Minister raised his proposal to take housing benefit from the parents of kids who play truant. Several ministers told me that the proposal was unworkable and that they worried about the broader tactics of adopting a right-wing posture in order to beat the right-wingers.

In my view there is another, more tangible, danger inherent in the recent spate of silly policies. They tend to obscure the important arguments that lie behind them. Mr Blair is right to link welfare payments to the attitudes of those who receive them. But the policies have to be practical or else this potentially fruitful connection will not be made. Similarly, pouring money into developing countries without significant internal reforms is fruitless. But silly policies, linking aid with asylum policy, get in the way of that connection.

So although ministers are hopping mad with Ms Short, she has done them a favour. Perhaps she should be made minister for silly policies, licensed to point out silliness whenever it threatens to undermine the Government's own policies. In the meantime, she is safe in her job as she knew she would be when she made a stir. If Mr Blair ever dared to contemplate sending her to the back benches – which I doubt – Mr Brown would rush to her defence.

She could also add in her defence that it is better to stop silly policies in advance than to be forced to withdraw them at a later stage and apologise for the U-turn. She would be unwise to make this argument to Mr Blunkett this weekend, though. He is angry enough already.