Why I'm glad Clare Short spoke her mind

Whatever you think of Saddam Hussein, you have to admire just how far his reach extends over both international affairs and British domestic politics. First, he has managed to divide the United Nations – possibly ending forever the post-war international system for conflict resolution. Then he indirectly wrecked Nato, which failed to agree to support Turkey in its request for assistance. He has ensured that a chasm exists in the already fraught relationship between France and the United States. The prospects for the Entente Cordiale, let alone the wider relationship between the UK and the European Union, do not look too rosy. And any hope of a common European foreign and defence policy is completely dashed for a generation.

But the trouble Saddam has created among Western allies is also matched by the domestic political anarchy he has caused for the British Prime Minister and his relationship with Labour MPs and public opinion. Finally, indirectly, he has damaged the cornerstone of British constitutional practice: collective cabinet responsibility.

Until Clare Short's radio interview on Sunday evening, it has been a cardinal principle, taught to students in every university politics course, and observed in practice by every politician, that once a decision has been taken in cabinet, all ministers pay public lip service to the policy, albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Any public opposition from a minister concludes with an immediate resignation.

I cannot recall any occasion, either from my experience as an MP or as a student or observer of politics, when a minister – either of cabinet rank or down to the most junior unpaid parliamentary private secretary – would have been allowed, publicly, to accuse a Prime Minister of behaving "recklessly" without being dismissed instantly.

It may be that, sooner or later, Ms Short will leave the Government, either at a time of her or Tony Blair's choosing. But the fact that she was not fired on Monday morning means that a new constitutional reality has been publicly acknowledged by Mr Blair, one which may require a re-writing of the textbooks. In future, ministers may argue with each other and with the Prime Minister in public. And so what? Perhaps, in the name of open government, it is time anyway to dispose of collective responsibility for the fiction and sham that it has probably always been.

History records hundreds of occasions when cabinet battles over a variety of issues have taken place. Votes in cabinet are not usually taken. Prime Ministers traditionally sum up the debates and conclusions, sometimes by a weird process of osmosis, are arrived at. But the old methods of leaks, briefing and counter-briefing, reinforced more recently by spin doctors, have often led to headlines screaming "cabinet splits" or "Blair at bay". These have given us a sense of the fierce disagreements which have always existed.

We know from his memoirs that Nigel Lawson, the chancellor in Margaret Thatcher's government, disagreed with the poll tax – although he eventually resigned over a conflict with her economic adviser. We sense that Gordon Brown is at odds with Alan Milburn over foundation hospitals and with Charles Clarke over university tuition fees. But officially, in all these cases, while ministers continue in office, they are signed up to the collective policy. Would it not be more honest for ministers to say, publicly, as Ms Short has done, that they do not always support every dot and comma of the Prime Minister's or the cabinet's policy?

Perhaps we should adopt the procedures of the Monetary Policy Committee which produces, a month afterwards, the minutes of its regular meetings to decide the level of interest rates; these also list the way each of its members voted. Resignations are not required from those in the minority. It would be more honest if minutes of cabinet discussions, recording objections of ministers to a course of action, were also to be made public. And it would help to restore the reputations of ministers if they were seen as more than a bunch of "yes" men or women.

Mr Blair was right not to sack Ms Short. Everyone knows that she has always had a certain licence to speak her mind. That is why she has proved to be such an asset to the Government and so exceptionally good at her job. Ms Short is in the Mo Mowlem category of politicians – admired by much of the general public. The Prime Minister looks bigger by tolerating her dissent and although some say he dare not sack her because he is in a weak position I think he looks stronger by keeping her.

But why should the licence to be honest and truthful be confined to just one minister? Would it really shake democracy and accountability if private differences in cabinet could be more publicly aired? It diminishes ministers when they are on the airwaves pretending that a recent remark from one of their colleagues is not a difference of opinion, when it patently is.

The modern media age requires ministers to be more candid than their predecessors. For some time, the suspicion of the Prime Minister's "presidential" power has undermined the concept of collective cabinet decisions. Perhaps the quid pro quo is for cabinet ministers to enhance their authority by arguing out their case – in public if necessary – without the threat of dismissal or resignation.

mrbrown@pimlico.freeserve.co.uk