Labour bruiser charged with enforcing the party line

Charles Clarke's analysis of the bellicose rhetoric of the US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, and the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, is a reminder, if one were needed, that the Labour chairman is an election-minded politician to his fingertips.

Anticipating the passions over Iraq that will be aroused at Labour's annual conference, beginning tomorrow, he gently raises a possible motive for the more bloodcurdling language of Washington's hawks.

"Some people have said to me that some of the language in the summer was directly intended to boost Republican prospects in the mid-term elections [in November]," he says. He can't vouch for it because he hasn't met either Mr Cheney or Mr Rumsfeld. "But I think that is a possible explanation for some of the rhetoric. What I say is: judge by the actions. And the actions of the American administration have not been isolationist but have been trying to work in an internationalised environment."

Mr Clarke believes that Tony Blair should take much, if not all, of the credit for George Bush's decision to go to the United Nations and argues that this is a "key point" – not least in easing some of the worst fears of Labour activists.

Refreshingly, he doesn't attempt to paper over the differences of approach between the UK and the US. Yes, Mr Blair has emphasised that the destruction of Saddam Hussein's arsenal is the "absolutely dominant concern". Mr Clarke adds: "To get rid of the weapons of mass destruction it is probably – and I emphasise probably – necessary to have regime change. But it is not absolutely necessary to have regime change and it is possible for Saddam, fearing for the consequences if he doesn't go along with the UN, to change his behaviour."

President Bush, the Labour chairman believes, is no longer the same candidate who fought Al Gore. "George Bush was elected on a very isolationist 'America first' manifesto. And the thing which dramatically changed that in my opinion was 11 September, because it immediately forced the reality that he had to work in an internationalised way to deal with it." He adds: "I say look at what the American administration actually does – don't try to look at what it says in a pre-mid-term election period."

However, he is careful not to rubbish the 53 dissident Labour MPs who rebelled in the Commons over Iraq on Tuesday, saying they included pacifists whom he respects but does not agree with, those who have a record of concern about the Iraqi situation and others reflecting "the genuine apprehension" in constituencies about military action.

But he knows that as long as the UN remains in play, the Labour leadership is more likely to be defeated in Blackpool not on Iraq, but by hostile union motions calling for a moratorium on the private finance initiative – an idea he briskly dismisses as "suicidal".

Which brings Mr Clarke to the unions in general. He has no desire whatever to end the Labour-union link, and believes the great majority of union leaders strongly agree. After the RMT leader Bob Crow's decision to withdraw money from the constituency parties of MPs not toeing its policy line, he says the party has "no difficulty" with the unions putting forward specific policies.

"But the unions would also say that they don't want to be in a position of saying our affiliation fee to Labour depends on the party following X, Y or Z policy. It depends on us having a shared sort of values in what we are trying to achieve." Mr Crow, he claims, has "anathematised himself" and is isolated, even among left-leaning union leaders.

One benefit of a new long-term deal aimed at financial stability for the party, which the unions are close to agreeing, should be an end to RMT-style threats, he says. "I think the overall majority [of unions] would not have dreamt of doing anything like that at all. In that sense it's not a change. But there were little touches of rhetoric which I think were not helpful and I think putting the relationship on a proper footing was a good thing to do."

At the same time, Mr Clarke makes clear that he is examining with the other parties an extension of state funding through tax relief for individual donations and a further reduction in the £20m cap on election campaign spending.

A big theme – probably the big theme – of Mr Blair's speech on Tuesday will be the need for continued modernisation of the public services. "We are determined to ensure that the momentum of the change on public services comes through at the conference. We know that, at the end of the day, people will make their political choices at the general election on the issues of public services and the economy. They won't make their choice on the basis of Iraq."

Mr Clarke makes no secret of his view that joining the euro would maximise Britain's political influence and is highly desirable, provided the economic criteria can be met. Welcoming recent victories of the left in Sweden and Germany, he clearly shares the Blairite view that social democrats are more likely to succeed if they properly tackle issues such as asylum and law and order. "Centre-left parties can win provided, and it is a big if, they address and are seen to address the real concerns people have – issues which sometimes seem rather distasteful to people on the left even to discuss."

At the frothier end of the political spectrum, he says it is "batty" to suppose it would be "remotely" in Downing Street's interest to have leaked the Prince of Wales's letters to ministers. "My view is that Prince Charles is perfectly entitled to express his views ... I don't know how much I agree with Prince Charles about a great range of political issues about which he has a view, but that's a matter for him."

It is rare for a politician to have anything interesting to say about his opponents. But Mr Clarke comes close. He argues that the weakness of the Tories has been a disadvantage to Labour rather than an asset, because it has allowed elements of the media, and "perhaps" in the Labour Party too, to act as the opposition.

But he points to a sharp contrast between the Tories under Iain Duncan Smith and the nadir of Labour's fortunes in 1983, when Mr Clarke was chief of staff to the leader at the time, Neil Kinnock.

The real Tory talent – he cites Kenneth Clarke, Michael Portillo, John Redwood, Stephen Dorrell, and Virginia Bottomley – are all outside a Shadow Cabinet of "second-raters", he says.

But Mr Kinnock was able to command the support of all Labour's leading figures, from Denis Healey to Roy Hattersley and Peter Shore, in 1983, even though not a single member of the Shadow Cabinet had voted for him to become leader. "Whatever inner-party arguments there had been, they were ready to serve in the interests of bringing Labour back to electability, but that isn't happening with the Tories and I think that's very striking," Mr Clarke says.