Clare Short: The corrosion of integrity at Labour's heart

In the past 10 days we have seen a set of milestones. Alastair Campbell resigned. Mrs Kelly gave us the human face of the tragedy of Dr Kelly. And senior representatives of Defence Intelligence told us that the dossier was "over egged" and that "the spin merchants" had too big a role.

In my view, all these events are related. They reflect the disease that has corroded the integrity of the Blair government. We have a Prime Minister so focused on presentation that there is inadequate consideration of the merits of policy. At the same time, there has been a massive centralisation of power into No 10. And beneath the smiling demeanour, a ruthlessness that is accompanied by a lack of respect for proper procedure, and a willingness to be "economical with the actuality".

Much of the commentary on Campbell's resignation reflected how deep the disease has gone. Political journalists seem to think that presentation is politics, and therefore Campbell a central figure. But history is being rewritten. Labour was set to win the election under John Smith's leadership. There was clear evidence from authoritative sources that Tory decline and Labour's restoration of trust - including on the economy - meant that we were very likely to win. Smith had views on presentation that rang loud with wisdom. He said that commercial organisations do not ask what products they should sell. They are committed to soap powder or beans, and then they ask advice on how best to present their product. If only Labour had remembered this distinction.

It is untrue that Labour was unelectable before Tony Blair and Campbell took over. Most of the hardest reforms had been taken forward by Neil Kinnock and many of us who served on the National Executive Committee. Expulsion of the Militant MPs and revision of much of the policy on which we fought the 1983 election, including unilateralism, was complete before Blair joined the National Executive. It was also clear that the party was ready for power, and was determined to be united and disciplined. I have no doubt that Blair and Campbell's ruthless focus on presentation increased our majority, but it is untrue that they were responsible for preparing the party for power.

Much of the success of Labour's first term came from Labour ministers implementing Labour policy - full employment, the minimum wage, devolution, tax credits to make work worthwhile, a strong commitment to debt relief and development, better achievement in schools, improved public spending and so on. Spin was a problem: initiatives and new expenditure were announced and re-announced so that people began to doubt the truth of the announcement. But overall we did reasonably well and were re-elected to a second term.

But in the second term there was hubris. The Cabinet has not functioned as a decision making body since 1997. There was a bit more discussion in the second term, but it was always short and never authoritative. By then people were promoted only if willing to bend the knee to No 10. I understood Charles Clarke to be against top-up fees before he became Secretary of State for Education. And Patricia Hewitt promised she would help block the disgraceful sale of a defective and unaffordable British Aerospace air traffic control system to Tanzania. But then she said she couldn't "because of No 10". If you toe the line, No 10 briefs favourably. If you run your own department and stick to the merits of policy and refuse to kowtow, they brief against. Journalists write up the anonymous briefings, and this is how people are seen to be rising or falling. It has nothing to do with competence or achievements in the real world. Campbell and almost all our political journalists were joined at the hip on spin. It only works because journalists co-operate, and this becomes our political discourse.

And this brings me to Dr Kelly. He, like many of us, believed that Saddam Hussein was committed to programmes to develop chemical and biological weapons and had been defying the UN for too long. He, like many of us, believed that action was needed. But it seems that he, like others in Defence Intelligence, was attached to accuracy. He objected to the exaggeration of the threat from Saddam's programmes and the falsity of the 45-minute claim. It was part of his job description to brief journalists. He - among others - let those views be known. They appeared in many press articles, and it is now clear that the Today programme story was fundamentally true. In my view, the BBC would have been at fault if it had not broadcast it. But our Prime Minister told the Hutton inquiry that once Campbell was mentioned it became "no longer a small item". Then No 10 went to war with the BBC. The issue was presentational. There was no policy or national interest at stake. And yet, once Dr Kelly came forward and said he had talked to Andrew Gilligan, the power of the state was focused on using Dr Kelly to get Gilligan. Dr Kelly's wife has described what this did to her husband. We politicians volunteer for the role, but when the press is after you and No 10 briefing against you, life can be hell. And I am sure that the briefing describing this dedicated international expert as merely a middle level technical officer hurt him to the quick.

Dr Kelly found the pressure of No 10, the Ministry of Defence, the Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the threat to his pension and job, and "being treated like a fly" too much to bear. I think most people would break under that strain. To use Dr Kelly in this way - to get at the BBC - was an abuse of power.

The Prime Minister has told us that the claim that he had knowingly exaggerated the threat from Iraqi chemical and biological weapons would be a resignation issue. It is now clear that the threat was exaggerated. And that John Scarlett - Campbell's fig leaf - had gone native with the No 10 entourage. If he did not know members of the intelligence service were unhappy with the dossier, then he wasn't doing his job adequately.

All of this came before we were misled on the promised second UN resolution. And on top of this, there is the total negligence of failing to prepare for the inevitability of a speedy military victory. Many, many lives have been lost and are being lost in Iraq because of this incompetence.

This sorry tale shames my party, Government and country.

Clare Short is MP for Birmingham Ladywood

Alan Watkins is away