A little honesty might help the Government's case against Iraq

Prescott says Blair is a man nobody can fail to believe. Wrong. He is a man who thinks he must always be believed

Yes, I was there on the stupendous anti-war march on Saturday, in my red beret, with my 10-year-old daughter and my husband, feeling both the futility of what we were doing – Blair is as obdurate as Margaret Thatcher – and the power of people when they voice their views clearly and as one.

Even the hostile papers concede that hundreds of thousands came out around the rest of the country, and a million and a half inhabitants demonstrated in London, although our public service broadcaster, the BBC, claimed the number was nearer 750,000. It was a dignified march of people of all backgrounds and political ideologies (I met my first viscount, courteous gent he was too). Unlike the last Stop the War demonstration, we didn't have Islamic Stalinist groups distracting us from the cause. And for every person who walked, count at least three armchair supporters.

We made history, but that is not the point. A more profound assessment is needed of this mass display of the will of the British people, particularly in light of the forceful, almost zealous speech made by the Prime Minister in Glasgow at his party's spring conference, delivered just as the marchers were getting under way. He warned that our "weakness" will mean the people of Iraq will pay in blood as they are tortured and murdered by their dictator. Now, apparently, what unites Saddam and al-Qa'ida is that they both want to destroy the West, not that they are working together. New day, new claim, new Labour.

Weapons of mass destruction are sidelined now; Blair wants to make a moral case, as does his party chairman John Reid, who delivered an identical set of remarks, albeit in a less pious and more street-cred Scottish style. That working-class token John Prescott also jumped to attention to defend his leader's sermon, adding a touching confession that he was wrong to oppose the Falklands War. The millions out marching should remember, they all chorused, that the same number had died or would die in Iraq without military action.

Offensive as I find these last remarks, I am prepared to engage with the core arguments made by the PM. I am more circumspect than many about mass protests. Democracy is a precious thing, but elections and referendums can deliver abhorrent ideologues or inhumane policies, or actually institutionalise the exclusion of the powerless for generations. I have misgivings about a wholly elected House of Lords, because I think that will only replicate the profile of the Commons, ending up a place mainly of white, middle-class men. Blair is right when he says that leaders do sometimes have to risk unpopularity to do the right thing. How would I react if a mass protest was staged to bring back the death penalty for paedophiles and other killers, or to reintroduce corporal punishment, or to stop all immigration? So impassioned are views on these issues today that such demonstrations could easily be organised. A progressive Prime Minister would have to ignore the yells and banners.

But there are two problems with this latest New Leader posture. Blair has been a willow tree, bending to please Middle England since 1997. He shows no courageous captaincy when it comes to the populist hatred of refugees; he panders to it. He sacks ministers if the press hounds them, sometimes unfairly. He is still nervously sitting on fences on the euro.

So how can we believe this new commitment to bold leadership? And would he stick with his views if say, Bush unexpectedly decided to do business with Saddam? After all the US has done this before without any conscience.

Then there is the matter of Iraq itself. Yes, I would believe his concern for the torture victims of Iraq if in the same stirring demagoguery he told us that we are partly responsible for the state Iraq is in. Say it Mr Blair: "I want to apologise to the people of Iraq that we supported the tyrant. I am sorry I am sending back so many Iraqi refugees every week from this safe haven, so serious is my moral commitment to them. I am ashamed that in 1989, soon after some horrific genocides in Iraq, our closest ally gave Saddam more credit to buy goods from the US. I know that in 1991, when the Kurds and Shia Muslims wanted to challenge Saddam, the US watched and tacitly approved as Saddam crushed this uprising. We have armed and encouraged this beast for too long. I have to accept too that our weapons in the Gulf War and sanctions have destroyed ordinary Iraqis."

If such honesty were forthcoming, there would be some moral basis for what Blair wants. It isn't.

The policies of the UK and the US have long been dishonest. Read Iraq Under Siege, edited by Anthony Arnove (Pluto, 2000). My eyes water every time I open this book of essays by various truth-tellers with facts that most of us don't know. And the lies persist. Take two quotes from 1999. In the words of Peter Jennings, the ABC news anchor: "The US did want Saddam to go, they just didn't want the people of Iraq to take over." An economist, Edward Herman, who is a critic of recent US foreign policies, wrote: "One of the tricks of imperialism is to pretend that a target enemy has been offered a negotiating option, quickly claim that option has been rejected and then ruthlessly attack or continue sanctions that may be taking a heavy human toll. The beauty of this system is that no matter how many are killed by bombs, and how numerous the children who die, it is not our fault."

That is exactly what is going on. To wrap these intentions in morality is odious.

In his awesome performance on Saturday, Blair also read letters from Iraqi exiles who will not be blown to bits when we rain bombs on their land. Of course, these people want to see their country free. Being dispossessed is a dreadful thing. But thousands of Iraqis do not want these attacks, and we should treat the pleadings of those who want war with some caution. When the ANC was in exile fighting for freedom, it risked lives by participating in operations in South Africa and neighbouring countries. It didn't simply advocate actions on their behalf while living in relative safety.

John Prescott says Blair is a man nobody can fail to believe. Wrong. Blair is a man who thinks he must always be believed and trusted. Democracy Under Blair, a new book by David Beetham, Stuart Weir and others, gives much credit to New Labour for constitutional reform but is scathing about the centralising instincts of Tony Blair, his lack of respect for the public and Parliament and the dangers therein. The cover shows Mr Blair as Louis XIV – "L'état, c'est moi". Perhaps that is why he was so furious with the demonstration and why this was a victory for us. We won't stop the war, but the state is more than Mr Blair. And we made a more plausible moral case than he and his have managed.

y.alibhai-brown@independent.co.uk