Blair needs to learn a lesson about trust

Shortly after he became Labour Party leader, Tony Blair was heard to muse privately: "I am not sure this party is willing to be led at all". In the short run, he received the reassurance he needed. The party backed Mr Blair's modernisation programme, maybe not always enthusiastically but, when put to the vote, by big margins.

These days, however, the Prime Minister could be forgiven for reviving his doubts. The air is thick with talk of backbench rebellions against any British participation in an American-led attack on Iraq. You would have thought that the decision had been taken and our troops were on their way to Baghdad.

The truth is different. Nothing specific has yet been decided. There will be no military action (beyond the enforcement of the no-fly zones) for months, and maybe none at all. Far from being President Bush's lapdog, Mr Blair has spent the weekend telling the Americans exactly what he told them immediately after 11 September: we are with you all the way in the campaign to root out evil, and are willing to commit British troops; but the only way to act effectively is to build the biggest possible international coalition and to act within the rules of the United Nations.

In other words, Mr Blair has been taking exactly the line that most of his worried backbenchers say he should adopt. Why, then, so much talk of revolt? There are two main reasons, one to do with the nature of the revolt, the other to do with Mr Blair himself.

Let us consider first the way backbenchers are expressing their nervousness. Some Labour MPs are, and always have been, against any military action against Saddam Hussein, full stop. George Galloway, Jeremy Corbyn, Tam Dalyell and others were opposed to the Gulf War 11 years ago, and think we should treat Iraq more leniently now.

This view has nothing to do with the legalities of military action. The Gulf War was carried out under the clear mandate of the UN Security Council. The Galloway gang simply thinks it is a bad idea for the West to take on the butcher of Baghdad.

However, most of Labour's nervous backbenchers (and worried Cabinet ministers such as Clare Short) hold a different view. They regard Saddam Hussein as a nasty piece of work. On condition that a legal means of deposing him and installing a more civilised Iraqi government could be found, they would be delighted. The real fear is that the Prime Minister will ignore the conditions, break the spirit if not the letter of international law, and support a reckless American-led adventure.

This brings us to the second big reason why talk of revolt persists: Mr Blair's own behaviour. He and other senior ministers have sent out signals that are easily interpreted as opening the way to British participation in a crazy version of lynch-law fisticuffs. They have said nothing in public to repudiate the militants in the Washington administration; Mr Blair has endorsed the need to replace Saddam Hussein; Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, has refused to promise that he will deploy British troops only if the Security Council explicitly authorises him to do so.

However, Labour MPs, like the rest of us, should not take these utterances at face value. They should know that ministers are bound to reveal less than the whole truth when they speak in public. There are many reasons for delicacy: to tilt a finelybalanced debate within Washington towards sanity; to maintain pressure on Saddam Hussein; to prevent deep divisions either within Europe or between Europe and America. Only a fool can believe that these aims are best met through megaphone diplomacy.

In the end it comes down to questions of judgment and trust. Do we judge Mr Blair to have gone to Texas to advance the case for caution and legality? Do we trust him to stick to these values if President Bush starts to side with Washington's hot-heads?

All political logic suggests that both answers are "yes". For Britain to take part in an invasion of Iraq without the support of the UN would threaten to break up the Labour Party, wreck Britain's relations with Europe and undermine our reputation in the Middle East. Mr Blair has his faults, but destructive stupidity is not among them

If this analysis is right, then the incipient Labour revolt will eventually wither, for what MPs fear most will not come to pass. But that will not solve Mr Blair's problems completely. The enduring question is why he cannot count on the trust of his backbenchers when the going gets tough? The answer to this lies in his remoteness and his burgeoning reputation for secretive control-freakery.

There are times when it is right for any Prime Minister to hold his cards tightly to his chest. This is unquestionably one of them. But if he operated like this less often on the domestic front then he might face less trouble when trust becomes a matter of life and death.