CLARE Short has a reputation for saying things which others are merely thinking. Towing the party line is not her strong point.

And in spelling out Britain's "duty" to restrain George Bush from unilateral military action against Iraq, the International Development Secretary has spoken for the majority of people in this country.

Tony Blair has clearly lost the campaign to convince Britons that Saddam Hussein poses a big enough threat to warrant war - unless it is war in the name of the United Nations.

Too many people believe it is more about oil than weapons of mass destruction. Too many do not trust George Bush's motives.

So Mr Blair finds himself caught between the wishes of the American president he has vowed to support, and the wishes of his own country.

He must side with those who elected him and step back from leading Britain into a war with potentially terrifying consequences without public support. If he does, he risks the kind of backlash which lost Sir Anthony Eden the premiership over the Suez campaign in 1956.

Clare Short is right. Britain does have a duty to hold back George Bush and we remain convinced that Tony Blair has done much behind the scenes to prevent earlier military action.

But he must listen very carefully to what the British people - and those closest to him in his own Cabinet - are saying.

For if we are going to support America in its determination to bomb Iraq, what would be the point of remaining part of the United Nations?

What would be the point in being a member of an organisation which exists to prevent individual nations from attacking countries they insist are evil?

No one denies that Saddam is a highly dangerous dictator. We would support military action to remove him if we could see convincing evidence that the world would be a safer place and that the United Nations agreed.

It is time for Mr Blair to make it clear that Clare Short was not talking out of turn - and that he agrees with every word she said.