In a moment of progressive triumph you can rely on the New Statesman to depress you.

This is Martin Bright's article on how the British left might ape Obama's triumph.

It's mightily depressing because Bright seems to think that a few potentiall popular policy ideas are the same as a credible policy platform and political philosophy, and far too many people with me on the left will rush to agree.

And as if unilateral disarmament is a new and credible idea. In the right context, I think it is goer, but that context involves a proper rethink about the UK's strategic posture (see previous post). And I also oppose ID cards, but simply cancelling them isn't a counter terrorism strategy.

The tragedy is that the financial crisis and Obama's triumph provides a unique moment in which the British left could re conceptualise itself and break free from the stale arguments of the past. Instead we get a list of half-baked policy ideas presented as a coherent philosophy.

Punching at any weight

These are the thoughts of former UK Ambassador to Russia, Rodric Braithwaite, on UK foreign policy developments over the past two decades.

As a sometime employee of the FCO, I always enjoy reading the (often self justifying thoughts) of former senior officers of the British Diplomatic Service. Rodric Braithwaite's article does not disappoint. As if he, as mere very senior ambassador and Chairman of the JIC in the early 1990s, could have had any influence on, or responsibility for, UK foreign policy over the past 2 decades?

That having been said, I suppose that it would be churlish not to rejoice over a repentant sinner, though I for one wish he was a little more repentant still. He correctly identifies a key fault (the belief that the UK can and should punch above its weight in international affairs) that has bedevilled post-1945 UK foreign policy. Yet he doesn't present a coherent alternative.

Ministers are in a tricky position. On one hand there are the obvious realities that Britain is not the force that it once was in world affairs. Yet on the other ministers are supported by a national security and foreign policy structure that was designed in the immediate post war period when Britain still played a leading role in the world and reflects that understanding of Britain's role. And, inexplicably, Britain still has the second biggest defence budget on the planet (only behind the US).

I think it is time that we had a proper review of all this, so we can decide what are real national interests are in the 21st century and how those should be reflected in our national security structures and strategy. Perhaps a Royal Commission briefed to research these issues with no sacred cows would be a way forward?

Travelling without a computer... thought from abraod

I am travelling at the moment and do not have my laptop and, unbelievably, cannot update my blog from the computer that I do have access to. Not sure why and don't understand the locals when they explain why! I am relying on paper media in order to keep up to date. A couple of things have caught my attention and have blogged on the separately. They are slightly out of date but hope they are interesting, nevertheless.

So will tomorrow be a replay of '92 or '97?

Tomorrow the longest and, arguably, the most thrilling election campaign in my lifetime will end. The final few weeks have not matched the campaign's early promise, not least because the McCain people decided to run a traditional 'culture wars' campaign full of name-calling and fear-mongering rather than debating the issues. His choice of running mate didn't help either. Just imagine if there had been a proper debate about the economy, the social fissures in the US (and the rest of the West), etc.... oh well, I suppose there is always next time.

What is going to happen tomorrow? All the signs (or to be more precise all the polls) indicate a healthy Obama victory. But as any Brit with a reasonable political memory knows, polls can be wrong, especially at the last minute. The 1992 UK election is the most famous example of inaccurate polling - right until midnight at the end of polling day we thought we would have Labour government. We didn't - the Conservatives got back in against all expectations and all normal political convention.

Could the same happen tomorrow in the US? Of course it could but I don't see that factors that caused the '92 UK upset in '08 US race.

Most Britons, including some Labour people, had real doubts about then-Labour leader Neil Kinnock. Those doubts were reinforced by several missteps in the Labour campaign, notably the Jennifer's ear affairs, and Kinnock's bizarre behaviour at the over the top pre-victory victory rally in Sheffield. Sure, many Americans have doubts about Obama, but those with the strongest doubts (for whatever reason) were never going to vote for him.

Similarly, one of the greatest failures of the McCain campaign (and one of the greatest successes of the Obama campaign) has been their inability to distance McCain from Bush, thereby damaging McCain's claim to represent change. Back in '92 the Tories managed to blunt Labour's rallying cry about change by changing their leader 18 months earlier. The republicans have not been able to pull off the same trick.

Instead of '92, I think the '97 UK election is a better model for understanding what will happen in the US tomorrow.

The 1997 UK election was also a bad moment for the pollsters. They got the result right, but did not come close to predicting the scale of the Labour victory. Could something similar happen tomorrow in the US? Given that one poll is giving Obama a 11% lead today and they (almost) all give him a comfortable victory in the electoral college, that is unlikely. But if Obama does pull off a big win tomorrow, the UK's experience in '97 could give his team an insight in how he should govern in the early stages of his presidency.

One of the most striking features of the '97 election was its aftermath. Even those who had not voted for the government (which was a majority of the population) wished it well and hoped that it would offer a new start for the UK. My favourite statistic from that period was the opinion poll in which a vastly greater proportion of the population claimed to have voted Labour than actually did! This gave Labour enormous scope for reform, some of which they did not exploit to the full.

I suspect that Obama will enjoy a similar honeymoon, and perhaps even enjoy even greater public good will given the problems the US is facing at the moment. He should use it to focus like a laser on his main priorities and notch up some solid achievements early on. The people will be with him and the other side will be in disarray.

That last point is hardly controversial. The future of America's conservative movement looks bleak, even if McCain pulls off a win tomorrow. Its previous intellectual vigor has been replaced by anti-intellectual laziness. It looks tired and most of its sacred gods have been exposed as false idols in recent years (Iraq, the financial crisis, etc.)

Assuming Obama does win tomorrow it is easy to imagine the American right following the same trajectory as the British Conservative Party after 1997, which is to say that it will convince itself that the reason it lost is because it was not right-wing enough, flog that horse for a decade and then come back to the centre, where elections are won and sensible ideas and policies are born.

1992 or 1997? We'll know in 48 hours which it will be.

Honest Dave

The underlying message of David Cameron's article on the BBC in today's Sun seems to be that he is the only thing between Auntie and a pack of rabidly anti-BBC Tories.

It's good to see a little honesty from Dave. Many of us have long suspected that he is the (only) moderate in the all-new moderate Conservative Party.

I don't doubt that Dave has changed, but by his own admission the rest of his party remains as extreme as they were in the days of Hague, IDS and Howard. You only have to listen to Osborne, Duncan and Fox (to name just a few) to realise they are far from reformed. Should the Tories win, Cameron will face a huge task keeping them in check.

Melting certainties

A very important piece on the geo-strategic implications of climate change in the far north. Certainties disappear with the ice.

A touch Mel-odramatic

I am reluctant to direct anyone to Melanie Philips' blog at The Spectator. Her long posts are full of hysteria and irrationality on many topics, especially Barack Obama. Most telling is the post entitled 'Is America really going to do this?' Have a read and see what you think but my main reaction is that she is placing onto Obama what she thinks he thinks about America and the security challenges the West faces (because, in her mind, that is what a black liberal of his generation would think) not what he actually does think.

I suspect expressing this view will put me into Melanie's 'ememy of civilisation' category. But that's life, I suppose...

Ossy, Ossy, Ossy... Oik, Oik, Oik

A week on and 'yacht-gate' rumbles on, though attention seems to have turned to Mandelson for now. George Osborne seems to have stabilised his position but last week's events highlighted a major problem for the Tories as they seek to win the next election.

The economy is the transcendent political issue of our time but Osborne is clearly not up to the job of shadow chancellor, and that does not bode well should he ever get into government.

No surprise really: the man has never had a real job (St Paul's, Oxford, working for the Tory Party, MP) or even lived in the real world (born into privilege, lived in privilege ever since). He has NO idea what it is like to struggle to get the money to feed the kids, pay the utility bills, etc. And neither does anyone he has ever been around.

Telling the difference

To my mind the most telling difference between Obama and McCain is the reaction of the crowds at their respective rallies. More often than not you heard resounding cheers whenever Obama speaks. By contrast you hear boos from the McCain people. Says a great deal about what they say and what they want to achieve.

The end is near...

This is John McCain's closing argument, apparently:

"At a time when America is facing historic crisis we can't put our fate in the hands of an untested, inexperienced candidate. John McCain has served his country all his life, and he is the most prepared to restore our economy, bring back fiscal discipline, manage the two wars, and keep Americans safe."

So several months after dropping the 'inexperience' card in favour of Gov Palin - it's back. Extraordinary.

By contrast this is Obama's positive closing argument:

"Senator Obama will tell voters that after twenty-one months and three debates, Senator McCain still has not been able to tell the American people a single major thing he'd do differently from George Bush when it comes to the economy. Obama will ask Americans to help him change this country, and say that in just one week, they can choose an economy that rewards work and creates new jobs and fuels prosperity from the bottom-up, they can choose to invest in health care for our families and education for our kids and renewable energy for our future, and they can choose hope over fear, unity over division and the promise of change over the power of the status quo."

Wendy resigns

Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander has resigned. A few initial thoughts:

- I wonder if Labour will learn that the absence of internal party competition is not the same as unity. The contrast between the coverage in today's newspapers of the Labour Party in the UK and the Democrats in the US could not be more stark. On one side (east of the Atlantic) there is a centre left party which 'elected' two leaders (Brown and Alexander) without anyone standing against them. The result? Political disaster with the wrong people appointed and a legacy of resentment and opposition within the party. On the other side (west of the Atlantic) there was a 17 month, hard fought fight for leadership of the Democratic Party. The result? The winner is about 10 points ahead in the polls. Clinton is campaigning for Obama and the vast majority of her supporters have swung behind him. Labour's experience in the early 1980s appears to have left Labour with the impression that looking united on the evening news is more important that having proper internal debate. That needs to change is Labour is going to survive and prosper, north or south of the border.

- Only time will tell, but it will be interesting to see if Wendy's sudden change in policy on an early independence referendum played any role in today's events. Was Brown's previously rock solid support for Wendy undermined by her policy on a referendum and her apparent failure to consult him on it? (STOP PRESS: The BBC has just reported that Wendy resigned despite Brown's urging her to stay.) It will also be interesting to see what happens to the early referendum policy under the next leader.

- The SNP's handling of this situation, the main aim of which appeared to be to destabilise Wendy Alexander and Scottish Labour, has been executed with textbook efficiency. I wonder, however, if now might be time to tone it down. There have been moments when individual backbench nats have looked shrill and bullying. It is important that this does not infect the general perception of the party. We are not there yet but it could happen.

- Finally, I have no idea what Wendy Alexander's plans are but if she wants to make a come back to front line politics, she would have been better to use today for endless mea culpas rather than attacking her opponents. That would have started to repair her image and made anyone who attacked her look mean and small minded. Her tone today was not the first tactical mis-step of her leadership. But it was her last.

The real data losers... the investigation

Further to Monday's post: the formal investigation into HMRC's loss of discs containing the personal and bank details of half the nation's population was published yesterday. The cause (as foreshadowed on Monday) was "poor communication between management and junior staff, and low morale at the HMRC". And the response? George Osborne, as normal, missed the point. He used it as an opportunity to punish Alistair Darling but failed to address the real issues (public sector management, etc.) and how his party would seek to solve those problems.

Depressing. If someone could offer a convincing case that they could make government work, they could get on. That person certainly isn't George Osborne.

P.S. On an entirely separate matter, there has just been a great report on Channel 4 News about a new feature length documentary called Man On Wire, which is premiering at the Edinburgh Film Festival tonight. It looks like a fascinating film - and reminded me of a time when the Twin Towers were a symbol of hope not a reminder of terror.

One itch could change the world

I know that an 8 page article on itching doesn't sound worth reading but this is genuinely fascinating. That the humble itch could herald the development of a whole new discipline in medicine is worth noting. And the experience of M... who knew you could scratch that hard?

P.S. There is a podcast discussion which accompanies the article. You can find it here.

Ships and the future of the UK

The debate surrounding the prospects for Scotland's ship building industry in an independent Scotland is (as with so much of our politics) predicable enough: unionists say it will be decimated; nationalists say it will diversify and prosper. Both sides are unconvincing.

The unionist argument fails to factor in the strategic changes that are going to take place in these islands whatever constitutional changes happen (or don't) in the coming decades. At present the UK is the second biggest defence spender on the planet. This is not sustainable, or desirable. Unfortunately our legacy as a world power commits the UK to this level of defence spending but this won't continue indefinitely. Our structural position in the international order will change beyond recognition in the coming half century (including, for example, loss of the permanent seat on the UN Security Council and changes in the UK's role in NATO). When this happens the UK won't be ordering world class aircraft carriers and, arguably, will be able to give up its nuclear deterrent. At that point the impact on what remains of the ship building industry will be dramatic.

The nationalist argument is equally flawed. As a matter of pure fact, an independent Scotland would not be used to build sensitive English defence equipment (and arguments about EU rules on tendering are irrelevant - there are national security exceptions). And nor would a Scottish defence force need (or want) the amount of equipment ordered by UK forces. Diversification would make up some of the lost business but not all of it.

It is a shame that nationalists rely on these arguments rather than seeking to develop a narrative that fits in with the wider strategic choices that the UK is going to have to make in the next few decades. There is a strong case for saying a British isles of several nation-states would be better prepared to deal with the strategic threats (and the domestic political issues) of the twentieth-first century rather than a single British state. Instead they rely on an argument that nothing too much will change other than some constitutional details.

If the nats are going to win this argument, they are going to have to develop their arguments. I'll blog some more on what a convincing nationalist argument could look like in the coming weeks.

The real data losers

There's been another loss of personal data in the public sector, this time by the Scottish Ambulance Service. The politics of this are entirely predicable: the opposition parties will express outrage, blame the government and, if they are having a good day, call for a minister or two to resign. We've seen this happen fairly often recently.

Now I understand the idea of ministerial responsibility but it is absurd to hold a minister responsible for a practical error by an official. Hold them accountable for policy, but for the minutiae of implementation? Be fair.

I've worked in the Civil Service and the problem is not ministerial control but the quality of leadership and management by senior officials. It is, with some honourable exceptions, dreadful. These kind of things will continue to happen until public sector management is dragged up to acceptable professional standards .

So perhaps opposition politicians should stop their histrionics and start thinking about how they can hold senior officials accountable for their managerial failings.

Obama's challenge

This commentary from The New Yorker on the challenges facing Barak Obama is well worth a read.

The politics of privacy

Another postscript on Davis/privacy/etc.: this was the BBC's lead story this morning.

Another thing on David Davis and 42 days

A quick postscript on David Davis and 42 days: I heard an interesting commentary on Davis's motivation for his decision to resign from parliament and his commitment to civil liberties. In short it is driven by his belief that habeus corpus is an important British tradition, not by a liberal commitment to civil liberties. No great surprise (he is a conservative (with a deliberately small 'c') after all) but a warning to anyone who thinks that Davis is going to be a warrior for all our liberties. He won't fight for them unless he considers any given liberty to be a British tradition.

The echos of empire

The dreadful situation in Zimbabwe (see this for today's developments) is a reminder that our world is still dominated by the British Empire, despite the fact that the Empire was consigned to history almost half a century ago.

Zim is just one example of the legacy of empire shaping our world. Almost all the major foreign policy issues that dominate news bulletins (Zimbabwe, Iraq, the Arab/Israeli conflict, conflict in India/Pakistan, Sudan) can be traced back to the effects of the various European empires and how they were wound up. There is even a reasonable case to be made that European imperialism is in part responsible for the current terrorism problem.

None of this is to say that all the effects of empire were exclusively negative - they clearly weren't. The British Empire, for example, exported the ideal of the rule of law around the globe, and the world would be an infinitely poorer place without that. Also the European empires played an important historic role by creating the infrastructure of a proper international system which has made global trade and the management of conflict possible.

But despite that, the mistakes made by white men sitting in London or Paris or the other European capitals a couple of hundred years ago continue to echo through time to today. And the biggest mistake was the creation of artificial borders which failed to reflect the cultural/tribal/political reality on the ground. Many of the problems listed above are a direct result of these borders, and our attempts to manage these conflicts will be the dominant foreign policy challenge for the foreseeable future.

A kingdom divided?

The Scottish Labour leader, Wendy Alexander, called again for an independence referendum in Scotland last night. That she is defying her party leader (one G Brown) and taking a huge gamble on the the very future of the United Kingdom shows that the 2007 Scottish Parliamentary elections were a very important moment in the history of these islands .

The SNP's victory in those elections was hugely significant, as was the publication of the Scottish Government's White Paper on Scotland's constitutional future. Here was one of the Queen's ministers (First Minister Alex Salmond) kicking off a process which he hopes will break up Her Kingdom. Historic, by any standard.

And extraordinary as well. There are many reasons we have reached this point, and I want to discuss some of these on this blog in the coming weeks and months. But one of the most obvious reasons is a lack of communication and understanding between England and Scotland.

I see one small sign of this every morning. I buy my daily newspaper from the newsagent inside Brixton tube. I tend to go for the Guardian but I could get almost any newspaper from Europe or North America. So today morning I could have read today's El Pais from Madrid, Le Monde from Paris or Die Welt from Berlin. (Strictly speaking I couldn't have read any of them because I am rubbish a learning languages but I could have bought them at the very least.) I could have read today's International Herald Tribune or USA Today. I could not, however, have read today's Scotsman. I could have got yesterday's edition but I'd have to wait until next week for today's copy.

Two nations part of the same state on the same island and yet it's not possible to read for me to read one of Scotland's national newspapers on the day it is published. (By the way The Herald and The Record aren't available at all.)

Why does this matter? Well on one level it doesn't - I read the papers online anyway. But the failure of communication between England and Scotland which this represents and the increasing division within the Union is going to be one of the major domestic political issues in the coming decades. And we need to understand each other if we are going to be able to navigate those issues effectively.

Far too long...

I'm listening to yet another discussion on Tory David Davis' resignation in protest at the Government's policy on detention on 42 days without charge for terrorist suspects. As much as it pains me to say it, I think Davis has got it right on 42 days. Why? Well the legislation is wrong in principle, in practice and there are workable alternatives.

• The principle: it is a foundation of our civil liberties that the state simply should not be able to hold its citizens for no clear reason for 6 weeks.

• The practice: the legislation that was passed by the House of Commons isn't workable. Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke summarises the problems very well (though he is on the other side of this argument).

• The alternative: there are other ways of resolving the problems that 42 days was meant to address (most notably that the police may need more time to investigate complex terrorist plots) and these do not appear to have been properly considered. For example, couldn't legislation be passed to allow parliament to give the police permission to continue their inquiries after suspects have been charged. Clearly this would only be used in exceptional circumstances, i.e. a national emergency as defined by the civil contingency legislation. (And while this isn't directly related, isn't it time to allow intercept evidence in terrorist trials?)

Frankly I suspect that this whole issue was never about dealing with terrorism (why would a government pass unworkable legislation?) but about political positioning, making Brown look strong on terror while taking a 'principled' and popular stand. If this is right it is beyond cynical that any public servant would think it acceptable to trade basic civil liberties in for some political positioning, particularly in the country where habeus corpus was first codified and enforced.

But Brown should be aware that not only is using 42 days as a political ploy cynical, it could also be very foolish.

If you look at the front page of the Daily Mail on any given day, there is a strong probability that there will be a splash story about some 'big brother' public agency (a council, the NHS, etc.) 'spying' on the citizenry. The loss of privacy that these stories represent appears to have struck a cord with middle England, and has given Mail-land and the Guardianistas something to agree on.

The political consequences for Labour would be devastating if the Tories can link the 42 days issue with the general sense of a loss of privacy/freedom and turn it into a leading political issue. I don't think it is much of a stretch to imagine that happening.