“I didn’t need a diplomatic decoder to work out what he was really saying : “Britain doesn’t matter, who cares what it says?” Out on the streets they don’t have a much higher opinion of Britain with our mother of parliaments and democratic history – the refusal to back the protesters, the following of the Washington line, the use of almost exactly the same phrases as Mubarak about orderly transition, the need to avoid chaos, the dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood and the need for broad based government – it has not exactly left London looking like a beacon of democratic hope. So here we are – 21st century democratic revolutionary thinking spreading across the middle east and Britain isn’t much liked by anyone on any side. That’s a tricky place to be for a declining world power.”

Within 48 hours the front page of the Guardian was reporting that Karim Medhat Ennarah, an anti Hosni Mubarak protestor, had said to them, with tears in his eyes, that:

“For 18 days we have withstood teargas, rubber bullets, live ammunition, Molotov cocktails, thugs on horseback, the scepticism and fear of our loved ones, and the worst sort of ambivalence from an international community that claims to care about democracy. But we held our ground. We did it.”

Surely if William Hague had one iota of the bravery of Ennarah he wouldn’t have been mouthing almost exactly the same phrases as Mubarak about orderly transition?

I am as saddened by Hague’s needless and gutless timidity as I am moved by the spirit of Ennarah and those proud Egyptians like him.

Not all states in the world are democracies or respectful of human rights, of course. That doesn’t mean the UK shouldn’t have economic and political dealings with these states. But these dealings should never be confused with endorsement. And they should always seek to encourage the spread of basic rights. Because all people have democratic and human rights, which the UK should seek, as far as we are able, to have upheld. 

The Egyptian protests made obvious that the end-game had been reached by Mubarak and changed the calculus of our engagement with Egypt. In this changed world our foreign secretary shouldn’t have found it so hard to say:

“We believe that all people have democratic and human rights. We always seek to have these respected as far as we are able. We previously encouraged reform in Egypt. It now seems clear that the Egyptian people, quite rightly, are demanding that their democratic and human rights be respected. Plans now need to be brought forward to act upon these demands. President Mubarak either needs to come forward with such plans as command the confidence of the Egyptian people or he needs to stand aside in favour of someone who is capable of doing so.”

If the UK is unable to stand up for fundamental rights in this way the decline that Guru-Murthy writes of will only speed up.

Perhaps confounding expectations of what the Spectator would be like with Fraser Nelson as editor, James Forsyth at Coffee House has been quick to man the trenches on Cameron’s behalf and insist he “hasn’t broken a pledge on Europe”. Such activity from someone, who is, among “the leading commentators”, according to Danny Finkelstein, to well “understand what the Cameron team are trying to do” might suggest that this team is worried that UKIP could indeed save the day for Labour.

I’m doubtful that Nigel Farage and co have it in them to save Labour’s speck (at least any more than the BNP have the potential to steal this same bacon by similarly undercutting the vote of one of the major parties). But, certainly, it is in Labour’s interests to widen and magnify the divisions that obviously linger within the Tory Party on Europe.

Ah, a dividing line, Number 10 surely cries. But I hope it doesn’t. As I have argued elsewhere, Labour needs to be more realistic about our capacity to impact perceptions of the Tories. Essentially, our capacity in this regard is almost zero. Instead of trying to mine this very limited potential, we should be focusing on changing perceptions of ourselves; presenting a positive case for Labour. This argument holds on Europe as much as it does on other areas of policy. So, rather than any ”clever” tactical games, I suggest that Labour makes a positive case for the EU and for our position on the Lisbon Treaty and the future of the EU, while hoping that the snipping of Bill Cash et al opens up the divisions within the Tories that any ”clever” tactical games would seek to achieve and, in so doing, pushes some Tory voters in the direction of UKIP.

It might seem madness (even suicidal) to attempt to present a positive case for the EU and Lisbon Treaty in the UK at the moment. But, first, a more negative politics of dividing lines ignores the reality of our ability to impact perceptions of the Tories. David Aaronovitch’s ability in this regard is probably now stronger than the whole of the Cabinet’s combined. Second, part of the reason that this seems madness is because the dots between the Lisbon Treaty and our national interest remain so un-joined. Take, for example, Daniel Korski’s well-made argument today: ”Europe has the US president it wished for, but Barack Obama lacks the strong transatlantic partner he desired.” This is profoundly true and it is manifestly in the UK’s interest that the EU becomes this strong transatlantic partner. It is far more likely to be able to perform such a role once the improvements to its systems of governance enabled by the Lisbon Treaty are in place.

Labour should make arguments of this kind; arguments that are global and universal in focus, as we leave Cameron and Cash to petty and parochial arguments (Cameron and Cash even sounds suitably like a petty and parachial firm of solictors). Combining UKIP with an enlightened and far-sighted approach from Labour could yet save the day.

“An obstinate will to erode by inches the conditions which produce avoidable suffering, oppression, hunger, wars, racial and national hatred, insatiable greed and vindictive envy”.

It concisely presents social democracy as it is: a creed not just for our times but for all times.

“Wags in Cumbria are now calling the stretch between Millom and St Bees the Côte d’Atom – the greatest concentration of nuclear facilities in the world outside Chernobyl”.

Given that almost all of my close family live between Millom and St Bees, I can assure you that local people do not speak of this stretch of coastline in these ridiculous terms. Whoever Vidal has been speaking to, assuming he has even been to west Cumbria, it is not the overwhelming majority of locals who are proud to be associated with a nuclear plant, Sellafield, which has a distinguished place in the history of energy generation in the UK and an important role to play in our future fight against climate change. Short-sighted, patronising, liberal conceit should not be allowed any further north than Hampstead.

First, Gordon Brown will lead Labour into the next General Election. The reaction (or, at least, non-resignation) of other leading figures in the party - particularly, Peter Mandelson, Alan Johnson and David Miliband – to James Purnell’s resignation finally confirmed this.

Second, as I have previously said, Labour has three options: 1.) Back Brown, 2.) Replace him, 3.) Allow him to continue without backing him. The third of these is the worst for Labour and choices of Mandelson et al have closed off the second. Thus, the first must be genuinely embraced by the party.

Third, in yesterday’s Guardian ICM poll, Labour only out-scores the Tories on one issue – better protecting public services.

Fourth, as Liam Byrne’s press conference earlier this week illustrated, Labour’s current line on future spending is not the strongest in the world.

Fifth, this is recognised by people. A new poll  on Politics Home finds that only 16 per cent of voters think that Labour is being most honest on tax and spend, behind the Tories on 37 and the Lib Dems on 28. Not even a majority of Labour supporters think Labour is being straighter on this than other parties.

Sixth, the government genuinely is providing real help now, as the tag line goes, to prevent this recession producing the kind of build up of youth unemployment that recessions under the last Conservative government witnessed in the 1980s and 1990s. Martin Bright recently noted: “There are still some potentially promising ideas knocking about. The Future Jobs Fund, which provides a subsidy for employers willing to take a 14-18 year old at risk of long term unemployment, and the Young Person’s Guarantee, which promises to find work for young people unemployed for over a year, are both attempts to tackle the unemployment tsunami about to hit Britain. The Graduate Talent Pool proposed by DIUS to match graduates to internships is the seed of a good idea and the proposals from the Communities and Local Government department to fill empty high street businesses with creative ‘pop-up’ shops and could also help”.

Sixth, the good work  on youth unemployment lacks co-ordination. Bright goes on to say: “Without coordination, (these policies) risk becoming just another set of eye-catching initiatives … One of the most useful jobs to be carried out by Tessa Jowell in the Cabinet Office or Lord Mandelson in his new Department of Everything would be to coordinate all the work being done to stimulate employment and tackle the recession”.

Ninth, while the economy undoubted still faces major challenges, it has started to grow again. Labour’s activism on tax and spend must have contributed towards this improvement.

Tenth, the British public are far from sold on David Cameron, as Michael White notes.

So, where does this leave us?

The first and second points tell us that Labour has no sensible option but to unite behind the architect of the 2005 General Election campaign: Gordon Brown. A key theme of this campaign was Labour investment versus Tory cuts. The third point might suggest that this strategy should be deployed again but the fourth and fifth points imply that this would not be credible. Instead, the government should build out of the support that it enjoys for protecting public services – the third point – to create support for what can be achieved through public services.

Our story on public services shouldn’t be about how much we invest in public services but about what we can achieve through public services. Our politics and policies should be focused on outcomes, like reduced youth unemployment, not inputs, which discussions about investment always constrain us to. Let us make a make a mission of the outcomes that we prioritise and let us be defined in these terms. The spending choices that we make should reflect these priorities, re-enforcing them both in the minds of Whitehall and the public. Which of our missions, for example, is satisfied by persisting with ID cards? The spending commitments that are not central to our missions should be subjected to the strongest scrutiny.  

The upturn in the economy – the ninth point – is beginning to give a taste of the outcomes that might be achieved when government targets its resources and energies on well-defined objectives and makes missions of them. Youth unemployment must be a mission. Thinking of the other things that should be missions makes me think of something Neal Lawson said recently:

“The story of the last thirty years has been the transfer of risk from the collective, the social and the community to the individual”.  

The risk of being left on the scrap heap of unemployment is not a risk that anyone, least of all the young, should have to face alone. The risks of growing old in an ageing society will be far larger than they should be for far too many people unless we collectively decide to make a mission of improving health and social care for the elderly. The risks of climate change are massive for all of us and can only be tackled by any of us on a collective basis.

This is the stuff of a positive case for government. It is in setting out this positive case that Labour’s best hope for the next General Election resides. This is a different kind of strategy from the 2005 campaign but one which needs to be embraced. It wouldn’t pretend that government can provide the answers to all our problems – this country still needs to have a more mature conversation about what government can and cannot do and what the responsibilities of citizens are and are not - but it would provide a coherent basis for Labour building upon the success which the beginnings of a turn-around in the economy represents. 

The anti-government reaction of the Conservatives to the banking crisis (e.g. opposition to fiscal stimulus, etc) suggests that they may be wrong footed by a strategy predicated on a positive case for government. From George Osbourne’s economic policies to Iain Duncan-Smith’s social policies, they still see government as more problem than solution. Let’s start, however, by building a positive case for what we can use government to achieve, rather than erecting unconvincing dividing lines on spending. 

The trend detected by Lawson implies that the Conservatives’ anti-government tendency is out of kilter with the times. This may explain – the eighth point – the fact that the public remain to be sold on Cameron. Labour successfully presenting a positive case for government over the next year may make him more politically vulnerable than he now appears.

“Assuming that (Benjamin) Netanyahu does not take the world by surprise tomorrow, confront his nationalists head on, pledge a total settlement freeze, and commit himself to a Palestinian state during his premiership, then the American response will be all-important. Tomorrow night will be a crucial test for the Israeli Prime Minister. The day after, an almost as crucial one for the President of the United States”.

As much as the Guardian reports that “Netanyahu (tonight) said for the first time he would accept an independent Palestinian state”, he cannot really be said to have confronted his nationalists head on. This is because, as the Guardian report, ”Netanyahu’s conditions were strict. He said the Palestinians could not form an army or sign military agreements with any other state”. Moreover, he “also praised the Jewish settlers who live in east Jerusalem and on the occupied West Bank and refused US calls for a halt to all settlement growth”.

Macintyre defined tonight’s speech as “Netanyahu’s moment of decision” but the way in which he faced it means that tomorrow is one of President Obama’s moments of decision. He will have to decide whether to maintain his pressure on Israel in respect of settlements against the backdrop of Iran’s disputed election - which creates another moment of decision for Obama.  

This disturbing context might suggest that Obama will tone down his rhetoric but Peter Beinart explains why the opposite may be the case:

“He’s taking on Netanyahu where the Israeli Prime Minister is weakest. Israelis may not be thrilled about freezing settlement growth, but it’s not an issue like Iran’s nuclear program, which they consider important enough to risk their relationship with the U.S. over. A poll published in Israel’s largest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, on June 5 found that 56% of Israelis would rather cave on the settlements issue than face sanctions by the U.S”.

Beinart goes on to say:

“Netanyahu has bigger fish to fry. He knows that sometime in the next year or two, he could well end up paying a visit to the White House to ask for U.S. support for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program. For an Israeli Prime Minister, alienating a U.S. President is almost always bad politics, but it’s particularly bad politics when you need his help to stop what you’ve called an existential threat. If Israelis decide Netanyahu can’t negotiate with the U.S. effectively over Iran, they may demand that he be replaced with someone who can”.

Obama has been right to tackle Israel over settlement growth and, oddly enough, events in Iran may make it easier for him to push back against Netanyahu. What is happening in Iran makes it even more important to Israel to retain American support, which, under Obama, they are more likely to get by changing their line on settlements. This is to say nothing of how America responds directly to events in Iran. That is another moment of decision. They do come thick and fast in the White House.

“The challenge for David Cameron is huge. If, as seems likely, he becomes Prime Minister next year, it will be his task to ensure that future generations do not look back on the years 1979-2009 as a blip — an aberrant resurgence — in the otherwise steady decay of a once great nation”.

Johnson seems more eager to embrace Thatcher than Cameron. Perhaps, the differing attitudes of these two rivals for the leadership of the Tory Party, reflect a deeper fault line in the Tories – or, maybe, Cameron is simply more sensitive to the national mood than Johnson. Cameron may remain loath to reveal himself as a Thatcherite while public opinion continues to be as starkly divided over Thatcher as Tim Adams recently observed in The Guardian:

“It’s exactly 30 years since she came to power, nearly 20 since she was unseated and still none of us can rationalise, quite, what we feel about her – either our loathing or our adoration. Even as her era and her “-ism” abruptly ends – in the bail-out and humbling of her market economy, the smashing up of the banks – no one can get to us as a nation quite like she can”.

There is no Thatcher myth. There never was. There is a massively polarising figure and fierce debate about her policies. In contrast, a book has recently been published with the title Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future. Amazon tells us of Will Bunch’s book:

“Nearly two decades after leaving office and four years after his death, the legend of Ronald Reagan looms larger than ever over America’s political life. Nowhere has that been more evident than in the 2008 presidential campaign, with Republicans – especially presumptive nominee John McCain – appearing to run more aggressively for the Reagan mantle than for the White House itself, and with even Democrats debating how to add some Reagan lustre to their progressive platform”.

I know that Gordon Brown had Thatcher round for tea but no Labour person seriously wants to add some Thatcher “lustre to their progressive platform”. That would be absurd. Philip Collins has done a good job of explaining why this is so.

So, why does the UK attitude towards Thatcher seem so different from the US attitude to Reagan? Was Reagan less divisive? Only fighting Communists without, rather than “enemies within”? “Enemies” which never existed on the same scale in the US as they did in the UK, suggesting the less ambiguous US attitude towards Reagan may find its historical origin in the weaker socialist traditions in the US. This is the right nation, after all.    

“Is he a nice guy? Yes. Is he a great guy to play golf with? Yes. Does he have plenty of money to run a football club? Yes. I really care only about those three things. Whether he is guilty of something over in Thailand, I can’t worry … I worked for Nike who were accused of child-labour issues and I managed to have a career there for 15 years. I believed we were innocent of most of the issues. Morally, I felt comfortable in that environment”.

Last year Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, crown prince of Abu Dhabi, bought the club from Frank Sinatra, as Ricky Hatton, another famous fan, refers to Shinawatra. Even more money was thrown at the club. Robinho, for one, arrived in a blaze of madness.

History has not, however, recorded whether the crown prince of Abu Dhabi is “a great guy to play golf with”. Nonetheless, there is now reason to believe that his half-brother may not be entirely “a nice guy”.  This is because a video has recently emerged in which Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al-Nahyan is seen shooting at, setting fire to and running over a helpless Afghan he had accused of cheating him in a business deal. “The tape”, reports The Guardian, ”is a terrible blow to the human rights image of the UAE, which for decades has been portraying itself as a western-friendly country ripe for trade and investment”. It also makes me wonder what Cook has got to say for himself now.

He’ll probably say that the crown prince shouldn’t have to answer for the alleged crimes of his half-brother. But Manchester City fans might begin to wonder whether their club is about to be used as a PR vehicle to re-build the damaged image of the UAE. World politics seems increasingly played out in the English Premiership. The disintegration of Iceland’s banking system explains much of what is happening at West Ham. The massive debts that Liverpool and Manchester United have taken on are now serviced by banks that are owned to varying degrees by the taxpayers of the UK and the US, respectively. As western governments consider the extent to which human rights feature in their diplomatic and foreign policy strategies, be they strategies that deploy hard power, soft power or smart power, Manchester City fans are left to contemplate what role their club now has in these great games. Though, they may just be wondering why Robinho can’t play as well as he did at Everton on Saturday in all away games. Certainly, such considerations are likely to be closer to the front of Cook’s mind than any concerns about skeletons beneath his office’s floor.