David Miliband

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya): On Thursday I wrote an immediate analysis of the 'The case of Binyam Mohamed'. It raises fundamental issues about how we are ruled and whether, indeed, we enjoy the rule of law. 

An examination of extensive exchanges in Parliament last Thursday reported in Hansard makes it clear that David Miliband now claims the US authorities did not make threats in relation to the sharing of intelligence information and that he had not raised this aspect of the BM case with colleagues in the US since the inauguration of President Obama. This is so astonishing as to defy belief when placed next to what the Divisional Court said in its last judgement published last Wednesday. I quote:

Hassan Akram (Cambridge): The search for a replacement for Gordon Brown is slowly becoming public. Last week Brown lost a second member of his Government after David Cairns followed Siobhan McDonagh in openly demanding that Labour look for a new leader.  McDonagh said she wanted to start the party thinking about who should replace Brown and refused to be drawn on who she thought might do the job best.  But Cairns went further, hinting that he “had someone in mind” although he refused to say who it was. Of course, it is an open secret that a large group of MPs, worried about losing their seats in the next election, want to replace Brown with David Miliband.  Miliband is seen as the only candidate youthful and vigorous enough to challenge David Cameron’s slick new Tory brand. The Party Conference is likely to put this on hold, but there can be little doubt that Milliband is hoping to be rewarded for "good behaviour".

James Graham (Quaequam Blog): I'm probably one of the most pro-Labour Lib Dems you are ever likely to meet. A Georgist and an electoral reformer, I'm very conscious of the fact that I am likely to meet more fellow travellers within Labour than the Conservatives (although not as many as I'd like). Despite spending the day knocking up voters in a hopeless (for us) Lib Dem-Labour marginal, in the evening on 1 May 1997 I cheered as loudly as anyone when it became apparent that the Tories were finally on their way out.

What, then, should I make of the prospect of a Miliband Premiership, given his stated aim of uniting the traditions of social democracy and radical liberalism "into a single narrative"? - an approach that like other matters appears in a transparently clear but nonetheless coded form in his Guardian article.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Israel is now close to deciding whether it will attack Iran's nuclear installations, and if it does whether it will use tactical nuclear weapons to penetrate their underground shields. This will be on the agenda of Ehud Olmert's talks in Washington. Apparently the urgency turns of the Russian air defense systems which Iran acquired and which will soon become operational. Given the long flights even Israeli planes would be exposed to being hit. If then a longer operation is needed the way might be opened for Iran to strike back in some way with consequences for, say, the price of oil. American permission may hinge on these calculations too. Can Israel deliver a fait accompli so swiftly that any later response by Iran can be construed as an "attack"? Oddly enough Olmert's domestic weakness may make him the ideal person to order the assault before he steps down. Of course, it would also be Bush's goodbye card as well.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): A significant article in The Times points to a clash between the UK's Foreign Secretary and now a contender for PM and the likely Democratic Party nominee. It says that Miliband has "raised questions" about Obama's Iran policy. Miliband takes what he would call a 'firm' attitude towards Iran and opposes opening negotiations with Tehran (at least while Washington does). I wonder. My impression is that London fears an Israeli attack on Iran over the summer. Is Miliband really positioning himself to support this? According to the Times,
"A Foreign Office spokesman later said: “I just want to stress that David Miliband is not confused about Obama’s policy. It would be quite wrong to say that.”

Meanwhile, the Republicans have been quick to expoit the opening, "Mr McCain’s foreign policy chief, Randy Scheunemann, would not comment on his own meetings with Mr Miliband. But he said: 'Obama’s position is obviously different to that of Britain and France. Otherwise Prime Minister Brown and President Sarkozy would have already met the President of Iran without conditions'."

Claire O'Brien (Florence, EUI): Brown will not come back from this. £120 cashback or not, his premiership appears to draw closer to twilight with every passing day. The one thing that could resurrect it would be to set a fresh progressive course for Labour and for Britain in tomorrow's draft Queen's speech. It seems inconceivable this will happen. Which means a new leader, from a new generation, who can articulate that agenda is essential. It is clear by now that if Labour does not offer a new direction, the Tories will.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Over a year ago a Blairite told me he thought that David Cameron would be the Tory Neil Kinnock - the leader who would make his party electable but not get it, or himself, elected. I was unconvinced. But now that the Conservatives under Cameron are about to sweep to local election victories across the country I'm thinking that maybe there is something in it.. The trigger was getting the Political Home Index survey (which is of supposed insiders - declaration of interest, I'm one) on whether Cameron had what it takes. It was completed early this week and reported under the cryptic headline Cameron has not Sealed the Deal Here is the result:

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Sunder Katwala of the Fabians announces that he has got Gordon Brown to agree to an inquiry about the Iraq war, writing to him that,

I agree with you that there is a need to learn all possible lessons from the military action in Iraq and its aftermath. This Government has already acknowledged that there will come a time when it is appropriate to hold an inquiry.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): According to the Guardian the Foreign Secretary is about to give a major speech in Oxford in honour of Aung San Suu Kyi. From the way Polly Toynbee writes about it, she has been given the transcript in advance - cleared already I hope by the Prime Minister... It seems that he is going to make a passionate plea for us to support democracy around the world (while, as Polly points out, not supporting democrat voting here at home). It seems to be a fact of life these days that one has to blow one's own trumpet to have a hope of being heard - or in this case, I can modestly say, half a trumpet. But a little over two years ago Isabel Hilton and I wrote a now reprinted article on the global fight for democracy. We showed that there are three linked processes: the need to support the achievement of basic democratic norms - the rule of law, fair elections, freedom of speech - in countries that do not have these, from China to the Middle East; the need to tackle the democratisation of global institutions in ways that are appropriate - accountability, transparency; and the need to deepen democracy in its traditional heartlands, from the USA to India and Britain, where the representative system is clearly failing. We argue that of course it is essential to extend solidarity and support to those struggling to achieve democracy where it does not exist - the point Miliband is apparently going to make. We must not allow 'Bush-Blair' style interventions to undermine this. But to achieve public support in the West and convince people globally, calls for democracy in 'the global south' need to be linked to demands for democracy in our global institutions and for making it a much improved reality of it in countries privileged enough to enjoy elections and the rule of law as we currently know them.

Sunder Katwala (London, Fabian Society):  We are exactly a year from the happy prospect of a new US President taking office. Bush’s progressive critics must now deepen the debate. So this year’s Fabian conference – ‘Change the World’ – was dedicated to global issues,– to ask what change in America and the year in which China will take the global spotlight will mean for us, but also to ask how progressives in Britain and Europe should respond. Hopes of progress on the great issues we face – from climate change to a response to terrorism - which uphold our democratic values depend on making 2008 a year of new ideas in foreign policy.David Miliband offered a thoughtful keynote speech arguing that a number of fundamental power shifts were reshaping our world.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): For the first time I can remember a leading politician holding one of the highest offices of state has cut through the guff and grasped the determining issue for the arguments over identity, community and democratic reform in Britain, without which participation and citizens juries are so much hot air. David Milliband, writing in today's Telegraph, puts it perfectly, "Solidarity is founded on shared values and interests, whether a belief in individual human dignity or a common determination to tackle climate change or promote free trade. But shared interests and shared values are not enough to unite us. They need to be embodied in shared projects and shared institutions... Institutions matter. And outward-looking, open, engaged institutions have life and vitality. That is what we need".

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): In a striking and I think very important article in the Financial Times the despicable John Bolton, one time US Ambassador to the United Nations, lays down the line, telling Britain, and in particular Gordon Brown and David Miliband (whom he accuses of being “clever but meaningless”) that “You can’t have two best friends”.

Jon Bright (London, OK): It's hard not to be overwhelmingly cynical about foreign policy - so disconnected from public opinion that we regularly throw in our international lot with a figure both disastrously incompetent and nationally despised. I came to politics late: it was the Iraq war that made me take notice, and the failure of the anti-war march that made me disillusioned (21 years to get interested and less than 3 months to get cynical - New Labour always did work fast).

Paul Hilder (Lewisham, Avaaz.org): Do you have a question for Britain's new foreign secretary David Miliband? A statement, piece of advice, warning or encouragement? Our million-strong global advocacy network, Avaaz.org, has agreed to co-host Miliband's first speech this Thursday - because he's agreed to take questions and challenges from people around the world.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): As 10 Downing Street announces a special Friday cabinet meeting to discuss the constitution and distributing power to the citizen (watch this space) an entirely modern constitutional question arises for which - hold onto the banisters - there is no precedent. Can Her Majesty's Foreign Secretary have a blog and if so can he conduct his meetings with other dignitaries in Second Life?