Britain's second so-called “great debate” last Thursday between the men who seek to lead the country was heralded as historic. In fact, it was a disingenuous display of the ability of practised politicians to pretend that they know the solution for the UK's major economic and political problems and that the country has reason to be hopeful about the future if it chooses wisely in May. In seeking to show themselves presidential, neither Gordon Brown, nor his principal adversary, the Conservative leader David Cameron, showed wit or wisdom. Both struggled to prove that they were reliable, the all-important quality. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, the new boy on the block, proved himself an attractive, articulate debater. Not one of the three showed a command of foreign or domestic policy and, although all promised change, their proposals for domestic and foreign affairs reform were banal and mostly rhetorical.

Yet this was not how commentators following the 90 minutes of drivel chose to see the matter. To hear them interpret the words of the three party leaders, their body language and the like, one could imagine that something important had taken place. Regrettably, these commentators wished to increase their own self- importance by pretending that they had witnessed a historic event.

For those acquainted with the situation across the Atlantic, it is clear that the UK does not today boast a political leadership that can compete effectively with Washington or negotiate with an administration that is no longer as Anglophilic as in the past. One does not need to be a fan of President Barack Obama to realise that his charisma is of a different order from what is on offer in the UK. For years after the second world war, Britain's political leadership compared favourably with America's. It no longer does. The UK would do well to consider what this portends.