Cameron goes to India

It's easy to criticise the coalition: the budget was heavily regressive when compared to Labour's, defence and justice policy seem to be completely different to the policies advocated during the campaign, and its difficult to discern any coherent principles or realistic long-term vision for the country.

Nonetheless, Cameron's trip to India is a remarkable display of political skill and vision. You only have to look at the personnel to see how seriously Cameron is taking the trip: Cameron, Osborne, Hague, two more cabinet members and 50 FTSE Chief Executives make for heavyweight diplomacy. We also have to remember India's status: as a relatively young democracy with an extremely young middle-class, India yearns for respect on the international stage - giving it the appropriate respect could do wonders for international relations, and be the foundation of a new and equally important 'special relationship'.

In the wider political landscape, the trip along with the new bilateral and trading emphasis Hague has brought to the Foreign Office signal a major change in the way we see foreign policy. Since the bitter debates we used to have about the future of the British Empire in the 50s and 60s have fizzled out, Foreign Policy debate has been purely reactionary. Of course, there is much to criticise: I very much doubt whether forging independent biltaeral relations is realistic for a country the size of the U.K., and if it results in policies that differ substantively from those adopted by other EU nations of the US it will substantively weaken relations with our most important diplomatic partners for miniscule gain.

There was very little debate about whether or not to go into Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo or Sierra Leone. We argued about the sexed up dossier, and about whether we had enough troops, and about whether other NATO countries do their share; but very rarely did the major parties say anything substantively or fundamentally different. A move from multilateral to bilateral relations, however, would be a fundamental change in the way the UK conducts itself and a return to pre-WW2 diplomacy.

It will be fascinating to see how Labour respond. A credible response must be different to the response in other policy areas: it is easy for Labour to be reactionary and simply criticise Tory cuts, Tory academics and Tory unfairness, but it is very difficult to blitely criticise positive action. Labour must either agree with the changes; or put forward a positive alternative vision that focuses on multilateral rather than bilateral relationships. Either will require a change of tack from the reactionary politics dominating at the moment, and will be a significant test for Labour's new leader.