I mentioned yesterday that there is a new exhibition in St Petersburg in honour of the contributions to lepidoptery by Vladimir Nabokov Nothing wrong with that. There is a danger that in order to reassure the mighty Mr Murdoch, Labour’s next leader will feel obliged to prove that he is a promiscuous cross-dresser too.s.richards independent.co.uk

More from Steve Richards. They regard it as weak.When Mr Blair returns from holiday at the end of August there will be a renewed frenzy of speculation about the timing of his departure This is a highly charged but peripheral issue. The much bigger question is whether anyone on the centre-left can provide a greater sense of political purpose. But Mr Blair should note too that others in his Government, including some in the Cabinet, do not see his attachment to the US as an example of bold leadership. The urgency reflects the growing concerns of senior figures within the Government, but the additional qualification -”as soon as possible” – keeps all options open as Britain stands shoulder to shoulder with the United States.I spoke to one Brownite minister last week, who said: “I hope Gordon would have been bolder in this situation.” The fact that he was not sure is worth noting.

Now Mr Blair has reached the contorted point where he notes the “urgent need for a ceasefire as soon as possible”. John Rentoul pointed out in The Independent on Sunday that the recorded conversation between President Bush and Mr Blair at the G8 did not expose immediately Mr Blair’s subservience. Commendably, Mr Blair took a more urgent view of the situation and wanted to head off on a diplomatic mission. His readiness not to go when President Bush implied it would be unwelcome signalled the limits of Britain’s independence in foreign policy.

Yet now the Conservatives accept the higher levels of spending for schools and hospitals even if they dispute the way the money has been spent.In foreign affairs also, Mr Blair’s cross-dressing has limited his vision. If Mr Blair had been unchallenged there would have been no additional increases in investment during the second term He lacked an adequate ideological route map Cross-dressing was not leading anywhere. Fortunately Gordon Brown had also recognised the need for higher investment and had begun to plan for a tax rise. Mr Blair’s view was that the problems relating to investment had been addressed in the first term Voters would not accept a rise in tax.

Presumably Mr Blair was following his instincts as a cross-dresser. Perhaps he had looked at the Conservatives, noting that they were also opposed to tax increases, and to President Bush, who was announcing a series of tax cuts in the US in 2001.Less damaged by the defeats of the 1980s, his younger advisers prevailed. They said also that the cash would have to be raised through higher taxes Mr Hyman reports that Mr Blair was opposed. There have been several pivotal moments in recent years, when decisive and progressive leadership was required but Mr Blair was too distracted, eyeing up the clothes of his opponents. He was cautious and hesitant: the very characteristics that he claims to regard as the sins of leadership.After the 2001 election, senior aides in Downing Street attended an away day at Chequers.

In his excellent book, one of the advisors, Peter Hyman, recalls that he and others stressed the need for increased investment in frail public services. A less traditional Prime Minister would have dared to take a distinctive stand.Political cross-dressing, like the Third Way, does not get a leader very far. They disagree with the approach of President Bush, an attitude widely held within the United States.Mr Blair warned his doting audience that: “Opposition from traditionalists is immense.” Yet he is the traditionalist. He has been desperate to follow orthodox British foreign policy, standing, as he put it again last Friday, “shoulder to shoulder” with the United States. On foreign affairs too, Mr Blair erected a false divide in his speech.