The cover story in this week’s Economist praises the outcome of the primary process in the US elections.  Its leader comments that “this is the most impressive choice America has had for a very long time”.

Most people would agree.  Whatever differences one might have on specific policies with either of the two candidates (for my part, McCain’s consistent support for free trade makes him a better candidate than Obama), they are both impressive, substantial figures.  Both are brave enough to tell truths that are difficult for their party.  Both have their own, essentially positive message.  It’s worth dwelling on the contrast between this duo and the choice that ten months ago looked the most likely: Clinton-Romney -  two masters of negative campaigning, neither of whom really knew what they wanted to be President in order to achieve. 

The praise for the options facing the American electorate made me wonder when we in the UK last had such an interesting choice.  It’s all the more relevant in the light of Scott’s observations a couple of weeks ago about Britain’s ever more presidential approach to politics.

In fact it’s quite hard to find an example of when two such appreciable figures did contest a UK election as party leaders.  The most substantial figures in UK politics in the post-war period – Blair, Thatcher, Wilson, Macmillan, Churchill and Attlee – generally faced less convincing opponents. There are good arguments for some exceptions, of course:  Callaghan, Gaitskell, Hague and Howard were all politicians of some stature but ones who, for different reasons, weren’t really able to take the fight to their opponent.   At times, moreover, the Opposition has had a better option and has failed to take it: a Healey/Thatcher election in 1983 might have been a fairer fight than Foot/Thatcher;  Rab Butler would probably have been a more invigorating opponent to Wilson than Douglas-Home.

The biggest exception, obviously, lies back in 1945 when Churchill and Attlee faced one another directly  (although by the time of the 1951 election both of them were arguably rather diminished forces).

Looking forward, it is presently very hard to see Gordon Brown making it onto the list of the more substantial leaders in post-War politics, in what looks likely to be his only general election.  Cameron may offer the appeal of the young Obama, but Brown is no courageous McCain. 

But lest we worry that the choice we are given is somehow consistently poorer than in the US, we should recall the bumper sticker that did the rounds in the 1960 presidential election between Kennedy and Nixon – possibly the last time that two really substantial (albeit utterly flawed) figures fought it out in the US. The text of the bumper sticker: “At least they can’t both win”.