Pundits and commentators heaved a collective sigh of relief this week with the publication of a special Uncool Britannia edition of Newsweek There was a pleasant symmetry in the way the media craze for Cool Britannia, born four years ago on the cover of Time magazine, was finally laid to rest in its main US rival. For the carpers, this will be taken as final proof that Tony Blair and the government should drop their attempts to "rebrand Britain" and get on with the real business of governing the country.
But what the special edition of Newsweek really proves is that pundits and critics can still distort and misrepresent an argument. If ever there was a media-created straw man, Cool Britannia is it. Spun into existence by journalists, caricatured by commentators, it has been used by people from all walks of life united only by their common thirst for publicity.
In 1997, I wrote a report entitled Britain[TM]: renewing our identity, which called for Britain to be rebranded. The report emphasised Britain's place as a hub, importing and exporting ideas, goods, services, people and cultures; our traditions of creativity and non-conformity; our history as a hybrid nation; our readiness to do business; our role as a silent revolutionary creating new forms of organisation; and the long-established ethos of fair play and voluntary commitment.
The extraordinary coincidence of the election of a new government, millenarian anxiety, reminders of the loss of empire in the handover of Hong Kong and the anniversary of Indian independence, and the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, catapulted British identity to centre stage.
This debate was never about being cool, or even trying to be cool. People criticise the government for trying to bask in the reflected glory of pop groups, fashion designers and film stars through receptions at Downing Street. But not so long ago the same people complained that the government wasn't taking them seriously. These cultural icons craved recognition for years; now, they don't seem to know what to do once they receive it. Their response? Be anti-establishment and attack the government. And the media-driven frenzy surrounding Cool Britannia elevates the "pop star attacks government" stories to the top of the news bulletins and on to the front pages.
The crucial point is that creativity and the creative industries are far more important than the egos of their most visible ambassadors. Ben Elton said in a Radio Times rant that "jobs are cool, not some bloke in a dress getting applauded by Naomi Campbell". He's right - and this is precisely why creative industries are important. Any industry growing at twice the speed of the rest of the economy and worth [pounds]55 billion a year must be important.
Recognition of the need to project British creativity and innovation - the "cool" in Cool Britannia - is only a small part of rebranding Britain. Just as important is the recognition that we are a thriving multicultural society, good Europeans and a country with a well-trained and highly motivated workforce. And here's the rub. Around the world, many people do not see us as we really are: they still regard Britain's industries as less innovative and committed to quality than our competitors', and many of the stereotypes about class, food, race and strikes remain entrenched. This is what rebranding is all about: closing the gap between perception and reality.
Critics in the media have lampooned rebranding as ahistorical. They see it as casually casting off the heritage and history that made Britain great and replacing it with the garish baubles of nineties public relations speak. This misses the point on two counts. First, it assumes that identifies are cast in stone: that no matter how much a country changes, its institutions, attitudes and identity will remain the same. But to argue this is to ignore that nations have always recreated their identities: monarchs, emperors, popes and parliaments all used icons, myths and ceremonies to tell the world what they stood for. Britain and Britishness have been reinvented at various times - most recently by Margaret Thatcher, who developed an aggressive identity defined by the Tebbit cricket test, the sinking of the Belgrano and Euro-hostility.
It is clear that Britain has changed dramatically over the last few years. Our economy has moved from one based on heavy industry to one based more on services and knowledge; our constitution is changing to reflect our diversity; our empire has disappeared and been replaced with EU membership; we have become more ethnically mixed.
Attacks on rebranding fail to recognise that the qualities we are trying to celebrate - creativity, multiculturalism, openness to the world - are all deeply rooted in British history and culture. Far from abandoning our history, renewing our identity tries to achieve a better fit between Britain's past, present and future.
Critics of Cool Britannia claim that you can't market or sell a country like a product. This is self-evidently true: national identity is complex and sophisticated. But it does not follow that image is irrelevant or can't be managed. Today all modern nations manage their identities. They use logos, advertising campaigns, festivals and trade fairs to promote a national brand. Some have been incredibly successful. Recently Ireland transformed its image from that of a rural, traditional Catholic country to an innovative "Celtic tiger". Spain managed to shed the shadow of Franco and redefine itself as a modern democratic industrial nation using the Espana picture by Miro as a national logo symbolising a bright, optimistic, young country.
In Britain last year, we spent close to [pounds]800 million of public money on projecting Britain's identity through the Foreign Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the British Council, the Invest in Britain Bureau, the British Tourist Authority and the BBC World Service. But these organisations have tended to reinforce the worst stereotypes of Britain with their ageing diplomatic missions filled with Chippendale furniture, titled envoys and cardboard cut-out Beefeaters at trade fairs.
The key to rebranding is not flags and logos but defining a story that is unique to the country and rooted in reality. Spain was indeed becoming more open, modern and liberal. Ireland really was booming in new industries. Britain needs a story that makes sense of where we have come from, reflects the best of what we are and makes a strong statement about where we are going. The rebranding of Britain is about trying to come up with a coherent narrative that makes sense of the complexity of modern Britain and distils it into clear themes that can be coherently projected.
So is this all froth, a distraction from the serious business of government? Most certainly not; far from being a political distraction, rebranding is an economic necessity. Three-quarters of the world's largest companies say that national identity influences them when they buy goods and services. Most people are willing to pay over the odds for products from certain countries, whether it is engineering from Germany or consumer electronics from Japan.
More than 50,000 companies in Britain have "British" or "UK" in their names; scores of others are associated with Britain in other ways. Many are suffering from the poverty of the British brand image; indeed, some found the British image so damaging that they dropped the "British" from their names. Most famously, Dixons named its own-brand "Matsui" to make it sound Japanese.
But rebranding is not just about economics. Identity is an issue that matters to everyone in the country and in which everyone has a stake. The reason why Britain[TM] became so high-profile is that there are news pegs for it every week: the behaviour of England fans at the World Cup or a new book by the Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland on Britain's identity complex.
The tragedy of modern liberalism is a failure to engage with the issues surrounding national identity. There is a feeling that, if you close your eyes for long enough, you will wake up to discover that we are all living cosily side by side in a picturesque global village. But one of the striking features of the modern day is the enduring salience of national identity. And this presents us with a choice. Either you can work at identity and try to make it positive and inclusive. Or, by default, you get an identity which is backward-looking and exclusive.
Maybe now that Cool Britannia is dead we can have a serious debate about what being British is about. It's already happening in pubs and clubs up and down the country. It's also happening in government: FCO Panel 2000 will shortly publish a review of the government's efforts to project Britain to the world - expos, trade fairs, embassies, government buildings - and practical proposals to convey the new reality of a nation that is self-confident, creative, tolerant, ethnically diverse and outward-looking.
The most powerful medium of all newspapers - must play their part. It is ironic that the unintended consequence of the media's infatuation with a phantom debate has been the most thorough discussion of Britishness in a decade. By rubbishing any discussion of identity, the media have managed to elevate it to the very apex of public policy. For that, at least, they have my warmest thanks.
A brief history of Cool Britannia
April 1996
The phrase "Cool Britannia" first appears as a Ben & Jerry's ice-cream flavour, launched by a woman dressed as Britannia riding around the Royal Albert Hall dragging an inflatable ice-cream tub.
November 1996
Time magazine anoints London as "the coolest city in the world".
February 1997
In a "Swinging London" issue Vanity Fair puts its weight behind Cool Britannia.
May 1997
The New culture secretary, Chris Smith, says Cool Britannia is here to stay.
July 1997
Tony Blair hosts a Downing Street soiree with stars of sport and music. The Oasis songwriter Noel Gallagher says the party is "top".
February 1998
Wayne Hemingway, chairman of the streetwear label Red or Dead, denounces the notion of Cool Britannia.
March 1998
The Oasis boss Alan McGee becomes a government adviser.
The New Musical Express accuses Labour spin-doctors of stealing British culture and repackaging it under " a cute brand name", Jarvis Cocker, lead singer of Pulp, says "it would have been better had the Tories won the election."
May 1998
Britpop stars warn that the New Deal will stifle creative talent; the government backs down and announces that future performers will be an exception. Blair tries to save Cool Britannia at the G8 summit in Birmingham with the heads of state and their wives treated to a concert by chart-topping girl band All Saints.
June 1998
Newsweek reports that "for all the blather about Cool Britannia, much of the country remains old."