UK:How stands the Union? The question suggests itself at the conclusion of Gordon Brown's first prime ministerial visit to the United States. As does the answer, that - from both the international and domestic perspectives - it all looks pretty darned peculiar, writes Frank Millar, London Editor.
Brown's people appear content their man has launched himself on the world stage with some success. Yet it is arguable that we now know even less than we thought about the new British prime minister.
We certainly know plenty about the messages and images Brown thought to impart, both to his various American audiences and his Labour constituency at home.
Seemingly ill at ease standing alongside President Bush at Camp David, Brown apparently only found his passion on stage at the United Nations talking about Darfur and the "moral mission" to tackle poverty and disease in the developing world.
This has been interpreted by some as a significant redefinition of "the special relationship", reflecting Brown's realisation that the West needs to regain the high moral ground if it is to win the "battle for hearts and minds" against Islamist extremism.
Yet Tony Blair would have spoken with equal conviction about the deployment of moral force, of the fight against terrorism as a "struggle for the soul of the 21st century". And, as the Daily Telegraph observed yesterday: "It is the hated United States that has led the way on Darfur, not the UN."
So what's going on? Most risible obviously has been the suggestion that "change" in the post-Blair era would see an end to Labour's reliance on "spin". Brown and his team are as skilled as any in the dark arts and just about everything seems spun - from the colour of his ties (predominantly blue) to the choice of a suit rather than casual gear for the Camp David encounter. Brown's long list of issues was plainly intended to mark him down as a serious man.
But what of the description of those discussions as "full and frank" - normally diplomatic language for a row?
The BBC's respected political editor certainly had the impression that hours of private Bush/Brown talks went very well, and the president claimed to have found in his new ally a humorous rather than a dour Scot.
What are we to believe? What are we meant to believe? Or from the conflicting signals on offer are we free to pick and mix and make our own minds up? Of course Brown wants some distance from this now-unpopular second-term president and would much prefer to play "bulldog" to Tony Blair's alleged "poodle". The prime minister will happily withdraw troops from Iraq on the sort of timetable actually foreshadowed on Blair's watch - preferably under cover of a change in US policy come September.
Yet the impression is also allowed that the "successful" completion of the British mission in Basra might come even sooner than expected and that the moment can't come soon enough for Brown, even as he affirms intent to meet the UK's obligations and commitments.
But what happens if, against current expectation, the president is persuaded to extend the military "surge" in Iraq? What then of the "special relationship"?
We know it is still special. Brown confirmed Britain's "most important bilateral relationship" was with the US, and the president reciprocated.
So what of those ministerial hints of greater multilateralism, seemingly embodied in the appointment of Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch Brown, a critic of the Washington neocons who fancies Britain and the US will no longer be joined at the hip? Playing to the domestic audience may be a political necessity (although Blair eventually tired of that). However, the conduct of foreign policy has to be about more than striking a pose, especially given its direct bearing on security at home.
It was the president who provided the reminder of this on Monday, claiming Brown's agreement that failure in Iraq would be disastrous for the security of both their countries. For his part, Bush professed his belief that Brown got this.
The prime minister in turn proclaimed his desire to see the alliance grow even stronger.
In an NBC interview Brown even used the word "war" in the context of the fight against terrorism, whereas in Britain the failure to speak of the "war on terror" has been projected as part of the change from the Blair years. "It is a war," Brown declared, then likening it again to "the cold war" before defining it as "a struggle for the soul of the 21st century".
It was a soundbite that would have made Alastair Campbell, Blair's former communications director, proud. But as such, it also compounds the difficulty of those struggling to grasp what, if anything, has actually changed.
Some cynics will conclude nothing much, save for mood music permitting the Labour Party to feel a little bit better about itself.
Inspecting Brown's domestic agenda as it relates to the "struggle" against terror, they might also find little evidence of a real-terms change from the hardline positions of Blair and former home secretary John Reid. Some money has been found to help the "hearts and minds" effort to prevent the radicalisation of Muslim youths.
At the same time, Brown wants to double the time terror suspects can be held, in addition to changing the rules to allow police to carry on questioning suspects after charges have been preferred. The calculation of some left-wing MPs is that Brown's more emollient tone may see him succeed on an issue that saw Blair defeated in the Commons.
Tone is certainly helping Brown extend his honeymoon period, as is the failure of David Cameron's Conservatives to arrive at a fully coherent position from which to provide critical commentary as Britain's "new" government faces in numerous directions.
The certainty, however, is that language and tone will not suffice when decisions are called for - as they will be.