Divvying up putative seats on the UN’s highest decision-making body, the Security Council, is a favourite diplomatic parlour game. We seem to be in high season. On November 7, the US backed India for a permanent seat. A day later, Britain suggested Brazil deserved one.

The outbreak of manoeuvring does not mean that reform is imminent, or even likely. US president Barack Obama’s support of India was primarily designed to win favour in Delhi. William Hague, Britain’s foreign minister, hopes to boost the UK’s shrivelled influence in Latin America. Supporting a country’s bid for a seat at the world’s top table is an appealingly cheap way to improve bilateral relations.

In principle, the Security Council would benefit from an overhaul. The choice of Britain, the US, Russia, China and France as the council’s core of permanent members made sense in the geopolitics of the postwar settlement. But to retain its legitimacy, the council needs to find room for the states that will shape the 21st century. Giving these states a bigger stake in decision-making would give the UN greater clout. This would be wise: the UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, failed in part because it could not persuade powers, such as the US, to support it.