THE TORIES have had one, the Lib Dems have had one, and now Labour MPs and members feel rather deprived. They might not get a leadership contest at all; and even if they do, Gordon Brown will win with a margin that would impress Kim Jong Il. So all the talk at Westminster now is of why there should at least be a proper contest for deputy leader.
John Prescott does not have to stand down at the same time as Tony Blair. He has suggested to friends that he might stay on for the sake of continuity. But that would be a big mistake for the party, and it is likely that either Mr Brown or Mr Blair will prevail upon him to give someone else a turn.
The current Deputy Prime Minister will have had ten years or so in the job. He will be more than 70 by the time of the next election: not much help to a party taking on the youth and freshness of David Cameron. And his ability to reach the parts of the party that Mr Blair doesn’t — the trade unions, old Labour, the working-class vote — will be of much less use to Mr Brown.
The Chancellor himself is so well-known to voters that he could do with a fresher, younger face as a deputy. That is the main argument against Jack Straw, who in other respects could be rather good. Mr Straw is a real House of Commons man. He would relish the schmoozing of Labour MPs that Mr Brown detests. I have watched Mr Straw campaigning in three general elections in his constituency and can attest that he is also superb at grassroots politics. He would be good at re-energising the party in the country and bringing it closer to the voters.
The Foreign Secretary is English, which is a sine qua non of the next deputy. John Reid and Alistair Darling are automatically ruled out, as Labour could not be led by two Scottish men. But many women are also arguing that the perfect complement to a Scottish man would be an English woman.
Which woman, though? If there were one who was clearly better than the rest, the men would not even challenge her. They see the point of a balanced ticket. But there isn’t one obvious candidate.
Tessa Jowell might have laid claim to this position a couple of months ago. She has the emotional intelligence that Mr Brown lacks and the middle-class reassurance to reach out to those voters in middle England who may miss Mr Blair. She would also reassure Blairites within the party that their views were still represented at the top of government. If Mr Blair does not step down for another couple of years, then maybe Ms Jowell’s recent troubles will be far enough behind her. For the moment, though, she looks too damaged.
Patricia Hewitt is the most intellectually able woman of her generation in the Cabinet, but she does not have much parliamentary or trade-union backing. And she would not stand against Harriet Harman, an old friend.
Ms Harman will almost certainly run. She shares some of Ms Jowell’s merits, and has the added advantage that her husband, Jack Dromey, is a senior trade unionist. His recent whistleblowing activities won’t have done her cause any harm among Labour members disillusioned with Mr Blair. Whether she could stand up to Mr Brown, though, is debatable. He eats people like her for breakfast.
Ruth Kelly, on paper, looks like the perfect complement to the current Chancellor. She is young, fresh, English and very able. But, like him, she lacks the ability to engage emotionally both with colleagues and voters. In character, the two are too similar.
It is just conceivable that Hazel Blears might fit the bill, assuming she is promoted to Cabinet at the next reshuffle. She has a good human touch and would make many female voters feel that the Government listened to people like them.
But once you start looking at the other likely male candidates, there is so much talent there that they are hardly likely to make way for an all-woman contest.
It is not clear whether Charles Clarke will stand, but he would be more than a match for Mr Brown. If anything, he is too strong a personality. Voters might be repelled by a Labour Party led by two bruisers.
Peter Hain is bound to run. He has been assiduously putting himself around, visiting all the party’s regional conferences. He would be the most left-wing of the candidates, which is an advantage in the party, if not in the country. But he would have trouble working with Mr Brown.
That leaves two relative unknowns, both of whom could lay a very good claim to the deputy leadership. The first, Alan Johnson, has the working-class credentials of Mr Prescott but the charm and facility of Mr Blair. A former postman, he rose to run the Union of Communication Workers, yet he has been bravely Blairite in supporting public service reforms. He made the case for top-up fees much better than Mr Clarke, then his boss.
The second is Hilary Benn, Overseas Development Secretary. His position in the Benn dynasty will appeal to Labour members, as will his commitment to reducing world poverty. His idealism could stir a little passion in their jaded breasts. But he would not cause trouble for Mr Brown, as he is nothing like as left-wing as his father.
Who does Gordon want? That is what everyone in Westminster is asking. The Chancellor is keeping his own counsel for the time being. But he will not necessarily be able to engineer victory for the candidate of his choice.
MPs have a big say in this contest. They control personally a third of the votes, and they have a strong influence on another third: the members in their constituency. They fear that Mr Brown will want to govern with a tight cabal and that he will pay even less attention to them than Mr Blair has done. So they will favour someone who represents their interests.
The election for the deputy leadership may even be their first act of rebellion against their new leader.
maryann.sieghart@thetimes.co.uk
Join the Debate
Send your e-mails via www.timesonline.co.uk/debate
