Gordon Brown introduced me to Al Gore with the description that has followed me down the years – “former deputy leader of the Labour Party”.

There is not much similarity between the offices that Mr Gore and I held, but he asked if John Nance Garner’s description of the vice-presidency had come to mind when I succeeded Denis Healey. “Not worth a pitcher of warm spittle?” That comparison, I told him, grossly exaggerated the importance of the job I had done for nine years.

I enjoyed my time as Neil Kinnock’s deputy. I was able to help Mr Kinnock to elbow Labour back into the mainstream of politics. But the real joy – perhaps it was the consolation – of Opposition was engaging the enemy in policy debate. Being a Shadow always carried the faint hope of one day becoming substance. If we had won the 1992 election and I had been asked to choose between evolving from deputy leader to deputy prime minister, or becoming Home Secretary, I would have chosen Home Secretary without a moment's hesitation. In politics doing something is far more important than being somebody.

The deputy premiership is a nonsense. In the wartime Government it confirmed Attlee’s vital role within the coalition. But since then it has been used as either a consolation prize or a boost to sensitive egos. Position in the Whitehall hierarchy is defined by ability and responsibility, not by title. The same rule will apply in seven weeks’ time.

If by some malign act of fate, Hazel Blears became deputy leader and in a moment of madness Gordon Brown made her Deputy Prime Minister, the rumbustious, though ridiculous, Ms Blears would certainly not have the same influence on Government as the quiet, but hugely competent, Alistair Darling – whatever office he holds. The new Prime Minister ought to announce – before the new deputy leader is elected – that the office of deputy prime minister has been abolished. I was shanghaied into standing by John Smith, my campaign manager in the 1983 leadership election, who telephoned me to say that he had arranged for my nomination. Told that I did not want the job, he explained that my actually becoming deputy was not part of his plan. Neil Kinnock had offered to serve under me. As the next leader, I must show an equally ecumenical spirit.

The plan did not quite work out. At least my election proved that the party was (more or less) united. This year’s candidates all seem to come from approximately the same place on the political spectrum. So party members have to make their choice on a judgment about personal merit and rival views of the job. Harriet Harman’s claim to office is that she is a woman. Alan Johnson is proud to have been a postman. Hazel Blears will be busy, busy, busy. Watching the hustings on television, I longed to hear Hilary Benn say that he had inherited his mother's passion for comprehensive education – or any of them say anything about the sort of society that he or she wanted to see. They all promised to work assiduously for the party and show absolute loyalty to Gordon Brown. But I had already taken that for granted.

Would a woman leader improve Labour’s share of the women's vote? The evidence suggests not. Does Labour need to reestablish its working-class credentials? John Prescott’s tenure suggests that the origins of the deputy leader do not influence the party’s class image. Anyway, the power to attract the support of women and the working class depends on policies, not personalities. And the contenders’ policies are indistinguishable.

So what difference would it make if Peter Hain rather than Hilary Benn becomes deputy leader? Each one will sit in the Cabinet. Who cares which one is asked to answer Prime Minister’s Questions on the rare occasions when Gordon Brown is away from the House of Commons on a Wednesday? Clearly the job ought to be scrapped. While it remains, it needs to be employed in a way that will at least give it a rational purpose.

The new deputy will automatically sit on Labour’s National Executive Committee. He or she should be a responsibly independent voice, not an echo. That is the role that Jon Cruddas would occupy as deputy leader – remaining on the back benches and representing the party to the Government, rather than representing the Government to the party. He would not be required to repeat the prejudices of Marxists and Trotskyites, Bennites and flat-earthers. The days when the constituency Labour parties represented the wilder shores of politics have gone. That does not mean that the role of deputy leader should be a permanent feature of Labour's constitution. It should be abolished, as pointless, as soon as is decently possible. But in the special conditions of today – the party in desperate need of revival – electing Mr Cruddas would make temporary sense. He gets my vote.

Times Recommends

• Treat Africans as part of the human jigsaw
• Too bitter a pill for me to swallow
• This Bill is a panic measure in a tarnished age