Who will be Labour’s next leader? The opinion polls are putting intense pressure on the Labour Party and on Gordon Brown. The latest opinion poll gives the Conservatives 41 per cent, Labour 27 and the Liberal Democrats 18. That would produce a landslide victory for the Tories. Other recent polls have been even worse for Labour, as was the Norwich North by-election.

This is now the basic issue of British politics. Seventy per cent of voters disapprove of the Government’s record, the same percentage as disapproved of John Major’s record in 1996. Most people believe that Labour has no real chance of recovery so long as Mr Brown remains leader. If Labour MPs want to hold their seats, they will have to change their leader. Many Labour members have already decided to retire.

Mr Brown himself has taken a longish holiday and is, no doubt, considering his position. There was a revolt against his leadership last June, when he was saved by Peter Mandelson’s telephone calls to the key rebels. He can hardly rely on that being repeated. Apart from anything else, Lord Mandelson has now emerged as one of the possible successors. Jack Straw has decided to introduce an amendment to the constitution that would allow Lord Mandelson to give up his life peerage. If he did so, he would be free to stand again for the Commons at the next election.

Lord Mandelson has some influential supporters. Since his return to the Government he has become the leader of the Blairite wing of Labour. Those MPs who believe that Labour should be a progressive party of the centre, encouraging enterprise and choice, have no one else to whom they can turn. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, lacks the desire to become Prime Minister, let alone the determination.

Yesterday the Sunday newspapers made it clear which Labour ministers would throw their hats into the ring. The Sunday Times had a long interview with Harriet Harman, who is the deputy leader of the Labour Party. She stresses the issues of equality and rights of women. It would not be fair to describe her as the old Labour candidate for the leadership, but she is the candidate whom old Labour is most likely to support. She’s close to the trade union movement and to old Labour MPs. She has handled debates well as Leader of the House. She is a serious candidate who might well have won a future leadership election if Lord Mandelson had not reappeared.

Lord Mandelson himself was in several Sunday papers. The Sunday Mirror had a strong story about his leadership plans, as did The Sunday Telegraph. These stories do not happen by accident. They are written because they have been arranged. The story in the Telegraph was headed: “Mandelson urged to give up the ermine to replace Brown.”

And there followed a list of Labour worthies who support this project. One of them was Hilary Armstrong, who was once Labour’s Chief Whip. She has already announced she will not stand in North West Durham at the next election; her majority in 2005 was 13,344. Even at the next election, that should be safe enough for Peter Mandelson. With a safe seat already lined up, Lord Mandelson could disembarrass himself of his peerage and return to the House of Commons at a convenient moment — which might come before the next election.

But no one should underrate the political strengths of Ms Harman. She won the deputy leadership against the odds, beating Mr Johnson, despite his union credentials and his personal popularity. She is the candidate of the women’s movement, which is strong among Labour’s rank and file. She comes from a family with a long- standing Labour connection. Lady Longford was her aunt, and Lady Longford once rejected a proposal of marriage from Hugh Gaitskell.

Yet, for the present, Lord Mandelson is the frontrunner; the worse the problems become, the stronger he will be. Like his grandfather, Herbert Morrison, who was the boss of London Labour politics for about 25 years, Peter Mandelson combines political skills with an entrepreneurial approach. His capacity for changing politics is like that of a major entrepreneur revolutionising an industry. It is hard to think of a political performance equal to Lord Mandelson’s past 12 months. Many people go from hero to zero; Mandelson has gone from zero to hero. He appears to be the only Labour politician with the force of personality to change the bleak political weather.

However, he is not invincible. He has twice had to resign from a Labour government in dubious circumstances. He would be criticised on the issue of trust. He has considerable personal charm, but he is not loved by the public. Like Iain Macleod, he is thought to be “too clever by half”.

Labour under Peter Mandelson would, I think, go back to the policies of new Labour in 1997, in which both Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson always believed. Lord Mandelson would have one advantage over Mr Blair. He would not have Mr Brown as Chancellor blocking his reforms. Indeed, one cannot imagine Lord Mandelson ever agreeing to give his Chancellor so much power over so wide an area of domestic policy.

Peter Mandelson would have different allies, some of whom he acquired when he was a Commissioner in Europe. Unlike, Mr Brown, he is a devoted European who not only believes in the Lisbon treaty, but in a policy of integration. He might well want to take Britain into the euro. In personal terms, he would use all his influence to secure the Presidency of Europe for Tony Blair. Yet, his European policy might make it more difficult to win the next election in Britain.

Voters will not vote for Mr Brown because of the economy; they might not vote for Peter Mandelson because of his European views.

Times Recommends

• Ted Hughes was a prophet of climate change
• Health & safety can damage your reasoning
• It’s Big Brother’s stupidity that scares me