The best that can be said of the contest for deputy leader of the Labour Party is that it is over. The selection of Harriet Harman over Alan Johnson for the post reflects badly on the majority who voted in this contest. The battle itself swiftly became a surreal auction for “soft left” support. Most of the candidates (with the exception of Hazel Blears and largely also of Mr Johnson) tacked to the left on domestic and, especially, foreign policy in the hope of winning the favour of those who have never had any enthusiasm for Tony Blair and his policies. That a champion of this “rejectionist” wing of the party could triumph should disturb Gordon Brown and his allies, even if they regard the winner as pliable and no threat to them.

Ms Harman’s victory speech accurately reflected the character of her candidacy. She essentially recanted her own vote in the House of Commons in favour of the Iraq war, engaged in cheap and crass antiAmericanism over the war on terror and bent over backwards to appease trade union leaders in their quest to opt out of the real world. Yet in truth, the argument that probably helped her most was the one that she has used towards the Labour Party membership from the outset, namely that it was imperative that, if the leader was to be a man, his deputy really should be a woman. Unreconstructed political correctness of that form has little to commend it. But if it “had to be a woman”, then Ms Blears by dint of guts, ideas and passion was by far the better candidate.

The peculiarities of the electoral college and the alternative vote system have, though, lumbered Mr Brown with a deputy whom most Labour MPs would not have imposed on him. He had to work around this situation as best he can. It was whispered that Ms Harman would quite like the portfolio of the Ministry of Justice. But after all that she has said on these issues during the campaign, his own pledge to be tough on terrorism would have been ripped to shreds were he to appoint her to such a sensitive slot. The smart exercise in damage limitation is, as Mr Brown understands, to make her the Labour Party chairman and deputy leader but not anoint her to the role of deputy prime minister. That berth should either be left vacant or handed to one of the wiser old birds of the current Cabinet.

This would leave Mr Brown free to assemble his Cabinet top table on the basis of merit. Mr Johnson is a serious figure who merits promotion. But if he really wants to stay at the Department of Education and Skills, as he told The Times recently, there is a case for that desire to be respected. Jon Cruddas has done well enough to secure his entry to the Government in some form, but the incoming prime minister should not feel obliged to shower him with patronage. Hilary Benn’s surprisingly poor showing has ended any claim that he might have had to be foreign secretary. Otherwise, Mr Brown has a free hand.

It is one that he must exploit to disabuse Labour of the temptation of backsliding. Mr Brown has been a disciplined figure over the past few weeks, saying nothing that could prove damaging to him once in Downing Street. His party members, on the other hand, have been self-indulgent in nominating his deputy. Self-indulgence is the road to opposition.