Reply #1: Strange - I don't know if this is Torygraph mischief or not [View All]

[muriel_volestrangler]

That was my first thought (since it only appears in the Telegraph - what Labour minister talks to the Torygraph but no other paper?), but I hadn't heard that Blears and Cruddas had both said they don't want to be Deputy PM too. Those would be the 2 least suitable as deputy PM to my mind anyway - Cruddas because he has no ministerial experience (not necessarily a deal-breaker, though), and Blears because she's Blears. The other 4 have got enough experience and independent thought to be capable of it.

There's a fair amount of talk that Deputy PM (and maybe deputy party leader too) isn't worth much:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/martin_kettle/2007/05/deputy_leader_is_a_nonjob.html

Take it from me, it’s a pointless job

...

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 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.

Roy Hattersley