Alan Watkins: The Prime Minister, the prime minister in waiting and the shadowy Third Man

Not long before he died, I met Sir Len Hutton, which is not a name to be dropped lightly. Our talk turned to England's (technically, in those days, it was the MCC's) tour of Australia in 1946. It had not, by most accounts, been a specially happy visit. In particular, relations between Wally Hammond, the England captain, and Hutton, the side's great opening batsman, were not at all cordial; or so I indicated.

"Whatever gave you that idea?" Hutton said to me. "On first morning of tour, I said: 'Good morning, Walter.' And he said: 'Good morning, Len.' And, do you know, from that morning to last, we never exchanged another word, not one, but I can assure you that relations between us were extremely cordial." Last week, expressions of cordiality on the part of Mr Alan Milburn and Mr Charles Clarke were as formalised as anything in the repertoire of the D'Oyly Carte opera company, and even more heartless. Many of the political correspondents (or, as they are now called since a pay policy of the early 1970s, "political editors") deduced that it was Mr Gordon Brown's position which was in question. But it might just as well be Mr Tony Blair who was at the receiving end.

In all this we must tread as delicately as Agag, who had a leading part in the Book of Samuel. The difficulty is that Mr Blair treats his ministers or, more to the point, his junior ministers, as if they were the Victorian housemaids of popular history; here today, gone tomorrow, as the late Sir Robin Day once said to Sir John Nott, who walked out of a television studio as a consequence.

A few ministers who fell by the wayside in the early years of the regime show a certain scepticism towards Mr Blair and his works, understandable enough in these circumstances. Examples are Mr Frank Dobson and Chris Smith, who is now a Lord. Others, probably a majority, tend to fawn on their former tormentor - or, if "tormentor" is too strong a word, as it probably is, on their former benefactor who has fallen out of love with them.

Mr Denis MacShane is one example that comes to mind. If Mr Blair was not exactly in love with him, Mr MacShane was manifestly a perfectly competent minister, above par for the course, I should say, even if he had a tendency to put his foot in it from time to time. It may be, of course, that he did not want to be in the Government at all. But irrespective of what had gone before, Mr MacShane now tells us he is content to be a humble foot-soldier in the ranks of a leader of endless inspiration and infinite sagacity, or getting on that way.

Observers should not lightly question the motives of others or cast doubt on their sincerity. But with Mr Clarke and Mr Milburn alike there exist pieces of information which can be verified, even though the conclusions may differ from one observer to another.

Throughout the last 10 years, for intermittent periods, there has existed a third politician, who is neither Mr Blair nor Mr Brown, that is seen, rather, as a countervailing force to Mr Brown or as a possible heir to Mr Blair. Usually the two roles, the countervailing force and the possible heir, are combined in one person. There have been numerous such politicians, six of them by my latest count.

The first was Mr David Blunkett. Mr Blair tried to hang on to him for as long as he could but it was no good. "Let's play ministers and publishers," Mr Blunkett had said. Lord Goldsmith, too, suggested a game of law officers and lady barristers, but that was all right. Mr Blunkett was given another chance. This time he tried a new game of ministers and drug companies. And that was the end of Mr Blunkett.

Coming up over the horizon was the substantial figure of Mr Clarke. He was appointed chairman of the party by Mr Blair immediately after the 2001 election when the party had a perfectly good chairman of its own already, a silly position which has been maintained under Mr Clarke's latest successor, Ms Hazel Blears. Oddly enough, Mr Clarke's share price remained high at Education rather than at the Home Office. But Mr Blair treated him unjustly at the Home Office, even if he was offered another department, and it would be unnatural if he did not seem to bear some resentment.

Another Brown rival, or Blair heir, came on the scene at roughly the same time as Mr Clarke. That was Mr Milburn. He always gives the impression of being a fast-talking football manager who is struggling to avoid relegation. Having been Minister of Health till 2003, and having resigned in mysterious circumstances, he returned to run the 2005 election, ostensibly as Chancellor of the Duchy. Alas, Mr Milburn was no good, or Mr Brown's allies said he was no good - it was impossible to tell which it was - but the youthful manager is once again addressing his press conference with much unspecific talk about the future.

The next candidate to fill the vacancy was Mr Alan Johnson. He was cheerful and unpretentious; above all, he was a member of the working class, even though he had attended the Sloane School, Chelsea, a grammar school. Interviewed by Mr Michael Cockerell in one of his programmes on Mr Blair, Mr Johnson told us that Mr Blair had said he must be working class, as he had fathered two children by the time he was 20. Mr Johnson said earlier in 2006 that he was making no further claims on his behalf, except that he was prepared to have a stab at the deputy leadership, but nothing more ambitious than that.

It was a quick change from beauty to the beast, if Dr John Reid will forgive me for so putting it. But whereas Mr Johnson had been all smiles, Dr Reid was the stern policeman rather than the friendlier variety. An American pollster, Dr Frank Luntz, whose views were received by the BBC as possessing something approaching sacerdotal authority, was put in a Newsnight studio with a nondescript crowd and asked about their views on Dr Reid and Mr Brown. Dr Reid emerged as an easy winner. As things have turned out, matters have not gone well for Dr Reid - worse, in reality, than they had for Mr Clarke at the Home Office - but Mr Blair has shown no disposition to treat Dr Reid in the same way and summarily to dismiss him.

The very latest candidate is Mr David Miliband. He looks about 19-and-a-half and has won the support of the expensive press, or a good part of it. He appeared calm enough on television when we were being systematically poisoned by minced-up turkey carcasses from Hungary. That is all I can tell you about Mr Miliband.

I do not adopt the obvious solution, which is for the above-mentioned to acknowledge their evident deficiencies and to leave the race-card free for Mr Brown. As I have written several times already, the Labour Party likes and approves of elections and wants to have one of its own, not for the first time. I am not asking for six candidates, as there were in 1976. But there were four in 1980, four in 1983, two in 1992 and (it is often forgotten) three in 1994. Why should 2007 be so different?

Interesting? Click here to explore further