Leading article: The bitter end of the Tony and Gordon show

Now we have it in writing: when Tony Blair shakes the hand of the new Labour Party leader today in Manchester, we know that Gordon Brown was not the successor he wanted. Leaked documents obtained by The Independent on Sunday reveal Mr Blair's detailed plans to sack Mr Brown the day after the last election, to break up the Treasury and to assert No 10's control over public spending and service delivery.

This is an extraordinary way to inaugurate the final phase of the transition, in which Mr Brown is, for three days, the leader of the Labour Party while Mr Blair is still Prime Minister. And it is intriguing evidence of the frailty of the outgoing Prime Minister's judgement.

Sometimes, it was just about possible to imagine that the persistent reports that Mr Blair wanted to move Mr Brown from his rival power base at the Treasury merely reflected the muffled cries of frustration at the inevitable frictions of politics. But no, Mr Blair was quite serious about getting rid of his Chancellor and asked Lord Birt, his strategy adviser, to draw up plans for how to do it.

Whatever the doubts about Mr Brown, this was never a good idea. With his own reputation damaged by the decision - so personally identified with him - to join the invasion of Iraq, Mr Blair needed the solid credibility of Mr Brown to get him through the 2005 election. It is proof of Mr Brown's popularity and his political skill that he not only survived the plot against him, but stands today on the threshold of the highest office.

This newspaper welcomes his expected appointment as prime minister on Wednesday. The last few weeks of the transition from Mr Blair to Mr Brown have been surprisingly successful. Mr Brown has managed to present himself as a more personable and straightforward character. In his Newsnight interview on Friday he was almost eager to accept that taxes have indeed risen while he has been Chancellor. He also became quite sharp on cash for honours.

We also approve of his attempt to bring Liberal Democrats into his government. Of course, it is clever politics, wrong-footing opponents while making an important statement of pluralist intent. This has been criticised as "spin" and "too clever by half". Yet it must be suspected that Mr Brown would have been delighted if Lord Ashdown had accepted his offer. And it would have been a good appointment. Although Lord Ashdown might have been haunted by his 2001 prediction that a Brown government would be "Camelot converted into Gormenghast: owls will hoot as you go up Downing Street".

Anything which could have brought the more stringent idealism of the Liberal Democrats on green issues, civil liberties and Europe closer to the heart of government would have been a good thing. As it is, Mr Brown has had a bumpy start with Europe, although it looks as if he managed, just in time, to stop Mr Blair watering down the founding commitment of the European Union to "free and undistorted" competition.

But if Lord Ashdown is not going to be in Mr Brown's first Cabinet, who is? Mr Blair was not good at Cabinet-making; we hope Mr Brown will be better. He needs to engage more with the politics of climate change himself, and he needs an Environment Secretary and a Foreign Secretary at least as effective in this regard as the present incumbents. He needs a Defence Secretary and a Foreign Secretary who can manage to exit Iraq while ensuring that we have the right policies and resources in Afghanistan.

He needs to take advantage of Lord Goldsmith's departure not simply to distance himself from the legal murk of the case for the Iraq war but to reform the role of Attorney General so that his government will have access to really independent legal advice.

And he needs a Home Secretary who will respect the principles of individual liberty while being tough on crime and terrorism. It would be no bad thing if Mr Brown could appoint someone able meaningfully to deliver on that slogan he invented for Mr Blair 14 years ago: "Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime."

We are sceptical about Mr Brown's promises to run a more open, listening and collegiate government. In the history of the Blair-Brown feud, there were crimes of brute politics committed on both sides. And we have heard the testimony of witnesses such as Lord Turnbull and Charles Clarke on Mr Brown's working methods. But Mr Brown has shown that he is capable of learning and changing, and the British people are capable of distinguishing between how horrible politicians are to each other and how they behave as public servants.

Mr Brown has his faults, although many of them are the faults of too great a determination, and he also has the qualities to make a fine prime minister. We wish him well, sincerely, whatever doubts Mr Blair may have about him.

Interesting? Click here to explore further