"....the Members of the Labour Party elected him." Poor Gareth. I don't think he always sets out to deceive, but for the benefit of non-UK watchers who may be interested, as well as for Gareth himself, it might help if I spell out the process by which Blair was elected and by which his successor will be elected some time soon (if the succession is not to be a walkover for Brown).

The electorate is divided into three electoral colleges, each of which has one third of the total votes. One college comprises members of the parliamentary Labour Party (MPs etc), and members of the European PLP; another comprises all paid up members of the Labour Party, and the third comprises members of organisations affiliated to the Labour Party (the Co-op Party, Poale Zion, etc, etc, but overwhelmingly the trade unions) who have indicated their support for the Labour Party and that they do not support rival political parties.

From all this, it follows that the vote of a humble member counts for very little against the vote of an MP - although the difference is narrowing, now that party membership has gone into freefall. Those eligible to participate in the affiliates' college amount to several millions, but they can hardly complain at getting a paltry 33.3 per cent of the vote between them. Overwhelmingly they are not party members, and where they are, they will be eligible to vote in the members' college anyway, and thus have two votes.

By this flawed and convoluted process Blair got (from memory) about 57 per cent of the vote in 1994, and more than 50 per cent within each of the three colleges.

When Labour is in opposition, anyone can stand against the leader in any year, provided that his/her nomination is supported by at least 20 per cent of the PLP (or 12.5 per cent if through death, resignation, etc, there is no sitting incumbent). When Labour is in government, and the leader is also prime minister, he/she can be challenged only if this is supported by a simple majority of delegates at annual conference (on a card vote).

Well before the next annual conference (which this year is the last week in September) Blair will realise that when it comes to the crunch, conference will not support him. He will accordingly bow out with what grace he can. Gordon Brown will then be nominated, and no-one who has any remaining parliamentary aspirations will stand against him. (He can count on close to 100 per cent support from the affiliates' college, and will easily pick up enough votes in the PLP and members' colleges to secure a comprehensive win.)

Of course, whether Brown will be better than Blair remains to be seen. My guess is that he will be, not least because he will have much less difficulty in distancing the UK, at least a little bit, from US foreign policy. But also his most recent budgets have included redistributive elements. He was to the fore in supporting the millenium write-off of third-world debt, pushing to increase the UK's overseas aid nearer the level it has committed to achieve, and urging other wealthy countries to do the same. With Gordon Brown at the helm, John Smith's vision of a modernised Labour Party fully committed to social justice may yet be achieved.