The future role of the Labour Deputy Leadership

-(Picture - Hat tip: Guido Fawkes)-

An interesting story in the Times the other day suggested that a candidate's face could make the difference when it comes to an election.  With the labour party deputy leadership entering its final week (ballot papers in by Thursday week) what does this hold for the six hopefuls?  Well, Alan Johnson has been described as a JFK look-alike, so maybe that puts him in the driving seat and Hilary Benn just looks like a man you can trust.  Maybe no coincidence that they are front runners right now?  Conversely, Peter Hain has always given me the creeps and Hazel Blears, for reasons I am sure must be irrational because I can't really explain them, has the sort of face I know would produce sounds that would simply annoy the hell out of me.  (Again, it may be no coincidence that not only are these two at the bottom of the pile, but Hazel Blears’ voice does annoy the hell out of me).  On looks alone - who would you vote for (see above) - answers in comments please.

However, this is not the point of this post. The problem that concerns me is, what is the point of the deputy leader?  What I fear most is that we could end up with another "Office of the Deputy PM".  The taxpayer spent millions on this pointless position and all it meant was a Labour MP got a guaranteed seat at the cabinet table and a whopping big salary.  OK, so John Prescott did not exactly shower the position with glory and maybe a Johnson or Benn would do a better job - but that is the point, what better job could they do?  In terms of government, it is not a job.  I have no problem with the labour party appointing a deputy, but not at the tax payers' expense.  Whoever wins this election should be excluded from getting a cabinet position and salary and should be made to focus on their job in hand.  They are deputy leader of a party, not of an elected government.