There’s a law governing the time available to political leaders local and national. Three things will consume your energies in more or less equal measure: party management, public projection and governing/opposing. The successful leader will be able to give more attention to projection and less to the other factors.

Tony Blair was Labour’s most successful leader partly because from day one he had complete command of his party. His efforts projecting the new Labour message were maximised. In the long run this proved a mixed blessing as Mr Blair’s neglect of party management led in significant measure to his slightly earlier than hoped for departure from Downing Street.

Gordon Brown, who inherited the consequences, lost his grip on his party with ‘the election that never was’. Now he has no choice but to dedicate unreasonable effort to managing his fractious and worried party.

David Cameron seeks to emulate Tony Blair’s position with New Labour – putting behind him the years of Conservative division, moving on where issues look tricky and leading unchallenged toward the general election.

But, as they say, ‘there’s always one’. Mr Cameron is quietly seething, in a decently brought up chap sort of way, at the eccentricity of David Davies. Once the dust has settled he will be just as quietly pleased that his former leadership rival and loose cannon has blown his credibility with the hang ‘em, flog ‘em, throw away the key brigade of whom he was once the darling.

Grand gestures, however much the public might approve at the time, are seldom a smart career choice. Once the ‘look at me’ factor has worn off life as an outsider is bleak. No matter how unreliable political ‘friends’ can be, it is better to have some than to be ‘Billy no mates’. People who put themselves outside the tent are instantly easier to ignore.

And if politics is about getting things done why place yourself in a position where getting things done is much harder? If an issue is one of principle why put yourself in a place where making progress on that principle is more difficult?

But if there’s one dilemma worse than that created by a leadership rival lurking in the shadows it is ‘what shall we do with the former leader?’

Here in Reading Councillors Lovelock and Epps have it easy, their predecessors having had the decency to retire or be retired. Councillor Cumpsty, who has enough to contend with managing the rivals within his group, would be particularly glad to see his predecessor, Councillor Pugh, squeak into the chain of Mayoral succession.

In just about any political role an immediate predecessor with time on their hands is a nuisance. Disgruntled and informed is a bad combination. Former leaders, informed about many things, are usually the most disgruntled. They are also good copy.

And here’s the thing. Nowhere in the over-excited media debate about whether Labour should ditch Mr Brown does what on earth they would then DO with him arise.
Leaders who do the decent thing go away, preferably a long way: Mr Kinnock went to Brussels, Mr Blair to Jerusalem, Mr Major to The Oval. Can anyone imagine Mr Brown going quietly to be Chairman of Raith Rovers? Not likely? This is the person who coveted the top job for 13 years having lost out to Tony Blair in ‘the leadership election that never was’. He has form. Mr Brown’s role as the thorn in his leader’s side is well documented. Imagine how much worse he would be if he really had something to complain about! The vision of an ousted Gordon Brown prowling the corridors of Westminster is truly 18-certificate stuff.