As regular readers will know, we at Scribo Ergo Sum have taken the time to consider some of the potential future leaders of the Labour Party. David Milliband, of course, is often mooted as a strong candidate: he knows policy-making inside-out, and has an air of competence about him. I am of the opinion that James Purnell would be very good as a party leader: he has confidence and passion, but also an air of naturalness that makes him seem like a normal person, not a Westminster monster.

But, given recent headlines, what of Harriet Harman? She seems to have been conducting surveys of local party associations, and has been very well spoken of by colleagues. She was not really expected to win the deputy leadership contest (probably because she was Brown’s choice…) but she came through convincingly. She was denied a DPM job, but given at least half a dozen other responsibilities that have given her a hand in many different areas. She is Leader of the Commons, Minister for Women and Equality, Lord privy Seal, as well as being Labour’s deputy leader and party chair. Credit must be given where it is due - she has been reasonably successful in cementing her position and shaking off ridicule when necessary. She has proven herself in a recent election within the Labour Party - something Gordon Brown ensured he did not need to do.

Harriet Harman could conceivably be the next leader of the Labour Party. It seems as if she is planning for the opportunity, and is ready to jump when it emerges. She cannot be written off as punching above her weight: her position has strengthened since she became the holder of Labour’s highest elected position. Let’s not forget that Labour will choose its next leader, not the electorate.

To ask whether she would be any good, we must distinguish between Harman as the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition and Harman as First Lord of the Treasury.

Harman would be brilliant for Labour in opposition. A leader of the party base to try to gather the pieces from a humiliating defeat, and begin the road to recovery swiftly. A leader to challenge the new Tory administration without looking sour. A leader who never tried to become Prime Minister, but instead stood up to take the party forward in its first stint out of office for a dozen years. A leader who specialises in flimsy policy of the politically-correct sort that knocks the Tories off their feet. In four years, she could do what William Hague failed to do for the Tories and stem the bleeding from her beleaguered party. In 2010, when Brown loses the election, it is very difficult to see him returning to Parliament to ask questions of Cameron on a Wednesday afternoon: if he resigns his position immediately, and Harman becomes acting leader, she will be given the publicity to push her leadership bid like no other candidate. Milliband, Purnell et al can wait until government looks likely again: that is what they specialise in.

But Harriet Harman as Prime Minister? I cannot imagine a candidate I would less like to run the legislative agenda. She believes in “positive” discrimination, the the point of wanting all-woman shortlists for Parliamentary seats. She wants every citizen of the United Kingdom to own an identity card, to use them for traveling, purchasing goods and even for voting. She is the most big-government interventionist the Labour party has to offer: the last thing the country needs. She talks at the electorate, not with them, and has no idea what issues people actually feel are important. She has such a deep-rooted hatred of the Conservative party that any cross-party consensus would go out of the window. She does not debate her own policy, but slurs the Tories and misrepresents theirs. Of every possible candidate to take Number 10 from Brown, she is the single most loathsome choice. And it is a matter of deep concern that she seems a likely choice should the position become available.

In 2010, Harman is the dream choice for the Labour Party. Before then, she is this nation’s worst nightmare.