BRITAIN:Gordon Brown is set to become prime minister at a difficult time - the public mood is unreliable, popular affection must be won and there are doubts over whether he is the "change" Labour needs, writes Frank Millar
It's "Brown for Britain", and according to many accounts Britons might feel sore afraid. For it could seem the new Labour leader and next prime minister is a "psychologically flawed" control freak, secretive and Stalinist in his exercise of power, a powerhouse of personal grievance, who never forgets an enemy, takes no hostages, and carries "a big clunking fist".
And that's just from his friends - or, at any rate, "comrades" who concluded in the end they had no choice but to back him to succeed Tony Blair.
For some, certainly, it smacked of an offer they couldn't refuse. When last autumn I asked one Blairite minister whether David Miliband might be a contender, he replied: "Has he seen the Godfather?Does he know what Gordon does to people who get in his way? He'll kill him."
Brown certainly tried to kill off Blair last September during the failed coup believed finally to have forced last week's resignation statement. And it was Blair who gave us that big fist, casting his chancellor in the bruising mode of that other heavyweight John Prescott.
A less flattering description comes from a City editor recalling an encounter over a piece he'd written showing Iron Broon in a poor light. "He lowered his voice and said he was disappointed in me and my paper," wrote Chris Blackhurst: "All the time he was coming right up to me, then backing off . . . The experience left me numb - it had been like being in the presence of a brooding gangster. His glower is pure Tony Soprano. A physically big man who works out regularly, there was an unnerving menace to him. Ever since then, when I've read of ministers pleading with him for more money for their departments and his refusal, I've thought about the bullying and horse trading that must go on."
Tales of Brown bullying and burying lesser ministers have become legendary over the past 10 years, during which he has exercised unprecedented powers across Whitehall, granted him by Blair in return for his backing in the 1994 contest to succeed the late John Smith. Blair, as prime minister, might have fancied he also enjoyed the title "First Lord of the Treasury".
But "you've stolen my f . . . . . g budget" was Brown's reported retort after his prime minister presumed to announce that his government intended bringing health spending up to the European average.
But no more will current and wannabe ministers like pensions secretary John Hutton be predicting this raging bull will prove to be "a f . . . . . g awful prime minister". Witness the flight of the über-Blairites.
Search in vain now for any Labour politician hoping for a future who ever doubted that Gordon was the man.
The king is dead. Long live the king. Yet though the succession was unopposed, King Gordon's powers are not unlimited. He inherits at a difficult time. The public mood is unreliable, and popular affection must yet be won. So while new favourites will be installed in the highest offices of state, there must also be a reaching out to those in court still to be convinced the Brown reign will prove more collegiate and inclusive than anything that has gone before would lead them to suppose. For them the key question is - can he change? Blair's long farewell might seem the more ridiculous and frustrating now, requiring the new prime minister to wait another six weeks before assuming his office.
During that time Brown will be obliged to take to the hustings as if still a candidate, while the media struggles to maintain interest in the deputy leadership contest in which the Brownites appear to be favouring Harriet Harman. It is to be hoped his party does Brown a favour and instead embraces the more able and interesting Alan Johnson, while the prime minister-in-waiting holds a conversation with the country, "listening and learning" while defining the intended future direction of "a new government for a new time".
Delivering "continuity and change" can be testing for any new leader, and it may prove particularly so for a man who has been central to the New Labour project from the outset.
His thoughts about a new constitutional settlement entrenching civil liberties, delivering greater transparency, imposing a more demanding ministerial code and giving parliament greater say in matters of peace and war are eagerly awaited.
Can he defy expectations and successfully complete Labour's reform of the House of Lords? Might he be bold enough to actually reduce the UK's overall elected representation, grown seriously bloated by the devolution settlements? Will he follow Conservative leader David Cameron's example and seek to secure the union with Scotland by way of generosity of spirit rather than through confrontation with nationalist first minister Alex Salmond?
And can this Scot do that as prime minister while satisfactorily resolving the increasingly unacceptable situation that sees the government effect legislation for England and Wales courtesy of the votes of Scottish MPs unable to influence similar policies affecting their own "devolved" constituents?
Many will be hoping prime minister Brown finds a fast track out of Iraq while recasting foreign policy in a more European direction. And they will be fascinated to finally discover what Brown thinks of his predecessor's enthusiasm for "liberal interventionism". But they will likely be disappointed.
As prime minister, Brown will know the supreme importance of the American alliance to Britain's security and her role in the world. Like Cameron, Brown might avail of changing dispositions within the US to indicate misgivings about the war or, at least, its conduct. However, it is doubtful he would have taken a different course had he been faced with the choices that confronted Mr Blair.
And it seems unlikely that a man who can still count on the support of the Daily Mailand the Sun- and who famously prevented Blair from taking Britain into the euro - is suddenly going to discover an enthusiasm for all things EU.
There are obvious dangers for Brown, too, during this transitional period.
Enthusiasm for new ideas - like helping young people on to the property ladder - will provoke questions about what he's been doing for the past 10 years.
Can he really be the "change" Labour needs? And, through all the policy debate, again, can he really change himself? We cannot be certain just on the basis of yesterday's impressive performance. And the Tories will be praying he cannot.
But theirs may be the biggest disappointment of all. For the burden seemed already lifted from Brown yesterday, while a suddenly and determinedly united Labour Party already looked back in the game.