That’s how suspenseful of disbelief I can be. But when David Miliband, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls say that the Labour leadership contest will draw a line under the faction-fighting of the past, even I can’t suppress my doubts.

That the frontrunners have emerged in the exact configuration of David M, Ed Balls and Ed M surely has its origins the party’s factional politics. David has long been regarded as the torchbearer for one camp and Ed B for the other. Ed M is often described as a “compromise”, because he emerged from the Brownite camp without burning his bridges with the Blairites. But that does not necessarily mean that he is a figure who transcends faction. It indicates that much of his appeal relies on the existence of two feuding factions who require a bridge. What’s more that bridge status is unlikely to stay intact if he is perceived to have knifed his brother to get the crown.

The strength of their starting positions comes from their ability to draw on a large retinue of followers from the outset, all the more important given the scandalously narrow window to secure nominations. Alan Johnson backed David before he announced he would stand. Another former Blairite minister said that David was “head and shoulders the best candidate” at a time when there were no other candidates. Ken Livingstone has backed Ed Balls before Ed has backed himself. Hilary Benn and Peter Hain don’t even need to listen to what Andy Burnham might have to say, it’s Ed Miliband all the way. What are these decisions based on, exactly? None of them have outlined a clear policy direction. Much of what they have said in recent days has been retrospective and overlapping. And yet, only a week in and with only two candidates declared, dozens of MPs, and it is rumoured entire unions, have made up their minds. Meanwhile, Labour figures with distinctive political identities not forged by the Blair-Brown duopoly have been quick to rule themselves out (Harriet Harman, Jon Cruddas).

Some of these endorsements, I happily accept are based on experience of having worked with the candidates over the years. But does that fully account for the increasingly narrow focus on the top three? At such a pivotal point for Labour, you would think the contest would be more exploratory. The pattern of endorsements is broadly panning out as you would expect. David is out ahead because those who like what Blair brought to the party are uniting around him, while those who don’t are split between Ed M and Ed B.

The constant refrain that the party has drawn a line under its factional past is not enough to make it so, it only drives it under the surface. Interpreting what the candidates say becomes a kremlinological exercise. When David M cited lack of voting reform as one of the big lessons of Labour’s failure and singled out education as an area of policy drift, nobody believed he was just talking about voting reform and education policy.

I don’t dispute that the party needs to draw a line under both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. No-one can cope with being haunted by Rebecca and Mrs Rochester at the same time. But you are not going to get over their legacies by electing their most loyal chambermaids. Reversing the slide into factional and dynastic politics requires a Someone Else candidate who can speak and act without it all being construed as laced with unspoken agendas and hidden malice. Because this is a tribal contest, Someone Else faces an almighty struggle. If the party’s internal mechanisms are throwing up perverse and self-destructive outcomes, there’s only one thing for it: open primaries.

Photo: .michael.newman. 2007