THE first time I saw Alan Johnson in action was Labour's conference in 1994. The day after Tony Blair, the newly anointed leader, announced his intention to scrap Clause IV. Conference still debated real motions. As chance would have it on the order paper was a motion to reaffirm commitment to Clause IV. A seemingly boring debate was turned into a cliffhanger.
Towards the end of the debate Johnson was called to speak. I remember that he looked surprisingly well groomed for a union leader, as he strode to the podium. He then made a speech backing Blair and supporting the abolition of Clause IV.

Not surprisingly come the 1997 election, he was the beneficiary of a deadline day transfer which saw him swap his position as general secretary of the Communication Workers Union for a safe seat in Hull. Once in Parliament he proceeded through the ministerial ranks entering the Cabinet in September 2004 as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
After a brief sojourn at the DTI, Johnson became education secretary in May last year. Last autumn he confirmed he intended to stand for deputy leader.

Meeting him in his offices in the Department of Education, the elegant suits and clipped professional manner are similar to a dozen years previously, although he concedes he is a "littler greyer".
Since Labour was elected in 1997 its education secretaries have fallen into two categories. Both Charles Clarke and Ruth Kelly were educated privately. David Blunkett and Johnson come from more straitened circumstances and did not go to university. Although Johnson attended Chelsea grammar school, but being orphaned in his teens - he was brought up by an older sister - meant he left school early and became a postman.
Given his circumstances it is unsurprising that Johnson's top priority is to: "raise attainment and to close the social class gap." He has announced that the school leaving age will be raised to 18 and is using testing data to discover why many working class children perform well at primary school then fail to make similar progress at secondary level. To resolve this Johnson is concentrating resources on developing one to one after school tuition. "This has always been there in the private sector. It will be better than private tuition as it will be linked with a professional classroom teacher."

When Johnson inherited the education mantle, the education Bill creating trust schools was fully formed. Does he think the Bill damaged Labour's credibility on education? "I hope it didn't. It certainly was a difficult debate. There was a misconception at the beginning that this was about selection. It wasn't about selection at all.
"We now have the admissions code which rules out selection back door, front door, or side door. It rules out interviews or selection by a parent's occupation. Schools have to comply with this code. That is a big step forward."

Johnson's determination to narrow the class divide and opposition to selection is refreshing. Particularly after his junior minister Andrew Adonis recently said, the "Comprehensive revolution destroyed many excellent schools without improving the rest" and the abolition of grammar schools was "carried out in the name of equality but which served to reinforce class divisions."
Johnson defends Adonis arguing that he was misreported in the right-wing press and that there is no "more passionate opponent of selection at age 11" than his subordinate.
Johnson attempts to crystallise Adonis argument. "What he was saying was that once we changed to comprehensive education, during the 1970's that we thought that was Valhalla and there was nothing else. What amazes me was how negligent Government's of all political persuasions were and complacent about educational standards. There was a report by the National Federation of Education Research in the 1990s, which showed that for 50 years, 25 years either side of the abolition of the 11 plus our kids had just flat lined on literacy and numeracy. Indeed in the 1990's they went backwards."
This is not a theoretical debate for Johnson. "My kids went through it. I brought up three kids on a council estate in Slough. I saw what happened it was even worse as they went through selective education."

Johnson came to the political fore as minister of state for higher education, during the top-up fees furore. While the Government won a knife-edge vote, for which Johnson was credited, the fallout helped contribute to Labour losing many university seats in 2005.
Johnson has no retrospective doubts about the policy. "Was it difficult, yes it was. Did we have to do it no we didn't we could have allowed higher education to just continue. You had a situation where 52 per cent of the university population made a contribution but somehow undergraduates shouldn't make any contribution at all. Some hallowed right, written in socialist doctrines.
"What we have done is establish generous bursaries and grants. The extra money will allow us to expand universities. There are no upfront fees; repayments are interest free and stopped out of wages by the Inland Revenue. The former system was regressive, working class people subsided middle class students. For me it was a no brainer."

Last autumn Johnson ran into problems over faith schools. Initially announcing that all new faith schools would be required to take 25 per cent of their intake from children of different faiths or none, then retreating and agreeing a voluntary code. The Anglican Church accepted the mandatory quota the Catholic Church was opposed.
After deep backbench unease Johnson retreated, pleasing neither the religious or secularist wings of the party. "There was a concern that 25 per cent would affect Catholic parents being able to send their children to a nearby Catholic school. One thing you have got to do, as a minister is listen to your backbenchers. We were on a very tight timetable, they were right so we changed the policy.

In recent weeks Johnson has again been charged with being the bugbear of British Catholicism. He was the most forthright Cabinet member, opposed to exemptions being made for Catholic adoption agencies in the Equalities Bill. He rejects the suggestion he has been partaking in Catholic bashing and points to his early involvement with the legislation. "I had responsibility for this issue at the DTI. I published the consultation and the Equalities Bill.
"On this it is straightforward you are an adoption agency and you are taking public money to place children, with adoptive parents. The state on the one hand can't say there will be no discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and on the other allows that discrimination to continue. We have Jewish and Anglican adoption agencies, a few others. None were seeking an exemption."

Prior to conducting the interview I spoke to someone who used to work closely with Johnson to try to understand his politics. My source confessed that despite working closely with him and liking him, he had never figured out the answer to my question.
It is not suprising then that Johnson is somewhat vague about what kind of deputy leader he would be, "a lot of what the deputy does will be about what the leader wants them to do."
On whether the deputy leader is also deputy prime minister he is blunt. "I really couldn't care less. I want us to be in Government. For many years we never had to worry if Labour's deputy leader was deputy prime minister or not because we were not in power."

Johnson has the ability to get under people's skin. During last year's TUC Tony Woodley the general secretary of the TUC was asked, at a press conference, if he would consider supporting Johnson as Labour leader. The question stunned the normally loquacious Woodley the veins in his neck visibly bulged. After roughly 30 seconds Woodley said diplomatically such support was highly unlikely.
Johnson supremely irritated his former union colleagues at the fag end of Labour's 2005 conference, addressing a Young Fabians event (not the most proletaritarian of audiences) he suggested the union bloc vote should be cut from 50 per cent to 20 per cent.
He hasn't changed his sentiments but has massaged his figures. "We can't sustain a 50 per cent vote at conference when all the unions vote together on contemporary resolutions because you don't don't get a proper debate. We would have gone further in 1993 [when the union bloc was reduced from 90 per cent] but we got frightened."
Johnson now believes that the union vote should be: "a third at conference, a third at the National Policy Forum and a third in the leadership elections."
Allayed to this is a belief that a better mechanism must be developed to resolve policy disputes between unions and the leadership, rather than defeating the Government at conference. "There needs to be a way of sorting these things out without having a Punch and Judy show."

On the top of many MPs anti-Johnson charge sheet is his strong support for proportional representation. Has his opinion changed? "I have been a supporter of PR for a long time. I recognise the tide comes in and out. When the Jenkins Report was published recommending AV+, it looked like the tide was half in. Now the tide is way out. You can't just force something through against the will of Parliament and the people. You need consensus in the party and there is obviously not consensus at the moment.
"PR will definitely be used for an elected House of Lords. We will then have PR for, London, Europe, Scottish and Welsh elections and second chamber elections. Things are going in the right direction."
Johnson is less interested in PR for local government. "It was never the same burning issue for me. Because you usually get two or three representatives per ward. It will never happen until we resolve the national issue."

The shadows of Iraq will always hang over Tony Blair's premiership. How does Johnson now view the war? "I am not one of those people who say I voted that way but. Put me in the same position again and I would vote the same way. I made a decision. At the back of my mind was an absolute abhorrence about Saddam and all he stood for.
"One thing no one can ever say is what would have happened if we had done nothing. There was a very important bit of the Butler Report. Butler actually said that he was convinced that the Iraqi regime were looking to move into weapons of mass destruction. They were looking at getting the weapons inspectors out and go on the offensive. They were looking at getting the ballistic capability to go well beyond their region."

Despite the constant stream of bad headlines, mostly relating to cash for peerages, Johnson rejects the notion that Blair should resign for the good of the party. "I haven't spoken to anyone over the road [House of Commons] who thinks Blair should step down now. Most people say it would be tremendously damaging to us if Tony was hounded out by the Mail and Telegraph.
"They are comparing it to Watergate. At Watergate there was a crime. There was no crime near this shown at all. We have got to batten down the hatches and make it perfectly clear that Tony says he will go by September and we are perfectly happy for him to make that decision."