Although 5 June is still a few months away, which is when the Labour Party is due to elect its new leader, and despite a plethora of would-be candidates still milling around, it does look as if the two principal contenders for the role of Labour leader are deputy leader Michael Falzon and MEP Joe Muscat.

It is true that the six-hour long session last Tuesday of the party’s executive committee and parliamentary group, which decided to hold the leadership election in June rather than immediately, was described as a victory for the faction that want former deputy leader George Abela to become leader. However, Dr Abela’s other point that the choice should be made by party members rather than by just delegates does not seem to have been accepted.

It was pointed out in a letter to The Times last week that since there are ‘many’ cases where people hold dual membership in both Labour and Nationalist parties, this renders the choice of a Labour leader by party members rather problematic since there could be cases where the Labour leader “is chosen by the Nationalists”.

On a more formal level however, the party’s structure is such that every delegate (as the name itself implies) deputizes for other people and democratically it makes sense for a delegate to go back to the people he represents whenever there is an issue of such importance such as who to choose as party leader.

It could also be argued that the party’s elected officers should be chosen again before the main issue is settled so that no one has the opportunity of unduly influencing the rest. Even this, however, is held to be only a remote possibility.

Tuesday’s meeting was tense and included at least two altercations: one between Secretary General Jason Micallef and Education Secretary Wenzu Mintoff over some highly critical remarks passed by Dr Mintoff with regard to the party administration in last Sunday’s Illum, and another between George Vella and Helena Dalli. Dr Vella was also reported to be among those most vociferous in suggesting a quick choice of leader rather than procrastinating to June.

The meeting also chose members of a commission to analyse the reasons for the party’s defeat at the polls. Although in recent years there have been cases when the party went for complete outsiders, this time the choice seems to rest on people such as Professor Godfrey Pirotta, Renee Laiviera, Carmen Borg and Professor Carm Borg.

Other names suggested, such as Professor Dominic Fenech, Dr Joe Micallef Stafrace and Dr Manuel Mallia were discarded. Other names suggested included the names of some priests but they also were rejected.

Inside the party, some are known to be positioning themselves to be appointed deputy leaders. Such people include Chris Cardona who is said to be available as deputy leader for parliamentary affairs, and Gavin Gulia who is said to be interested in the post of deputy leader for party affairs. Another possible is Jose Herrera who is said to be interested in the post of deputy leader for parliamentary affairs.

But all choices will depend heavily on who is elected as party leader. As in the case of the Nationalist Party, there could be a weakness in the system in that the majority, which expresses itself in the choice of a leader, will inevitably select, a week later, the deputy leaders and thus risk choosing clones of the leader. While this makes for harmony and lessens inter-party tensions, it also narrows the appeal of the leadership.

Joe Muscat has to his advantage the fact that he is young, has been a success in Brussels, has no links with the party’s 1980s background and is perceived as ‘”quite nice”.

However, he is closely linked to Alfred Sant, at least in the years before he went to Brussels, and the pro-PN blogs are already full of deprecatory references to “poodles”.

Michael Falzon has great following inside the party’s backbone and has been perceived to be increasingly critical of the way the party was proceeding prior to the 8 March election.

He was also practically the only one to remain in the counting hall until the very end and it was his manner, when he approached PN secretary general Joe Saliba that finally signified Labour’s acceptance of defeat. For this he was widely praised by the Nationalist media.

On the downside, he is often criticized by the ‘chattering classes’ for his love of fireworks and hunting.

In both cases, as can be seen, Labour ground roots are very sensitive to what is written by non-Labour media as “foreign interference”, with the added inference that adulation or praise by the PN media immediately kills any enthusiasm in Labour ranks.

This is very much the case as regards George Abela, who carries the double burden of not only leaving Labour in the lurch after the 1998 election but also because many PN supporters make it abundantly clear they would favour Dr Abela as Labour leader.

One other surprise last Tuesday was the decision by deputy leader Charles Mangion to rule himself out of the running for leadership. This, it seems, surprised even his supporters within the party.

Yet another possible contender is Marie Louise Coleiro Preca who has greatly increased her votes in this election. But even Dr Coleiro Preca has a downside to her: despite her evident hard work and her impressive defence of the downtrodden and the poor, she still links to the party’s 1980s days when she was the party’s secretary general.

Other possible contenders include people like Evarist Bartolo, who, after Alfred Sant, can be considered as the party’s intellectual, former minister Karmenu Vella who has charm and empathy, and Angelo Farrugia who has contested the leadership before.