You might think it's arrogant of me to discuss the people being touted to become the next leader of the MLP. I could give you the standard response: in a democracy, the qualities of the Leader of the Opposition are important. There's another response: I'm human and it goes against the grain not to talk about people, even if the talking is done in writing. And hey, this is a subject which promises to give us some fun.

So, not being worried about being perceived as arrogant anyway, let's press on and see who's who and what's what, shall we?

I've consistently teased George Abela - we come across each other quite a bit, for obvious reasons - that I'm talking to the next Leader. No sooner had the dust settled on Sant's third defeat in a row than there George was, hat ready to be chucked into the ring, my teasing notwithstanding. If I wanted to be a bit fanciful, I'd filch Claire Bonello's now hackneyed line and pose the thought "Vote George, get Gonzi". In truth, these guys are not exactly interchangable, but it's a close call. Back in the far off days of law studentship, I was a raw first year and they were about to be elevated to the status of "avukat". I was the Faculty only-choice-left keeper and they both played towards the back, so I got to look at their back-sides and a pair of thugs in defence they were too, presumably because they knew that if the enemy got through, there wasn't much left in the way.

In fact, there's not really much to choose between them, both being gentlemen who are products of their generation. For this reason, if I were a Labour voter, I'd want Abela at the helm. But if I were a Labour elector (as opposed to a voter) I'd probably not, for the same sort of reasons Jason Micallef voiced when he was ambushed on Xarabank with the news that Abela was a contender. Other people should be worried about the idea of Abela becoming Leader: I can't see the GWU hierarchy, the Tony Zarbs and Gejtu Merciecas of this world, doing Cheshire cat imitations at the thought, for instance, for all that Abela says that his priorities in life are his wife (his son's big and ugly enough to take care of himself), the GWU and the MLP, in that order.

In fact, from a purely objective point of view, that order of priorities gives me pause: not the wife bit, of course, since behind every great person stands a surprised spouse, but the GWU bit. On the other hand, why hide behind the fiction that the GWU and the MLP are not joined at the hip?

Still, he's the best they've got, by a long chalk, though the PN probably don't want him there, in their hearts of heart. It should, however, be good for the country: in fact, it would be a major change for the country, having a Labour leader who is not prone to giving us cause for sheer blind panic every time the fancy takes him.

Moving on, who else is in the frame? Michael Falzon is looking interested, and interesting, as I write. Leaving aside his dubious musical abilities (I'm a fine one to talk) and his aberrational crowd pleasing antics during the campaign, this chap demonstrated that he has a grasp of his responsibilities and the way they should be carried out with integrity that, as far as I can see, qualifies him for the job. Whether he has the other qualities needed I'm not entirely sure, since he's been a back-room boy for most of his political life. And then there's the fact that, at least nominally, he was party to the way the campaign was turned by Labour, to its eventual cost, into a negative and bitter one which did no-one much any good.

He also has the problem, given his colleagues' penchant for legging it as soon as the picture started looking bad, that he had to be the one to concede Labour's third defeat, so the party faithful might be less than enamoured of his image. You might say that this would be a moronic point of view, if taken up, but hey, these are the people who kept Sant in place and appointed Micallef as General Secretary.

Current MEP Joseph Muscat, a former journalist, is also showing up in the ranks of the front-runners. He's no longer the callow youth with the permanent smile that many of us remember. He might be able to put paid to the "Labour is anti-European" image foisted on it by Mintoff, KMB and Sant, and he has qualities that will be benefecial to the country, when and if.

On the other hand, he's a mere child in political terms, with a young family, so he might want to leave it this time around, hoping that whoever does get the job will make a hash of it and leave the way open for him in 2013. The fanciful notion that he would be doing a straight swop with Sant hasn't gained much traction.

And then there's Anglu Farrugia, who had chucked his hat into the ring last time Sant had resigned, only to have to pick it up, somewhat sheepishly, when Sant u-turned. In response to the possibility of Farrugia contesting, all I can say is "why?" He's not exactly covered himself in glory as an MP, which is no insult to the man. He was, and remains, an adequate performer, which is more than many can say for themselves, but leadership material? I don't think so, and this is without examining his record as a leader of some of Malta's finest way back when Pullicino was Commissioner - he hadn't arrested me then, so I've no idea what sort of a cop he was.

Still, he might appeal to the delegates, being as he can speak their language.

The same question comes to mind when Marie Louise Preca Coleiro's candidacy is considered. She's been militating in Labour's ranks for years now, having been General Secretary back in 1987, for instance. Again, what qualifies her to be any more valid than any of the other members of the Republic's Loyal Opposition is a question I am unable to answer, though again, she will probably be attractive to the rank-and-file delegates, for very much the same reasons Farrugia would be.

Entirely opposite to the last two possibles is Alfred Mifsud, who soars in the rarefied atmosphere of high finance and gives off the demeanour of an intellectual. He is, in fact, quite a brainy type, in this respect much in the manner of Sant, though I suspect (fervently hope) that he's less detached from reality and more prone to pragmatism. He's a less cold version of Sant, from the little I've seen of him in the media, though he's certainly not given to employing fire, brimstone and the other minerals and elements that make up performance designed to fire up the delegates to give him the nod.

Bringing up the rear, for no reason other than the fact that someone has to be put in last in an arbitrary list, is Evarist Bartolo, who I am told made a creditable fist of being Education Minister during Sant's brief flirtation with Castille. One of the old guard, Bartolo nevertheless gives off a reasonable aura, not having been tainted with the excesses of Old Labour. He has the credentials to satisfy the delegates and, if they worry about these things, not to terrify the centre, which is where, as always (though Labour to date has not recognised this) the battle is fought and won.

Would he make a good PM? More precisely, the questions is, would he make a good Leader of the Opposition, because there's five years of that before the notion of becoming PM is anywhere near achievable. Many might see him as a safe pair of hands, and I'd not be amongst those to gainsay them.

So there you have it, at the time of writing, this is the pack in the hunt for the title. Who else will turn up by the time the nominations close, and if all these possibles will actually be nominated, is something only time will tell us, and it being Maundy Thursday, I don't have time to wait if this is to have any hope of seeing the light before the Easter break.