What would prime minister brown do for us?

That is closer than you think. The moment the result is called, the clock starts ticking on Tony Blair’s premiership. Expect a barrage of post-election analyses correlating the size of Labour’s majority with the prime minister’s life expectancy.

Brown may not be the dead cert to replace him that he once was, but he remains far and away the man most likely.

That may be comforting to many. Blair’s connection with regional policy, local government and the housing debate over the past eight years has been, shall we say, tenuous. His eloquent address at Prescott’s Manchester summit in January shocked delegates used to the PM’s blissful uninterest in them.

Brown, armed with frequent musings on regional economic policy, an alliance (perhaps overstated) with Prescott and a philosophy based on equality and wealth redistribution, would surely push the regional agenda.

His record may look good in these areas in comparison with Blair, but not that good. Brown has ruled over domestic policy, so he is part and parcel of the government’s moderate regard for regional affairs. And the Treasury has proved stubbornly resistant to reform of land tax and ideas for capturing land value – two things that would make Prescott’s life a whole lot easier. Crossrail, the project required to unlock growth in the South-east, has jogged along at a pace chosen by inscrutable Treasury officials determined to get transport schemes off the government balance sheet.

Brown, for sure, is responsible for the growth in public sector activity. The armies of regional governments, regional development agencies and government offices are in place. The task ahead – regional economic growth asap – is clear. Yet Brown has proved as powerless as Blair and Prescott to co-ordinate the work of government departments, particularly health and education, the big beasts of Whitehall.

So what changes would PM Brown make? For starters, we can expect a refocusing of the North-South vision. Blair, instinctively a southerner, has sided with the London-centric view of the UK, cosying up to the renegade Ken Livingstone and weighing in behind the London Olympic bid.

Brown has proved as powerless as Blair and Prescott to co-ordinate the work of government departments, particularly the big beasts of Whitehall

Brown is no friend of the capital, but that doesn’t mean one should expect him to start carpetting the regions with cash. The Treasury, with Brown as PM and a Brownite as chancellor, will be even more scrupulous in demanding sound business planning from those chasing the available funds.

Nor does Brown make a convincing devolutionist. Handing down “more” power to the regions, as the chancellor stated in his speech to the Manchester summit, is a whole lot different from handing down real power. The Treasury makes much of new freedoms for councils, such as prudent borrowing and business growth incentive schemes, but local authorities say they are merely useful. Even the RDAs, after five years in the vanguard of regional economic growth, are only just beginning to see the shackles of central government control loosened.

Brown hasn’t spent several decades ascending the heights of the political mountain to hand over his authority, and permanent secretaries’ opinions of the lower rungs of Whitehall is similarly low.

Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey Appleby said all this two decades ago in Yes, Prime Minister. A recently aired episode found Sir Humphrey explaining his views on giving power to the people. “If the right people don’t have power, do you know what happens?” he fulminates at Hacker’s hapless private secretary. “The wrong people get it!”

Roger Blitz is the home affairs editor of the Financial Times