MO MOWLAM is a "moderniser" of the friendly variety. Earthy, irreverent, direct - it's fun to speculate (with her) on how long she'll be able to resist the aggrandisement that seems to come with high office. It's so much easier to "have a go" at the puffed up politician. In the relaxed atmosphere of her Commons office it seems almost an impertinence to ask if Labour can win the trust of the people while junking every article of faith. Almost ...
Naturally enough, Dr Mowlam rejects the premise. The beliefs and values which brought her into the party 27 years ago, she maintains, have not altered: "I haven't asked the articles of faith ... about injustice, unfairness and a desire for equality of opportunity. What has changed, and needed to change, is how we implement those values and beliefs.
But are they socialist values and beliefs? Is Dr Mowlam still a socialist? "Yes. I describe myself as a socialist, as I describe myself as a feminist." Both can be defined in many ways. But her definition - fairness, justice, opportunity, choice - "is still there".
So was it helpful, then, for Dr Kim Howells (another moderniser) to suggest giving the "s" word a humane burial? We're not going to get anywhere with that. Dr Mowlam may not be ready to junk the "s" word - but she's not going to dump on her colleague either. Dr Howells's strength, she says, is in "thinking the unthinkable" and challenging people to define their meaning.
Quite. So is it unthinkable that Labour might eventually cut the umbilical link with the trade unions? The shadow Northern Ireland secretary replies: "What we've been trying to do in the last two years is make sure the Labour Party goes back to representing the majority of people in this country, and not being related to sectional interests in any shape or form."
In Blairite fashion, she affirms she is proud of the party's history, while insisting she has no wish "to live in it". Labour is not just there to represent producers, but consumers too and "that has had an impact on our relationship with the trade unions".
But can she see that relationship severed? "It has to be seen in context. What we've done in the last two years is democratise and change the party. We have moved a hell of a long way and we will continue to change."
OK. Given continuing change - are the trade unions likely to still command 50 per cent of the party conference vote at the end of a first Labour term? Dr Mowlam is clearly determined to rule nothing in or out: "These are the kind of questions in terms of internal democratisation that we've worked hard at, that will be debated, discussed internally with members of the trade unions, constituency members and MPs. All I can say to you is we're not going to stay still. We will continue to change.
That of course is precisely what the left fears. Many think the Blair project is about a realignment in British politics. I wonder, can Dr Mowlam see Mr Paddy Ashdown serving in a Blair government? She affirms her desire for honest agreements and honest disagreements - no pacts or deals done. Her preferred "realignment" would see Labour emerge as the majority party. But in the end "it depends what the British public decide".
The Liberal Democrat leader chides Labour for its timidity in face of the big issues. On House of Lords reform, for example - why not go the whole hog and create an elected second chamber? Dr Mowlam validly explains the pressures on parliamentary time, Labour's high priority on Scottish devolution, and the need not to promise a wish list. "What we are doing is taking the first step in changing the second chamber, where people are there as a result of who their parents are, which is an appalling, unforgivable situation. What we are saying is we will take the hereditary principle out . . ."
This is interesting territory for constitutional reformers.
Aren't the Tories right to say that chipping away at the hereditary principle has implications for the monarchy? "Yes it raises questions about the hereditary principle. I have to say they have been raised already, mainly by the behaviour of the monarch's attached families."
After the present queen, does Dr Mowlam think the royals have much to offer in the new milleunium? She insists the monarchy's future "lies in its own hands". She does not think it's for politicians, whose views are well known, to go on about it: "There are other things I would like to change before that."
But does Dr Mowlam think it defensible that the law precludes a Catholic sitting on the English throne? "I welcome the monarchy looking at this, as well as the male/female line, those are important questions to address ... I as a member of a potential Labour government do not have it high on my agenda."
I chide Dr Mowlam - isn't this precisely the problem with "New Labour", a party afraid to say anything which might offend the Conservative electorate? "Safety first" certainly will be the shadow cabinet watchword between now and the election. But the thought also occurs that Dr Mowlam's reticence on this issue is the clearest possible indication that becoming Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is very much on her agenda.