To the Tory supporters who never had/has any good word for New Labour or then Labour. If labour were so hopeless and were only flash-in-the-pan contributors to UK politics, why engage them in such significant policy making/changing decisions? does it not mean then, really, that Cameron and co. are completely clueless. It figures, from his lack of basic grasp of general knowledge to his awfull gaffes on foreign affairs, he really needs all the advice he can get from members of the opposite party.

I agree with Clem the Gem though, these Labour politicians has no right to associate themselves with the party that formed them, build them and has given them the political status they are enjoying today, if they are prepared to sink this low by accepting these positions from Cameron.

Is there any possibility that Milburn is prioritising national interest over tribal party politics??

Please discuss.....

Al in it for a quick buck, no doubt. He knows labour are going to be in opposition for the next 9 years. Yes i said it, 9 years. I'm quite confident that the next election is going to be won by the conservatives and their tactic will be to ofload the Lib Dems. They will do this by using far right propaganda against labour and the lib dems for being too soft on immigration and islam. This will work well because by then the population will be wailing because of the cuts and whenever the population is angry, they actually don't know who to be angry at, so why not direct that anger at defensless foreigners, the tories will say. I can picture Cameron on tv saying we are going back to the good old Tory values. This is a proven tactic. It's pathetic but that's politics for ya.

Amen, Mehdi.

Hopi Sen writes: 'The losing 4 million votes point is also nonsensical. If Labour had won 2 million less votes in 1997, then we would have "lost" two million less by 2005. Would that have been good? If so, why?'

I'm scratching my head about this one. Labour lost 4 million votes between 1997 and 2005. That means (leaving out the deaths) that four million people, having seen the Blair government in action, decided not to vote Labour again - either to abstain or to vote for another party. If you don't see it that way, explain exactly howe you do see it.

The title says it all! Nice one.

Mehdi,
I'm also with John Prescott on this one. I think it's a disgrace, he's behaving like a common whore, selling himself and his values for power. Sound familiar??? Utter sense of betrayal, and I agree "that Milburn, Frank Field, John Hutton et al are doing the exact same job for the coalition as the Liberal Democrats: they are providing ideological cover for a regressive budget and an all-out assault on the public sector."

Utter disgrace! (Poem time methinks)

Traitor,
You casually discard the red rose,
You casually set aside your principles,
You sell yourself like a whore with no shame!

Quisling,
You will be used to defend them,
Defend their actions, their injustice.
Good riddance, may you never darken our door, may you take your dishonour far from us!

There seems to be a notion that anyone vaguely left of the coalition is someone a hard line Marxist wishing to turn Britain into East Germany - or that anyone not willing to change their opinions and principles to suit the current mood is a "tribal dinosaur". Labour had their chance for 13 years and blew it. The architects of that failure can hang themselves for all I care.

If you work with the Government, at least have the decency to leave the Opposition.

It really isnt too "tribal" to ask Labour politicians, who owe their whole careers to the Labour Movement to show a little loyalty. At least leave first.

Re: Your last paragraph..

No, you're not supposed to ignore any of those things.

It would be better for both you and your readers if you _thought_ about them though.

To take them in turn - In 1992 you'd have had a hard time arguing that FPTP "guaranteed Labour victory" through an "inbuilt Labour bias" after 4 defeats in a row.

The losing 4 million votes point is also nonsensical. If Labour had won 2 million less votes in 1997, then we would have "lost" two million less by 2005. Would that have been good? If so, why?

As for the contribution of various Middle ranking Cabinet ministers, no of course they were not the prime cause of Labours victory. (though Unity did pay a part)

So Mehdi, perhaps you should really be asking what _was_ responsible? it's not as if we've won landslides often, so perhaps it's a question worthy of consideration?

Finally, since we're talking about leadership, It's worth asking _Why_ the Conservative party went completely doo-lally when faced with a sensible, popular, centrist Labour party?

What lessons might that hold for the Labour party faced with a Coalition that wishes to present itself as sensible, moderate and centrist (even though in their case it is a charade)?

Just a thought- perhaps it tells us that maybe the best reaction to a strategy of hoovering up the centre ground isn't to boldly march our remaining, depleted forces off in the opposite direction?

The comments on this blog demonstrate tribal politics comparable to the brainless supporters of opposing football teams.

We are talking about effective managment of the country here. If you have a chance to contribute in any way - YOU TAKE IT. Stop being so fundementalist on how deeply you identify yourself with the archaic left and right wing political spectrum.

Ahem. I realise this is supposed to be a polemic and all that, but... steady on.

First, there's something deeply depressing about the idea that all cross-party working is to be rejected for fear of 'legitimising' the other side. They're the bloody Government; that gives them a certain 'legitimacy,' whether we like it or not. Milburn's ability to effectively campaign against them would be significantly impaired by the fact that no-one listens to him; this way, he has a chance of having some influence. If the effects of the budget cuts are going to be as heinous as you believe, do you seriously think anyone's going to sit around saying 'they can't possibly be ideologically-driven state-haters - they hired Alan Milburn?

Second, your point about the Blairites is part true, but part facetious. It's true in that at the start of New Labour's government, the personalities people warmed to and the media liked - Claire Short, Robin Cook - weren't Blairites, while a lot of Blairites - Stephen Byers and Milburn among them - were basically seen as mediocre failures.

But it's also true, and so obvious to deny it seems just absurd, that for Labour to be electable required a general sense that they were committed to a not-too-radical approach and particularly, to no vast increase in the size of the state. The presence of Blairites was necessary for that sense to take hold in the media and the electorate.

As for the candidates all agreeing to put the Blair/Brown split behind them, it's easy to do that when you're offering platitudes instead of serious analysis of how to tackle the economy and the deficit.

Rich, this is not a football match, it is peoples lives and if you take away someones job and vital public services, then they will behave tribally, that is only natural.

The centre ground is where public opinion is. The political class is well to the right of public opinion is. That's been well known for some time
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-har...

Lets review that fearsome New Labour election winning machine. Blair showed the political genius to score an electoral open goal from 2 yards with his win in 1997, with only 44 per cent of the popular vote and fewer individual votes than were cast for John Major’s Tories in 1992. That Blair owed his 97 win more to anti-Tory sentiment than any appetite for his “third-way” revolution was evidenced by the fact that between 1992 and 1997 the Tory vote collapsed by an massive 4 million.

In his 2001 election victory, after 4 years of relative economic stability and a near total-absence of effective political opposition from the Conservatives, Blair won fewer popular votes than Neil Kinnock had won in the (supposedly highly instructive) 1992 defeat. And the trend continued. In 2005, Blair won fewer popular votes than the Tories had in their seminal 1997 meltdown.

In the 1997 to 2005 glory days of the clear-eyed Blairite pragmatists, the Labour vote plunged by nearly 4 million, just as the Tory vote had done during the living death of the Major years. As soon as the Tories were able to find a plausible human being to field as party leader – with policies that, unlike those of his immediate predecessors, didn’t resemble the teenage fantasies of some home counties closet-fascist – Labour’s lead in the polls evaporated.

On the Tories being forced to the right by New Labour's rightward lurch, this is a bit of a stretch. The Conservatives would always have been skewered by European integration, which forced them to choose between jingoism and the interests of big business. Labour had nothing to do with that, or the fratricidal larks that followed. The Thatcherite vs Wet dynamics, which were bound to turn nasty when Tories days in the sun ended, also predated New Labour.

By the way, if it was Labour being in the (mythical) centre that forced the Tories right, how did they come back under Cameron without a corresponding leftward move from New Labour?

Sorry, but New Labour gave us the greatest foreign policy disaster since Suez and the market-worshipping intellectual docility that led to the biggest recession since the war. Why the fuck is anyone listening to these people any more? They are discredited. They have no judgement. History is waving them goodbye.

It is tribal though isn't it? It's about a Labour party member going against Labour's political ideology and values to support the effective MISmanagement of this country by the ConDem coalition. The crux of it is him propping up the coalition.

You could see it coming with his drive for PFIs in hospitals, his belief that the private sector should be involved in large sections of the public sector and his subsequent post parliament position on the payroll of a private healthcare firm involved and working within the NHS.

This man resigned because of lack of balance in his family life and yet he's prepared to work alongside a government who are about to destroy the quality and balance of family life.

Media-led narrative (to coin Mehdis phrase) is largely responsible for people being duped, into thinking that, deep and early cuts are necessary. Very scary!

Finally someone in the media reflecting my personal opinions...the Blairites like Milburn and Hutton were mediocre at best and the whole lot of them were overated! And thanks David Wearing for pointing those stats out

I'm sorry to dissapoint some of my fellow commentators, who are holding up millburn, feild and others as enlightened, or as some proof of the value of the coaltion need to get their facts straight.

These people are not new virgin converts to the coaltion. Nor, have they suddenly 'seen the light' shinning out of david cammeron's ass. Nor have they suddenly decided to reject labour polcies, because not a manjack of them ever believed in labour policies anyway. These men where tories right from the start.

They are not converts. Remember: Frank Feild was Margret Thacher's shoulder-to-cry-on when her party axed her? Her 'closest confidant'. These people aren't converting to anything, they where loyal supporters of Thatcher in the day, they've become loyal cameroons now. There is nothing new in what these men are doing, their publically confessing to being double agents is nothing new, we knew that about them twenty years ago. They did it before in the past.

You're dead right Hasan, they have a decades long proven track record of being glory hunters.

maybe wait for him to do something bad first. The fact he has joined an advisor may not in itself be a bad thing...