Also heard a rumour that David Blunkett may be getting a job at IDS's old think tank - it feels kind of like a football team getting rid of all its past-it players on free transfers. Are there any other useless NewLabbers we can sell to the Tories - where'd that cab-for-hire bloke go?

On a different note I read parts of Milburn's social mobility report - it was dross: stuck-in-1979-1997 thinking. Good review of it here - http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n07/stefan-collini/blahspeak

My guess is that in the late 80's, the Blairite cohort of ambitious young things realised that they wouldn't get a shot at personal advancement joining the Conservatives. The Liberals were non-starters, so that left the LP... which they duly and cynically took over. I think Nick Clegg had the same sort of calculation about the LibDems.

Some politition advised a young Michael Meacher to always ask what beliefs an individual would go to the wall for... and if he couldn't think of anything, not to back them. Now consider our current political leaders - Blair, Cameron and Clegg in particular.

What an absolute disgrace that Milburn should be considering this, does he have no shame. This is the man that reorganised the health service and added big time to its cost. Social mobility will never improve until our wealth is shared more equally, I endorse the sentiments of the Spirit Level.

Yes, Milburn is a disgrace. Always a Tory, and of course we all knew it.

This reminds me of the early days of "Compassionate Conservatism" of the first George W Bush term. He stocked his cabinet with "acceptable faces" who were asked to drive right-wing policies. Moderates such as Colin Powell (Defence) and Christine Todd-Whitman (Environmental Protection Agency) were fig leafs for some terrible policy decisions. There is a BBC HardTalk interview with Christine Todd-Whitman which is just embarrassing to watch. She resigned shortly thereafter. I think collaborator is the right term here - simply a fig leaf to deflect the economic and political extremism of this government.

Stuart Mason - how about including Hoon, Hewitt along with taxi-cab Byers? ... I'd then follow up with Purnell, Adonis and Mandelson - the problem is not finding useless NewLabbers, it's whether even Cameron would find them credible enough to stitch up the opposition.

Eric - the whole concept of 'equal opportunities', 'level playing fields' and all that is deeply ideological - I really would recommend the Collini review (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n07/stefan-collini/blahspeak) because he discusses, in a measured way, the inconsistencies and problems with the Blairite ideology; what Anthony Crosland (think it was him) called - satirically, though the term was later taken on seriously - meritocracy.

I agree, mind, that calling him a collaborator is a bit daft - his worst collaboration with Tory ideology came way before he officially took this role - this is just a pleasantly symbolic reinforcement that this new government is a dodgy mix of Thatcher cuts and New Labour language.

The 3 of them are being set up as fall guys you have to give Cameron credit for lining his ducks up nicely Milburn was for me at least poor in government but thats my view of him,indeed he should fit in well in the sham government we have now.

On a side note i wonder what IDS makes of this? surely this falls right in his remit but no we have yet another labour incomer (funny though when you think about it,if labour got it so wrong why does Cameron need so many ex labour ministers?) i would think a reshuffle is coming and IDS will be out on his ear.

Are any more members of the Fifth Column in the Labour Party?

I personally think it makes the coalition look bizarre and muddled - to me the likes of Hutton, Milburn, Blunkett, Mandelson, Charles Clarke were arch New Labourites however the coalition are going on about how New LAbour have effectively destroyed Britain with debts etc - if that is the case then why are the coalition continuing to pursue New LAbourites into their big tent, if New Labour were so bad, then why are they wanting more of them to work alongside them...obviously damage caused cannot be that much then!! Also it was under Milburn that the Tory PFI schemes in the NHS were accelerated - he is the reason for lumping future debt to the NHS so hypocritical of the coalition for wanting to work with the like of him!

Stuart - thanks for pointing me at the review, but I did read it before I posted. For me, the disappointing aspect was that it didn't really address the single factor that made Milburn's report so powerful: the cold hard data that says we had fewer professionals coming from a working class background at the end of the Labour Government than when Labour won in 1997. Dispute Milburn's recommendations if you like, but I'm still not hearing credible alternative explanations from any part of Labour on why Labour failed or how a future Labour Government would do better. I'm not even hearing any contrition for their failure. On the contrary, it seems to be taken as 'obvious' that Labour's policies are inherently better than the Tories in terms of opening up privileged positions to a broader cross-section of society. I have a natural scepticism towards anyone who makes an essentially ideological argument about what will work best in practice, and I believe a lot of moderate sensible working class voters share that bias.

Labour needs to rethink its pragmatism, and part of Labour's malaise is that there now seems to be a mistaken inclination to ditch pragmatism in the race to move beyond the failures of the past administration. Lurching towards an ideological puritanism will only distance Labour further from many working class people who stayed at home on election day. Labour needs to do a better job of coming up with policies that convincingly explain why A leads to B then to C (e.g. genuinely opening up the professions and giving working class children a better chance of entering them) and avoid the crutch-like reliance on dogmatism (e.g. redistribute wealth on a grand scale and all the details are sorted by magic).

Stuart, please also note that I avoided using the ideologically-inclined phrases you cited. My argument is about normal aspirations of many normal people, which can just as well be stated in plain language. The problems I'm seeing with Labour is that it increasingly talks its own language and assumes the working class should speak that same language - which is rather a high-handed attitude to take, and may very well backfire.

Jason - you ably demonstrate my point about being high-handed. "Why do the working classes trust...?" It's difficult to take you seriously because you see things in such a stark black-and-white. You warn me not to wear rose-tinted glasses, but present a facile argument that half the country is evil or stupid, the other half good and wise. No wonder that anyone who works with the enemy is branded a 'collaborator'. What conceited nonsense.

I clearly recollect that many Labour voters on my council estate were happy to get the chance to buy their council houses - which hardly fits your teeth-grindingly simplistic arguments that the Tories never did anything for the working class. You're entitled to your opinion, but not to discount the opinions of anyone in the working class that don't match your own. By being so condescending about the idea that Labour may sometimes fail the working class, and deserve a kick up the backside, you illustrate yourself to be no less bigoted than the caricature Tories you imagine to be your opponent.

How many more ex ministers are on the Coalition's invitation list? Is there an association? Can I join in as an honourary (only) member?