coalition?

Presumably you would expel Frank Field too.

Yes, he would. That’s why the post ends with the words, “And while they’re at it, get rid of Frank Field too.”

Surely there’s a difference between helping out the government of the country and giving assistance to your political opponents (Tories & Lib Dems)?

As I read it, Milburn will be advising the government (i.e. being a helpful and responsible citizen) not giving aid and comfort to the enemy (treason, betrayal etc.).

what’s all that red over your hands Mike?

“Surely there’s a difference between helping out the government of the country and giving assistance to your political opponents (Tories & Lib Dems)?”

Yes – there is.

The Labour Party helps out the government of the country by functioning as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, holding the executive to account and criticising measures that are brought by ministers before parliament in an effort to improve legislation.

Alan Milburn, by contrast, is giving assistance to Labour’s political opponents.

What about John Hutton?

If governmental policy is bad, it should be opposed. If it is good it should be supported. If it can be changed for the better, then it should be.

Tribal behaviour is something I am totally opposed to. It’s, frankly, disgusting and detrimental to the country.

@8

But Milburn campaigned against this government’s policies in the election?

Saying that, talk of expulsion smacks slightly of ego-tripping and gives ammunition to those on the right who claim the left is Stalinist and authoritarian etc. So I dunno.

“As a result the left clusters into various groups – the Labour Party, the Green Party, the pre-2010 Liberal Democrat Party, etc”

Oh please. If you’re going to put a date on when the LibDems stopped being lefty, it’s a fair way earlier than that. And you can add a similar qualification to Labour, because they’ve been well on the economic right for many years, and as a bonus extra are more authoritarian than any other main party and most of the minor ones too.

So when Milburn decides to advise the Coalition, he’s not engaging in anti-tribalist non-partisanship. Quite the opposite. He’s joining their tribe; the centre-right face of a now dominant Tory Party, which currently holds power instead of a Labour Government.*

And on those grounds, Alan Milburn should be ejected from the Labour Party.

Won’t happen – it would only encourage Cameron to make a further offer (Purnell? some Blairite adviser or other?). Moreover, since when did post-1994 New Labour ever chuck out one of their own (compare Clare Short)? Expulsion was always for the troublesome lefties that got in the way of Mr Tony’s Shiny New Future.

“First, let’s recall what politics is: competition between two or more groups attempting to secure outcomes which the other side not only opposes, but frequently thinks are morally wrong”

One of the most depressing and narcissistic definitions of politics i’ve ever seen. Well done Paul Sagar. Seems us mere Serfs are not that important in your politics…ONLY tribalism matters.

How will Milburn find time for another job? At the time of the last election he was working for a venture capital firm representing private companies trying to profit from the NHS an working for Pepsi. All the Quislings who have anything to do with this vile coalition should be expelled. Its only a matter of time until Shagger Blunkett joins

Which is a shame, because tribalism is an important and usually indispensable part of politics. We’d all do better to recall that it has its virtues as well as vices, even if they are often born of necessity.

First, let’s recall what politics is: competition between two or more groups attempting to secure outcomes which the other side not only opposes, but frequently thinks are morally wrong.

Applauds.

Much of the motivation lies in believing that much Tory policy is immoral

They are not just immoral they are almost Biblical evil. Offering wise words that mask this fact is still buying into their narrative. It, to me, is almost accepting it until something can be done in 5 years time. The Tories (including those LibDems who are supporting them, with those from New Labour) are about to make an attack on the vast majority of the UK public, they are about to take cash money from the poor. Take housing, schools away. How can you be nice about this?

If the leadership of New Labour won’t organise a defence, get the grass-roots organised. I agree that those who are saying he should be expelled 100%. He and anyone else who is going over to their park – get rid of them.

Paul, could you tell Blunkett to fuck off too, while you’re at it? Oh, and ensure Purnell never comes near a position of influence. And get shot of Keith Vaz. And David Miliband.And…

So the man who quit politics to spend more time with co-directors on various boards,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/27/mps-expenses
Sorry, I meant family, now feels the time is ripe to take up the role of social mobility Tzar ………….. for the Tories?

Milburn and his mates had x3 consecutive terms in office, yet the UK still has worse social mobility compared to other developed countries;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility

In what way does this qualify the greedy, yet family loving Geordie for this type of role?

So when the Government suggest that people who are unhealthy because they are over weight, eat unhealthily, unfit, smoke and drink heavily, should try to improve the quality of their life by eating more healthily, taking more exercise, smoking and drinking less; they should be opposed by the Opposition?

Schmidt: Its only a matter of time until Shagger Blunkett joins

Don’t think so: too (ahem) tribal – besides, the Tories have got enough shouty populist law ‘n’ order types as it is.

So a slimy, no good piece of shit conservative, decides he will help the, Err conservatives.

Nothing to see here.

“Cameron and Clegg are currently doing a very good job of squatting in the centre ground of British politics, inherited from New Labour… the so-called “centre” of British politics has been decidedly the centre right ever since Blair decided to sit there from 1994 onwards.”

If centre has meant centre-right since 1994, and Milburn should be expelled because he’s on the centre-right… Doesn’t this logic mean that anyone who served in the New Labour government should be expelled from the party?

Alan Milburn, ‘ex Labour MP and arch Blairite’ has accepted a job advising the government on social mobility; does this mean he should resign from the Labour Party?

The answer to this question can only be a resounding; yes!

In Stoke Central the CLP to which I belonged for nine years I saw over the past eighteen months good people, some of whom had served the party for decades, have their reputations blackened for the crime of believing that local party members rather than paid officials at regional office should choose the candidates to contest the local elections.

Later, after our long serving and much respected MP had been forced to retire due to ill health the same people were subjected to disciplinary procedures because they refused to accept a parachuted in celebrity as their candidate.

If the full majesty of the rules can be used to drive people who were guilty of nothing more that standing up for basic democratic values out of the party it must also be applied to a cynical turncoat such as Alan Milburn.

Nothing fundamentally wrong with political parties. It’s just a shame they’re all so powerful.

Imagine a house of commons with 650 (well, 600) mostly independent colleagues /not/ bound with party whips and tribalism deciding the future of the country.

Vaguely chaotic, but I’m not so sure it’s worse than the current system.

Anyway, “treating with the enemy” is a ridiculously old-fashioned crime. Especially in these days of the new politics.

Tribalism is the cancer of democracy. Why is dealing with the Lib-Cons worse than collaboration with George Bush’s homicidal rampages through Iraq and Afghanistan?

Interesting. What about the non-Labour people who were invited to assist New Labour? They had their say on some topics (eg electoral reform) that are important to Labour members here and non-Labour advice was welcomed at the time. There were some idiot invitees, too, of course (eg Digby Jones).

I can’t say that I’ve noticed many of those former invitees jumping wagon post this year’s election. If they were Labour thinkers, surely they would have joined the party by now? Take LibDem peer, Alex Carlile, for example. He was the New Labour government advisor on terrorism law. He is now the coalition government advisor on terrorism law.

Tribalism has a role in party organisation and elections. It has no role in policy formation and intellectual debate.

I said much the same here:

http://scarletstandard.co.uk/?p=188

(apols if links aren’t the done thing)

Charlieman

There is something a little different about some one with no party affiliation joining a government in some position or another – and some one with a party affiliation taking a position with a government in order to undermine the party he or she is affiliated with.

Blunkett might get away with joining a think tank established by a centrist tory – after all, it is a think tank and not in and of itself beholdent to the Tory whip.

That is rather different to Frank Field and John Hutton agreeing to tow the Tory line while still carrying Labour cards.

BTW

They could simply be more honest about themselves. Frank Field in particular is still an MP – so can cross the floor like Woodhead and some others did when they decided Labour had the right ideas and the Tories had the wrong ones.

Obviously that means he’d be booted out at the next election – so there is no chance of him doing it. But it is what he should do, because even those who hate tribalism must acknowledge that it is worse to be self serving than serve the values of a party.

If ex-ministers want to linger in the limelight let them. Who really cares – the general public ? Will what Milburn, Field, et al, do really affect social mobility ? Will they stop any cuts to university places, early years, BSF, Post 16 and adult education ?

The coalition is reducing financial support for low income families through cuts to early years, tax credits and housing benefit. On top of that, the coalition plan to cut the local housing allowance to one third of local rents will crowd low income families into the very poorest areas of our communities.

These sort of issues are what will matter in the very constituencies MP’s like Frank Field are supposed to represent – in between his and others ego trips.

Labour should concentrate on getting rid of the coalition, not what some has-beens get involved in drafting for another of Cameron’s PR exercises.

Nice to see Mr Milburns new stand in boss made an absolute balls up of his very first Q & A whilst running the country.

http://redrag1.blogspot.com/2010/08/red-rag-clegg-makes-complete-plums-of.html

We have two more weeks of him…..god help us!

Pardon me but why only pick on Milburn?

“David Cameron’s tent is beginning to look bigger than Tony Blair’s. Those already inside include the Labour MP Frank Field, advising on poverty; the former Labour minister John Hutton, reviewing public sector pensions; and the ex-Observer editor Will Hutton, looking at public sector pay differentials. This week Alan Milburn, another ex-Labour minister, becomes ‘social mobility tsar’ while his former cabinet colleague David Blunkett is reported to be helping the Centre for Social Justice, the thinktank designing Tory plans to remodel benefits.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/15/nudge-cameron-veneer-thaler-dogma

Is it because social mobility is such a sensitive issue for New Labour?

“The chances of a child from a poor family enjoying higher wages and better education than their parents is lower in Britain than in other western countries, the OECD says”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility

With all that stuff we used to hear about joined-up-government, surely there is a better case for expelling Blair or Brown?

This is one the the most pathetic arguments I have heard on any issue in a long time. Your definition of politics shows absolutely why Labour lost support- always about beating someone else never about doing good.

The author of this article should get the hell out of politics for the sake of the Labour party and for the good of the country.

This tells us rather more about Lord Prescott than about Alan Milburn:

“Lord Prescott called Mr Milburn a ‘collaborator’ for accepting the role.

“But Mr Clegg said: ‘Alan Milburn is not joining the government; he is not even being an adviser to the government.'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10988178

Alan Milburn, ex Labour MP and arch-Blairite, who has taken a job advising the Coalition on social mobility.

Given that Cameron thinks people in council houses who make a success of their lives should be punished for it by being thrown out of their home, don’t you mean advising the Coalition on how to prevent social mobility?

Simon B and Chrome diplomat, I suggest you read it again carefully.

‘First, let’s recall what politics is: competition between two or more groups attempting to secure outcomes which the other side not only opposes, but frequently thinks are morally wrong’

That’s not ignoring people in any sense. ‘Attempting to secure outcomes’ means nothing other than attempting to secure particular outcomes for people; socialists try to secure the outcomes of equality and fairness, for example, whilst libertarians try to secure the outcomes of individual freedom and minimal state intervention.

These are all outcomes focussed on people. Paul’s point is that we’re trying to achieve our desired outcome on the basis that we think ours have greater moral strength than that of our opposition parties – which is perfectly acceptable.

Indeed, if we didn’t believe that our own convictions had such moral strength, then why would we fight for them in the first place?

“Honest, virtuous, decent tribalism demands it. And while they’re at it, get rid of Frank Field too.”

Have the rabid baying hounds of right-on “New” NuLabour populism learnt nothing!? How much MORE like the Bourbons can we expect them to get. Truly, they remember nothing, and forget nothing.

At least you have the grace to see this for the vicious, tub-thumping, atavistic tribalism it is. Whether you ought to be crowing about it is another matter. For those of us with memories long enough to remember past the last election to the nauseating spectacle of NuLabour authoritarianism, it will simply confirm the suspicion that Labour is well on it’s way to replacing the tories as the stupid party.

Bob B – Clegg also said the AV referendum is going to cost between £80-£100 million. The problem with Clegg is once his lips move what follows is very dubious….anyone got one of those Lib Dem Tory VAT posters, they will become a collectors item.

http://www.redrag1.blogspot.com/

“The problem with Clegg is once his lips move what follows is very dubious”

Maybe – but this thread is really about (upskirt) Prescott’s notion of focusing 2 minutes of hate on Alan Milburn.

Try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdyKJ1xXph8

Btw whatever became of Tracey Temple?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/may/02/pressandpublishing4

What I do find strange is that right wingers defend Milburn.
Surely he one of those anti civil liberties, pro war and managerial control freaks who has brought the Labour party to the point of extinction.
I remember right wing posters on this site despising the Blairite vision of the world (which Milburn and Hutton were a very big part of).
Now you want them to part of your grand plan.
I hope they do cross the line with Field, Hoey and Purnell.
Then a leftist party can look at the mistakes.
1. Try to copy the anti civil libertarian attitudes of the Daily Mail
2. Finishing and extending the managerial project of the Tories (from OFSTED to NHS managers).
3. Having a foreign policy that consists of following every action of the neo conservative movement of the US
The greatest shame is that the party who was consistent on opposing those ideas is now turning into what they despised.

What I find so curious is self-styled “left wingers” defending (upskirt) Prescott for picking on Alan Milburn as a focus for hate instead of engaging in a constructive analysis of the many and disgraceful failings of New Labour in government under Blair’s leadership with Prescott as his supine deputy.

@Bob B

You are the only one who has mentioned John Prescott. He has little to do with this discussion about tribalism/Milburn etc. There has been – and continues to be – plenty of analysis of “the many and disgraceful failings of New Labour in government under Blair’s leadership“; I fail to see why this article/comments thread should veer off-topic into that direction.

Just to get back onto the topic of tribalism etc: @Paul Sagar – what would you say about someone like Winston Churchill, who changed sides quite frequently?

Surely tribalism is only one of the various names that can be given to a single concept depending on how we feel about it. Solidarity, unity of purpose, party discipline, partisanship, tribalism all mean the same thing; the idea that people are so much stronger as a group that it is worth supporting some things we don’t approve of in order to ensure progress on those matters that you do. When we think that people in our group are enduring too much in support of too little, we call it tribalism, when our enemies try to exploit minor differences between our group in order to defeat our larger purpose, we call for solidarity. It is the same thing, only the connotation is different.

What is on display here is not tribalism (Labour right or wrong) but factionalism (Milburn’s idea of progress is so different from mine that we cannot be part of the same party). Factionalism, in the form of the Blair/Brown split and, particularly, the control-freakery and spin employed to contain it, has been what has damaged Labour in recent years, suppressing internal debate and preventing the emergence of the new ideas with which Labour might have renewed itself in government. Tribalism on the other hand is what got Labour into power with three thumping majorities, as New Labour drifted away from the base to capture new votes but left the base with no-one else to vote for – even though it didn’t really like what Tony and Gordon were doing.

@40: “You are the only one who has mentioned John Prescott. He has little to do with this discussion about tribalism/Milburn etc”

On the contrary. Instead of trying to blame me, try looking at real news reports in the media instead:

‘Turncoat’ Alan Milburn feels the wrath of John Prescott
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/08/16/turncoat-alan-milburn-feels-the-wrath-of-john-prescott-115875-22490735/#ixzz0wriM3qXr

John Prescott accused the three who have accepted jobs, who were all critics of Gordon Brown’s leadership, of betraying the party. The former deputy prime minister wrote on his Twitter page: “So after Field & Hutton, Milburn becomes the 3rd collaborator. They collaborated to get Brown OUT. Now collaborating to keep Cameron IN.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/milburn-attacked-for-taking-coalition-role-2053636.html

Lord Prescott called Mr Milburn a “collaborator” for accepting the role.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10988178

I’m unclear how Prescott now regards Demos:

“Alan Milburn is to join the thinktank Demos, which now boasts connections throughout the coalition alongside its Labour regulars”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/15/alan-milburn-joins-demos-thinktank

@Bob B

Oh shhh. You said (@39): “[w]hat I find so curious is self-styled “left wingers” defending (upskirt) Prescott for picking on Alan Milburn”. No left-wingers, self-styled or not, have even mentioned Precott on this thread. As a quick search will prove, the only person who has done is you (and, obviously, myself now). Precott is an irrelevance to this thorny issue of tribalism. At best he could be quoted as an example of How Not To Be Tribal, and I’m not entirely sure why you insist on bringing him into the subject. No-one else has. Yes, there are news stories, but if the OP had mentioned Prescott either as a pro or con then you’d have something of a point, but it just looks like plain old trolling frankly. You could, of course, comment on the Mirror or the Indie websites. Or maybe BBC Have Your Say might be more suited to your style of commentary.

“Oh shhh. You said (@39): “[w]hat I find so curious is self-styled “left wingers” defending (upskirt) Prescott for picking on Alan Milburn”. No left-wingers, self-styled or not, have even mentioned Precott on this thread.”

As (upskirt) Prescott is widely reported in the news media for slamming Alan Milburn as “a collaborator” for agreeing to serve the ConDem government as its Social Mobility Czar, I can only interpret that omission on the part of self-styled left-wingers as indicating that they are a bit tardy on the uptake, which probably won’t altogether surprise some of us.

Just on a wider political point.
Isn’t parliamentary democracy dependent on opposition.
If Labour party MPs are in the government doesn’t that dilute the opposition.

45 – Milburn stepped down as an MP at the election. He’s just a humble private citizen these days. Although opposition MPs have been known to prepare reports for the Government before – Patrick Mercer and John Bercow both did one in the early days of the Brown Govt, although I might have missed the enormous outcry and calls for their expulsion from the Tory party that must have followed.

At least Reg Prentice had the moral courage to cross the political divide.
Also the did the Labour pary activists who campaigned for the Labour MPs thought you know I am working for The Tory government.

“First, let’s recall what politics is: competition between two or more groups attempting to secure outcomes which the other side not only opposes, but frequently thinks are morally wrong.”

ON SOME ISSUES.

Which makes the tribalism of parties insane. It’s taking what is essentially a Free Market loving group of privatisers versus what used to be a group of people that are mainly in it for workers’ rights…and then saying that then based upon what the one that is in power is saying, the other MUST oppose that message, whatever that message is… screw whether or not it is actually closer to their ideology or not, screw whether or not the party actually has any interest in the area at it’s core.

If parliament was made up of more types of interest groups, if MPs were more freely able to associate cross-party on issues, THEN partisanship in politics would work as you talk about. What we have is nothing that you describe as a virtue.

No out cry about Bercow.
Have you lived in a plastic bag ?
Doesn’t make it right if Tories wrote reports.
The opposition was diluted then
Also Field is a Labour MP.
Also has any one ever thought Field, Hoey, Purnell, Blair, Milburn or Hutton were left of centre.
You get the feeling, with the exception of Field, who is maverick, the above would have joined the Cameron Tories if they would have been around in the middle 80’s.
The Labour party was a vehicle for political power
Field has always been a man of the right and was described as a cross between a Monk and a Tory.

No out cry about Bercow.
Have you lived in a plastic bag ?

Well, there was an outcry about his becoming speaker. But there wasn’t (as far as I am aware) about his writing a report into children with communication difficulties.

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/bercowreview/docs/7771-DCSF-BERCOW.PDF

Different things.

Well, there was an outcry about his becoming speaker.

Why ?

I have to echo alastair’s comment above. Labour is supposed to be a party that helps those at the bottom. We should think about expelling people who have shown they have betrayed the trust of Labour members and those they joined to fight for. James ATOS healthcare Purnell has to go. No matter how much Amartya Sen you now say you’ve read, it didn’t stop you wanting to charge 27% interest on loans to the poorest and weakest in society…and you still haven’t said sorry.