Alan Milburn?

Alan Milburn has tried to push himself back into the political limelight a few times since he left the cabinet. There was his "rallying call" with Charles Clarke and his role in a failed coup to get rid of Gordon Brown. Now he is to work with the Tories as a social mobility tsar many in the Labour Party feel let down.

The Guardian's Gaby Hinsliff suggests that the backlash Miburn is now feeling highlights divisions within Labour. Cameron is clearly trying to hive off some Blairite individuals to leave Labour looking more extreme. It also gives us more reasons to argue. Back to Milburn though. The point is he has chosen to support a Tory government. He should leave them to it and let Tories and Lib Dems do the dirty work.

Milburn doesn't have a great deal of credit left with the Labour Party. Many won't be surprised that he is helping the Tories and if he is kicked out of the party I doubt many will miss him.

It is naive to suggest, as his move does, that the Labour Party doesn't offer him any means of influencing future government policy. We are selecting a new leader and there is every chance that with a good leader we'll be able to fight back, highlighting the nastiness of the Tory government. Milburn just lost his right to complain.

2020 Vision

After all the furore over Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn's website launch a couple of months ago, little else seems to have happened. Perhaps they have got out of their respective prams and are crawling around on the floor looking for their toys?

Alan Milburn

So Alan Milburn says he "won't be seduced" into standing for the Labour leadership. Don't flatter yourself Alan. I'd like to know who exactly it is that is trying to encourage him other than his own ego.

Labour's future

Does it matter whether Labour's next leader is put in place through coronation or contested election? A contested election between feasible candidates, not John McDonnell or Michael Meacher from the left of the Party.

Yesterday's 2020 Vision "announcement" from Milburn and Clarke adds a further to the debate. The main problem is not whether or how Gordon Brown should take over the leadership. The problem is that Blair rather stupidly stated that he was going to stand down at a point in the future.

I've always been a far stauncher Blair supporter than most, but when he said that he was going to stand down it would have been better for the Party if he did so sooner. Dragging the whole process on for months has left Labour with an "empty chair" crisis.

That aside, we have a leader to elect. In 1992 John Smith was always going to win the leadership election (beating Brian Gould) and in 1994 Tony Blair was always going to beat John Prescott. I don't recall there being any problem with that. If there is one candidate clearly stronger than anyone else what is the problem with that?

Perhaps much of the discussion has been caused by scepticism of Brown. Those who don't want him as leader say there is a need to debate. By debating you can then propose someone else. Those who support Brown don't see a need for a debate when in their minds the choice of next leader is already obvious. David Milliband has been suggested and I'm keen for himn to be a future Labour leader but I think we should leave it there. In a few years his profile will be higher and the time will be right then.

One thing is for certain, I'm not going to be voting for McDonnell or Meacher.