Milburn: What’s it all about, Gordon?

26 March 2008

/article_images/articledir_1150/575476/1_listing.jpg

Alan Milburn gives his first interview since Brown became PM, and tells Fraser Nelson that Gordon has converted to Blairism too late. Something new is needed now

On the floor of Alan Milburn’s office is a scroll signed by the Queen offering her ‘well-beloved councillor’ £2,000 to be Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is a souvenir of his battles in the Blair–Brown days. He was appointed to this position to co-ordinate the last general election campaign, and was briefly seen as the favoured candidate to succeed Tony Blair. This lasted a few weeks: he resigned on election night and has kept an almost suspiciously low profile ever since.

‘I thought the most helpful thing would be for me to keep quiet,’ he says, gazing at Big Ben out of the window of his rooftop office. ‘But now, I feel I’ve earned my passage. Let’s face it, there have been plenty of opportunities to rock the boat during the last few months. And I haven’t.’ It is as if he wanted to prove he was not a Heseltine figure. But, having done that, he has now decided to speak in this, his first interview since Gordon Brown took over, to offer a friendly analysis of how the Prime Minister is going wrong.

‘To put it politely,’ he starts, ‘the government is not in a great position. Do I think the next election is lost? No. But we need to get ahead of the curve. There are all these concerns about getting the process right, getting the narrative right’ — referring, presumably, to the new recruits in 10 Downing Street. ‘But in the end, politics — particularly when you’ve been in government for a while — is about one big question which is currently not being answered: “What’s it all about, Alfie?”’

Alfie is, of course, a 1966 film about a morally dissolute rogue who, after several life setbacks, decides to change his ways. Mr Milburn was no doubt alluding to the film’s title song, rather than its narrative, but he does say he believes the Prime Minister has changed course. ‘Gordon came in and toyed with an anti-Blair position. But having realised that only sowed uncertainty and confusion, he’s coming to — and has probably arrived at — a Blair position.’ How so? Mr Milburn has a list of evidence.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page

More articles from: Fraser Nelson | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (6)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

John Bull

March 28th, 2008 12:36pm Report this comment

The concept of reducing central government size in order to lower the levels of interference in our everyday lives is a good one.

The problem comes with the 'farming out' of 'Advisers to the Government'. Look simply at the current state - the friends and families of every MP and his dog are scrabbling frantically for the almost daily handouts of hugely funded government 'contracts' for which we already have more than sufficient 'In-House' expertise in our highly paid Civil Service.

The correct word for this is CORRUPTION.

Recognise it soon, for with the advent of the Federal State of the EU, it will soon be visible on every street corner in the land !

Platitudes no longer have any relevance. Action is called for.

Now !!!

Elizabeth Elliot-Pyle

March 28th, 2008 2:37pm Report this comment

It seems to me that almost everything that Millburn is advocating is current Conservative party policy. Perhaps he should consider crossing the floor of the house.

jon livesey

March 28th, 2008 8:29pm Report this comment

Milburn's real problem, as someone already said, is that he's in the wrong party.

Labour doesn't disempower the individual for a whim but for structural reasons. Labour only has two reasons for existence. One is its core belief that "experts" know more than individuals. Teachers know more than parents, nurses know more than patients, civil servants know more than taxpayers.

Labour's second reason for existence meshes with the first. Labour can reward its supporters with sinecures at taxpayer expense, and since its supporters know that, it is compelled to, with the result that we employ more and more experts who do less and less, because they are experts in name only. Yet Labour's basic strategy, that of rewarding its supporters, works, whether they work or not.

A "Milburn" Labour Party would be one that did not depend on sinecures and rotten boroughs to get elected, and which did not over-inflate the useless part of the Civil Service in office. But that wouldn't be the Labour Party at all; it would be the Tories.

David Lindsay

March 29th, 2008 12:28pm Report this comment

Who are you going to interview next? Are there any members of the Macmillan Cabinet left alive?

Paul Danon

March 31st, 2008 1:58pm Report this comment

The folks who will come forward to take part in local democracy are the sort with time on their hands and a meddlesome attitude. Better to find ways of delivering good public services than to tie it up in all sorts of committees of busybodies. Tesco's aren't good because they're run by customers but because they seek to serve customers

Nick Wilson

April 6th, 2008 6:26pm Report this comment

This article put me in mind of the Demos report, 'Making it Personal', about the success of personal budgets in the field of social care. This report by Charles Leadbeater and others makes clear that, by being in control of their own budgets, people are empowered to make different choices AND an average of 15% is saved to the public purse.
As a follow-up to the interview with Alan Milburn, you/he might like to consider whether the personalised budget model could help to achieve the downsizing of the government machine to which Alan Milburn referred.

Post comment