All journalists hate slow news days, and bank holiday Mondays are often the slowest news days of the lot. Let’s be charitable and assume that this is why the Guardian led its politics coverage this morning with a potboiler of the worst order from Nicholas Watt.

It seems that an obscure New Labour speechwriter – hyped up as ‘a key ally of Tony Blair’, in a failed attempt to sex up the copy - has attacked Gordon Brown in a most unoriginal manner in a small circulation pointy-head magazine.

A man called Phil Collins - not the slaphead who played drums in Genesis; that would at least have novelty value - has penned a piece for Prospect, arguing that

‘Labour’s faith in central government draws from the deep, poisoned well of its Fabian tradition … The only hope for the party is to excavate its liberal treasure.’

Collins’ ‘intervention’ is said to be ‘significant’ because after a stint writing speeches for Blair, he is now employed by work and pensions secretary James Purnell. He has also been sniffing around safe Labour seats. So what? Anything he writes remains essentially the private opinion of a glorified bag carrier.

But let me run his basic premise past you once again, in case you missed the full subtlety of the proposition. Mr Collins is here insisting that central governments are not supposed to have faith in … central government. Doesn’t that kind of go with the gig?

After all, central banks necessarily believe in central banking, central casting directors are most likely of the opinion that central casting has a vital role to play in today’s movie industry, and Birmingham central mosque would presumably enjoin Birmingham’s Muslim community to worship at Birmingham central mosque.

Granted, there is plenty to criticise in the Fabian tradition, not least its explicit advocacy of imperialism. But this is not the aspect of Fabianism Mr Collins seems to dislike. His target is rather Fabian advocacy of state action to deliver socialised healthcare, which he considers to be unaffordable:

The NHS can only survive through the use of liberal principles. The range of medical treatment is too large, the population too old and their expectations too great for the NHS simply to carry on as it is. Control over funding and treatment has to pass from the professional to the individual …

Yeah right, Phil. I mean, what do all those poncy doctors with their fancy-schmancy medical qualifications know about effective treatment? If some dippy middle class cow wants to tackle her terminal cancer with aromatherapy, who is the nanny state to second guess such desires? If this is the policy output of New Labour’s finest, we are all pretty much stuffed.

And there’s more:

The key dividing line in politics is no longer between left and right but, increasingly, between liberal and authoritarian.

If that soundbite sounds familiar, that’s because it’s a straight lift from Sir Menzies Campbell’s leader’s speech to the Lib-Dem conference last year, in which he insisted that ‘the great divisions are no longer between left and right but between liberal and authoritarian’. Naughty boy, Phil. Talk about excavating liberal treasure, eh?

For Collins, New Labour under Brown too often finds itself on the wrong side of this divide. Writing as someone who sees no contradiction in being both a leftist and a libertarian, I happen to agree.

But will Collins – if only from consistency – now be calling for the introduction of ID cards to be scrapped, or for the government to drop proposals for internment without trial for 42 days? I very much doubt it.

Rarely can such mediocre ultra-Blairite tosh have enjoyed such a high profile in what remains the newspaper of choice for many Labour activists. I’m almost looking forward to reading the full length version of this man’s ramblings, if only on the basis that it will probably be so bad it’s good.