Blunkett resigns (again)

Former Member

Story

So will he be back again?

Former Member

Well if it was good enough for Mandelson...

Former Member

Huruh!

All the business over his kid was nothing (and none of our business) but he's dodgy and has abused his position before and has now repeatedly broken rules which were spelled out to him clearly.

Maybe he will be given and important job in the EU, its working well for Maddy over there.

Former Member

we all saw it coming, maybe he didn't

Former Member

Normally, whenever a New Labour minister has to resign in disgrace, I dance around with joy. But not this time. David Blunkett was one of few genuinely talented government ministers, one of few who could actually get things done in a cabinet full of amateurs and professional failures. I'm sad to see him go. Sadder still to see one of the few politicians I like being reduced to a figure of pity and laughter by his own self-inflicted wounds.

Former Member

Renzo wrote:

So will he be back again?

Let's hope not.

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote:

David Blunkett was one of few genuinely talented government ministers, one of few who could actually get things done in a cabinet full of amateurs and professional failures.

Talented in abusing his position maybe, and in terms of getting things done he was one of the most hard line right wing home secretarys of recent time.

Former Member

He had been losing the plot a bit lately...Although it's sad in that this mistake wouldn't have really affected his ability to do his job, although the pressure on him this mistake created did.

I think like Mandelson he could easily end up with a top job in the EU or something but I'd be surprised if he's ever in the cabinet again. By now some people will view him as a liability and while if Blair was going to be in long enough he could get back into the cabinet I don't think Brown will want him. (Assuming it's Brown after Blair...Er who else could it be? Jack Straw? John Reid??)

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

Talented in abusing his position maybe, and in terms of getting things done he was one of the most hard line right wing home secretaries of recent times.

Yes, he was a right-wing ultra hard-line nutcase. At least he balanced out the other soppy left-wing views expressed by the rest of the cabinet. Oh well, at least Blunkers has plenty to do with his spare time.

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote:

Yes, he was a right-wing ultra hard-line nutcase. At least he balanced out the other soppy left-wing views expressed by the rest of the cabinet. Oh well, at least Blunkers has plenty to do with his spare time.

Soppy left wingers like Clarke, Blair, those horrid women....etc.

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

Soppy left wingers like Clarke, Blair, those horrid women....etc.

Yes, what is it about the women in the New Labour government? Anyway, Clarke used to be a leftie. Until it came to actually getting ahead in politics.

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote:

Yes, what is it about the women in the New Labour government? Anyway, Clarke used to be a leftie. Until it came to actually getting ahead in politics.

I cant even keep the names of them straight, both of them in the cabinet are foul people, though not quite as worthy of hatred as Caroline Flint (spit).

Clarke did indeed used to be a lefty, now he is removing our right to trial, which is nice of him.

Former Member

Blunkett has introduced more draconian measures than any minister in living history, Labour or Tory. At times it seemed his entire Home Office policy was dictated by the editorial page in the S*n (and given the uncomfortably cosy relationship Rupert Murdoch has with Tony, some would say that was exactly the case).

A good riddance.

As someone was saying in one of the papers today, since when do socialists buy shares anyway?

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Blunkett has introduced more draconian measures than any minister in living history, Labour or Tory. At times it seemed his entire Home Office policy was dictated by the editorial page in the S*n (and given the uncomfortably cosy relationship Rupert Murdoch has with Tony, some would say that was exactly the case).

Why doesn't Blair just appoint Rupert Murdoch into the government? That would kill two birds with one stone, wouldn't it?

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Blunkett has introduced more draconian measures than any minister in living history, Labour or Tory.

Clarke is going to easily out do his effort.

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote:

Why doesn't Blair just appoint Rupert Murdoch into the government?

It's probably the other way round

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

It's probably the other way round

Careful, it's a secret. Sssh!

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

It's probably the other way round

Its no secret 'It was the Sun what done it' was the front page.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

since when do socialists buy shares anyway?

i don't think he's ever been accused of being a socialist has he?
since when did socialists not save for their retirement etc?

the barmy thing about all this is you are not allowed to continue being a minister if you make minor mistakes in your private life but ...you can make major cock up after cock up in your proffesional life and still keep the job!

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

i don't think he's ever been accused of being a socialist has he?
since when did socialists not save for their retirement etc?

the barmy thing about all this is you are not allowed to continue being a minister if you make minor mistakes in your private life but ...you can make major cock up after cock up in your proffesional life and still keep the job!

Do you, by any chance remember the 'People's Republic of Sheffield' MR?

I disagree that Blunkett's transgressions are irrelvant to the performance of his job - he hoped to make £300 000 from dem shares - whilst reducing shit benefits to nothingness - and put the mother of his child through hell whilst heading up the system which has responsibility for deciding issues about kids custody arrangements.

:nervous:

Former Member

freethepeeps wrote:

I disagree that Blunkett's transgressions are irrelvant to the performance of his job - he hoped to make £300 000 from dem shares - whilst reducing shit benefits to nothingness

The relevance of those two issues being?

put the mother of his child through hell whilst heading up the system which has responsibility for deciding issues about kids custody arrangements.

Was custody actually ever an issue whilst he was in a previous role? I make be mistaken but I thought it was an issue of access.

NB Using the logic though can the Lord Chancellor ever take someone to court, can the Home Secretary ever use the Police (for legitimate reasons), should the Health Secretary have the right to choose a private hospital for their treatment after January?

Where Blunkett went wrong, last time, was the abuse of travel rights. That was a personal benefit from his public role. I'm not sure that is being applied in this instance. He declared the interests in the Members Register and, even if he has consulted first, he is not duty bound to follow the advice given.

Personally I was glad to see the back of his time as Home Sec. and I don't think he should have been allowed to return.

Former Member

freethepeeps wrote:

Do you, by any chance remember the 'People's Republic of Sheffield' MR?


:nervous:

i confess my ignorance.

what annoys me about this blunket malarky is ...ok he makes bad judgements ...often it would seem but ...these people are near impossible to get rid of when they fuck up proffesionaly time and again ...but it seems it is easier when they make bad personal decisions ...wouldn't it be better the other way around?
by the way ...three hundred grand is not a lot of money these days.

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

...these people are near impossible to get rid of when they fuck up proffesionaly time and again ...but it seems it is easier when they make bad personal decisions ...wouldn't it be better the other way around?

Considering that you get the job of Minister without needing to have any relevant qualifications, are we surprised when they fail?

Having said that I totally agree with you, I'd like to see a few resign because "I'm just not good enough"...

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

by the way ...three hundred grand is not a lot of money these days.

Tell that to someone on minimum wage - or one of the recepients of the DWPs 'largesse'

The People's Republic of Sheffield was a bastion of anti-thatcherism under one David Blunkett - as the FT puts it this evening:

1980 Became the youngest ever leader of Sheffield City Council.

1986 His career in municipal politics, where he was a radical left-winger, culminated in selection as Labour candidate for Sheffield Brightside.

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

.three hundred grand is not a lot of money these days.

lend us a fiver

Teh_Gerbil

Aladdin wrote:

Well if it was good enough for Mandelson...

:yes:

Blunkett may be off to the EU soon, then. Woo etc.

Former Member

Former Member

freethepeeps wrote:

Tell that to someone on minimum wage - or one of the recepients of the DWPs 'largesse'

The People's Republic of Sheffield was a bastion of anti-thatcherism under one David Blunkett - as the FT puts it this evening:

yes i realise it seems a lot to someone at the bottom of the pile but for middle englanders it aint what it used to be.

i love the sheffield bit ...does anyone ever challenge these people who sell out?