Christmas must be coming - there’s a Blunkett resignation market
November 1st, 2005-
Blunkett 7/4 to be out by New Year’s Day
At last! William Hill have just opened a market on whether the Work & Pensions Secretary, David Blunkett, will survive in his post until the end of the year. 
The price is 7/4 that he’ll be out by then and 2/5 that he’ll survive. As yet it does not appear to be online but we’ll let you know as soon as it is.
Sadly the price is nothing like as good as the one that was available last December when you could have got 7/2 against him resigning as Home Secretary by the end of the year. Those that got on made a nice profit.
This was followed by the “Will Blunkett return to the Cabinet in 2005″ market when on Christmas Eve you could get 5/1. This turned out to be another profitable.
With the media attention level so high it is hard to see how Blunkett can brazen the current crisis out - especially as he was advised three times that he ought to seek advice about taking jobs while out of the cabinet. The 7/4 seems like a good bet.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I’m beginning to think he will survive. The Tories have played the best hand they could have been dealt about as badly as possible. Greyling was baying for his resignation all yesterday and the day before then this morning Rifkind came on to give a much more sober assessment. This evening Greyling came back to say he WASN’T calling for his resignation! He’s not only made himself look foolish but he’s probably got Blunkett off the hook. His hysterical posturing is likely to have galvanized both the Cabinet and most of the party. If I could bet I would say Greyling will lose his place in the Shadow Cabinet before Blunkett loses his in the government.
This is similar to last year, really - the momentum, despite the initial denials, looks like it’s going to push him out.
It’s deja vu all over again: as I said on 2nd December 2004
I hope he’ll stay.
3. are you a Blunkett’s fan?
1-All Greyling has been asking for is an enquiry,you were on about the importance of having a proper oppsotion a couple of days ago,but when this happens you don’t seem to like it,make your mind up or at least be consistent for a change.
All your comments seem to be solely directed at your personal dislike for Greyling.
Blunkett has alloedegly broken the ministerial code not once but three times & you expect the opposition just to keep quiet about it-get real.
It was Blair that said in 1997,following the Tory sleaze, that the ministerial code was going to be rigidly enforced & that his administration would be ‘whiter than white’, well the reality has been a long way from the rhetoric for a change.
1 I’ve not seen Grayling call Blunkett’s resignation. In fact all the four documents put out by the Tories in the last three days have conspicuously avoided that.
Blair’s dilemma is that this is an important month for the Work and Pensions brief. Even if he doesn’t care too much about Blunkett - and it seems that most of the Labour Party are no longer strong supporters - a forced resignation now would undoubtedly reduce the chances of the effective welfare or pension reform that Blair must crave if he is to have a lasting reputation.
I just don’t see how Blunkett can survive this. Like sharks scenting blood, the media will pursue him continually.
And the fact is that his behaviour is pretty sleazy, however you look at it.
6 - Grayling most certainly did call for Blunkett’s resignation and it was widely reported throughout Sunday and discussed here. I suggest you Google it and go back to 30 October. I don’t often agree with Roger but Grayling has played a brilliant hand poorly and ironically is probably the second most endangered frontbencher at this time after Blunkett himself.
8. Grayling’s words on 30 October were:
Unless he clears this up pretty quickly, I don’t see how he can carry on
There are so many question marks in relation to Mr Blunkett’s judgement over this, I believe that his position has become untenable. Unless something pretty dramatic happens to clear his name, then I don’t think we can have confidence in him as a Cabinet Minister
I think that the fact that he is still managing to get on virtually every TV news show suggests that he’s doing rather well.
As I recall he said “if I were Blunkett, I would be seriously thinking about my position” or something along those lines. Not quite “calling for his resignation”.
10. All newspapers reported that he was calling for his resignation, but I wasn’t able to find a direct quote calling DB to resign. I think journalists have interpretated the quotes I mentioned @9 as calls for resignation.
but maybe someone will be better than me in his search and he/she’ll find out a direct quote from Grayling.
Hills have just denied that they have a Blunkett resignation market. I dialled 0800 223311—there isn’t another number, is there?
David - Hills have done this before. This is the email I got from Graham Sharpe this afternoo.
BLUNKETT 7/4 TO BE OUT BY NEW YEAR’S DAY………..David Blunkett is a 7/4
chance with William Hill to be out of his job as Work & Pensions Secretary by
December 31, 2005. Hills make him 2/5 to survive until then. ‘If Mr Blair
thought that expressing support for Mr Blunkett would end the controversy he
seems to have been wrong and we have received far more enquiries about Mr
Blunkett going than staying’ said Hill’s spokesman Graham Sharpe.
Further information…graham sharpe..0208 918 3731
**********************************************************************
The contents of this e-mail are subject to contract in all cases and William
Hill PLC, its subsidiaries or affiliates make no contractual commitment save
where confirmed by hard copy.
The contents of this e-mail do not necessarily represent the views of William
Hill PLC, its subsidiaries or affiliates. We accept no liability, including
liability for negligence, in respect of any statement in this e-mail.
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be subject
to legal privilege and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use or dissemination of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately, then delete this e-mail.
9/10 - those weren’t his only words on 30 October. He stated that Blunkett’s position was “untenable”, and that he was sure Blunkett had broken the code and that that was a resigning matter. News bulletins on all channels throughout the day reported directly that the Tories were calling on Blunkett to resign (and don’t say that they all got the wrong end of the stick and the Tories couldn’t get around to contacting any of them to correct the error - that is ludicrous).
Grayling has clearly been told to step back from that position by the powers that be and it can’t help his career - it is a golden rule that you don’t call for resignations without clearance and he will be hauled over the coals for it at the very least - terribly unprofessional. Clearly that isn’t the story that will dominate the headlines because Grayling is a fundamentally trivial man and there is a far bigger fish to fry - but Grayling shouldn’t count on keeping his frontbench role in Cameron’s reshuffle.
13 - Did Graham Hill address the email to the website then?
14 - who are “the powers that be”?
14.”9/10 those weren’t his only words on 30 October. He stated that Blunkett’s position was “untenable”,”
uhm, have you read post 9? the “untenable” quote was in it!
Btw, I noticed BBC has Clive Betts defending Blunkett today. Couldn’t Labour find anyone else to defend him? Consideing Betts problems to follow rules in the past, maybe he wasn’t the best man to do the job.
4, Andrea - Blunkett sounds more reasonable on the issues with disabled people and work than Blair does.
16. The big bosses! In this case I suppose Howard or senior Shodow Cabinet ministers.
“He stated that Blunkett’s position was “untenable”, and that he was sure Blunkett had broken the code and that that was a resigning matter.”
Well that seems to be pretty well spot on, doesn’t it?
18 - Blunkett isn’t an objective judge. Many have argued that he lets his personal experiences get in the way of asking what might be best for others.
18. AT. Blunkett is certainly very concerned about disabled people’s needs, but I think Labour has ministers with reasonable opinions on this issue who could fill DB’s position if he has to go. Then he could always give inputs on this issue.
19 - the same Howard who has been so successful in his attempts to call for senior resignations in the past?
8 James. I took your advice and Googled. The resignation calls seem to come from the press who say the Tories are calling for Blunkett’s resignation and then quote Grayling as calling for an enquiry.
I think Grayling has got a bad press here. He has done well. He has not, despite some of the accusation here, gone over the top, he has been reasoned and measured and has refused to get down in the dirt about Blunkett’s personal life (most notably on Newsnight where Gavin Esler tried to give him an open goal on that angle).
Anyone got anything else.
21 - why not objective?
25 - Because he is hugely influenced by his recollection of his personal experiences.
18, 21 - I think it might be exactly why Blunkett was given the W&P portfolio. It sounds a bit more convincing when he talks about the benefits of work for the disabled than if other ministers were to do so.
It is a interesting phenomenom when senior ministers look back to experiences in their childhood and seek to make policy motivated largely by a desire to right the “wrongs” that they experienced (eg. Blunkett’s attitude to special schools and Prescott to the Grammar School system). Outsiders might ask whether the fact that they became very senior cabinet ministers might suggest that things weren’t all bad.
26, alex - ‘able-bodied’ does not equal ‘objective judge’.
29 - I didn’t say it did.
According to the BBC Grayling said: “Mr Blunkett’s position is now increasingly untenable. I really don’t see how he can carry on as a Cabinet minister given all that’s gone on in recent days.” Not quite a strident call for resignation.
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4389546.stm
30 - I know you didn’t. I don’t think being disabled means Blunkett is less able to be objective on these issues than an alternative able-bodied minister would be.
14. James, George Osborne went to BBC1’s Politics Show claiming Blunkett’s position was “increasingly untenable too.
28. Alex, I disagree. I think their input on matters they had experienced in first person is very useful. it’s sometimes difficul to understand well some kind of problems and the importance to solve them for outsiders.
It is another sometime feature of people at the top that they sometimes fail to recognise the extent to which good fortune has played a part in their success. They often find it quite easy to lecture those less fortunate than themselves that they should just “work harder” because they can convince themselves that it is simply hard work that has brought them all their success. Only one person can be Prime Minister.
32 - I didn’t say that being disabled meant he was “less-able” to be objective. What i said was that David Blunkett wasn’t completely objective. Anyone is capable of being objective. It doesn’t mean everyone is.
35, alex - fair enough. What examples? His dislike of special schools?
36 - well that’s the most obvious example. I’m not saying he often isn’t arguably right. But I think the extent to which his disability gives him a special insight is overplayed. He’s a pretty atypical blind person after all.
I HEARD him say in at least two interviews at the week-end that Blunkett should resign. There were no caveats whatsoever.
Blunkett has just had Professor Crick speak up for him which was quite kind I thought.
I am one of those who would like to see the back of Mr Blunkett. I thought he was the worst Home Secretary since Michael Howard himself. We will be buiding prisons till eternity because of the judgements of those two Home Secretaries. And anyway if I’d wanted a Conservative Home Secretary I wouldn’t have voted Labour.
Finally I’m getting slightly paranoid by the number of posters who start their posts with “I don’t normally agree with Roger….” Can’t we just take that as read!
Mike, you seem to be giving Hills undeserved free publicity on one of the leading betting sites.
It is not clear to me how you should approach receiving a ‘gesture’ from them.
37 (con). “Atypical” perhaps a poor choice of word.
38. “Blunkett has just had Professor Crick speak up for him which was quite kind I thought. ”
Who is Professor Crick? The Prof Crick I know is the former nobel prize, but he’s dead!
37. he certainly have more insights than me and other people who have never put a foot on a special school.
41 - And if you ever were making policy on the issue I would expect you to research it thoroughly Andrea
David Blunkett told Sheffield’s The Star newspaper “This is a straight political battle with the Conservative Party and their allies in the media, and decency.
Now I find that extraordinary that he casts himself as the personification of ‘decency’.
This from a minister forced out by his official misbehaviour related to a mistress (his tickets and her nanny), who broke Parliament’s rules and refused to follow the Ministerial code three times.
Such a breath taking bravura. Does he not expect his ‘previous’ to be taken into consideration by the court of public opinion.
The conceit, the arrogance of power, is stunning.
43 - Sounds like the “sword of truth and trusty shield of fair play”
I think Blunkett’s blindness is a legitimate excuse for a lot of things. Certainly to do with his personal life which should have no bearing on anything anyway. Like a lot of people I read his account of his childhood and it wasn’t possible not to be moved. He’s clearly a remarkable man and brings a unique insight to government. The Home Office was just the wrong place. People have somehow started to find it acceptable to lampoon his blindness which in an indirect way is quite a tribute to him. The TV program about him for my money just showed what a nasty society we live in. Or is it funny making someone look ridiculous because they’re blind?
38 Its alright Roger. I don’t remember agreeing with you. So relax.
42. Alex, how are you so sure I’m not making policies on this issue?
That said, I think others have the right to voice their opinions on the matter and deserve to be listened too.
45 - The TV programme did not make him look ridiculous “because he was blind”. (indeed the actor’s performance was praised for being incredibly realistic). The motivation for the programme was not his blindness, it was a classic satire of a ministerial scandal. The main person to blame was himself - not least because of the way he seemed to have created a rather large number of enemies. It is the nature of politics that when things are going well they won’t dare pipe up, but when things turn they’ll be everywhere.
41. I’ve understood who Professor Crick is now.
You mean a Very social Secretary? that was a nasty piece of work. Playing comedy music over it doesn’t make it funny.
50. The reviews I read about “A Very social Secretary” were pretty good. I would be interested to see it in the future.
I think on balance he is more likely to go than not. its unfair but the story is feeding on its self , indeed he has becomme a story in him self like mandelson did. I think the Lib dems have handled this the best. Soberly saying they aren’t asking for his resignation but then setting out in detail the allegations. They come across as reasonable but actually using fairly negative tactics. Hypocritical but effective.
52. If people remember what they’ve said. They were overwhelmed by the tories. It’s what happens when you’re polite (maybe not the right term in this context).
53. something strage just happened. After posting, instead of updating as usual the current thread, I was taken to an old thread about Blunkett and Kimberly Quinn.
Paranormal phenomenas?
I see the premier of Brandenburg, an “Ossi”, Matthias Platzeck, is to replace Franz Mentefering as head of ths SPD. This is interesting as he could be the next chancellor. He ended a series of bad results for the SPD in the East recently. He’s got a “green/lefty” background.
PS Boy, there is a vacuum in the news post-the Tory frolicking!! Can we move PLEASE MOVE ON from talking about David Blunkett - I think it’s become fashionable to mock him just because he’s blind and looks at the sky when he talks. The attention given to him is beyond belief. From the electorate’s POV, he’s an irrelevance, especially in the context of Labour government’s prospects, pure and simple. Margaret Beckett anyone?? Let him leave the stage in peace. Anyone read, “On A Clear Day”, his autobiography? I didn’t think so.
55.”I think it’s become fashionable to mock him just because he’s blind and looks at the sky when he talks. ”
are you sure they don’t look at the sky just becuase of what he’s saying. It’s pretty typical to look at sky (and maybe rolling your eyes) when you strongly disagree with someone.
” Can we move PLEASE MOVE ON from talking about David Blunkett ”
no, please! A day away from talking about tory leadership race is valuable!
51 - It was good. And frankly of all the main characters Blunkett probably had the most sympathetic treatment. The only bits where he came across badly were probably pretty accurate portrayals of his fundamental character anyway (the treatment of the woman of came to see him in his surgery for example).
56 - Blunkett “looks at the sky” when he talks, not other people!
58. ops, I should read it slowly next time!
No elephantman we cannot move on from talking about Blunkett when the man is mired in sleaze allegations and taking down another chunk of the Prime Minister’s credibility with him. I am not in a position to judge if he should stay or go (I prefer go but then I never got over his destruction of the DFES) but we should be quiet because its Blunkett. It’s nothing to do with him being blind, it is to do with him being sleazy. Politics needs to be seen to be clean.
And yes, I have read both a biog and the autobiog. And yes, such posts do demeen this excellent site.
60. Which posts demean the site Tone?
Elephantman at 55
Unlike some here, I regard Blunkett as rather a good Home Secretary (if anything I’d be quite happy with a larger prison population than we have now).
But for 18 months or so, his judgement has deserted him, and his position is now untenable.
63.well, you’re a Tory!
Can we just be clear that the guy Roger detests so much is Chris GrAyling. I dont know who this GrEyling chap is he keeps talking about.
Roger’s posts are becoming more and more asinine. I think Grayling has played his hand supremely well (maybe that is what Roger doesnt like!) and helped keep the matter in the news for days on end. Wasnt that what Labour did in the run up to 97? It is the job of the Official Opposition to harry the govt and Grayling is very effective in that.
Personally Grayling is a very decent, thougtful guy and I dont recognise some of the ill informed descriptions of him on PB.com.
65. “Roger’s posts are becoming more and more asinine”
don’t you think it’s a bit over the top?
The meaning I know of “asinine” are a) Utterly stupid or silly b)Of, relating to, or resembling an ass.
Don’t know if there’re some other meaning of the term, but if they’re the only ones, I think Roger doesn’t deserve them.
I think it is unfortunate in terms of timing that Greyling went for Cherie Blair, whatever the merits, just a short time ago. While I think the Blairs’ behaviour has been grubby and un-Prime Ministerial, I don’t think there was anything substantively wrong. The public seem to have had a similar response. This makes it harder for Greyling to deal with this much more substantive allegation in as effective a manner than he otherwise could have.
67. Re GrAyling (Chrisco, don’t spell it wrong! Haven’t you read Rik@65?) and Cherie Blair.
He was supported by Clare Short. Now you could draw your conclusion………..
48. It is very true that Blunkett only has himself to blame for making enemies and having few friends when the chips are down.
Some on the left remember his capitulation to Kinnock, when he betrayed Militant, by voting with the leadership on the NEC to expel them from the party.
He also made some enemies on the Tory side, much later, for example when he was unbearably smug about whether to take Archer’s peerage away after Archer’s conviction. (He was for doing so.)
66. Don’t be silly Andrea, Rik wouldn’t be Rik if he didn’t, at every available opportunity, correct roger’s spelling, dole out personal abuse and reminding everyone that he is best chums with everyone in the Tory Party and that they are all terrifically competent and super super nice people.
68. Rik says potato…
65. And just out of curiosity Rik, which characterizations of him do you believe to be incorrect, just so we know what he’s really like?
Alex. Do you think anyone would have made a program ridiculing his blindness if blunkett hadn’t been through that humiliation with his lover? Don’t you remember for instance the coctail party where he didn’t know what he was eating while the guests (and the audience) laughed at him?
Asinine posts!
(OK. I’ll try to improve them!)
70. Chrisco, I’m always silly. Otherwise I wouldn’t be me
71. One of the first replays I get on this site was Rik correcting one of my (many) spelling mistakes. I wrote “Polonia” instead of “Poland”.
I would pay to see a debate between Rik, Clare Short and Glenda Jackson.
66. Thank you Andrea! And yes, unfortunately my dictionary says the same!
Chris Grayling seemed a good chap when he came to speak to UYCUA a couple of years ago.
76. I think no-one is criticizing Grayling as a human being, the criticism by some posters regards how he has handled the Blunkett’s affair.
77 - The attacks on Chris Grayling are just a smokescreen being put up by certain Labour supporters around here to deflect attention from the real issue at hand, which is Blunkett’s unacceptable and unethical conduct as a Minister of the Crown. He should resign and he should do so immediately, and if he refuses, then the Prime Minister should sack him.
78. “The attacks on Chris Grayling are just a smokescreen being put up by certain Labour supporters around here to deflect attention from the real issue at hand”
ok, maybe the power that be could read us, but I doubt that if Roger manages to switch the attention from Blunkett here, he would escape the sacking……..we’re not so important!
79 - Speak for yourself!
80. Nah, don’t pretend something you’re not…..you aren’t part of St Tony’s inner circle.
Btw, have you noticed that ToryBoy has disappeared? What have you done him?
78-Agree,its just a catologue of excuses for a minister that clearly thinks he’s above the law & is a serial offender.
Maybe some type of ASBO would be appropriate.
This seems to be almost a debate about semantics;whether its Grayling calling for an enquiry or his resignation (or both),or the Liberals calling for a Commons statement,or indeed Labour MP’s calling for him to resign,it basically amounts to the same thing.
The clear message from most people is they don’t want sleaze,even Roger agreed with that,at least yesterday!
AHM. What exactly do you think Mr Blunkett has done that requires his resignation? As I understand it after losing his job as a Cabinet Minister he took a directorship without getting clearance from the requisite civil servant (which would almost certainly have been given as a matter of course and even if it wasn’t the advice was only voluntary). I don’t approve because to me it sounds money grabbing but surely to someone in your party with the likes of Kenneth Clark and his three senior directorships this is just good free enterprise?
81 - That is the nicest thing you’ve ever said to me!
Don’t worry about ToryBoy, I’ll let him go - but not until after 6th December.
83. Roger, why are you so against Ken (Jack converted me in a Ken’s fan. ok, maybe it’s not a good thing to be one of my favourites)? Other MPs have directorships, but you name only Clarke (with finale E!)
83 - Ahhh, Roger Dodger. Try reading Guido’s blog, he sets the case out very aptly. By the way, in case you haven’t noticed - Ken Clarke isn’t a Minister of the Crown and hasn’t been since 1997. And some people say that it is we Tories who are stuck in the past?
84. I don’t usually say bad things to you (I think).
I’m not sure it’s legal to get votes in that way
I don’t believe it! I’ve just seen the man whose business Mr Blunkett was to join Tariq Sadiqi! I used to know him very well! All I will say is that Mr Blunkett should certainly resign now. His judgement is terrible (unless Tariq has changed)
83 There’s a world of a difference between someone leaving the Cabinet for a private sector job and a backbench MP or opposition MP taking a job. It’s not about the money. It’s about whether, if they are allowed to go straight into a job, questions might be asked about decisions they were taking while they were still a Minister. Any former Cabinet Minister who doesn’t understand this, and worse, chooses to (thrice) ignore the commission set up to monitor this has no place in Government.
Aside the politics, the 7/4 looks like a decent betting opportunity.
Shall be keeping a close eye on this one for a while.
Andrea. The Conservatives have always had a fundamentally different attitude to free enterprise and conflicts of interest that those on the Labour side. I’m sure most Labour supporters would want to know how an MP was able to be a chairman of two companies and a deputy chairman of a third while still putting the time in parliament and giving the time to their constituents? It used to be called ‘moonlighting’. Many MP’s write for newspapers and so forth but don’t you think being the Chairman of a large public company for which you get paid over £100,000 a year might at least eat into some of your time? Of course there are others, loads of them (William Hague for instance) but I can’t be bothered to look them up. Can you imagine Oona who used to work tirelessly for her constituents in a very deprived part of London would have behaved like that? That’s why I suspect Blunkett is getting so little support from the Labour side. He looks like he’s got his snout in the trough (though less so than KC IMHO)
88. Could be a different Tariq Sadiqi - it’s not an uncommon name. But come on now Roger, Blunkett’s behaviour stinks - once again his personal life has clouded his judgement; this is a recurring feature of his behaviour and one that completely undermines confidence in his ability to do his job.
91.”Can you imagine Oona who used to work tirelessly for her constituents in a very deprived part of London would have behaved like that? ”
Gorgeous George has a remunerated directorships (Finjan Ltd)
None of this chatter about Oona or Gorgeous is in any way relevant. Blunkett went on to the board of a company for two weeks in order to qualify for shares in a company that he knew was going to float and make a mint, almost certainly on the back of info he received when he was in the Home Office. He ignored three letters from his permanent secretary that he was in breach of the ministerial code of conduct. All this was in pursuit of money that he was going to spend on lawyers pursuing a paternity case over ‘that little lad’ (or whatever he called him). The man has too much going on in his private life, and as a result cannot be trusted as a minister. He appears to be no closer to regaining the plot when he engaged in his bizarre karaoke performance last December.
94. *than when he…*
I agree Chrisco. I thought he should have gone for good last time but over the train ticket not his girlfriends Phillipino nanny. I just don’t happen to think what he did this time is a hanging offense. Can you explain what he did that was so heinous? Though as I said before I don’t like his greed.
(It is the same Tariq. I’ve just seen him on newsnight)
Sorry Chrisco our posts crossed. If what you say is correct then certainly he should go-and will
94.”None of this chatter about Oona or Gorgeous is in any way relevant”
Chrisco, do you know what we’re talking about?
Roger and I were talking about Ken Clarke and his directorships. So yout post was irrelevant
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1588172,00.html
Extraordinary! Full of pathos. I knew none of this but the Tariq is certainly the same one. Blunkett must have been mad to get involved in business with him
96-Roger-’Though as I said before i don’t like his greed’
What’s the difference between Blunkett’s greed & Cherie Blair’s greed,apart from the sexism ?
99. At personal level I almost feel sorry for him.
99. That Observer piece is interesting. If, as I think I read on here earlier, Saddiqi has said ‘all publicity is good publicity’, then this does begin to look like a set-up. Although that in no way detracts from Blunkett’s clearly clouded judgement.
Sorry John I don’t read the Daily Mail so I havent followed their seven year vendetta against her. As a Tory though you’ll know she could have made over a million a year as one of the countries top barristers so whatever she is doing now cannot be put down to greed.
Andrea. I agree. And I can’t imagine what he could have been doing with Tariq Siddiqi. He must have literally taken leave of his senses
I have to take issue with some of the comments above - Chris Grayling is most definitely one of the most decent members of Parliament I know. He has that very rare quality in politicians - the ability to listen, engage and be genuinely interested in what ordinary people have to say on any issue.
I don’t necessarily think he’s a star performer at the despatch box, but he is someone I’d be incredibly proud to have as my MP. And I don’t say that about many
Chrisco. When I knew him which was over twenty years ago he had gone bankrupt more times than I’ve voted Labour!
Does anyone know who did the DNA testing for Blunkett’s paternity case?
I dunno Blue, but I have seen nothing to indicate that it was this lot.
103-Roger-You must surely have read about her money grabbing activities in the Sun or Mirror?
Hint,Australian charity receives less than 10% of funds raised,Cherie receives £ 17,000 for a speach,that beats Blunlett’s £15,000 for two weeks of consultancy!?
Could TB’s unwavering support for Blunkett be what he means by his new Respect policy?
108. You’ve got the wrong end of the stick john. Blunkett was not paid £15,000 for two weeks’ consultancy; he joined the board of this company for two weeks in order to enable himself to buy £15,000 worth of shares in it, which would have been worth about £450,000 in a few months’ time when the company floats.
I think Cherie Blair’s behaviour is grubby, but it is entirely another kettle of fish. Surely the blame in all this furore lies with the charity, who must have known what her fees for the talk were, and also known that 10% must clearly go the charity. If whoever was running the show couldn’t do the maths to work out what the ticket price needed to be to make that happen then I have my doubts about their ability to run the charity!
For the record: DB’s 3rd job was revealed by Rob Hutton, Bloomberg’s lobby correspondent. Why didn’t any of ‘Fleet Street’s finest’ get their first?
107 Chrisco Interesting thought though.
112. It had occured to me too, but there seem to have been a few [i]hints[/i] at least that it wasn’t them.
It has also just occured to me - to whom were the shares sold by the trust. If there was some clause that resulted in the shares having been sold back to the company, then I would say that it’s a cert that Saddiqi set up Blunkett.
113. Blunkett (and other politicians too) sometimes seems so umbelievable naive!
btw, in Germany it seems that everybody wants to resign. Now the leftwing woman who won the position of SPD General Secretary is considering to resign too.
114 - What a bloody mess that is. I understand that if our Angela fails to cobble her coalition together by 22 November, a new general election will have to be held.
From today’s Telegraph:
‘David Cameron, the favourite to become the next Conservative leader, answered charges that he is “light on policy” yesterday by putting radical reform of the police at the heart his law and order programme.
As his rival David Davis faced more defections by key allies at Westminster, a confident Mr Cameron set out a detailed package of police reform - including powers for chief constables to sack underperforming officers.
Last night, the Cameron team attempted to exploit rumours of mounting “disarray” in the Davis inner circle by saying they had held discussions with Andrew Mackay, a Davis supporter, who they expect to defect in the next few days. Mr Mackay refused to comment.
Mr Mackay is married to Julie Kirkbride, a key member of the Davis inner circle who is also believed to be unhappy over his failure to consult colleagues on policy announcements on tax and pensions.
A switch by Mr Mackay to the Cameron camp would prompt speculation that his wife would follow.
Tory MPs also claimed that David Willetts, the shadow trade secretary who came out in support of Mr Davis in September, had “gone to ground” and was refusing to offer public backing to Mr Davis over his tax-cutting policy. Mr Willetts was unavailable for comment last night.’
Delicious.
Re. 64, but I do too, and I’m not a Tory!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-1854187,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1606529,00.html
116 - two interesting things about Cameron’s police reforms. Firstly, it takes him onto DD’s shadow Home Office territory. Secondly, it shows a Ken Clarke or Tony Blair like willingness to risk alienating natural supporters (such as police officers) — a strategy which works best when the other party is deeply unattractive.
Interesting too that these policies (or slogans which too often pass for policies these days) do not really define a political philosophy. The proposed police reforms do not tell prospective voters whether he is on the right or left either socially or economically, or whether his instincts are authoritarian or liberal. This may of course be the point.
118. What a very sad human story. It’s strange in this day and age to think someone could have reached Cabinet level and yet be so so naive in the ways of the world. A perfect candidate for the wily Mr Siddiqi. It’s now become clear what’s happened and I rather hope Mr Blunkett keeps his job (and it seems he will)
Kenneth Clark was scathing about DD this morning but not much more complimentary about DC. He thought they were both falling over themselves to fight yesterdays battles and if they didn’t stop the Tory party would soon be looking for yet another leader! And he’s right.
121. Are you being sarcastic? Blunkett isn’t naive, he is simply infected with the arrogance of power. That’s why he should go. Blair showed he is infected with the same virus, too, by reappointing him. Not that we didn’t know that.
Read the Times article Fred, posted on 118 and if you don’t feel a twinge of sympathy for him then you are Chris Grayling and I claim my £5!
Sorry, the sob story doesn’t impress me. He has an affair with a married woman, blows a load of cash on a legal battle with her, then uses his political position to try to recoup some of it. If he was a Tory you would be screaming for his head. I am not, however, Chris Grayling.
It is a sad story but much of it is of Blunkett’s own making. It’s sad as well because he is one of the more talented cabinet ministers. He’s clearly had a hard time of things (and I thought the programme on C4 about him was fairly unp;easent) but I don’t think it’s an excuse for some of the thing’s he’s done.
The legal battle was to gain access to his child. I would not like to be cut off from a child of mine. She was the married one, not him (doesn’t make him innocent though). DB seems to have been under the impression she would leave hubby for him. As I said here before, if this is anything to go by, one is far better off getting knocked up by Labour than by Tory.
Nick Robinson is ‘resigning’ him now on News 24. Now it just needs the PM’s rubber-stamp.
117.Richard (Original), but you’re on the right of the party. Blunkett is an authoritarian social conservative (for Lab standard).
Hes gone!!!
How different would things be if KQ hadn’t wanted to shag a blind man.
130. or more in general if KQ hadn’t wanted to shag other men (blind or not blind).