lord of the blog

« First Lord's speech 31.10.05 | Main | Responses »

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

David Blunket

Although it had become inevitable I was very sad that David Blunket had to resign. There are too few politicians from a background like his and the more you know about his childhood the more impressive his achievements become.

Those from more privileged backgrounds have far fewer hurdles to overcome.

It is an example of how a person's private life can become so entangled with their public life that no one can save them from themselves. Once he had talked to the media about his financial problems and his desire to repay his sons it was no longer possible to say that his family affairs could be kept separate from his public life.

Sad.

Tony Blair set the rules in order to enforce high standards in public life. If this was a Conservative minister behaving in this way - failing to seek the required advice and taking up a ministerial post after working for a company that coud benefit from tenders awarded by the same ministry - we would expect nothing less than a resignation.

We all have financial problems in life. Tax-collectors do not compromise with ordinary people, so why should the public support compromises over the rule-bending by a Cabinet minister just for the sake of his financial problems? He is not poor and will always have a job. He is privileged. Lots of people have difficult childhoods and many suffer from disabilities and debilitating illnesses, but everyone lives under the same laws. Don't patronise those who are physically disabled as if they are mentally feeble.

Very sad. Yesterday, BBC online ran a poll asking readers whether Mr Blunkett should have resigned or not. My vote was among the 30% of 55,000 votes saying he should not have resigned. I had high hopes for his work at DWP and thought he was perfect for the job. I fear who is in next putting the sick and disabled through the mill again. Maybe he could continue to contribute by providing consultancy.

It's a wonder how politicians get any work done with all the Machiavellian games that all sides play with the media. As for Chris Grayling, the shadow leader of the House of Commons, who wrote to the prime minister regarding David Blunkett's links with DNA Bioscience, his baying for Blunkett's blood with the rest of the ruthless pack hounds proved the Tories haven't changed one whit. Disgusting.

It's enough to turn folk against politics. It is turning me off politics. I recall what went on during the Thatcher years and now, especially after the way Tony Blair was treated these past 10 years, no longer have faith that people who were elected are able to carry out their jobs properly because of the amount of attention and energy that has to be spent on detractors, enemies, competitors and media.

Continuous news about politicians themselves and their private lives is getting to the point where it replaces news about issues. Speaking for myself, it's becoming too much hard work reading up and cross referencing so much media dross in order to figure what is happening - most of the time, issues seem in a state a flux and issues are not properly explained at what stage they are at.

As a small example, I have no idea what the retirement age is now for women and men, who to call in the night if I get sick, what is happening to the Child Support Agency and all the men whose lives are being ruined, why there are such long school holidays so often, why people who are sick and housebound have to organise and coordinate their own medical treatment and care, why the DWP is cutting the number of claimants who are sick and/or disabled while billions of pounds go to waste elsewhere...just to name a few things ... the list is endless.

I search daily for months on end for news of the British government's follow up to the five point plan Tony Blair personally delivered to Khartoum ... can't find a word. The last news burst was last March, engineered by Clare Short et al, immediately the General Election was announced, they and a whole load of anti war activists went into campaign mode calling for action on Darfur - using starving Africans for their own ends to bash Blair with. Where have they all been since the day of the election? Bah. Puke. News reports about politicians are as interesting and insightful as plastic faced celebrities.

I know it's not what you meant Clive, but when I read "too few politicians from a background like his" the aspect of his background I thought of was that he's never done a non-political job in his life.

Perhaps I am wrong here but I get the impression that this is increasingly the case with modern politicians -- they go from university to political research jobs to MPs. I suspect this gives them a narrowness of experience which is reflected in the quality of decisions they make.

My previous post under this strand was deleted. It came after the post from Dan.
Clive can you explain this?

Ingrid:

Baying for the blood of a minister who has broken the rules is hardly a uniquely Tory occupation. In the "brown envelope" years, the Labour opposition did their fair share of baying, and quite rightly so. There are strict rules for government ministers. Those rules exist for a very good reason, and if you cross the line, you have to go.

It is certainly admirable that Mr. Blunkett overcame his disability to become a senior member of the government. For many years he has been a shining example of the fact that people are not stupid because they are disabled - there's just some things they can't do. So from that point of view it is sad to see him go, but almost inevitably when you place someone on a pedestal, he'll fall off at some point.

From a political point of view, I find his opinions profoundly illiberal, so I can't be too sorry that he has gone.

Please note that this debate is being edited in a way which goes unacknowledged.
I ask that all those on this site to abandon debate hereon as a matter of principle.

Andrew,

Clive does this all the time. While he seems to have no problem with racist rants, anything that goes too close to the bone regarding his record or that of his party gets quietly air-brushed out.

Out of interest, could you please e-mail me what you wrote and had deleted? Assuming this message stays on long enough for you to read it.

S.

It was galling to view TV and online news last night, and witness how the media stoked things up to make a meal out of yesterday's vote on the anti-terror plans. One lost vote in 8 years does not amount to Tony Blair's loss of authority and yet the media had a field day quoting opponents who said it did. Michael Howard even had the cheek to say Tony Blair should resign. How pathetic. It just goes to show how the media and many politicians on all sides continue to treat the public as if they are too stupid to see through them.

Once again, Tony Blair is correct when he says today [see link below] some MPs are out of touch with what the public want. Look how lily livered the two potential Tory leaders Cameron and Davis are: both voted for 28-days instead of the 90 required by the police to do their jobs. In an age of technology and terrorism never seen before, we face a new frontier, needing tough new measures and it is the duty of security forces and MPs to work in our interests and protect us all. I believe those who voted for the 90 days are the only MPs who have everyone's interests at heart.

Note, one UK visitor at 'BBC Have Your Say' commented he is pleased the 90 day legislation has failed but said: "I can't help being cynical in thinking it failed as much because the Tories wanted to hurt Blair as much as they had our interests at heart. Have we forgotten that it was a Tory government that introduced Internment without trial in Northern Ireland? That was indefinite and not just for 90 days. I bet Michael Howard was in favour of that legislation when his party were in power so when he calls for Blair to resign perhaps he should think about his own stance back then."

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=295&start=0&&&edition=1&ttl=20051110143818
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4423678.stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_detention_vote_10_11_05

For the record, here is the list of 49 Labour MPs who voted against the government Nov 9. 2005. [List courtesy Tomahawk who published it in the comments at Harry's Place blog with a note saying: "Can anyone point to a single one whose departure from the Commons would be a loss to the Labour Party? What a stack of deadwood!"]

Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington), John Austin (Erith & Thamesmead), Richard Burden (Birmingham Northfield), Michael Clapham (Barnsley West & Penistone), Katy Clark (Ayrshire North and Arran), Harry Cohen (Leyton & Wanstead), Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North), Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne Central), Ann Cryer (Keighley), Frank Dobson (Holborn & St Pancras), Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe & Nantwich), Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central), Paul Flynn (Newport West), Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow), Dr Ian Gibson (Norwich North), Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Sparkbrook & Small Heath), John Grogan (Selby), David Hamilton (Midlothian), Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne North), Kate Hoey (Vauxhall), Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North), Glenda Jackson (Hampstead & Highgate), Sian James (Swansea East), Dr Lynne Jones (Birmingham Selly Oak), Sadiq Khan (Tooting), Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool Walton), Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North & Leith), Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central), Andy Love (Edmonton), Chris McCafferty (Calder Valley), John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington), Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway), Michael Meacher (Oldham West & Royton), Julie Morgan (Cardiff North), George Mudie (Leeds East), Chris Mullin (Sunderland South), Gordon Prentice (Pendle), Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich), Linda Riordan (Halifax), Clare Short (Birmingham Ladywood), Alan Simpson (Nottingham South), Dennis Skinner (Bolsover), Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South), David Taylor (Leicestershire North West), Emily Thornberry (Islington South & Finsbury), Jon Trickett (Hemsworth), Robert Wareing (Liverpool West Derby), David Winnick (Walsall North), Mike Wood (Batley & Spen)
- - -
P.S. Also, today I saw this Q&A in a BBC quiz:
Tony Blair lost the Commons vote on 90-day detention for terrorist suspects after a Labour rebellion. But how many Conservative MPs voted with the government?
Just one - Sir Peter Tapsell MP

P.P.S. Nov 10 BBC report "Davis wants England-only voting" says more people in England voted Conservative than Labour at the last election.
=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4424370.stm

Ingrid: I know that many of the Labour MPs who voted against the 90-day detention rule are hugely popular in their constituencies. If it were not for these MPs, Labour would not have a majority in parliament and Tony Blair would not be prime minister.

Also note that Tony Blair opposed the Tory anti-terrorism bills, which were far less draconian than the one put forward in this session of parliament. The IRA killed far more innocent British civilians than Al-Qaeda.

I regret the political use of police commissioners as lobbyists, particularly when the government is ignoring their "sound advice" over pub licencing hours. Additionally, the argument that the rebels went against public opinion also puts a bad taste in my mouth, since Blair claimed that before the Iraq War "doing the right thing" often involved going against public opinion which overwhelmingly opposed military action. Blair is only hearing the opinions he wants to hear. When the police and the public say things he doesn't want to hear, he ignores them and talks of "difficult decisions" and bold leadership. It is an example of Orwellian double-think by a man who wishes to be Big Brother, but is nothing but a little despot.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: