http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4398004.stm
― Last Of The Famous International Pfunkboys (Kerr), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:07 (nineteen years ago)
― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:12 (nineteen years ago)
I am not resigning, says Blunkett
― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:12 (nineteen years ago)
― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:14 (nineteen years ago)
Who will replace him at the DWP?
― Last Of The Famous International Pfunkboys (Kerr), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:14 (nineteen years ago)
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:15 (nineteen years ago)
― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:16 (nineteen years ago)
― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:16 (nineteen years ago)
Peter Mandelson! Or maybe Charles Clarke! And Blunkett can take his job!
Nice to finally see proof that the Daily Mail crowd counts for more than the anti-war lobby.
― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:17 (nineteen years ago)
sorry, i remain dry-eyed about this, i don't give a fuck if it was the mail. mail vs blunkett is some kind of weird mirror-move shit: he is/was buddies with dacre!
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:19 (nineteen years ago)
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:19 (nineteen years ago)
― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:20 (nineteen years ago)
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:21 (nineteen years ago)
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:21 (nineteen years ago)
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:22 (nineteen years ago)
― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:27 (nineteen years ago)
It stinks of a fix. Can we print some "Blunkett for Home Secretary: Third Time Lucky" t-shirts, sell them on eBay and get in the papers?
Preferably with this picture on:
http://img494.imageshack.us/img494/4627/blunkett5jz.jpg
― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:28 (nineteen years ago)
― trappist monkey, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:29 (nineteen years ago)
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:31 (nineteen years ago)
― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:33 (nineteen years ago)
― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:33 (nineteen years ago)
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:35 (nineteen years ago)
― Matt (Matt), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:35 (nineteen years ago)
― Dr. C (Dr. C), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:36 (nineteen years ago)
― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:40 (nineteen years ago)
― Matt (Matt), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:43 (nineteen years ago)
milliband to take over at dwp i reckon.
― barbarian cities (jaybob3005), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:02 (nineteen years ago)
― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:07 (nineteen years ago)
― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:08 (nineteen years ago)
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:09 (nineteen years ago)
― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:19 (nineteen years ago)
― ESTEBAN BUTTEZ~!!, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:21 (nineteen years ago)
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:22 (nineteen years ago)
― ESTEBAN BUTTEZ~!!, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:25 (nineteen years ago)
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:28 (nineteen years ago)
― Last Of The Famous International Pfunkboys (Kerr), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 12:47 (nineteen years ago)
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 12:52 (nineteen years ago)
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 12:55 (nineteen years ago)
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 12:56 (nineteen years ago)
― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 12:59 (nineteen years ago)
― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:01 (nineteen years ago)
Tosser.
― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:01 (nineteen years ago)
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:02 (nineteen years ago)
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:03 (nineteen years ago)
I am glad, though, because I don't like DB. Before coming back to the government, he cultivated a reasonable-thoughtful-bloke air, slightly camp (did anyone notice?), but it was unconvincing as he is not really that reasonable, I think. But perhaps I am wrong.
― the bellefox, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:04 (nineteen years ago)
xpost
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:05 (nineteen years ago)
― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:05 (nineteen years ago)
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:08 (nineteen years ago)
― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:13 (nineteen years ago)
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:18 (nineteen years ago)
― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:08 (nineteen years ago)
well, yes, insofar as you can't effectively live without a bank account (or a private pension, under this government). however, a well-paid minister best known for leading red sheffield shouldn't be going out of his way to speculate.
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:09 (nineteen years ago)
i.e. socialism isn't down on shares as such
― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:19 (nineteen years ago)
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:24 (nineteen years ago)
― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:27 (nineteen years ago)
― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:29 (nineteen years ago)
erm, no he wasn't involved in inflating the price of shares, but that is the whole purpose and point of the stock market -- rockist shares = you invest, the company does well, you get a return; fakey thatcherite stock market = a less indexical relation of share-price to actual performance.
haha i am not an expert, you may have guessed.
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:32 (nineteen years ago)
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:34 (nineteen years ago)
― RickyT (RickyT), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:37 (nineteen years ago)
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:40 (nineteen years ago)
― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:41 (nineteen years ago)
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:43 (nineteen years ago)
― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:44 (nineteen years ago)
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:46 (nineteen years ago)
and 'red' sheffield was about 20 yrs ago wasn't it - i guess growing older,having dependants, and 2 decades of social/economic change can do things to yr principles ?
'i used to have principles - but they stopped working so i had to change them'
(what if he had made 'ethical' investments - i wonder about the extent to which the technocratic/bigbro connotations of the company adds spice)
(xpost x lots)
― newpuritan-ah, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:49 (nineteen years ago)
the marxist idea that everyone, being part of the system, is in part sustaining it doesn't go so well (for me) with the 'you are evil, you support capitalism' line. there's an is/ought confusion here, perhaps?
you too have a bank account, i presume, so where are you arguing from?
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:57 (nineteen years ago)
by the way have you been to sheffield recently? like its former champion, it is enthusiastically embracing modern economic principles, and tearing down factories for new blocks of flats for students and urban professionals, left right and centre.
― ambrose (ambrose), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:59 (nineteen years ago)
― idon'tknow, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 15:02 (nineteen years ago)
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 15:04 (nineteen years ago)
― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 15:07 (nineteen years ago)
― carson dial (carson dial), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 15:09 (nineteen years ago)
For the record, I thought Blunkeet was an arse. His saying that he thought the Labour party Conference was less warm to him this year was classic. IT'S BECAUSE YOU WERE A STUPID RIGHT-WING DURBRAINED HOME SECRETARY YOU TIT. He was an arrogant bully, who like all the fucktards - Balir being the best at this - is so removed from experience, so up themselves that he can't see what he's done wrong, just as Blair really doesn't get the Iraq stuff.
― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 15:27 (nineteen years ago)
― sfxxx, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 15:52 (nineteen years ago)
as someone who began to have a dim understanding of british politics around about 1997/98, the Labour Party has always seemed to me to be in actuality the party it is now - one that no longer represents traditional left wing working class values. Old Labour is just a distant histroy lesson, with those recordings of Kinnock and Derek Hatton and stuff.
― ambrose (ambrose), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 15:53 (nineteen years ago)
ILx mass self-flagellation commences
and the future looks bleak for diane abbot's parental relationship
― the ghost of nyefuckingbevan, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 15:56 (nineteen years ago)
old labour isn't entirely a history lesson, at the grass roots, in the same way that the tories aren't entirely thatcherite.
xpost who is diane abbott?
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 16:00 (nineteen years ago)
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 16:45 (nineteen years ago)
exactly, i can't believe the labour party would have anything against him taking a job.
― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 16:46 (nineteen years ago)
when he made those comments was he drawing on his Old Labour credentials, or his Working Class ones? They are not the same obviously. #I didnt really follow what he said last time he resigned so maybe this is paraphrasing which belies what he meant.
Interesting that you see my attitude as dismissive, noodle vague. I dont thinkanything of the sort, there wasnt any value particularly attached to my conception of the labour party. all i meant was that when i think of the labour party, i think of an economically liberal, socially simultaneously left and right wing party that has its fingers in every pie going, or tries to. As I said, i am a political novice, partly though my age. So Old Labour is history to me, in terms of it being party of the labour partys identity. How much does New Labour draw on its reputation in the past? I mean, theres a red flag and all, but what is left, in terms of those actually influencing the direction that the party takes?
as for new labours ideology, the only clear one that seems to have emerged is a definite leap of faith towards the power of private finance to achieve social benefit.
― ambrose (ambrose), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 16:53 (nineteen years ago)
that's true, but Old Labour had more of a 'proletarian' image, and el blunko was drawing on that (ie both). for the core labour vote, working class credentials basically play as labour credentials.
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 16:56 (nineteen years ago)
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 16:57 (nineteen years ago)
― Pashmina (Pashmina), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 17:05 (nineteen years ago)
Yeah, you see all these muppets on TV every general election in Sedgefield acting like Blair's a horny-handed son of toil.
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 17:06 (nineteen years ago)
― ambrose (ambrose), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 17:09 (nineteen years ago)
To answer one question, New Labour has to do enough to keep the members and voters who consider themselves Old Labour on board. What's frustrating to me is that the Right has had to do so little to achieve that. I would've thought that after 8 years of being in power the novelty has worn off sufficiently for the Leftists to rock the boat a lot more - even though the Party is now probably sufficiently structured to lock them out of any meaningful part in the decision-making process.
And sorry if I jumped into kneejerk rabid anti-Blair mode without thinking.
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 17:13 (nineteen years ago)
watch 'this week' after QT on thursdays to see the former 'leftwing firebrand' and behold her new twee-mischief giggle-schtick when asked awkward questions, and annoyingly ott face-ache-disdain (perhaps learned as part of 'rhetorical pish' classes at Cambridge or something) when she is listening to someone she disagrees with
(btw the demon campbell's missus/partner/squeeze brooked no shit from her a week or 2 ago and pretty much shot both her and portillo down in flames - and this was somewhat phwoar)
― DaveSpart, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 17:50 (nineteen years ago)
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Thursday, 3 November 2005 09:43 (nineteen years ago)
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Thursday, 3 November 2005 09:46 (nineteen years ago)
― Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Thursday, 3 November 2005 09:47 (nineteen years ago)
It's amazing it has taken Labour MPs this long to call this man's bluff and vote for principle, but at least it has now happened; glad to see my own representative did so = 'shameful' in the Sun's parlance: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005520222,00.html
― Tom May (Tom May), Thursday, 10 November 2005 01:13 (nineteen years ago)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1638684,00.html
― Ed (dali), Thursday, 10 November 2005 08:17 (nineteen years ago)
And all the SNP MPs go under George Galloway's Respect party, for some reason.
― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Thursday, 10 November 2005 10:00 (nineteen years ago)
― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 10 November 2005 11:05 (nineteen years ago)
― Onimo (GerryNemo), Thursday, 10 November 2005 13:17 (nineteen years ago)
Blunkett's sons to keep shares in DNA companyBy Andrew Pierce THE shares at the centre of David Blunkett’s resignation from the Cabinet, which are predicted to rise in value from £15,000 to £300,000 within 12 months, will stay in a trust for his adult sons.
The Times has learnt that the trustees have decided that it would be a breach of their legal duty if they sold the shares back to the company DNA Bioscience.
Yet the day before he resigned as Work and Pensions Secretary last week Mr Blunkett promised to ask his sons to sell the shares back to the DNA testing company. In a written statement, he said that he had asked his sons to approve disposing of the shares to avoid “continuing misinterpretation of the position”.
Mr Blunkett bought the shares when he took a directorship with DNA Bioscience in April.
He resigned the directorship the day after Labour’s election victory when, as widely expected, he was brought back into the Cabinet. After taking advice from his Civil Servants he transferred the shares to his three sons and set up a trust in their name.
Mr Blunkett quit the Cabinet after admitting that he had breached the ministerial code three times by failing to inform the advisory committee on business appointments that he was taking up paid appointments as a backbencher after his first Cabinet resignation last December. Mr Blunkett yesterday declined to make any comment about the shares, insisting that they were a private matter.
DNA Bioscience, which is bidding to win contracts from public bodies such as the Child Support Agency, is expected to be floated on the Stock Exchange next year. City commentators have predicted that the £15,000 of shares, which are equivalent to three per cent of the value of the company, will be worth about £300,000 after flotation.
When Mr Blunkett resigned the management of DNA Bioscience stated publicly that it wanted the first refusal on the shares.
An associate of Mr Blunkett confirmed last night that the shares would not be sold. The associate added: “This is a private matter that David does not believe has any public interest.”
The associate insisted that Mr Blunkett was bound by trust law, which stipulated that the trustees had a duty to maximise the financial return for the intended beneficiaries. “If the trustees are going to fulfil their financial obligations they have a duty to keep the shares to maximise the return. The shares therefore will not be sold,” he said.
Mike Warburton, of Grant Thornton accountants, which specialises in trust law, said: “Trustees have to act in the interests of the beneficiary. But they normally take into account the views of the person who set up the trust.
“If Mr Blunkett’s sons felt that the trustees were acting against their best interests, they could sue them for breach of trust. However, it is rare for trustees to reject the wishes of the person who set up the trust.”
Mr Blunkett spent up to £100,000 on his battle with Kimberly Quinn, his married former lover, legally to confirm the paternity of their son William and to establish formal access to him. Mr Blunkett spent what would have been his legacy to his three adult sons.
David Davies, the Tory MP for Monmouth who lodged a complaint with the Parliamentary Commissioner over Mr Blunkett’s behaviour, said: “Mr Blunkett should never have bought the shares in the first place. But when he became a minister, two weeks after he bought them, he should have sold them back immediately to DNA Bioscience to avoid any risk of misinterpretation.”--------------------------------------------------------
― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Friday, 11 November 2005 10:45 (nineteen years ago)
-- mark grout (mark.grou...) (webmail), November 2nd, 2005 10:12 AM. (link)
Alright, who sent this to Private Eye? I mean, is that the ultimate excelsior, or what?
― mark grout (mark grout), Friday, 11 November 2005 14:30 (nineteen years ago)
― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy (Kerr), Friday, 19 January 2007 01:24 (eighteen years ago)
― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Friday, 19 January 2007 09:58 (eighteen years ago)
― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 19 January 2007 10:31 (eighteen years ago)
― vita susicivus (blueski), Friday, 19 January 2007 10:35 (eighteen years ago)