David Blunkett Resigns

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Sky News are reporting that he has resigned.
and also

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)

How noble of him to resign over not doing something which legally he didn't have to do, and for not seeking the "advice" of 22 22-year-old civil servants.

Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:12 (nineteen years ago)


LATEST STORIES
Blunkett resigns from the Cabinet

I am not resigning, says Blunkett

mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:12 (nineteen years ago)

xpost Brackets would have helped with that one, Marc

mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:14 (nineteen years ago)

Has any cabinet minister resigned twice in the space of a year before?

Who will replace him at the DWP?

Last Of The Famous International Pfunkboys (Kerr), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:14 (nineteen years ago)

"We'll just get another doomed, middle-aged man in on Monday morning. Stride about a bit, spunk off and I'll have to mop up the mess."

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:15 (nineteen years ago)

Discrediting of Blunkett must be a purely Brownite move, right?

Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:16 (nineteen years ago)

Ken Clarke? (xp)

Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:16 (nineteen years ago)

Who will replace him at the DWP?

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)

discrediting of blunkett doesn't require much conspiracy work.

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)

Ha Ha [/Nelson]

Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:19 (nineteen years ago)

The one good thing about David Cameron is that he says he's running on a "fuck the Daily Mail/blue rinse brigade" platform. But we'll see about that when the next election/opinion polls roll around.

Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:20 (nineteen years ago)

Blunkett is a cock, another glorious Labour trough-guzzler from the party that invented Selling Out to the Man.

Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:21 (nineteen years ago)

geoff hoon for DWP!

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:21 (nineteen years ago)

Or maybe it's twee and naive of me to think that if you're a Socialist, you DON'T BUY FUCKING SHARES.

Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:22 (nineteen years ago)

Who said anything about Blunkett being a Socialist, apart from Blunkett up until about, ooh, 1986?

Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:27 (nineteen years ago)

What I don't understand is how he's supposed to have "worked" for this company in April when every other MP and party member was busy with the General Election campaign.

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)

Blunkett is a dirtbag who was trying to fuck over people who claim benefit legitametely. Good riddance to the cunt.

trappist monkey, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:29 (nineteen years ago)

I don't understand why the Daily Mail hates New Labour, since it's done such a good job of implementing Daily Mail policies.

Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:31 (nineteen years ago)

"I'm not going to stand by and let that little lad go without any shares."

PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:33 (nineteen years ago)

Because New Labour is part of an attempt to install a Communist superstate around the world. Duh.

Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:33 (nineteen years ago)

maybe instead of cash benefits claimants could be given shares. would give them that entrepreneurial spirit to pull themselves up, no? < / tony's blue-skies man >

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:35 (nineteen years ago)

I don't know that new labour is quite daily mail enough for the daily mail's liking

Matt (Matt), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:35 (nineteen years ago)

x-post PJ. HAHAHAHAHA! Nice one!

Dr. C (Dr. C), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:36 (nineteen years ago)

because NEW LABOUR LIKES NON-WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALL ASYLUM SEEKING P43DO TERRORISTS melanie heffer writes...

Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:40 (nineteen years ago)

SOFT ON BUM-BANDITS, SOFT ON THE CAUSES OF BLACKS

Matt (Matt), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:43 (nineteen years ago)

wonderful news.

milliband to take over at dwp i reckon.

barbarian cities (jaybob3005), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:02 (nineteen years ago)

Which one? I hope not David, he's doing good stuff at the NRU.

Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:07 (nineteen years ago)

I'd rather the cunt who gave him a job again resigned too. I expect he'll get away with it, and the man's cretinous, appalling judgement will get away unquestioned.

Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:08 (nineteen years ago)

they're all crooks, geeks and fucktards, i couldn't give a flying one who takes over, and its scarecely even relevant given that every initiative comes from no. 10 anyway.

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:09 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.cane.ukrm.btinternet.co.uk/david_blunkett.jpg

Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:19 (nineteen years ago)

you know you have to be BLIND to do something as dumb as blunkett did

ESTEBAN BUTTEZ~!!, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:21 (nineteen years ago)

Esteban, that was beneath you.

Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:22 (nineteen years ago)

sorry im kinda rusty on the british politics parody thing

ESTEBAN BUTTEZ~!!, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:25 (nineteen years ago)

anyhoo, it's just been confirmed. i have an old housemate in the dwp.

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:28 (nineteen years ago)

Sky seem to think Blair might go for a large scale reshuffle.

Last Of The Famous International Pfunkboys (Kerr), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 12:47 (nineteen years ago)

the big man is working it out 'on the back of a coldplay CD'

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 12:52 (nineteen years ago)

Chris Martin for Home Secretary then.

Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 12:55 (nineteen years ago)

not all of my posts here are from 'the thick of it', but it does fit well. blunkett is a man 'covered in piss'.

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 12:56 (nineteen years ago)

on the bbc innit

Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 12:59 (nineteen years ago)

i didn't like his illiberal attitude on social issues, but i'm a bit taken aback by the magnitude of dislike he seems to have generated in this recent palaver.

Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:01 (nineteen years ago)

Just watching Blunkett's press conference. He's basically just said "I've done nothing wrong, and you're all a bunch of wankers. Especially all you journalists. And I'm only resigning cos otherwise evil corrupt scum like you will continue to taint saintly individuals like myself if I don't."

Tosser.

Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:01 (nineteen years ago)

It's because he's a reactionary Tory sellout cunt, Alan. What's to not unnerstand?

Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:02 (nineteen years ago)

Labour MPs playing the "evil Tories are out to get me" card look fookin ridiculous the further to the right they move.

Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:03 (nineteen years ago)

Jaysus, I can't believe this story; can't believe it has happened again.

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)

he'll always have a table an annabel's/friends on at the mail/a non-executive director position somewhere.

xpost

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:05 (nineteen years ago)

in the political senses he is neither reactionary nor technically a tory. like i said, i didn't like a lot of the illiberal stances he took, but i've never thought that he deserved to be called a cunt - no more so than many other politicians anyway.

Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:05 (nineteen years ago)

It's natural to reserve special vitriol for the people who betray us.

Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:08 (nineteen years ago)

He just tried to claim that owning shares is a perfectly normal part of everyday life in in 21st century Britain, adding "And all the Tories do it!" as if that made it all OK.

Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:13 (nineteen years ago)

"Employing a 13 year old Filipino maid who you keep chained in the attic when not working is a perfectly normal part of everyday life in 21st century Britain, and all the Tories do it!"

Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:18 (nineteen years ago)

It's too expensive to be a socialist!

Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:08 (nineteen years ago)

perhaps the fact that this is all done at one remove enhances the purity of one's credentials?

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)

b-but socialism is we ALL have shares in the means of production??

i.e. socialism isn't down on shares as such

Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:19 (nineteen years ago)

i don't think that's how speculation works, alan. i hear what you're saying, but the actual processes of the stock exchange, ie the "artitificial" valuation of companies based on all kinds of skullduggery = far from joint stock heaven.

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:24 (nineteen years ago)

ha ha, you are a shares rockist

Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:27 (nineteen years ago)

also, are you suggesting that DB was helping to give his own shares an artificial value? also, did he buy the shares, or were they a gift for leaving the company when he was re-appointed? (real question there)

Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:29 (nineteen years ago)

i know, i wz trying to think my way out of that trap...

xpost

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)

also these firms only employ govt ministers on the board because they have the necessary contacts to get them contracts, right?

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:34 (nineteen years ago)

You mean it's not that said ministers are multitalented individuals w/the right sort of leadership skills to sort said businesses out? Shame on you, Henry.

RickyT (RickyT), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:37 (nineteen years ago)

oh yeah that too. i know if i ran a business i'd want a former hard-leftist local government type on my team.

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:40 (nineteen years ago)

note the word "former"

Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:41 (nineteen years ago)

Anybody who follows The Third Way must be handily conversant in meaningless boardroom bollocks tho.

Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:43 (nineteen years ago)

TV's Sir Alan Sugar votes Labour!

Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:44 (nineteen years ago)

That's why he's donating his fee to Great Ormond Street, he knows they need the money.

Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 14:46 (nineteen years ago)

haha yes being well-paid or rich means one can afford one's principles and thus should be expected to be a pure and noble good egg, whereas being poor may reasonably be expected to lead to being a darwinian mercenary - strange how it can turn out the opposite of that isn't it

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)

"haha yes being well-paid or rich means one can afford one's principles and thus should be expected to be a pure and noble good egg, whereas being poor may reasonably be expected to lead to being a darwinian mercenary - strange how it can turn out the opposite of that isn't it"

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)

i dont know a lot about this, but the idea that david blunkett should own shares cos of his history in sheffield bemuses me. i cant imagine expecting former die hard leftists to remain to their principles, or former stances. Its faintly amusing i suppose to watch left turn to right but not shocking.

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)

a land of confused compromise

idon'tknow, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 15:02 (nineteen years ago)

ok, he is also a minister in the LABOUR PARTY. i know that means sod-all, but for fuck's sake, hanging out with the spectator lot and playing the stock market... it's just not on. the fact that builssing speculators are carving up former industrial units is neither here nor there; they don't belong to the party we call labour.

xpost

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 15:04 (nineteen years ago)

who does, these days?

Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 15:07 (nineteen years ago)

I support the use of cunt in this thread, seeing as how he's made my disabled sister afraid that she'll get her benefits reduced and made to undergo the rather humiliating idea of lie-detector tests to see if she's faking her illness. So I'm very glad to see the back of him (I know Labour will continue to move the plan along, but I'm imagining a little less zeal without the 'look! It's a blind guy! If he can get a job, why can't you?' factor).

carson dial (carson dial), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 15:09 (nineteen years ago)

But that's Blair! The Observer was full of a report that Blair wanted people kicked off Incapacity Benefit but Blunkett was resisting, saying the programmes in place were working and needed extending, but Blair wanted a 'legacy' policy (ie, something the Mail likes that makes everyone think Blair is IN CHARGE the fucked up stupid cunt of a public school twathead cretin that he is.

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)

how come every political thread here immediately turns into an episode of the young ones - people rik-mayall-yelling "tory!" and "fascist" and not actually discussing anything at all. i may be wrong, but i thought most of us left 6th form college. some time ago. the only interesting thing said here so far was henry's point that his quasi-faustian pact with middle england, often mediated by dacre is actually at the root of his own downfall this time. you'd have thought he'd have learnt his lesson about friends in the tory press after the kimberly quinn fiasco, really.

sfxxx, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 15:52 (nineteen years ago)

Theorry Henry, are you aware of the phrases "New Labour" and "Clause 4"??????

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)

'public school twathead cretin'

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)

ambrose, obviously i'm aware of all that, but i think the point about blunkett (as opposed to blair or mandelson or miliband) is that he still has an old labour ego -- i don't think he believes that he's really changed all that much. same goes for ken livingstone. so when the quinn thing blew up he could still say 'i'm a poor working class lad brought down by toffs'.

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)

There are lots of ways in which New Labour has always been part of the Labour Party. There has never been a golden age dominated by "left wing working class values". The schadenfreude expressed on this thread - (and Dave, you have got a big brass neck accusing anybody of Young Ones-esque name-calling. Sometimes it's nice to put the boot in when a man's down, right?) - is because of what Henry said: Blunkett plays the working class leftie card all the time. Given your rather dismissive attitude to Old Labour, ambrose, I assume you can explain what the New version's coherent ideological values are? Cos I'm fucked if I can.

Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 16:45 (nineteen years ago)

ok, he is also a minister in the LABOUR PARTY.

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)

but is the divide between Tory and Old Labour the same as Working Class vs Toffs?

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)

when he made those comments was he drawing on his Old Labour credentials, or his Working Class ones? They are not the same obviously.

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)

ie the reality may be PFIs and RPGs, but the there's still a broad populist old working class aspect to labour's rhetoric, i think, sometimes.

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 16:57 (nineteen years ago)

Heard a bit of him on the radio this afternoon. I got the impression that he doesn't think he's done anything wrong, and this is all "the media". Felt faintly disgusted by this.

Pashmina (Pashmina), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 17:05 (nineteen years ago)

x post

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)

ok i see why you thought i was being dismissive noodle vague, presumably becuase my "description" of Old Labour was so brief. The reason for that wasnt to be dismissive, it was cos i know nothing about Old Labour really, and wasnt to summarise what i meant quickly. that thing with Derek Hatton was the first thing that came into my head,it doesnt define the spirit of Old Labour or anything.

ambrose (ambrose), Wednesday, 2 November 2005 17:09 (nineteen years ago)

x-post

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)

TH - this is about Diane Abbott:
http://www.iwca.info/news/news0010.htm

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)

hatton iirc wasn't exactly 'old labour', but a trot, wasn't he? i think of old labour as the corporatist, bloated, 70s version -- kind of union-friendly, statist labour, as opposed to early 80s radical left-wing labour. hattersley is kind of old labour.

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Thursday, 3 November 2005 09:43 (nineteen years ago)

Old Labour = badly fitting suit with brown sauce stain on one of the lapels.

Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Thursday, 3 November 2005 09:46 (nineteen years ago)

New Labour = expensive but badly fitting suit, coke stain on one of the nostrils.

Patchouli Clark (noodle vague), Thursday, 3 November 2005 09:47 (nineteen years ago)

And much worse for Blair, though indeed tying in with his treatment of the Blunkett issue: yesterday's voting down in the Commons of his 90-days-detention-of-terror-*suspects*-without-charge-or-trial proposals. His whole manner of trying to win the vote was indicative of his moral double-standards, trying to use the 'most serious issue' as a political football, c.f. in future, hoping for vindication and presumably to tar 'rebels' and opposition MPs as responsible for terrorism-related deaths...

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)

See this coverage of the Sun:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1638684,00.html

Ed (dali), Thursday, 10 November 2005 08:17 (nineteen years ago)

I like the way how The Sun's list of "Labour MPs who did not vote in the division on 90 day detention" consists entirely of MPs from places which are really far away from London like Grimsby, Dunfermline, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Sunderland, etc.

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)

Took jobs on the sly
"I resign" said Dave Blunkett
Who would have thunk it?

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 10 November 2005 11:05 (nineteen years ago)

It's interesting that The Sun has labelled the current and prospective leaders of the Tory party as traitors. It will be even more interesting if they are reminded of that come election time.

Onimo (GerryNemo), Thursday, 10 November 2005 13:17 (nineteen years ago)

Surprise!
-----------------------------------------------

Blunkett's sons to keep shares in DNA company
By 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)


LATEST STORIES
Blunkett resigns from the Cabinet
I am not resigning, says Blunkett

-- 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)

one year passes...

David Blunkett says some problem estates should be "bulldozed", with curfews imposed on unruly youngsters to prevent crime.

Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy (Kerr), Friday, 19 January 2007 01:24 (eighteen years ago)

dude's in israel now?

the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Friday, 19 January 2007 09:58 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.u-blog.net/dam/img/sarko.jpg

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 19 January 2007 10:31 (eighteen years ago)

quick fix fitter

vita susicivus (blueski), Friday, 19 January 2007 10:35 (eighteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.