Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

David Blunkett

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Should he be sacked?

    I think he should, however with Tony Blair behind him i doubt he shall be.
    I just think it's bad on poor old Boris Johnson, although i guess thats
    the Conservatives problem, considering he's practically the only interesting MP they've got.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    never liked blunkett myself but i doubt he'll get the boot over anything hes done (if anything at all)
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    He hasn't done anything, or at least its not been proved yet so NO!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    He's done nothing wrong. The Newspapers are just scandel-mongering to make headlines.

    His willingness to set up an inquiry as soon as the story broke, goes to show that he has nothing to hide.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    why judge now...just wait until the narrow remitted inquiry finds its results

    then our home secreatary can go back to trying to pass about 30 bills in three months and taking his pregnant adulterous lover to court for rights on the baby ALL in one go!

    who says we need a committed person at the top handling our immigration system at a time when people want to come and bomb our country to smitherines!? - sarcasm obviously
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Enola)
    Should he be sacked?
    If it turns out he lied then definately. Personally i dont see why theyve allowed this fuss to happen. I dont see anything wrong with him fast tracking an application for someone he knows - i would only consider it abuse of his position if he made sure an application which would otherwise have been rejected is accepted because of him.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Things have come to a pretty pass when they start dragging morality into the sanctity of private life.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lessthanthree)
    I don't think there's a single working person that's never once abused their position in some way.
    If theyd just come out and stated that he had done what he has been accused of (if indeed he did) then i wouldnt have a problem with that at all. But now that theyve denied it hel have to resign if it turns out he was either lying or misleading.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's convention that he resign.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lessthanthree)
    Yes, I know, and that's pretty sad, really. I kind of pity him if he's just digging himself into a hole with the whole issue.
    A bit similiar to the Boris dilemma. While ive lost a deal of respect for him over his promiscuity if he had just admitted to his extra marital affair that would have been that imo - his private life is his own and should not infringe upon his position as a shadow minister but he ed himself when he lied about it.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lessthanthree)
    I don't think there's a single working person that's never once abused their position in some way.

    Either way, no.
    Ministers are supposed to uphold a higher standard. If he abused his position in the manner described then he should fall on his sword.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand why so many people think politicians should be sacked for having affairs :confused: It's not that I approve of affairs or anything, but surely what they choose to get up to in their private life is up to them? If someone in an ordinary, low-profile job got the sack because thir boss found out they'd been screwing around, they'd sue for unfair dismissal because the reason has nothing to do with work. So why should it be any different for politicians? Strictly speaking, it was Kimberley Fortier/Quinn having the afair rather than David Blunkett; being single, he can have a relationship with whoever he wants. And even if he did fast-track a visa application, so what? I don't think anyone can honestly say they wouldn't use their job to help a family member, lover or friend if they had the chance.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    NO his private life should be left private (thanks QT) But if he is found guilty of missusing state resources to help his nanna then that is unnaceptable.
    But his move towards an Authoritarian state hold him highly in my eyes
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kellywood_5)
    I don't understand why so many people think politicians should be sacked for having affairs :confused: It's not that I approve of affairs or anything, but surely what they choose to get up to in their private life is up to them? If someone in an ordinary, low-profile job got the sack because thir boss found out they'd been screwing around, they'd sue for unfair dismissal because the reason has nothing to do with work. So why should it be any different for politicians? Strictly speaking, it was Kimberley Fortier/Quinn having the afair rather than David Blunkett; being single, he can have a relationship with whoever he wants. And even if he did fast-track a visa application, so what? I don't think anyone can honestly say they wouldn't use their job to help a family member, lover or friend if they had the chance.
    Politicians aren't sacked for having affairs. Boris Johnson wasn't sacked for having an affair but for denying it and later being exposed as a liar. Someone who is seen as a liar is not someone who a political party wants as a cabinet minister (even though the lie was pretty trivial in this instance)

    "And even if he did fast-track a visa application, so what? I don't think anyone can honestly say they wouldn't use their job to help a family member, lover or friend if they had the chance"

    I'm afraid I don't agree with this. Would you find it acceptable if a JP gave a drunk driver who happenned to be a personal friend a lesser punishment than someone he didn't know? That's the sort of corruption you find in Banana Republics.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I'm afraid I don't agree with this. Would you find it acceptable if a JP gave a drunk driver who happenned to be a personal friend a lesser punishment than someone he didn't know? That's the sort of corruption you find in Banana Republics.
    I wouldn't find that acceptable, but that's completely different. The nanny would probably have been granted a visa anyway- it was just a question of time. Also her staying here isn't hurting anyone.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    What if the whole thing was caused by some civil servant or junior minister fast-tracking the application without Blunkett's knowledge, because he knew the application was for a personal friend of Blunkett? I know there is no evidence to suggest that, but it's possible surely...
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dr_Death)
    What if the whole thing was caused by some civil servant or junior minister fast-tracking the application without Blunkett's knowledge, because he knew the application was for a personal friend of Blunkett? I know there is no evidence to suggest that, but it's possible surely...
    Then Blunkett will not be forced to resign and there will be some fall guy further down the line. That presumably is what the report is supposed to find out (the provost - head - of my college is leading the report!)
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kellywood_5)
    I wouldn't find that acceptable, but that's completely different. The nanny would probably have been granted a visa anyway- it was just a question of time. Also her staying here isn't hurting anyone.
    No, it's not completely different. It's about people who hold public office abusing their powers, bypassing the law, and doing favors for friends. That my friend is corruption.

    The fact that nanny would/may have been granted a visa anyway and isn't hurting anyone is absolutely irrelevent.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dr_Death)
    What if the whole thing was caused by some civil servant or junior minister fast-tracking the application without Blunkett's knowledge, because he knew the application was for a personal friend of Blunkett? I know there is no evidence to suggest that, but it's possible surely...
    That seems rather illogical to me.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    To give Blunkett the benefit of the doubt it could be that the Home Office arranged for a 'task force' to go in to the department and clear up arrears of work - coincidentally at the same time as the so-called 'fast tracking' of his lover's nanny.

    If Blunkett is sacked it should be for his failure to cope with all the portfolios he has held, in an efficient manner. I don't think he is a capable cabinet minister for the Labour Party. He should be in the Tory party as his policies are very right-wing.
Updated: December 4, 2004
New on TSR

GCSE mocks revision

Talk study tips this weekend

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.