More on Blunkett’s resignation

Recently started blogging again Take it as Red has a good encapsulation of why Blunkett was so horrible and what did him in:

Apparently Tony, the expert on integrity and honesty – where are those WMD, Mr Blair?- thinks Blunkett “…is a force for good”. No, no and again no. He’s a selfish, selfish man whose first loyalty is to himself and no-one else. Everything he has done has been about how he himself feels; he has shown no consideration towards his duty to the country, let alone any human concern for his ex- mistress or putative child or even his existing family, and his main concern all along has been that he escape the consequences of his actions. Why else would he appear on BBC2’s Newsnight last night, looking for the sympathy vote and telling the world “It was all worth it for that little lad”? He does not even know the child is his, except by some magical sixth sense, and even if it were he is merely the biological parent. How ironic if the DNA test proves the child is the husband’s.

The BBC has been enjoying this a lot, and I don’t blame them one bit. As I said in an earlier post, it’s the Establishment that will do for New Labour, and now the Establishment has the smell of blood in its collective nostrils. The letters and emails that have come to light would never have done so without the co-operation of the civil service; the story wouldn’t have had legs if Blunkett, in his hubris, hadn’t continued to bombard the BBC with constant protestations of his honesty; in doing so he gave the BBC and Civil Service just the ammunition they needed.

Indeed.

Ding-dong the witch is dead!

Blunkett finally resigned.

Too bad it wasn’t for his blatant disregard for the rule of law and civil rights, but at least we know now that smary hypocritical Labour weasels can be brought down just as well as their Tory counterparts could in the eighties and nineties.

David Blunkett looking like a dickhead

For those who don’t know why Blunkett resigned, it all started when his affair with a married woman was revealed; soon after it turned out that he may have …helped his lover, Kimberly Quinn (publisher of the rightwing Spectator) in various ways, including fast tracking visa applications for her nanny. It then turned out she was pregnant with her second child, which may or may not be Blunkett’s,which did not stop him from starting a lawsuit against Mrs Quinn to obtain access rights to her two year old son, which he apparantely believes is his and with whom he has been parading as his own son when he went on holidays with Mrs Quinn…

Apart from the legalities of it all, the hypocrisy of it all is quite astounding. The sheer cheek of somebody who sees no bone in sueing his pregnant ex-lover, a married woman over visiting rights to her son which may or not be fathered by him, lecturing others on morals. Incredible.

It certainly makes me Proud of Britain to see him gone.
Now for the rest of the cabinet…

Now the question is who will be the new Home Secretary: Peter “incompetent” Hain perhaps or Alan “who he?” Milburn. The other question is what will happen to Blunkett’s pet projects, like the national ID card he wanted to introduce.

Proud of Britain

Aren’t we all proud of Britain? Apparantely not so the Labour Party (sic) who threatened the patriot who put up the Proud of Britain website, just because they have a much inferior initiative of their own, to which I will not link.

Meanwhile, could it be that the Labour Party has a scandal on his hands, now that a certain Home Secretary has been accused of all sorts of not so ethical behaviour? Who would have thought that such a moral crusader could be so hypocritical? Certainly not me…

Meanwhile, some other news that perhaps might make you less proud of Britain, or at least its current government. It turns out the Blair administration may have known all about naughty Mark Thatcher and co’s plans to …ummm…. “spread democracy” to Equatorial Guinea. Remember, only a loon or a conspiracy theorist” (oooh!) would think this had anything to do with oil.

Mind, with Iraq not being the surefire property it once seemed to be, who can blame mr. Blair for trying to diversivy his investments?