Heartland

yesterday british politics lost one of it's most loyal, hard-working, selfless and honest characters. i'm gonna miss that dog.

usual disclaimers apply to assorted foregin types re: the parochial nature of this post

I noticed and wasn't happy.
I think the dog has a job for life, lol...

Strangely enough I actually feel a little bit sorry for David Blunkett. OK, his politics were far too authoritarian for my liking, but the circumstances surrounding his resignation look to me like a combination of bad luck and being well-and-truly f**ked over by his ex.

and no one resigns from heartland for those reasons, do they?

markfiend wrote:Strangely enough I actually feel a little bit sorry for David Blunkett. OK, his politics were far too authoritarian for my liking, but the circumstances surrounding his resignation look to me like a combination of bad luck and being well-and-truly f**ked over by his ex.

i can just about dredge up an iota of sympathy for him on a purely personal level but i think bad luck is pushing it. bad judgement more like. both in his choice of partner and his choice of words when speaking to his biographer (which is what really did for him in the end). another glimpse into the twisted alice in wonderland mind of tony blair though that he believes blunkett has left with his "integrity intact".

markfiend wrote:Strangely enough I actually feel a little bit sorry for David Blunkett. OK, his politics were far too authoritarian for my liking, but the circumstances surrounding his resignation look to me like a combination of bad luck and being well-and-truly f**ked over by his ex.

That and lying through his teeth!

[b]In his resignation statement, Mr Blunkett said he could not remember dealing with it, or issuing instructions to deal with it - only pressing for the "elimination of the backlog in general".

Typical politician speak "I don't remember dealing with it".
If he had played no part in the application, he would have categorically denied doing so.
Sounds like he was covering himself against the emails & memos regarding the application, which passed through his office.
If he's innocent why not publish the emails & memos in question, to clear himself?

He said: "The easy thing would be to hide behind my officials. I will not do such a thing. In no way is my office or any individual within the department to blame for what happened."

More politician speak, it wouldn't be easy to hide behind officials if his name is on the alleged emails & memo's.

There again, maybe I'm just cynical

quite frankly, i can't remember what i did, last time i worked in a office, months ago, either.
he should have checked before he said. but i wouldn't have.

I totally agree with Richey James (scary!). The biography did for him, in the end.

As for the letter, siding with Blunkett requires you to believe a pretty unbelievable thing. Namely, that Blunkett could not have expected that, having given his civil servants a letter about the nanny in question, even if only to demonstrate the backlog, said civil servants would have 'sorted out' the problem with the visa. I personally don't believe that, so I don't feel particularly sorry for him.

In any case he could have avoided this problem. If he was just raising a general issue and wanted to keep the 'personal' nanny issue separate, why didn't he ask for the letter back? Why did he produce it in the first place, rather than merely mentioning the case? Why did the nanny's name have to be dropped at all?

I feel sorry for him as a man whose gone through a nasty relationship, but the country is better off without his jackbooted singlemindedness in kowtowing to Mail readers.

emilystrange wrote:quite frankly, i can't remember what i did, last time i worked in a office, months ago, either.
he should have checked before he said. but i wouldn't have.

fair enough, i don't have the greatest memory in the world either. but then i'm not the home secretary and i'm not bending the rules to use the considerable powers of that office to help out the married woman i happen to be shagging. as spiggy's hat says "i don't remember" is classic politico mendacity.

MrChris wrote:I totally agree with Richey James (scary!).

It's not so bad you know. Once you get used to it!!

hee, its classic office admin mendacity as well.

he is a sheffield wednesday fan.

i feel no pity.

I look forward to seeing them dressed as Shaggy and Scooby in the next Fathers For Justice stunt.

Haha! He's only doing it for the little chap, you know. The little chap who would otherwise have grown up thinking his mother's husband was his father, and that mummy loved daddy and daddy loved little chap, in a millionaire's mansion in West London.

I do feel quite sorry for him, as far as his situation with his son goes - I've heard way too much sympathy in the media for his "girlfriend". That idiot Amanda Platell saying that he should just "give up" and leave it alone, which I though was pretty disgusting. He's no saint, that much is obvious, but he deserves to see his own child as much as she does.

I'm still delighted he's gone from the Cabinet though. I always said he was the best Home Secretary Maggie never had. What will the press do, if there are no more "Draconian Crackdowns" to report on?

boudicca wrote:What will the press do, if there are no more "Draconian Crackdowns" to report on?

i shouldn't worry. i'm sure that there'll still be plenty of spiteful, pointless, knee-jerk, reactionary, daily-mail-pandering legislation emanating from the home office over the next few months. tony's still got an election to win.

boudicca wrote:"Draconian Crackdowns"

Like RJ says, there's so much in the last Queen's Speech that's Home-Office related (ID cards, anti-terror legislation, banning Jury trials etc ) that whoever takes over (Charles Clark IIRC?) will be just as totalitarian.

The thing that alarmed me was the various MPs on Newsnight last night calling Blunkett a "populist" Is it really populist to make significant dents in civil liberties in the name of "safety"? (Rhetorical question I'm afraid.)

it is if there are more daily mail readers and chavs than us

oh yes, lovely first day at the office for charles clarke

and, at the risk of going off on a tangent, what's wrong with politicians being populist anyway? isn't that a good thing in that they're there to represent the views of their constituents?

</devil's advocate>

as long as there's a difference between representation and formation by scaremongering

RicheyJames wrote:what's wrong with politicians being populist anyway?

Bread and Circuses.

People have noted that he was stabbed in the back by his ex-lover. Well that's the calibre of person you're going to get when you have an affair with someone who is cheating on their spouse.......... of 3 months in her case.
Lay down with dogs and all that......... errr not guide dogs obviously

RicheyJames wrote:yesterday british politics lost one of it's most loyal, hard-working, selfless and honest characters. i'm gonna miss that dog.

usual disclaimers apply to assorted foregin types re: the parochial nature of this post

Poor guy. I'm not into poliics but feeel sorry for his romantic soul...

I feel a bit sorry for him actually. Fast tracking that visa application and all that. Everyone helps out their mates/family if their job gives them the power to don't they?! Obviously I can't give my mates free drugs from my work but you know what I mean right?!