I've never understood why the Today programme constantly wheels out David Blunkett, as if anything he has to say is of remote interest to anyone any longer. He's one of the most discredited Labour politicians around - and that's saying something. This morning he surpassed himself and has even provoked the normally rather stuffy Chatham House to denounce him. Their statement says it all...Chatham House Update: Blunkett wrong on asylum amnesty 'little debate' claimDavid Blunkett was wrong to claim on BBC Today that he floated the idea of an amnesty for illegal immigrants at a 'little debate' at Chatham House which was never supposed to be made public. This morning, Mr Blunkett told James Naughtie that his comments were supposed to be made under the Chatham House Rule but that they were 'immediately released, as ever'. Mr Blunkett, then Home Secretary, delivered an on the record speech to a capacity audience of 285 including TV crews and media after which he answered questions - again, on the record - from journalists and Chatham House members. Not for the first time business and political figures have cited the Chatham House Rule retrospectively in an attempt to get across a specific message or to defend themselves during difficult questioning. Just because an event is held on our premises does not mean it is held under the Chatham House Rule, indeed the overwhelming majority of our events are on the record. Given that Mr Blunkett's speech and the Q&A was filmed and his comments were reported at the time, it seems strange that Mr Blunkett should now assume that the meeting was off the record in any sense. At the time, Mr Blunkett's comments on an amnesty were overshadowed by an interview - recorded at Chatham House - with Jeremy Paxman for BBC Newsnight and broadcast the same evening. Mr Blunkett said in that interview that there was 'no obvious limit' to the number of immigrants who could settle in the UK.
Banged to rights, I'd say.
David Blunkett banged to rights? That's a bit unusual.
ReplyDeleteDavid Blunkett has always been an opportunistic sleazebag. Otherwise he would have paid for his girlfriend's train fare. What was it? Around £100? But he had to squeeze what he could out of the taxpayer. I mean, how small and grasping can you get? Then making a virtue out of giving the money back. Then using influence to get the Filippina nanny a visa and the lying about it.
ReplyDeleteAnd keeping his ministerial car. Hello? He can't take a taxi like any other MP. And his grace and favour residence? Like John Prescott? What do all these people have on Tony Blair that they can behave like yahoos swinging from the chandeliers?
Leave the blind fucker alone!
ReplyDeleteWhy? He's a lying,cheating, socialist shit. I don't care if he's blind - for which he is milking the British taxpayer for endless, unearned and undeserved privileges - he's a scumbag. Does he still have a ministerial car? if so, why? What does he have on Tony Blair? Does he still, like Two-Shags, still have a grace and favour residence? One must ask oneself that vital, worrying, single syllable question, "Why?"
ReplyDelete- Anonymousette
Does he get a disbility allowance, too?
ReplyDelete'One of the most discredited Labour politicians there is'.
ReplyDeleteYou really have lost it Iain.
Preach to your masses Iain but just remember that David Blunkett is mostly responsible for removing the Conservative party from the 21st Century.
Enjoy yourselves on the sidelines.
Gary
David Blunkett follows Oswald Mosley's adage:
ReplyDeleteVote Labour - Sleep Tory