The Politics Column: David Blunkett Has Not Replied to Recent Charges That He Is Intimidating and Duplicitous. Could It Be Because Even His Biographer Has Stated That "Whatever Else He May Be, He Is Indeed a Liar"?
Bright, Martin, New Statesman (1996)
Barely a week goes by without a senior Labour politician being accused of lying or bullying someone. One recent example of the former was Stephen Byers admitting in open court that he misled parliament during his time as transport secretary. As for the latter, ministers boast about their prowess. So perhaps it should come as no surprise that David Blunkett has not challenged attacks on his integrity from the former Met police commissioner Lord Stevens and his own biographer Stephen Pollard.
Maybe politicians as long in the tooth as Blunkett grow used to such accusations. But there may be another explanation for his reticence. Could it be that Blunkett has simply judged it wise not to offer ripostes to Stevens's claims that he is "duplicitous and intimidating" and to Pollard writing in the Times that, "whatever else he may be, Mr Blunkett is indeed a liar"?
Like Stevens and Pollard, I know David Blunkett is a liar because he has lied about me. Last December the Observer ran a front-page story on the eve of the publication of Sir Alan Budd's report into the granting of a visa to a nanny employed by his lover Kimberly Quinn.
In the piece, I quoted a "friend" of the then home secretary saying that Budd had been "as mesmerised by Kimberly" as Blunkett had been. Astonishingly, as the paper hit the news-stands on Saturday night the Labour Party issued a statement which read: "Neither David Blunkett nor anyone who speaks for him has said this."
I would never reveal my source, but readers can take it from me that neither Blunkett nor I could be in any doubt that the "friend" speaks for him. That night we made it clear to Labour that we had a tape of the interview with the "friend" and would not hesitate to make it public if Blunkett continued to deny our story. The home secretary's behaviour looked even more odd when the Independent on Sunday also quoted a "friend" making the same claims about the charms that the mesmerising Mrs Quinn had worked on Budd. There are only two possible conclusions: either Blunkett lied to the Labour Party or he told party officials the truth and they ordered him to lie.
So the charge of lying is established. What about other character traits? Blunkett is still in charge of a major department, Work and Pensions, and has even been tipped for a return to the Home Office in a reshuffle. There are many in Whitehall who would attest to his intimidating approach to management. Senior sources at the Home Office say that his return would be …
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: The Politics Column: David Blunkett Has Not Replied to Recent Charges That He Is Intimidating and Duplicitous. Could It Be Because Even His Biographer Has Stated That "Whatever Else He May Be, He Is Indeed a Liar"?. Contributors: Bright, Martin - Author. Magazine title: New Statesman (1996). Volume: 134. Issue: 4758 Publication date: September 19, 2005. Page number: 10. © Not available. COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.