| |
|
Yes. Blunkett has focused on law and order, but he has never made sexual morality a key element of his presentation. Honestly, if having a relationship with a woman who already has a partner makes him unfit to do his job, I'm not sure how many of us should be handing in our resignations tomorrow.
However, what he seems to be doing at the moment - trying to force the lady in question to establish the paternity of her children *apparently against her wishes* is a bit more dubious. Establishing paternity is generally seen as a responsible action - it means the father can face up t his responsibilities for creating life. *But* what about when the children do not need any financial support, and the woman does not want to establish paternity, preferring instead to raise the child as a beloved member of a family unit? It's tricky, but not in itself resignation material. "Dirty sex pest" seems both an unfair and an inaccurate statement.
However, it is likely to shake loose some skeletons, such as this visa controversy, which may make his position untenable. In many ways, it is OK for politicians to have affairs, but very unwise for them to end them acrimoniously.
Pragmatically, I want Blunkett out. I think he's a danger to civil rights in Britain, and have hopes that his successor might(_might_) be a bit less gung-ho and right-wing. If it has to be because of lurid personal details, that is unfortunate but maybe the result is worth it - like assassination (see Head Shop thread), it's hard to tell the consequences. If actual wrongdoing comes to light during the prying, then he should be held accountable for that wrongdoing; you cannot be seen use your position to do favours for your wife, lover or friends and still be a disinterested public servant.
Honestly, though? I think he may well brazen it out. This government in its own way is becoming as venal and shameless as the pre-Back to Basics Tories. I think it comes of a feeling of invulnerability brought on by a long time in office... |
|
|
