Anniversary of Blunkett quitting
Down boy!: Blunkett at Annabel's
You wouldn't think that it's a year today since David Blunkett's ministerial career came to an end. That's because it isn't.
It is, however, a year to the day since David Blunkett was forced to resign as Home Secretary amid allegations that he fast-tracked a visa for his lover's nanny.
However, this is a gravy train that stops and picks people up again if they fall off. Good luck to David in his next high-flying political career. If today's effort in his Sun column, where he 'humorously' writes as if his dog is doing the talking, is anything to go by, he won't be winning any literary prizes:
"Last week, my 'master' told you how I rolled in fox dung and the poor chap had to bathe me with six buckets of soapy water. Frankly I prefer the smell of old Reynard to Fairy Liquid any day. So I'll tell my own tails - oops! tales - from now on. This week the bearded one took me for another Sunday walk"
Bring back Littlejohn!
With the mentality people take towards politicians, you'd think there would be some way that people would mock David Blunkett for the physical affliction he's well known for. It's satisfying to see that they don't, but he presents so many other opportunities to make fun of him (things he could do something about) that it's easy to see why. Oh, look at that castle. What was I saying?
By the way, I'm writing this as if I'm a particularly articulate goldfish. Doesn't it make it more interesting to read as a result.
Posted by Matt | Thu Dec 15, 12:40:00 pm
Maybe he could get his dog to really write it. "Arf Arf Dribble sniff". That would certainly be better than Littlejohn.
By the way, have you read or watched Harold Pinters Nobel Prize acceptance speach?
http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture.html
Its magnificant.
Posted by Anonymous | Thu Dec 15, 05:13:00 pm
I think it would have been better if he'd written it from the point of view of his pet cat. You know 'In 1958, the guy who gives me food in the mornings wrote the following, which he translated for me: Miaow miaow miaow miaow miaow.'
'I believe these assertions still make sense...'
But joking aside, I'm not sure there's much to say on that speech. We have a problem in the world that anyone who runs a group of people has power, and anyone who has power is deemed to want it, or why did they end up with it? And anyone who wants power must not be given it, because they can't possibly want it for the right reasons. To describe Bush as power hungry, or drunk with power... who could do the job that couldn't easily be described as drunk with power? Is the solution the man in the hut with the cat, from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
He could have killed less people though.
Posted by Matt | Thu Dec 15, 05:50:00 pm
Part of Caesar Augustus' success was that, although he'd squared up the army and formed an uneasy alliance with Marc Anthony, he always claimed that power had been thrust upon him and he had not sought it.
He was arguably the most autocratic and successful ruler of the empire.
That shit only works once, and Augustus did it.
Teddy Kennedy tried it, but when it became apparent that he didn't have an answer for the question "Why do you want to be president?" he was laughed off the stage.
To a lesser extent, Charlie Kennedy has been playing that game - and now his chickens are coming home to roost. The charm of the LibDems under Kennedy is that they don't really look like they want to be in charge. It's taken them this long to realise that with that attitude they'll never be in charge.
The funny thing is; if they start to look ambitious, their share of the vote is going to slide away to oblivion...
Posted by Ben | Thu Dec 15, 06:09:00 pm
I liked Littlejohn's column in the Sun! I think it provided balance to any article in the Guardian.
His program on Sky was crap, from what I saw of it.
I haven't read his Daily Mail column yet.
Posted by Ben | Thu Dec 15, 06:11:00 pm
I think if anything in the Sun provides balance to anything then we have to begin to worry. I'm all for the other broadsheets providing a little balance to the Guardian, but let's not give the Sun any credit for, well, anything. It does present the nation with a good selection of boobs, but beyond that....
On the front page of this morning's Sun - '"Clarkson - what I really think of the Germans". Hooray!
Posted by Matt | Fri Dec 16, 09:01:00 am
That Clarkson thing is quite funny.
Apparently he said that as the new Mini is made in Germany, the SatNav will only direct you to Poland; but ze fanbelt vill last a thousand years.
I missed it on the TV, but since some thin-skinned, sausage-munching, kraut-faced, jerry-bosche-hun has complained about it, I was able to enjoy the joke as it was re-printed in yesterday's Standard.
Thanks Fritz!
Underestimate the Sun at your peril, though.
Posted by Ben | Fri Dec 16, 09:35:00 am
Interesting rejoicing in having an openly bigoted national paper.
Next week,"The BNP: What we really think of blacks" followed by, "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: What I really think of Israel".
Posted by Anonymous | Fri Dec 16, 09:48:00 am
I'm with Graham - I'm not underestimating it. I think in terms of balance that a kilo of truffles will balance a kilo of turd, but that doesn't mean the balance, or the turd, is a good thing. The kilo of turd is more damaging though, and more people come into contact with turd than truffles.
Posted by Matt | Fri Dec 16, 09:51:00 am
I meant the chocolate ones by the way - I don't hold the Guardian in that high esteem.
Posted by Matt | Fri Dec 16, 10:36:00 am
chocolate turds? yuk!
Posted by Ben | Fri Dec 16, 10:51:00 am
Let's not forget that baiting the Germans is a national sport in the UK. :-)
The Sun's coup is in-fact an attempt to give the non-story about some dull lederhosen-clad complainer legs by linking it with the fact that the Germans have got some little tanks to control the football wankers at the world cup.
The quote from the front page is actually half an inch high and is followed by "see page 8"
'Neval, 26 from London' has got a nice rack, too.
Posted by Ben | Fri Dec 16, 11:53:00 am
That's not true. My folks have satnav, and we made it all the way to Grantham without an arsehole in sight... Actually, I take that back. But Dubya wasn't there.
Posted by Matt | Thu Dec 29, 05:31:00 pm