Opinion - Editorials   

Erosion of Blair's authority

The resignation of David Blunkett from Tony Blair's Cabinet in the face of charges of ministerial impropriety holds important lessons for those in public life everywhere. The Secretary for Works and Pensions had to step down for violating the Ministerial Code, a double-barrelled package of ethics instruction and procedural guidelines for members of the British Cabinet. Specifically, Mr. Blunkett, who resigned once before earlier this year as Home Secretary after admitting that he had bent immigration rules to help a friend, joined the board of a company in the period between his first resignation and his return to the Cabinet following Labour's April re-election. The charge against him was that he violated the code in joining the company without telling a designated committee that advises outgoing ministers on taking up paid appointments. Moreover he took up the job only 15 days before the general election, at a time that he publicly expressed confidence about his party's re-election and his own return to the Cabinet. He did resign from the company immediately upon rejoining the government. But had he consulted the Advisory Committee, it is doubtful he could have joined the company because he would well have been back in the Cabinet by the time the panel tendered its advice. Even counting the few thousand pounds he made in speaking engagements, it would seem small potatoes. Even so, Mr. Blunkett had to leave finally because as a person in public life, he ought to have shown better judgment in his conduct.

For Prime Minister Blair, the problems seem only to be adding up. His own judgment is under fire, from his decision to join the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to his decision to take Mr. Blunkett back into the Cabinet so soon after his first exit. At a time when his own authority within the party is in question, the Prime Minister has lost a trusted ally who was also a Labour heavyweight and could be depended upon to speak for him. The importance of Mr. Blunkett to the Prime Minister was underlined by the Labour rebellion in the House of Commons and the consequent narrow rejection — by just one vote despite the government majority of 66 — of an opposition amendment to the proposed anti-terror Bill. The embarrassment forced the Blair Government to abandon another controversial clause that sought to enable the detention of terror suspects up to 90 days without charge, a measure that was opposed by the Tories, Liberal Democrats and by many within the Labour party. Home Secretary Charles Clarke is now working for a compromise that will reduce the detention limit from the proposed three months to a level that will be higher than the current limit of 14 days. After announcing that he will stand down from the leadership of the Labour party in 2008, Mr. Blair probably expected to pursue his agenda over the next two years without too much trouble before handing over to his successor-in-waiting, Gordon Brown. Evidently, it is not going to be a smooth ride into the sunset for the embattled Prime Minister.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Dominion of Mulayam and Maya
Erosion of Blair's authority
Iran: building on the revolutionary agenda
The Aravali region under threat
A new concept gains ground
October Revolution Day scrapped
High and dry on vanishing rivers
Volcker report
Income Tax returns
CBSE directive
"The struggle against King Gyanendra should be made bipolar"

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu