Let us look at the recent remarkable career of this disgusting little arse: as Home Secretary, he fomented some of the most draconian, illiberal legislation that this government has introduced (and that's saying something), as well as introducing—quite seriously—the idea of ID cards and the database behind them.
He is then revealed to be having an affair with a married woman, by whom he has possibly had a child. He is also revealed to have used public money to ferry her around the country (how hard up is The Speccie these days?) and is accused of "fast-tracking" her nanny's visa, a charge which he vigorously denies, insisting that he "did no wrong".
Unfortunately, the Budd enquiry comes to rather different conclusion. So, having been exposed as an adulterer, fraud, cheat and a liar, he resigns. He is, incredibly, allowed to keep his ministerial home (at the public's expense). Another proven liar and moral bankrupt insists that "a line should be drawn under now and we should move on".
Then we blinked and... Oh, my God! Blunkett's back in government! And in charge—hilariously—of the Department of Work and Pensions, which runs the Child Support Agency. Paternity tests show that David "children need a stable home" Blunkett did not father Kimberly Quinn's youngest child, but he continues with legal action to gain access to the elder, who he continues to insist is his.
If this is proven, will we see the CSA hounding Blunkett for half of his salary? Oh, I do hope so; after all, Blunkett wouldn't try to interfere in the running of his department for personal gain now. Would he?
And what sparked of this little critique, this souffle of reminiscence? Oh yes, it's that Blunkett has asked for privacy over his latest bit of philandering (how does he do it? He must be hung like a bull elephant. Either that, or these women just take pity on him, being as blind, ugly and dishonest as he is):
"It is a platonic relationship and I am entitled to a private life."
Mr Blunkett told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the item was "tittle tattle".
Asked about the Mirror headline, he said: "I recorded that interview and I never said that and I will be taking the Mirror to the press council."
Tell ya what, David, me ol' mucker; if it's untrue, why not take them through the libel courts? After all, if it really is untrue, you could win a small fortune. Probably enough for a year's supply of dog-food.** Unless...
... No? Surely it couldn't actually be true, could it? I mean, David would never be economical with the actualité, would he? After all, he did urge Labour to be more honest with the voters...
Has he no shame? There's another bottle of Moet for his scalp; I can't stand the little shit.
*Yes, yes. I know it's hyperbole—it's done for effect.
**Does anyone know if Blunkett receives any kind of disability benefit?