Private life of public figures

David Blunkett: Blamed for behaviour

It is true that David Blunkett is still very much among us -- politically, I mean -- but the emergency services have already been alerted to remain on standby just in case resuscitative measures are needed at short notice or, if the worst comes to worst, arrangements for a quick internment are called for. I speak figuratively, of course, but one of the most basic human instincts has turned out to be the catalyst that is threatening to cut short Mr Blunkett's promising career and rob the Prime Minister Tony Blair of one of his staunchest allies in the Labour camp.

The 57-year old divorced father of three grown-up children, David Blunkett, began an affair about three years ago with American-born Ms Kimberley Fortier, the publisher of The Spectator magazine, an affair which quickly appeared to develop into a very intimate relationship. Now there is nothing wrong with that -- two consenting adults enjoying whatever relationship they like with each other is nobody else's business. The only fly in the ointment was that Ms Fortier was not unattached, she had married Stephen Quinn, the publisher of the UK edition of Vogue magazine only a couple of months ago. But when her relationship with Mr Blunkett came to light, his friends said that "he was totally in love." It was no doubt a delicate situation for Mr Blunkett since he is not a common man but the Home Secretary and carrying on with a married woman is not quite the wisest thing to do in his position, but even so it was probably not a disaster -- members of a permissive Western society are used to taking things like that in their stride -- and in time he could have been able to extricate himself out of it and his friends and well-wishers would certainly have advised him to do so. Unfortunately, however, he did not get the time to re-organise his feelings because Ms Fortier decided abruptly to end the affair. She seems keen to save her marriage to Stephen Quinn and so in August this year told David Blunkett of her decision to call it a day. But Mr Blunkett apparently was not emotionally prepared for this blow and reacted in a way that is viewed by many as "immature and irresponsible".

Kimberly Fortier is the mother of a two-year old son, William, who was conceived when her affair with David Blunkett had already started and she is now expecting another baby. Mr Blunket is claiming that he is father of both the children of her former lover and has sent a formal letter to the lady's solicitors demanding the right to prove his paternity, by DNA tests even, if necessary. According to sources close to him, Mr Blunkett is totally heartbroken over the break-up with Ms Fortier and tormented by the idea that he can play no part in the lives of the children he believes are his. "David is finding it hard to come to terms with the fact that he has lost Kimberley," said one of these sources: "He is convinced both the children are his and he is determined not to lose them as well."

Both Kimberley Fortier and her husband Stephen Quinn, however, have brushed aside David Blunkett's claim and said that medical evidence will provide "incontrovertible proof" that Mr Blunkett cannot be the toddler William's father and that the yet-to-be-born baby was fathered by Mr Quinn. One close friend of Mr Quinn dismissed Mr Blunkett's legal moves as "fanciful", adding: "if he believes that he fathered William, he is barking up the wrong tree. We feel sorry for him, but he will have egg on his face.

" Stephen Quinn is reportedly determined to fight David Blunkett every step of the way if he tries to gain custody of his son and unborn baby. "I love my wife and I love my family," he said: "and I'll do anything to look after them."

What's the real motive?
Meanwhile, in a development that has stunned Westminster, the Home Secretary has strongly signalled that rather than give up fighting for access to 2-year old William and the child his mother is expecting in February, he would be prepared to give up a glittering 34-year political career. This has raised the ominous prospect that the bitter dispute could drag on beyond February, right up to the General Election likely to be held in May 2005. And that also means that the Prime Minister Tony Blair will have to find ways and means of diffusing the awkwardness of the feud between his key ally and the Quinns in the run-up to polling day. The Home Secretary must be well-aware that many high-profile political careers have been ruined by affairs such as his, and he has already been accused of trying to wreck Mrs Quinn's marriage in order to punish her for ditching him. So why is he doing what he is doing? Is the key to all the questions raised by the way he is behaving to be found in the past, at the point of his birth, in the early, formative years of his life?

An only child of elderly parents, David Blunkett's blindness at birth in 1947 was caused by his optic nerve failing to develop in the womb. At the age of four he was sent to a special boarding school for the blind where, from the very start, he refused to let his disability prevent him from being as "normal" as possible, taking up activities like climbing trees and riding a bike. Following the death of his father in a work-related accident when David was twelve, his mother and he had to struggle hard for several years to survive on meagre means. He studied A-levels in evening classes as he had to work during the day. By the time he was at the university he was a member of the Labour Party and at the age of twenty-two became the youngest ever elected councillor in the Sheffield City Council. The next ten years up to 1987 saw him become the leader of the council and an MP, and since then he has made steady progress till he is where he is now.

David Blunkett has always been busy -- he works on an average eighteen hours a day, sleeps for only five and spends one hour on fitness programmes. But at the same time he has always been a lonely man, made more isolated by his blindness. His first marriage, which took place before he became an MP, should have provided the warm family life he had always wanted, but it was more a marriage of convenience than anything else and even though he became the father of three sons the relationship did not work out and was terminated in a divorce in 1990. He was alone once more, except for the company of his guide dogs. So it is probably little wonder that when Kimberley Fortier/Quinn came into his life, David Blunkett was swept off his feet by this fascinating and amusing woman who was clearly interested in him, and the initial fascination soon developed into the kind of obsession which made him oblivious of everything except the desire to hold on to the object of his love.

One must not judge him too harshly for behaving as he is doing, for despite being a career politician and one of the strongest pillars of the Labour Party, he is human after all, which is why he has put so much at risk. The huge affection and respect held for him by the majority of the British people are at risk. Also at risk are his own political ambitions and even the possibility that one day he could be the Prime Minister. Whether what David Blunkett wants is really worth all these risks or not is another question altogether.

The appearance of another element, not quite unrelated, has added a further twist to the whole situation. A major tabloid newspaper (which, incidentally, has a history of Labour-baiting) disclosed a few days ago that the Home Secretary had been instrumental in fast-tracking the residential visa application of Leoncia Casalme, the Filipina nanny employed by Kimberley Quinn. Miss Casalme apparently told the newspaper that after she had submitted her application she had been advised by immigration officials that she might have to wait up to one year before her application could be processed and residency granted. But when she raised the problem with her employer, Mrs Quinn, she said: "I'll see what I can do. I have a friend." That was in April 2003, and Miss Casalme's permission to reside indefinitely in Britain arrived the following May, a mere nineteen days after the warning about the delay.

If Mr Blunkett had indeed personally interfered in the processing of the nanny's application -- one of his aides has since stated that the Home Secretary had actually checked the original application form given to him by Mrs Quinn to see whether it was in good order and then returned it to her but did nothing else -- it was a serious breach of his official position and ministers had been forced to resign in the not-too-distant past for lesser offences. An independent investigation into the affair under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Budd, a former high-ranking civil servant, has been initiated and Mr Blunkett has already attended two hearings. The Home Secretary unequivocally denies abusing the resources of his private office and the Prime Minister is stoutly defending him, declaring his confidence that the Home Secretary will be absolved of any wrong-doing. As things stand, Tony Blair can ill afford to lose the man who has masterminded the vast raft of crime and security legislation that dominates his programme for winning the next General Election.

In the meantime, in response to the seven-month pregnant Kimberley Quinn's husband's accusation that Mr Blunkett's actions are putting her health and that of her unborn at risk, he has hinted that he may be willing to agree an out-of-court settlement without resorting to a long and politically damaging series of court cases. On the other hand, some of Mr Blunkett's friends have indicated that he is still ignoring pleas that he should reconsider his decision to fight for access to his lover's children and is even preparing to discuss his love-life in public for the first time next month when a biography is expected. And the Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy became the first senior politician to criticise the Home Secretary openly when he told GMTV's Sunday Programme that Blunkett should have been careful to "avoid not just the impropriety but the appearance" of the situation, remarking that his behaviour would result in "erosion of trust in politicians."