» Friday, December 3, 2004David Blunkett
Asked if the Prime Minister still had confidence in the Home Secretary’s ability to do his job, the PMOS said yes. Asked if there had been any discussion of this issue in Cabinet, the PMOS reminded journalists that he had said yesterday that the issue was not discussed. Asked if it had been mentioned, the PMOS said he did not give a detailed commentary on Cabinet meetings. Asked if Mr Blunkett had had a private meeting with the Prime Minister the PMOS said he did not discuss the Prime Minister’s meetings with ministers. Asked how David Blunkett could do his very demanding job and fight a legal battle at the same time, the PMOS said that people simply had to look at what David Blunkett had been doing during the last 10 days in setting out the vision contained in the Queens speech, following that vision through with media appearances and in his work in Cabinet and his department. As the Chancellor had underlined this morning and other colleagues of his had underlined, David Blunkett continued to do the job he had to do for the Government and the country. Briefing took place at 11:00 | Search for related news Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says. |
The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...
Search
Supported byRecent Briefings
Archives
LinksSyndicate (RSS/XML)CreditsEnquiriesContact Sam Smith. |
Surely the interests of the children, not the sperm donor, should come first?
Must bunny boilers always be women?
Do the press know what THEFT is?
Could the immigration issue be the red herring?
Is it credible that one could honestly mistake one’s adulterous mistress for one’s own dependant? Isn’t the jury the best arbiter in such a situation?
Would someone in the press corps please ask the prime minister these questions?
Comment by Mr Pooter — 4 Dec 2004 on 3:47 pm | LinkWhich question was the PMOS answering?
‘cos for me there are two interpretations of "his job"
it could be Tony’s job
it could be David’s job
Assuming that it is the former it will be a big blow for Gordon 😉
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 5 Dec 2004 on 9:26 am | Link