It was some years ago that I happened to be in the House of Commons as the guest of a Conservative member during the Recess immediately after a general election had occurred.
Whilst we were talking on the floor of the House, a new MP came in and stood there with his see-and-eye dog, getting orientated to the surroundings. It was the newly elected David Blunkett, a strong left-wing Labour Party member for Sheffield.
With just four of us standing there, conversation was inevitable. I commented how much I welcomed seeing him elected and my admiration for his work in Sheffield - a city whose steel industry had suffered the ravages of Margaret Thatcher's social and industrial reforms. I explained that I felt that he had a major role to play in political life on the national stage.
David Blunkett is one of very few blind MPs, and was the first to reach the front bench and the Cabinet. His relaxed performances - with his guide dog by his side - at the dispatch box, in the Labour Party's National Executive, and on the conference platform made it easy to forget his disability. Mr Blunkett himself described not being able to see as simply "an inconvenience". Using Braille for speeches, and briefed by his officials on tape, he also has a sharp tongue at times, and a pragmatic approach to politics.
So it came to pass in those heady early days of the Labour government - or New Labour as it styled itself - Blunkett soon established himself as an important person in Blair's cabinet. His strong left-wing credentials gave Blair the appearance of still retaining elements of the old socialist party, whilst ensuring that he had an intensely personally loyal member on his Cabinet.
In the Labour Party he has been regarded as a loyal colleague, a conciliator who avoids factions, and a man whose humour and determination make him widely popular. There have been wry smiles as well. In 1999, his then guide dog Lucy threw up in the Chamber during the speech of his Tory opponent.
Something happened to Blunkett on the journey through the first and second terms of the Labour government, in which he was to eventually become Home Secretary, one of the top governmental jobs. His portfolio was immense, covering race, policing and immigration. civil emergencies, security, terrorism and expenditure.
He began to lead the good life. He had a rather squalid affair with a married and well connected American woman, there were disputes about the paternity and access to her child and, finally, accusations that he had used his office to accelerate a visa on behalf of a nanny employed by her. Although no major wrong doing was to be identified, he was to resign in the face of press and opposition party pressure. It was ugly and messy.
Something else happened on that journey as well, however. He became one of the most right-wing in the Cabinet. As a Home Secretary, he was almost indistinguishable from his Conservative predecessors. Not least, he seemed determined to remove the rights of habeas corpus for certain detainees under terrorism legislation that had been fundamental to our liberties since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215.
Almost with the cronyism that you have experienced in the White House ( a common feature of Bush and Blair that is worth a comparative study on its own), Labour's election to a third term enabled Blair to immediately reappoint him to the cabinet, this time as Works and Pensions Secretary. He was charged with steering through the biggest shake-up of the welfare state since its inception 60 years ago. A shake up which is not without elements familiar to those of you who have been watching Bush's approach on such matters as social security.
Well, today Blunkett has resigned, quitting after breaking the ministerial code of conduct over paid work he took while out of the Cabinet. At the centre of the recent controversy was Mr Blunkett's two-week directorship of DNA Bioscience before May's election. Mr Blunkett broke ministerial rules by taking that job without consulting an independent committee that advises former ministers on whether they should take up jobs.
Despite two days of trying to defend his position with the backing and support of Tony Blair, the pressure became too much, despite the fact that no law was broken. He simply broke the ministerial code of conduct, the creation of which the Labour Party had been strong advocates.
I am not at all sorry to see Blunkett go. I am saddened, however, that a man who appeared to have such fine qualities should disappear from public life with a legacy of betrayal to the principles that brought him to high office and as the subject of a demeaning but accurate satirical docudrama on the BBC and exposures in the worst scandal pages of our press. A true reflection of the low to which Blair has brought those early visions of what his government promised to achieve.
What has ended Blunkett's career in the last two days was not just his failure to meet the standards expected of those in public office. Many commentators have readily conceded that he did nothing illegal. His actions, however, brought into question his judgement. If he behaved in relation to certain aspects in this way, what is to say he will not do so when entrusted with some of the most important elements affecting our current and future lives?
This seems to me to be the important question about the Libby indictment. It matters not whether he is eventually found guilty, it is just that what we now know for fact has condemned him as not being fit for an influential role in the affairs of the United States.
This is what matters about the continued presence of Karl Rove. It is not that he has yet to be indicted, but simply that Congress knows he is clearly involved in conduct that brings into question the judgement of one who serves as an influence on the highest office in the land.
As did Blunkett, so Karl Rove should write his letter of resignation and GO on just these grounds alone.