DAVID BLUNKETT’S resignation is a personal tragedy, not the start of a political earthquake. Last night’s announcement is obviously a big blow to Tony Blair who stood by him until the end, and who has now lost one of his closest allies. But the departure of the Home Secretary will not change the direction of the Government, or affect Labour’s prospects in the general election expected in May.

The three-week Blunkett saga followed a similar pattern to previous resignations: damaging allegations followed by denials, an official inquiry, then a drip-drip of further charges. We saw the same over Peter Mandelson, Stephen Byers and Beverley Hughes. Eventually, like other ministers forced out, Mr Blunkett was overwhelmed by events. It was not just the original allegations about his affair with Kimberly Quinn, or the controversy over her nanny’s visa application. The disclosure last night that there had been an exchange of e-mails over a subsequent letter about the nanny’s position between the Home Secretary’s office and immigration officials in Croydon clinched the matter. It would have been revealed in the report by Sir Alan Budd and made Mr Blunkett’s position untenable.

However, the Home Secretary had already lost the support of his colleagues, not just backbench loudmouths but senior members of the Cabinet. Most Labour politicians had previously admired Mr Blunkett for overcoming his blindness so remark-ably. They had given him extra leeway, even though his outspokenness and failure to consult them properly tested their patience. But, as one senior colleague said, his frank comments about other members of the Cabinet for Stephen Pollard’s biography removed this cushion of tolerance. His candour infuriated the many ministers who had backed him.

No one, let alone a senior minister, likes being criticised for being weak, a bully, arrogant, failing to have a clear strategy or leaving a “giant mess”. So ministers wondered aloud why they should offer him support when he had attacked them. Many ministers thought that Mr Blunkett had lost his political balance and judgment because of his concern about his son. There was more than a hint of desperation, even obsession, in his public apperances this week. On the Christmas party circuit, Cabinet ministers were openly speculating, and doubting, whether he would survive. The personal cost to him was evident in his haggard appearance in his television interviews last night.

Even if the human story is understandably at the forefront at present, Mr Blunkett’s departure removes one of the few undoubted heavyweights from the Blair Cabinet. Unlike many of his colleagues, Mr Blunkett grew in office. As Education Secretary, he was one of the few successes in the first term, notably in pushing through the literacy and numeracy strategy for primary schoolchildren and in beginning the overhaul of the secondary school system.

His tenure as Home Secretary was more controversial as his instincts appeared to be more authoritarian than libertarian. He was unashamedly on the side of ordinary people concerned about crime and disorder, rather than the human rights lobby and lawyers. He clashed with senior judges in pushing for tough sentences, and over his attitude to asylum and immigration and strict anti-terrorism legislation. Mr Blunkett was central to the Government’s current legislative programme as the large number of Home Office bills sought to give the Government a tough image on law and order and security. This also had the electoral aim of trying to outflank the Tories — as shown by the Opposition’s divisions before next week’s vote on the Identity Cards Bill.

But Mr Blunkett’s contribution was also personal. His extraordinary odyssey, overcoming handicaps and poverty to become leader of Sheffield council and then a major figure at Westminster, made him unlike all other politicians. His bluntness, his ruggedness and his achievements gave him a unique public image, and popular appeal. For a journalist talking to him, his grasp of events, issues and his acute judgment about close colleagues whom he had never seen, only heard, was remarkable . In all these respects Mr Blunkett is irreplaceable.

In policy terms, the course of Home Office policy for the next few years is set, since its five-year plan has already been published. Charles Clarke, his successor, was a Home Office minister for a year before the last election and has strong views on, for example, police reform. He is likely to maintain the thrust of Mr Blunkett’s policies. He is also a robust, vigorous public performer, not afraid of offending people or expressing candid views, as he showed in a recent exchange with the Prince of Wales.

The promotion of Mr Clarke, Education Secretary for the past two years, to one of the top offices of State will not change the political balance of the Cabinet. Like Mr Blunkett, Mr Clarke is a strong but independent-minded supporter of Mr Blair and has had a prickly relationship with Gordon Brown.

The changes will, however, stimulate speculation about possible successors to Mr Blair. Mr Brown obviously still remains the favourite to take over some time during the next Parliament, but Mr Clarke has now been given a chance to prove himself — along with others such as John Reid and Alan Milburn. And Ruth Kelly, as the new Education Secretary, has been confirmed as the fastest rising of the under-40 generation of Labour ministers.

For all the human drama of recent events, the longer-term political and electoral impact may be limited. Who in June 2001 remembered Peter Mandelson’s resignation only four and a half months earlier? Similarly, now, Mr Blunkett’s resignation looks more a talking point than a turning point.

Times Recommends

• In the real world, the public sector must pay
• Playing politics in a land of double Dutch
• Be like the plinth people: not set in stone