David Blunkett

London, Nov. 28: David Blunkett must today be a worried man ? Tony Blair has expressed ?full confidence? in his Right-wing home secretary. Such expressions of support often precede a politician?s fall, such has been the history of British politics.

Blunkett?s dilemma is not unlike that of a famous Indian musician who was forced to take a paternity test to establish who was the father of a child ? a wife?s husband or her lover.

Among those who know the home secretary, there is both admiration and affection for Blunkett, who, at 57, considered himself ?single? because he had been divorced for a decade. But he has remained close to his three grown-up sons. Since he is blind and has to rely on a guide dog, few were willing to begrudge him a little bit of happiness.

Unfortunately, for the home secretary, the object of his passionate love ? some would say obsession ? was a married woman.

Blunkett, who loves to advise Asian immigrants on how they should become ?more British?, is now suffering the embarrassment of seeing the most intimate details of his personal life spill over into public. For three years, it emerged, he was ?in a relationship? with a married American woman, Kimberley Fortier, 44, the vivacious publisher of The Spectator magazine (apparently she had begun by openly wondering what it would be like to make love to a blind man).

When she ended their relationship earlier this summer, Blunkett was devastated and employed high-powered lawyers to claim paternity rights over her three-year-old son, William, and another baby she is expecting in February.

At first, reports suggested that William?s father was Fortier?s husband, Stephen Quinn, 60, the publisher of Vogue, the glossy magazine for women with rich husbands. There was some doubt about the new baby?s paternity.

But, according to the DNA tests, it is now being claimed that Blunkett could be the ?biological father? of both William and Fortier?s second baby.

Quinn, the husband, has now said he has forgiven his wife for her extra-marital which began shortly after their wedding in 2001, and that he would be a good father to both children even if they were not his.

And there the affair would have ended unhappily except that yesterday it was alleged that Blunkett, as home secretary, ?abused? his position to fast track a visa for his lover?s nanny, Leoncia ?Luz? Casalme, a 36-year old Filipino woman.

Fortier sent an email to a friend last week in which she appeared to knife her former lover by stating: ?I have had Luz (the nanny) on the phone very tearful, saying she had been contacted (by a newspaper) about the passport application that David fast-tracked for her...he?s so paranoid he?ll think it?s me and try and nail me.?

There are also less serious accusations that Blunkett put pressure on the American embassy in London to speed up a passport for Fortier?s son so she could take him on holiday; that he gave her free rail tickets meant for MPs; that he took Fortier on holiday partly on taxpayers? expense; that he used his official car in her service; and that he placed a policeman outside her home in Mayfair on a day of rioting. Frankly, most people would say these are the little things any minister would do for his mistress.

But now the Conservative Party, which had previously retained an uncharacteristic silence, is demanding a judicial inquiry into whether Blunkett misused his position.

And if mud is thrown at the home secretary, enough of it might stick to force him to go ? which would not be helpful to Blair with a general election likely to be held on May 5 next year.

Tory Shadow home secretary David Davis declared: ?These are clearly very serious allegations which impact on David Blunkett?s public office. It is vital that the government sets up an independent judge-led inquiry to resolve the truth or otherwise of these allegations very quickly.?

There is also the wider question of whether the home secretary, who has to deal with the threat from terrorists such as Osama bin Laden (a man who has happily had several wives), can afford to be distracted over such personal matters.