The big political story in the UK at the moment is the parlous situation some Labour Cabinet ministers have got themselves into, slap bang in the run-up to local elections (taking place tomorrow).

Here are links to some of the coverage that seems to have casued most of the damage. Charles Clarke, Home Secretary. John Prescott, Deputy Prime Minister

One the one hand, you have John Prescott, who is widely regarded as a somewhat ineffective Minister (being charitable) who is politically useful to Tony Blair, as he has kept his links with "Old" Labour (i.e. people who haven't given up completely on socialism).

A political "bruiser", Prescott lost no time in denouncing Tory "sleaze" when in opposition, yet now he's been in office for nine years, his affair is being treated by most politicians as a "private matter". The press, meanwhile, are having a field day, calling him on all sorts of variants of hypocrisy.

The on the other hand, you have Charles Clarke, who has responsibity for policing, the penal system and for immigration control. His department, the Home Office, has for many years now (under governments of different parties) been something of a shambles where different sub-departments communicate and cooperate poorly.

In the past two weeks, it has come to light that over 1,000 foreigners in British prisons who were found guilty of serious and/or violent crimes, instead of being automatically deported on their release, have been "lost" by the Home Office. More recently, a smaller number (less than 50 or so) have been found to have committed further serious crimes in the UK. And, since Clarke was first briefed about the problem last summer, 288 more foreign felons have been released from UK prisons into the community having served their sentences.

Clarke offered his resignation to Tony Blair last week, when the news first broke, but Blair refused it, preferring that Clarke stay and fix things. That was before anyone knew about the 288 firgure, however.

In UK politics, cabinet ministers are appointed to their office by the Prime Minister in much the same way as the Presdient appoints his team. There are differences, of course - most Ministers are already elected MPs, and officially it's the Queen who appoints them based on the PM's recommendation - but they aren't material here.

But all of that is just preamble for my debate questions, which are (as the topic suggests) on when and why politicians (and business leaders, for that matter) should resign

What types of behaviour, or mistake, would you expect someone to resign over, and why?

What mistakes or behaviour would you say are not worthy of resignation, even though you disapprove of them per se?

Is it better for a leading figure who has made, or discovered, a mistake in their area of responsibility to resign immediately, or stay and fix the problem? (And should they then resign?)

What types of behaviour, or mistake, would you expect someone to resign over, and why?

I think this depends partly on the climate of the time and partly on the character of the person involved. There are always 'circumstances' which have to be taken into consideration and unless the misdeed was directly criminal, I can't actually think of any situation where I would expect some one to resign...

Unless it were simple incompetance.

In the case of Prescott; I do not think his affair merits his resignation, but I do believe his hyprocisy, so laid bare should be serious grounds for the electorate to consider his value as an elected servant of the people. (If you can actually call Blairs cabinet such)

With Clarke, the water is a bit muddier. Its difficult to see how much responsibility he shares in what has taken place. The claim that the Home Office has ben a lame duck for decades just doesn't wash with me. How long has the Labour party had in power?
Clarke bears a responsibilty and in this instance I think he's shown himself to be incompetant


What mistakes or behaviour would you say are not worthy of resignation, even though you disapprove of them per se?

Bonking the secretary is not grounds for resignation in my opinion though I do think a politician caught cheating on their spouse deserves to be considered a liar. Any one who is willing to lie to the one person they claim to love (as in they married them) would clearly be prepared to lie to any one, and whilst I don't think politicians ought to be bound to the truth, I do think its telling when people betray the people they love.

On the other hand, if a politicians spouse were to speak out and say s/he knew and didn't care (maybe they were swingers) then I don't care either. The only aspect of sexual misconduct by politicians that concerns me is when the matter shows a clear betrayal of trust.

In other words, if Mrs Prescott can't trust that creep then who else can?


Is it better for a leading figure who has made, or discovered, a mistake in their area of responsibility to resign immediately, or stay and fix the problem? (And should they then resign?)

Depends entirely on the circumstances.

In the case of Rumsfeld, he ought to have resigned regardless of GW Bush. He is clearly responsible for the many crimes which have taken place under his authority. I do not blame him for what he has done (though I do consider him to be a heavy handed incompetent) but the law is the law.

After Abu Graib, Rumsfeld should have put the honour of the United States before his personal ambitions and accepted responsibility. GW Bush should have accpeted Rumsfelds resignation with grace and dignity and appointed some one else to the job.

I have no doubt Rumsfelds continued presence in that office is one of the biggest factors in why Iraq has gone as badly as it has.

What types of behaviour, or mistake, would you expect someone to resign over, and why?

What mistakes or behaviour would you say are not worthy of resignation, even though you disapprove of them per se?

It always depends on the circumstances, but I think that, unless a very serious criminal act was committed, resignation usually requires a transgression that affects one's policies and position in government. I would probably expect a resignation from someone caught embezzling or committing other crimes related to his position. If a politician continually decides in favor of overwhelmingly unpopular decisions, that could reveal a definite problem in his administration too. Mistakes or crimes that are more personal (infidelity, legal battles, family problems) are more easily overlooked. Obviously, a murderer should resign, but we shouldn't expect a resignation from a politician who got a parking ticket or was caught up in some petty tabloid "scandal." I think common sense and judgment are good enough for most situations.

Is it better for a leading figure who has made, or discovered, a mistake in their area of responsibility to resign immediately, or stay and fix the problem? (And should they then resign?)

It depends on the candor and willingness to change on the part of the leader. Those who are too stubborn to change are better off resigning, but an open leader should not be faulted for a mistake if he is willing to do whatever it takes to fix it.