Powered by WordPress | Theme by mg12 | Valid XHTML 1.1 and CSS 3
  • Sunday, March 5th, 2006 at 15:00 | #1

    Not the only person on earth – I agree with every word you wrote.

  • Antony
    Sunday, March 5th, 2006 at 18:48 | #2

    I’d like to agree but I’m not sure I can.

    Ministers might delegate some things to their spouses but they can’t delegate their duty to ensure they comply with the Ministerial Code of Conduct (weak Code that it arguably is anyway).

    Tessa Jowell says she didn’t know the nature of the investment to which her assets or equity were, on the strength of her signature, applied. If she neither know nor reasonably enquired she cannot have satisfied herself that no conflict of interest was created with her public duties.

    Ergo, she has effectively admitted a breach of the Ministerial Code and IMHO the sum must make it a more than frivolous breach.

    It’s a sad case but putting the blame entirely on someone else (in this case her husband) is very very New Labour.

  • James
    Sunday, March 5th, 2006 at 18:56 | #3

    I don’t disagree that the buck stops with Jowell and not Mills, just that the error, on her part, was all too human. That suggests she ought to be censured, not face the sack.

  • David Morton
    Monday, March 6th, 2006 at 02:28 | #4

    I’m not unsympathetic to her. If you can’t trust your husband then who can you trust? I don’t see what is to be gained by hounding her out of office. I did chuckle a bit today when Chris Huhne was on the radio putting the boot into her. Isn’t this the guy who doesn’t know if he is a multi millionaire!?

    I’d much rather have the french system where by you can end up in jail for policy cock ups but privacy laws protect your mistresses.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TOP