The resignation has traditionally held an important place in British public life, and in the public imagination. Technically, it is all about ministers’ responsibility to the crown, but its real importance is as a sign of integrity and moral courage — qualities that demand, occasionally, personal sacrifice to sustain their currency. In the past 10 years politicians have attempted to shift perceptions, in a manner that subverts the meaning of resignation. The effect is to put individual above institution. Peter Mandelson confronted the issue on election night 2001 when he told constituents who had re-elected him, shortly after he had been forced from office a second time, that he was a “fighter, not a quitter”. Resignation, it seemed, far from being a matter of public morality, might be about cutting and running, the act of a coward.

The seven lean years of John Major’s government seem to be at the root of this attempt to redefine resignation. According to LSE research, during the Major years 17 ministers resigned, and on a further 19 occasions newspapers demanded heads the prime minister refused to deliver. But the LSE calculates the political cost of resignation and weighs it against the cost of doing nothing. It concludes resignations can halt a decline in popularity, and so play a critical role in government survival. Tony Blair, however, initially tried to back every minister under media pressure: there was no resignation until the Welsh secretary Ron Davies had a “moment of madness” in October 1998. Since then, ministers of all ranks have resigned, but many have returned after scandals that would once, perhaps unjustly, have ended their careers.

... contd.