The Myth of Ministerial Ethics

The second phase of Leveson entered it's most dramatic week this week. Although many expected Tony Blair's reappearance on the British political scene to bring the most drama - with the now infamous 'war criminal' heckle certainly making a case for that - the evidence that has received at least as much coverage has been that of the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt.

When considering inappropriate governmental relationships with the media, Jeremy Hunt's near personal relationships and bias during the BSkyB bid seem to be the definition of the problem. Whilst it's admirable that he has given open and honest evidence to the court - although he really had little choice in the matter - many have suggested his actions have damaged his ministerial career. It seems otherwise. Cameron has given clear indications that he will leave it to the inquiry to decide if Hunt acted incorrectly. Similarly, Hunt himself has failed to apologise for his actions and seems indignant in the face of calls to resign.

This all seems very different to the ethics of ministerial life just a decade ago. David Blunkett has been the most obvious example in recent years of a cabinet minister with distinctly questionable actions that clearly blurred the professional and personal boundary. Yet on both occasions Blunkett rightfully resigned - and yes second chances should even apply to politics. Similarly, Liam Fox resigned just last year over the issue of bringing personal and political life too closely together.

The issue here is not that these cases represent the rightful vilification of our politicians. They instead represent the action that anyone in any profession could reasonably be expected to take if they acted in such a grossly unprofessional way. In Hunt's case it is not specifically what he did that means a resignation seems the only moral decision to make but rather that he acted unprofessionally, failing to take his position, and the positions he could potentially hold, seriously.

Surely, of all the individuals we should be able to expect professionalism from, our elected representatives are at the top of the list? As such shouldn't Cameron at least have stayed relatively silent on the issue and, by now, should we not have had some apology from Hunt? The fact that neither has happened doesn't represent a gross case of injustice. It's just a gross case of immaturity, not a promising indication of ability to govern.