What about collective ministerial responsibility?

Following Sir Digby Jones's (a new trade minister who is given the task of promoting British trade) comments the other day in the papers saying that Brown should lower certain business taxes leaves collective ministerial responsibility in ciaos. He hasn't even been in a week and he is already speaking out of line. If he disagrees with government policy he should resign.

In addition to ol'Digby, Harman appears to have no respect for collective ministerial responsibility. - She criticised the war in Iraq to win votes off Cruddas. She said there should be an apology for the war. Yet, in spite of all this she didn't resign. If she opposed a key bit of Government policy - the war and the lack of an apology - then she should have resigned and should now resign! Does collective ministerial responsibility mean nothing to these people!

The convention of Collective ministerial responsibility states that if a minister disagrees with key government policy, then he/she should resign. This convention encompasses the whole of government, as a result of this not only did senior cabinet ministers like Cooke resign, but also lowly government ministers such as Denham also resigned.

If people disagree with key government policy then they should resign or keep stum. End of!