Commentators are always sceptical when an ambitious career man or woman resigns their ministerial post to spend more time with their family. Somehow it just does not ring true. They've spent all their life climbing the greasy pole only then to decide family most come first.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson has said Kelly was known to be unhappy with the direction of the government in recent months and, before the Prime Minister's conference speech, a number of Cabinet ministers had been considering resigning with her.
There had also been speculation the 40-year-old, a devout Catholic, could leave the government because of her objections to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
There is also the issue of her constituency majority. Her seat is a marginal constituency so if she wants to hold on to it at the next general election fending off the Conservatives, she will need to spend a lot of time in her constituency bolstering her position. As a Cabinet Minister she would not have been able to afford the time necessary. In this respect, her resignation could be about saving her status as an MP. Kelly denies this, saying her reason for stepping down is just to spend more time with her family.
However, what seems so strange to me is that given that Brown had a reshuffle back in February after Peter Hain’s forced resignation, why did Kelly not know she wanted to spend more time with her family then? Why, just three months later did she suddenly realise family must come first and thus informed the Prime Minister accordingly.
What changed? Did she really signal she wanted to leave government in May? If so, was it for family reasons or because of her disillusionment with Gordon (despite their show of unity today)?
Call me a cynic, but i think this has to be more than just for family reasons!
No comments:
Post a Comment