To resign or not to resign? That is the question
I'm told that the resignation of Labour's ethics spokeswoman in Liverpool has divided opinion among the party's ranks.
As mentioned previously Cllr Louise Baldock resigned after remarking on her blog that Lib Dems and Liberals were "opportunistic b******s".
She resigned by "mutual consent" - in other words if she had not resigned the party leadership was ready to cut her adrift.
Political resignations are a funny thing, many say they don't happen half as often as they should. And that if more politicians resigned when they were caught out a bit of faith in politics would be restored.
While others think that it's only human for politicians to make mistakes and therefore the public are understanding so long as the transgression is not perceived as being that serious.
Anyway, below are are two extracts from THIS resignation story that get to the heart of the matter.
Joe Anderson compares the case with that of Lib Dem Steve Hurst, who was convicted of breaking election law and states:
"We've acted with speed and sincerity and Cllr Baldock has made a full apology if she has offended anyone.
"Cllr Baldock has not been found guilty of any offence by the Standards Board and she has not been convicted of any criminal offence.
"I think it's for other people to draw their own conclusions about the contrast between ourselves and the Liberal Democrats."
Yet One Labour figure said:
"Louise is a popular councillor who does an excellent job.
"The group think that the way she has been candid and apologised was enough.
"By her going, we're dancing to the Liberal Democrats' tune."
So there are to the two sides of the argument. What do you think?
Has the party sacrificed a front bencher just to be able to take the moral high ground? And does it set a dangerous precedent?
Or is the party right? Was this simply the right thing to do both politically and morally?