A day after Mr. Mandelson went - he was followed three hours later by Mr. Robinson - 60% of users who expressed an opinion said resignation was the correct course of action.

Tim Arnott, emailing the site's Talking Point feature from the UK, wrote " Individuals holding pubic office have a duty to ensure their private interests do not conflict with activities surrounding their public role."

Jon White, in the UK, agreed but hoped Peter Mandelson would soon be back. "Yes, he was right to resign," wrote Mr. White, "but I hope that he can rejoin the government as soon as this current mess is sorted out."

But there is a sizeable minority who believe it was not a resigning issue.

" I fail to see how a private financial matter, completely within the law, constitutes conflict of interest." wrote M. Russell from Canada.

Tim Temmink in the UK agrees. " I am not a fan of Mandelson, but this is insane. It is a private loan between friends, it is nobody's business but theirs."

"What a load of poppycock," writes Andy Gibson in the UK. "If any of this was done when the men concerned were in power, then it would have been a different story."

David Toube in the UK thinks there is a danger that people of little substance will be attracted to office: "Whatever the party, whatever the country," he writes, "when ministers resign or refuse to stand because of the merest hint of irregularity in their lives, we are in real danger of ending up with a government of second-raters and also-rans who have fortuitously managed to keep their noses clean."

But the majority of people contributing to Talking Point share the view of Katherine Lewis in the UK: "He should have resigned earlier," she says "it gives the government little credibility when one of their ministers breaks the rules."