Mary Dejevsky: It was dishonest to mount the 'female' defence

What seems to have escaped Mrs Blair is that the 'mistakes' are not actually specific to her se

Who but a woman could have delivered Cherie Blair's Millbank oration? Who but a woman, more to the point, in the post-Diana age? All the tell-tale signs were there: the doe eyes, the cracking voice, the occasional head-toss of defiance, and some very familiar turns of phrase.

We were treated to the pre- apology apology ("I hope you don't mind me using this event"), the half-ironic nod to the media ("you can't have failed to notice... "), the confessions of personal inadequacy ("I also know I'm not superwoman", "sometimes some of the balls get dropped"), and the fatalistic acceptance of her multiple roles (wife, mother, barrister, fund-raiser and prime minister's consort).

What seems to have escaped Mrs Blair and/or her scriptwriter is that the misjudgements, indiscretions, or "mistakes" for which she has been called to account are not actually specific to her sex. Most of us are not complaining about her penchant for New-Age relaxation techniques, her choice of showercompanion or the geological composition of her amulet: these are ornaments – amusing or intrusive, depending how you view them – that have been hung around the central argument by a political and media establishment that is still, undeniably, shot through with sexism. We are not complaining about the quality of her marriage, her mothering, her lawyering or her fund-raising.

No, what concerns me, and I dare say, a good many others in this country, are the following facts – none of which is, now, disputed.

* A fraudster, with convictions in this country and two others, was able, within a matter of weeks, to gain the trust of the Prime Minister's wife and so insinuate himself into Downing Street's inner circle.

* The Prime Minister's wife benefited from a substantial discount on two new flats in Bristol that was negotiated either solely, or in part, by the fraudster.

* The Prime Minister's wife also allowed the fraudster to pay an accountant's bill running to several thousand pounds that pertained to her property purchase.

* As is entirely proper, the Blairs set up a "blind trust" for their assets when Mr Blair became Prime Minister to remove all suggestion of any conflicts of interest. But Mrs Blair was able to determine how at least some of its resources were used: how blind is this? * The Prime Minister's wife, who is also a senior barrister, initiated a phone call to the fraudster's solicitor in which she established how his appeal against deportation was being dealt with. She also scanned the court lists to find out which judge would preside when his case was heard.

Now, as we have been told – correctly, I am sure – nothing about any of this was unlawful. Some of us may have misgivings about a Labour prime minister (all right, New Labour), still more his more ideologically traditional wife, indulging in property speculation. But that is a matter of personal taste.

The central issue here is not the legality of what Mrs Blair did, nor whether it conforms to New Labour policy. It is the appearance of gross conflict of interest. A conman has rendered services to the Prime Minister's wife of the sort that would customarily be paid for. She performed at least two favours on his behalf.

It may be entirely true that the fraudster negotiated no discount on the flats that was not available to any other would-be buyer. But how many people would pay a £4,000 bill on your behalf and expect nothing in return? It may also be true that Mrs Blair, as Cherie Booth QC, was acting to console her friend, Carole Caplin, when she called Foster's solicitor to establish the state of his deportation appeal and consulted the court lists. But no one in the legal profession can be unaware of Ms Booth's other identity, and few members of the public would know how to access the court lists – or be in a position to judge the strengths or weaknesses of individual judges. Just what was her purpose in consulting that list?

What Mrs Blair did – allow a conman into her circle, use his unpaid services to negotiate a property deal, allow him to pay a bill on her behalf without reimbursement, raid the "blind trust" and put her professional qualifications indirectly at the fraudster's disposal – could have been done equally by a man. And the charges need to be answered for what they are: straight, gender-neutral questions. To mount the "female" defence, as Mrs Blair did to impressive effect on Tuesday evening, is not merely inadequate, but downright dishonest.

No one – man or woman, politician or lawyer – should be able to get away with responding to accusations about multiple conflicts of interest with 20 minutes of elegant whimpering about the difficulties that attend her highly-privileged, if complex, daily life.

In her whole self-indulgent utterance, Mrs Blair admitted only two "mistakes": trying too hard to protect her family (the "mother-hen defence") and allowing someone she "barely knew" to get involved with her family's affairs. The specifics of the charges somehow vanish – perhaps they are the "balls" that "get dropped" in the impossible effort of juggling so many in the air. "There just aren't enough hours in the day," she said – appealing, barrister-like, to working womankind: "Some of you must experience that."

Well, a good many women do indeed "experience that" – and many have found solutions to the so-called "superwoman" dilemma. Most of these boil down to trying to do less. A great many women in this country, myself included, doubtless feel that Mrs Blair has made a pretty good job of exploiting the remarkable hand that life has dealt her. In the past five and a half years, she has tripped with some delicacy between the domestic, political and professional worlds she inhabits.

But if it is all getting too much, though, it is time for her to prune her multiple activities. She could, as Mrs Major did before her, simply opt out of many prime minister's wife appearances. She would face condemnation, of course, if she scaled back her charity work and carried on working as a well-paid barrister, but that would be a perfectly defensible choice. Or she could take a sabbatical for a year or so, as is becoming increasingly popular among professionals. There are options short of giving up a job she's not only good at, but clearly enjoys.

What is not an option is for a highly intelligent and competent individual to plead "incapable, I'm just a woman" to the charge-sheet we have set out. What if the "mistake" had been not delegating a property deal to a broker of dubious repute, but your costly law-suit or mine – bungled, because Cherie Booth QC had not been able to "keep all the balls in the air"?

Would it be enough for her to say then: "Sorry, I was trying to do so much else and, after all, none of us can be superwoman?" I do not think so, and neither would you.

Paradoxically, what began as a hue and cry driven at least in part by sexist prejudice – against women with ambitions, women who "have it all", women who "have a flutter" – looks set to end the same way, to Mrs Blair's advantage.

Most male politicians ran a mile from "Cherie-gate". Attacking or defending, they sent their female colleagues on to the airwaves to do the job for them. Then, when the Prime Minister's wife ultimately played the "overwrought female", they chivalrously threw down their cloaks and let her walk right over them. They appreciate a woman who knows her place.

m.dejevsky@independent.co.uk