Collective And Individual Ministerial Responsibility Flashcards
(8 cards)
Introduction
Ministerial responsibility is a core constitutional convention within the UK executive, dividing into two strands: individual ministerial responsibility, whereby ministers are accountable for their personal conduct and departmental performance; and collective responsibility, which obliges ministers to publicly uphold government policy or resign.
Although both principles underpin executive accountability and coherence, their relevance has been debated due to modern political realities, media scrutiny and leadership styles.
While there is evidence to suggest that IMR and CMR still matter, their erosion in practice means their importance may now be more symbolic than consistently operational
1: It could be argued that individual ministerial responsibility remains important…
-IMR ensures ministerial accountability, whereby ministers resign for misconduct or policy failures within their department. This reinforces standards in public life and ensures scrutiny.
MATT HANCOCK (2021)
Matt Hancock resigned as Health Secretary in 2021 after CCTV footage revealed him breaching Covid-19 social distancing rules by kissing a colleague. This was a clear violation of the legal and ethical standards he had imposed on the public during the pandemic. His resignation upheld the principle of IMR, as he accepted personal accountability for misconduct.
PRITI PATEL (2017)
Priti Patel resigned as International Development Secretary in 2017 after upholding unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials without notifying the Foreign Office. This breach of ministerial protocol and lack of transparency was deemed a serious error of judgement. Her resignation reflected adherence to IMR, as she took responsibility for undermining collective government processes.
NADHIM ZAHAWI (2023)
Nadhim Zahawi was sacked as Conservative Party Chairman in 2023 after failing to disclose a tax investigation and settlement with HMRC, while serving in government. An inquiry found he had committed a “serious breach of the ministerial code”. This reinforced the relevance of IMR, showing that ministers are still expected to uphold integrity and transparency
-They still face consequences for legal and ethical breaches. The doctrine maintains transparency and responsibility in a complex bureaucracy.
1: However a more convincing argument is that IMR has been weakened in practice…
-resignations are now selective and politically influenced, highlighting executive tolerance for rule-bending if ministers are politically useful.
PRITI PATEL
Despite resigning in 2017 for breaching ministerial rules, Priti Patel was later appointed as Home Secretary by Boris Johnson in 2019. This reappointment suggested that political loyalty and alignment with PM’s agenda could outweigh previous breaches of conduct. It undermines the seriousness of IMR, implying it is applied inconsistently and its subject to political convenience.
GAVIN WILLIAMSON
Gavin Williamson was dismissed as Defence Secretary in 2019 over a security leak but was reappointed by Boris Johnson later that year as Education Secretary. His return to cabinet despite allegations of misconduct indicated that personal loyalty and political usefulness were prioritised over ministerial accountability. This weakened the credibility of IMR as a binding convention.
BORIS JOHNSON
Boris Johnson ultimately resigned in 2022 following intense media and public pressure over multiple scandals, including Chris Pincher affair and Partygate. He did not step down due to a breach of formal responsibility, but only after mass Cabinet resignations and collapsing political support. This shows that IMR alone was in sufficient to enforce accountability- it was sustained media exposure and party rebellion that forced him out.
-the PM ultimately decides whether ministerial code has been breached, reducing IMR to a tool of political convenience. Ministers are less likely to resign for departmental errors unless there is intense media or public pressure.
2: it could be argued that collective ministerial responsibility is still a cornerstone of cabinet unity
-CMR ensures that ministers present a unified public front, essential for policy clarity and government stability. They resign when they no longer can support governmental policy, suggesting that CMR still has disciplinary value.
AMBER RUDD
Amber Rudd resigned as Work Pensions Secretary in 2019, citing her opposition to Boris Johnson’s strategy of expelling moderate Conservatives over Brexit. She argued that she could not support a government that no longer upheld values of moderation and unity. Her resignation demonstrated adherence to CMR, as she stepped down due to disagreement with the government’s broader direction.
SAJID JAVID
Sajid Javid resigned as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 2020 after Boris Johnson demanded he sack all his special advisors to allow more No 10 control. Javid refused, stating that “no self-respecting minister” could accept such conditions, implying that policy integrity and ministerial autonomy had been compromised. His resignation upheld the principle of CMR by refusing to be complicit in a shift away from traditional Cabinet responsibility and independence.
SUELLA BRAVERMAN
Suella Braverman resigned as Home Secretary in October 2022 under Liz Truss, officially for a security breach but also citing concerns with the government’s direction. In her resignation letter, she criticised Liz Truss’s leadership and economic decisions, implying she no longer support the government. This case reflects a blend of IMR and CMR as she dissociated herself from collective cabinet policy while triggering a broader leadership crisis.
-CMR enables the PM to maintain cabinet discipline and prevents open dissent, particularly during crises or critical decisions such as Brexit.
2: however a more convincing argument is that collective responsibility has been repeatedly suspended or bypassed….
-during the Brexit era, PMs like Theresa May and Boris Johnson tolerated internal opposition or suspended CMR to maintain fragile alliances. In coalition government, CMR was effectively relaxed to allow disagreement between partners.
BORIS JOHNSON TOLERATING CABINET OPPOSITION
Under Boris Johnson, several ministers publicly criticised aspects of government policy- such as lockdown rules or Brexit outcomes- without facing dismissal. Figures like Rishi Sunak and Penny Mordaunt voiced dissenting views on economic and social issues but remained in the Cabinet. This demonstrated a clear erosion of CMR, as open disagreement no linger reliably triggered resignation or removal.
THERESA MAY AND BREXIT DIVISIONS
During Theresa May’s government, cabinet members such as Boris Johnson and David Davis repeatedly criticised her Brexit strategy while still holding office. Instead of enforcing resignations to preserve unity, May tolerated this dissent to avoid deeper fractures in her party. This flexible application of CMR revealed how political survival often took precedence over constitutional convention.
COALITION GOVERNMENT AND RELAXED CMR
During the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, CMR was formally suspended on key issues like university tuition fees, Trident renewal and nuclear power. This allowed ministers from both parties to openly disagree and even vote against each other without resigning. It reflected a necessary compromise for coalition politics, but significantly diluted enforcement of CMR.
RISE OF SOFA POLITICS- TONY BLAIR AND BEYOND
Tony Blair was known for “sofa politics” making key decisions informally from a close circle of advisers and bypassing full cabinet deliberations. Blair’s reliance on an inner circle, including Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell, sidelined collective discussion and reshaped executive decision-making. This trend has continued, with recent PMs such as Rishi Sunak reportedly relying on heavily on tight-knit advisory teams rather than full cabinet consultation- such as Chief of Staff Liam Booth-Smith, bypassing wider cabinet engagement. This reflects a continuation of PM-centric governance, where decision-making is concentrated within a tight circle rather than collective cabinet discussion.
CABINET COMMITTEES- RECENT PM-CENTRIC GOVERNANCE
Modern Prime Ministers have increasingly used cabinet committees- like the Covid-O Cabinet under Johnson or the Economic Affairs Committee under Sunak- to centralise control and limit broad ministerial input. These committees allow the PM to shape policy direction with a select few technocrats, reducing the role of full Cabinet debates. This shift consolidates executive authority in the hands of the Prime Minister and weakens the traditional norm of shared Cabinet responsibility.
KEIR STARMER
Under Keir Starmer’s government in 2025, the revitalised National Security Council has become a key Cabinet Committee, meeting weekly to coordinate policy across national security, foreign affairs and economic resilience. Chaired by Starmer and including ministers like Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves, it exemplifies the use of strategic committees to centralise executive control. This approach reflects a PM-centric model, where unified decision-making is driven from the top to maintain policy discipline across departments.
-additionally, the rise of “sofa politics” and cabinet committees means that policy is often decided by the select few, reducing full cabinet deliberation. This undermines the spirit of collective responsibility and increases PM-centric governance.
3: it could be argued that both IMR and CMR still function as vital political norms…
-despite inconsistencies, these conventions retain symbolic weight. Public expectation of accountability and media scrutiny keep these ideas alive. The threat of resignation still holds persuasive power.
DOMINIC RAAB BULLYING ALLEGATIONS (2023)
Dominic Raab resigned as Deputy Prime Minister in 2023 after an independent investigation upheld claims of bullying civil servants. Although the findings were nuanced and not legally binding, sustained media coverage and public expectation for ministerial standards created intense pressure. This case illustrates how media scrutiny can elevate otherwise internal matters into resignations- worthy breaches, maintaining the symbolic authority of individual responsibility.
PARTYGATE SCANDAL
During the Partygate scandal, revelations about lockdown-breaching gatherings at Downing Street sparked national outrage, fuelled by relentless media investigation and public anger. While Boris Johnson and other ministers initially resisted consequences, the sustained pressure ultimately forced resignations, fines and internal Cabinet unrest. This demonstrated how public expectation and press persistence can revive the normative force of accountability, even when political leaders attempt to deflect blame.
CAROLINE NOKES AND CONSERVATIVE MPS CRITICISING GOVERNMENT ON REFUGEES (2022)
When senior Conservative MPs, including Caroline Nokes, publicly criticised the government’s Rwanda asylum policy, their statements gained traction due to public and media concern over human rights. Though they faced no formal sanction, the fact that dissent was seen as morally justified and publicly resonant revealed how collective responsibility is now often shaped by broader societal expectations. This shows how public opinion can redefine what counts as acceptable dissent, preserving some moral authority in CMR even when formal unity breaks down
-both principles contribute to democratic legitimacy by holding ministers accountable and requiring cohesion in government action. In theory, they ensure checks on executive behaviour even without codified enforcement
-each of these cases illustrates how, in the absence of strict legal enforcement, media coverage and public sentiment remain powerful enforcers of ministerial norms- keeping IMR and CMR symbolically alive and politically consequential.
3: However, a more convincing argument is that their practical importance has diminished due to modern political leadership…
-PMs such as Thatcher, Blair and Johnson centralised power, reducing cabinet influence and undermining both CMR and IMR. The dominance of media, the increased use of SPADs, and the lack of fixed consequences for breaches mean that these doctrines are inconsistently applied.
KWASI KWARTENG’S RESIGNATION (2022)
Following the disastrous “mini budget” in 2022, Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng resigned amid economic turmoil, but not due to a breach of IMR in the conventional sense. It was market reaction and media backlash, not parliamentary scrutiny or constitutional principle, that forced his departure. This reflected how external economic and media forces now act as stronger accountability mechanisms than formal doctrines.
LIZ TRUSS SACKING JEREMY HUNT’S PREDECESSOR
In an effort to stabilise her leadership, Liz Truss removed her Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng and appointed Jeremy Hunt despite initially supporting the same economic policy. This violated the spirit of CMR as she distanced herself from decisions made by the entire cabinet. It shows how CMR can be abandoned for short-term political survival, reducing it to a symbolic concept in practice.
ALOK SHARMA AND NET ZERO DISSENT (2023)
Alok Sharma, President of COP26, publicly criticised the Sunak government’s rollback of net zero commitments, breaking collective lines on environmental policy. Despite this public dissent, he faced not dismissal or sanction, and remained a senior party figure. This illustrates the way in which CMR is selectively enforced with internal disagreement tolerated when politically expedient of when the dissent aligns with influential public sentiment.
This examples reinforce that in today’s political climate, ministerial accountability is shaped more by narrative control, public opinion, and internal power dynamics than by the enduring force of constitutional convention.
DOMINIC CUMMINGS AND THE CUMMINGS AFFAIR (2020)
When Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s chief advisor, broke lockdown rules by travelling to Durham during the Covid-19 restrictions, he remained in post despite widespread public outrage and calls for resignation. Rather than a minister being held accountable, a SPAD became the centre of a national scandal, while ministers defended him, weakening both IMR and public trust. This case exemplified how powerful advisers can blur the lines of accountability, leaving constitutional conventions sidelines in favour of political loyalty and narrative control.
-ultimately, parliamentary majority, media narratives and internal party dynamics now shape ministerial accountability more than constitutional conventions.
Conclusion
While both individual and collective ministerial responsibility continue to be cited in resignations and political debates, their operational importance has significantly declined. In theory, they are essential for ensuring accountable and unified government, but in practice, their use is increasingly strategic, conditional and politicised.
As such, they function more as normative ideals than enforceable rules. Their importance now lies not in their consistency but in the symbolic pressure they apply, especially when public and political scrutiny is high.
