Individual and collective ministerial responsibility is still important

Thesis Point 1: IMR holds ministers accountable for departmental performance

Ministers are expected to resign when their department experiences significant failure. For example, Amber Rudd resigned as Home Secretary in 2017 after the Windrush scandal and for misleading Parliament. This ensures ministerial accountability and public trust in governance.

Thesis Point 2: CMR ensures Cabinet unity and coherence

Collective ministerial responsibility requires ministers to publicly support Cabinet decisions or resign. Boris Johnson and David Davis resigned in 2018 over Theresa May's Brexit strategy, showing how CMR maintains a united government stance.

Thesis Point 3: Ministerial responsibility enables scrutiny and accountability

Both IMR and CMR give Parliament and the media tools to challenge ministers. For instance, Matt Hancock resigned in 2021 after breaching COVID rules, showing how these conventions reinforce ethical standards and public accountability.

Anti Thesis Point 1: IMR is inconsistently applied and politically selective

Definition: Ministers often survive scandals if politically protected. Priti Patel remained in office in 2020 despite a bullying inquiry finding she broke the ministerial code. The lack of formal enforcement weakens IMR in practice.

Anti Thesis Point 2: CMR is suspended in times of political division

Collective responsibility is often bypassed to manage party disunity. For example, Theresa May suspended CMR during the 2016 EU referendum, allowing ministers to campaign on both sides. This undermines the principle’s effectiveness.

Anti Thesis Point 3: PM dominance and media spin override responsibility conventions

Definition: Modern politics emphasizes leader branding and loyalty over ministerial convention. Suella Braverman and Gavin Williamson were reappointed despite controversies, showing how PMs prioritize loyalty and media over formal accountability.