30 mark essay 2021 Paper 2
Evaluate the view that the conventions of ministerial responsibility no longer adequately account for
the actions of ministers?
Ministerial responsibility relies on the constitutional convention that ministers are held to account
for their actions in both collectively and individually. In terms of collective ministerial responsibility,
ministers are responsible for the actions of their government department. In term of the individual
responsibility, ministers must publicly agree with parliament and if they disagree they must resign
Conventions are not enforceable and can be ignore therefore the conventions of ministerial
responsibility no longer adequately account for the actions of ministers.
The conventions of ministerial responsibility no longer adequately accounts for the actions of the
ministers because they exist only in conventions which means they are not legally enforceable. Due
to the uncodified constitution, the conventions are unentrenched and relied on a ministers honour
to uphold them. Moreover ministers can claim ignorance when being held to account and with the
growing power of the prime minister the ministerial conventions can be easily ignored. For example,
Priti Patel was accused of bulling within her government department but her power as a ‘big beast’
in parliament left her able to ignore the convention. Therefore because ministerial responsibility
exists only in conventions they no longer adequately account for the actions of ministers.However,
there have been many recent resignations which have been spurred by collective and individual
responsibility which suggests the conventions do adequately account for the actions of ministers. For
example Johnson, under individual ministerial responsibility resigned from Theresa Mays cabinet
after his differing political stance during May’s Brexit proposals. This is a key example that suggests
the conventions do adequately account for the actions of ministers as they held to promote political
annuity and ministers have the honour to uphold their duty to the electorate, to which they are
accountable to. Therefore the conventions of ministerial responsibility do adequately account for
the actions of ministers.
The conventions of ministerial responsibility no longer adequately account for the actions of the
ministers because they can be relaxed. During the run up to the EU withdrawal referendum David
Cameron relaxed the ministerial conventions so that his cabinet could express their personal views
on Brexit. The ease at which Cameron could do this suggests the conventions are no longer effective
in holding ministers to account. Moreover, during the 2010 Lib-Dem Conservative party coalition,
ministerial responsibility was also relaxed because of the multi-party cabinet. Cameron’s cabinet had
to contain 5 Lib-Dems who continually challenged his austerity measures. These examples of
ministerial responsibility being relaxed suggests that the conventions no longer adequately account
for the actions of ministers due to the ease at which the PM can over-rule them. Alternatively, it can
be argued that the conventions do adequately account for the actions of the ministers because they
ensure party unity is upheld. Collective ministerial responsibility means that ministers must publicly
agree with the cabinet and PM. This ensures the government is portrayed as strong and unified in
the press and the electorate feels like they can trust the government. For example Lord Agnew head
of health and social care resigned after he disagreed with the governments management of the
furlough fraud and covid measures. The conventions adequately account for the actions of ministers
as in-order to maintain public trust in the UK’s liberal democracy they must hold themselves to
account when breaking the ministerial conventions.
It can be argue that the conventions of ministerial responsibility no longer account for the actions of
the ministers because their success depends on the power of the prime minister. A powerful prime
minister would be able to dismiss, reshuffle and appoint members of the cabinet without losing their
Evaluate the view that the conventions of ministerial responsibility no longer adequately account for
the actions of ministers?
Ministerial responsibility relies on the constitutional convention that ministers are held to account
for their actions in both collectively and individually. In terms of collective ministerial responsibility,
ministers are responsible for the actions of their government department. In term of the individual
responsibility, ministers must publicly agree with parliament and if they disagree they must resign
Conventions are not enforceable and can be ignore therefore the conventions of ministerial
responsibility no longer adequately account for the actions of ministers.
The conventions of ministerial responsibility no longer adequately accounts for the actions of the
ministers because they exist only in conventions which means they are not legally enforceable. Due
to the uncodified constitution, the conventions are unentrenched and relied on a ministers honour
to uphold them. Moreover ministers can claim ignorance when being held to account and with the
growing power of the prime minister the ministerial conventions can be easily ignored. For example,
Priti Patel was accused of bulling within her government department but her power as a ‘big beast’
in parliament left her able to ignore the convention. Therefore because ministerial responsibility
exists only in conventions they no longer adequately account for the actions of ministers.However,
there have been many recent resignations which have been spurred by collective and individual
responsibility which suggests the conventions do adequately account for the actions of ministers. For
example Johnson, under individual ministerial responsibility resigned from Theresa Mays cabinet
after his differing political stance during May’s Brexit proposals. This is a key example that suggests
the conventions do adequately account for the actions of ministers as they held to promote political
annuity and ministers have the honour to uphold their duty to the electorate, to which they are
accountable to. Therefore the conventions of ministerial responsibility do adequately account for
the actions of ministers.
The conventions of ministerial responsibility no longer adequately account for the actions of the
ministers because they can be relaxed. During the run up to the EU withdrawal referendum David
Cameron relaxed the ministerial conventions so that his cabinet could express their personal views
on Brexit. The ease at which Cameron could do this suggests the conventions are no longer effective
in holding ministers to account. Moreover, during the 2010 Lib-Dem Conservative party coalition,
ministerial responsibility was also relaxed because of the multi-party cabinet. Cameron’s cabinet had
to contain 5 Lib-Dems who continually challenged his austerity measures. These examples of
ministerial responsibility being relaxed suggests that the conventions no longer adequately account
for the actions of ministers due to the ease at which the PM can over-rule them. Alternatively, it can
be argued that the conventions do adequately account for the actions of the ministers because they
ensure party unity is upheld. Collective ministerial responsibility means that ministers must publicly
agree with the cabinet and PM. This ensures the government is portrayed as strong and unified in
the press and the electorate feels like they can trust the government. For example Lord Agnew head
of health and social care resigned after he disagreed with the governments management of the
furlough fraud and covid measures. The conventions adequately account for the actions of ministers
as in-order to maintain public trust in the UK’s liberal democracy they must hold themselves to
account when breaking the ministerial conventions.
It can be argue that the conventions of ministerial responsibility no longer account for the actions of
the ministers because their success depends on the power of the prime minister. A powerful prime
minister would be able to dismiss, reshuffle and appoint members of the cabinet without losing their
