🏠 Home Detailed notes Topic pack CMR timeline Examples library

How to use this

Two grids on the same template. The first is empty - print it, fill in each cell with a one-line note while you revise. The second is a worked example to check yourself against.

Each cell asks one question: does this row strengthen the column quality (mark +) or weaken it (mark -)? Then add a one-line note saying why. The plus and minus columns are deliberately not pre-printed - your judgement is the work.

IMR - personal conduct = was the minister's own conduct the issue? IMR - departmental failure = was failure in the minister's department the issue? CMR - collective unity = was collective cabinet unity the issue? Code machinery worked = did the Ministerial Code's enforcement process function? PM decisive = did the Prime Minister's choice decide the outcome? Convention bit = did the convention actually force a departure? Significance = is this a case an examiner will reward?

Ministerial responsibility - judgement grid +   -

Empty version. Print and fill in.
Case+   - IMR - personal conduct IMR - departmental failure CMR - collective unity Code machinery worked PM decisive Convention bit Significance
Carrington
(1982)
Cook
(2003)
Rudd
(2018)
Patel
(2020)
Williamson
(2020)
Sunak +
Javid
(July 2022)
Rayner
(2025)
How to use the grid in an essay. Pick the column the question is asking about (most exam questions turn on Convention bit, PM decisive, or the IMR/CMR split itself). Read down that column. The IMR-personal column against the IMR-departmental column IS the modern doctrine: personal misconduct still forces resignations, departmental failure barely does. Group paragraphs by those clusters - not case-by-case narrative, which the examiner marks down.

Ministerial responsibility - judgement grid +   -

Filled version. Use this to check your own grid - and tap any cell for the full detail behind the judgement.
Case+   - IMR - personal conduct IMR - departmental failure CMR - collective unity Code machinery worked PM decisive Convention bit Significance
Carrington
(1982)		 -No personal misconduct - that is the point of the case. +Resigned for his department's failure to foresee the Falklands invasion. -Not a unity case. -Pre-dates the published Code (first issued 1992). -Thatcher tried to keep him; he insisted. +The convention worked unprompted - honour did the enforcing. +The classic IMR-departmental benchmark - cited because modern equivalents are missing.
Cook
(2003)		 -No misconduct involved. -Not a departmental case. +Could not publicly support the Iraq War, so he left - the doctrine working as written. -Not a Code case. -Cook chose to go; Blair could not stop him. +Constructive resignation - the textbook example. +The CMR resignation speech every essay can quote.
Rudd
(2018)		 +Resigned for inadvertently misleading the Commons over Windrush removal targets. -The underlying failure was departmental - but the trigger was personal. -Not a unity case. +Misleading Parliament is the Code's clearest red line. -May defended her; the Commons evidence forced the issue. +Gone within days of the evidence emerging. +The standard modern proof that IMR-personal still bites.
Patel
(2020)		 +The inquiry upheld bullying complaints - personal conduct under the Code. -Not a departmental case. -Not a unity case. -The adviser found a breach; the PM overruled him; the adviser resigned instead. +Johnson's protection was the whole story. -The minister stayed - the clearest modern non-enforcement. +The case that proves the Code is only as strong as the PM's will.
Williamson
(2020)		 -No personal misconduct alleged. +The A-level algorithm fiasco happened on his watch. -Not a unity case. -Departmental failure is not a Code matter - no breach found. +Johnson kept him in post. -The standout modern case of IMR-departmental not biting. +Pair with Carrington for the died-or-evolved debate.
Sunak +
Javid
(July 2022)		 -Not about their own conduct. -Not a departmental case. +Withdrew collective support - and said so publicly. -The trigger was Johnson's handling of the Pincher affair, not Code machinery. -The PM was the object, not the decider - gone within two days. +CMR at full force: mass resignation removed a sitting Prime Minister. +The strongest modern proof the convention can still end a premiership.
Rayner
(2025)		 +Resigned over a tax dispute - personal conduct under the Code. -Not a departmental case. -Not a unity case. +The Code's machinery produced a resignation at the top of government. -The breach finding left little room for protection. +A serving Deputy PM resigning is the convention biting at the highest level. +The most recent named case - the contemporary evidence the 2025 examiner report rewarded.
What the filled grid shows. Read down the columns. IMR - personal conduct collects the modern resignations: Rudd, Patel (the exception that stayed), Rayner. IMR - departmental failure has one plus in 1982 and a minus in 2020 - Carrington against Williamson is the died-or-evolved debate in two cells. PM decisive is the explanation column: where the PM protects (Patel), the Code does not bite; where the PM cannot protect (Rudd, July 2022), it does. Convention bit gives the judgement: the conventions still operate - selectively, politically, and at the PM's discretion.
See also
David Clayton Tutoring | davidjclayton@proton.me