Paper 2 · Element 4 of 8
Ministerial responsibility - past Qs, mark scheme, plan
Four past Q types with the FOR and AGAINST splits, mark scheme bullets, and a default line of argument. Plus a match-the-evidence quiz at the end.
Question 1
Evaluate the view that individual and collective ministerial responsibility are too weak to ensure effective accountability.
2023 Mock Q1(b) - the most recent primary appearance of the topic.
Mark scheme - FOR the view
FOR: IMR-departmental almost never bites (May Home Office; Williamson 2020; Johnson as PM Partygate); CMR routinely leaked under Johnson + Truss; Independent Adviser resignations 2021-22 show PM interference; conventions only as strong as PM enforcement; sackings (Braverman Nov 2023) are political not constitutional.
Mark scheme - AGAINST the view
AGAINST: IMR-personal still bites (Rudd 2018, Green 2017, Patel 2017, Raab 2023, Braverman Oct 2022); CMR resignations on principle still happen (Cook 2003); Ministerial Code strengthened repeatedly since 1992; cabinet meetings and select committee scrutiny continue; conventions adapt rather than collapse.
Default line of argument
LoA: The conventions are weakened but not too weak to ensure accountability. IMR still bites reliably for personal misconduct, even if rarely for departmental failure. CMR has been suspended twice for major referendums but reappears whenever a PM is strong enough to enforce it. The accountability mechanism is uneven, not absent.
Question 2
Evaluate the view that collective ministerial responsibility has been fatally weakened.
P2 30-mark essay style.
Mark scheme - FOR the view
FOR: two formal suspensions (1975, 2016); routine leak culture under Johnson + Truss; Truss October 2022 cabinet briefing openly against PM; Gove sacked by Johnson during Partygate fallout; Independent Adviser interference 2021-22.
Mark scheme - AGAINST the view
AGAINST: strong PMs still enforce it (Thatcher prime, Blair early years, Starmer 2024-25 quiet cabinet); Cook 2003 still shows the constructive-resignation route; Braverman Nov 2023 enforcement by Sunak; the convention adapts rather than dies.
Default line of argument
LoA: CMR has been weakened but not fatally. The two formal suspensions were specific to constitutional referendums. The leak culture is real but reverses under PMs strong enough to enforce the convention. Reports of its death are exaggerated.
Question 3
Evaluate the view that individual ministerial responsibility no longer operates effectively in modern UK politics.
P2 30-mark essay style.
Mark scheme - FOR the view
FOR: departmental-failure strand almost dead (May Home Office, Williamson 2020 algorithm); PM defends ministers (Johnson defending Patel 2020 over bullying findings); Commons majority shields ministers; Boris Johnson as PM Partygate as headline non-resignation; political enforcement undermines neutral application.
Mark scheme - AGAINST the view
AGAINST: personal-conduct strand bites reliably (Rudd, Green, Patel, Fox, Raab, Braverman Oct 2022); Ministerial Code strengthened repeatedly; Independent Adviser created 2006; departmental failures sometimes still trigger resignation (Carrington remains the standard); modern record of personal-IMR enforcement is strong.
Default line of argument
LoA: IMR operates effectively for personal misconduct but rarely for departmental failure. The personal-conduct enforcement is more reliable than the press coverage suggests. The departmental-failure half of the convention has effectively atrophied without dying.
Question 4
Evaluate the view that the Prime Minister relies more on the inner circle than on the Cabinet.
Predicted P2 2026 Q1(a) - where ministerial responsibility is supporting evidence.
Mark scheme - FOR the view
FOR: sofa government (Blair-Iraq, Butler Review 2004); Johnson's morning meetings with Carrie + senior aides; Truss's reliance on Kwarteng without consulting cabinet; PM patronage power; inner-circle bypassing full cabinet means weak CMR application.
Mark scheme - AGAINST the view
AGAINST: full cabinet meets weekly and ratifies decisions; cabinet reshuffles still binding; resignations on CMR grounds (Cook 2003) show full cabinet matters; weak PMs (Truss) are removed precisely because cabinet turns; the inner-circle critique is overstated by media.
Default line of argument
LoA: The PM does rely more on the inner circle than on full cabinet for routine policy decisions, but the cabinet retains decisive power at moments of crisis. Ministerial responsibility - including the CMR collapse of October 2022 - shows the full cabinet still bites when authority drains away from the PM.