EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT THE CONVENTIONS OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY NO LONGER ADEQUATELY ACCOUNT FOR THE ACTIONS OF MINITERS

1 - Conventions are weak in accounting the actions of ministers as not legally binding, can be easily ignored by ministers or prime ministers. U.K.'s codified constitution means that conventions are ignored and other factors play greater role in determining whether or not ministers resign or are reschuffled e.g. Ian Duncan Smith resigned after cuts the disability benefit in the budget - resignation unlikely to do with single budget but instead because of a culmination of growing resentment. He clashed with David Cameron and Osborne due to desire to see Britain leave EU - played a great role in his resignation then a single budget and the notion of collective responsibility. After resignation, no longer bound by 'collective miniterial responsibility' and could openly criticise cameron as backbencher. BUT, ministers do support gov policy and follow convention of collective responsibility. Expectation that ministers Will support government policy from the media, public and politicians or can expect to be jauced. Examples of ministers resigning before voting and speaking out against government policy - 2003, Kobin Loove resigned from gov and gave impassioned speech against Iraq war. Recently, secretary Boris Johnson and brexit secretary David Doris resigned in July 2018 after strong disagreement on Mays brexit plan - by resigning broke from convention of collective responsibility - e.g. ministers resigning for breaking collective responsibility show that PMs take this convention seriously and expect ministers to abide by it show United gov. 2 - Convention is adequate in holding ministers to account as ministers rarely resign under convention of individual responsibility. Esp prevalent o