UK Ministerial Responsibility in 2002: The Tale of Two Resignations

Abstract

The resignations in 2002 of Stephen Byers and Estelle Morris (UK Secretaries of State for Transport and Education respectively) suggest the need to review the constitutional and political aspects of resignation. In both cases, ministers recognized that they had failed in the oversight or supervision of their departments and thus in the fulfilment of their ministerial role. Their resignations therefore provide evidence of a move away from ‘causal responsibility’, with its complication of the policy/operations and accountability/responsibility distinctions, towards ‘role responsibility’. In so doing, they raise the possibility that what are commonly understood as ‘departmental fault’ resignations may be more appropriately subsumed within an expanded category of personal fault. The resignations also challenge Finer's thesis on the conditions that need to be meet for a resignation to be forthcoming. In neither instance was the political party out for blood or the prime minister unbending. In both cases the press was relentless, suggesting that the media has become a prime actor in determining resignation, and the minister yielding, a recognition, perhaps, of constitutional principle over political pragmatism.

Public sector reform and blame avoidance effects

“…This critical view of the ''shift the responsibility'' rationale has also been extended to parliamentary systems, where Horn (1995, 46) argues that in a parliamentary system legislators cannot shift the responsibility for delegated decisions (see also Bishop 1990). Cases of ministerial resignations provide several examples of this phenomenon (Thompson and Tillotsen 1999;Woodhouse 2004). Cases of ministerial resignations provide several examples of this phenomenon (Thompson and Tillotsen 1999;Woodhouse 2004).…”

‘…i Take Political Responsibility!’: The Theoretical and Empirical Relation Between Ministerial Responsibility and Ministerial Resignations in Germany

“…Nevertheless she regards ministerial responsibility along with political deliberations as determining factors in resignation decisions (Woodhouse 1994, pp. 43–174) and interprets two resignations from the year 2002 as indicators of a development towards a broader understanding of ministerial responsibility (Woodhouse 2004).…”

Prime Ministers, Presidentialism and Westminster Smokescreens

“…12, ch. 13; Woodhouse, 2004, p. 17). It would seem that only fox‐hunting among blood sports is to be banned.…”

“…Ministerial responsibility is alive and well, although not in its conventional formulation. It is no longer the prime minister and the political standing of the minister alone that decide a resignation – but the media maelstrom (Woodhouse, 2004). David Blunkett, home secretary, had high personal political standing in the party and the full support of the prime minister but the pack brought him down (see Pollard, 2005, ch.…”