In a dramatic clash at the heart of government, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood demanded that Sir Keir Starmer sack his own loyal ally, immigration minister Mike Tapp, after he wrote an unauthorised newspaper column advocating for changes to visa rules. The prime minister refused but warned Tapp about his obligations under the Ministerial Code — a set of rules that governs how ministers behave and that can make or break careers.
The row began when Tapp published an article in the Times arguing that foreign care workers who have “played by the rules” should not have to wait longer to apply for permanent settlement. Mahmood had not given permission for the article, and a Home Office source told the BBC it amounted to “freelancing on policy” and was a breach of both collective responsibility and the Ministerial Code. Tapp responded defiantly on social media, posting: “I won’t be intimidated to drop my views. Stay classy!” He later apologised for a “poorly judged tweet” and said he has “a lot of respect for the home secretary”. Downing Street said the prime minister had confidence in both Mahmood and Tapp but that Tapp had been “reminded of his obligations” under the code.
“Explains the Ministerial Code and collective responsibility using the row between Shabana Mahmood and Mike Tapp.”
The Ministerial Code is a document that sets out the standards of conduct expected of government ministers. First published in 1992 and updated by each prime minister, it covers everything from transparency and avoiding conflicts of interest to the central principle of collective responsibility. That principle means that once the government has taken a decision, all ministers must support it publicly, even if they argued against it in private. The code says ministers “should be able to express their views frankly in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front when decisions have been reached”. Writing an article that sets out a personal view on a policy that the home secretary is still developing can be seen as undermining that unity.
For UK readers, this row matters because it shows how the rules that keep government functioning can fray under pressure. If ministers routinely break the code without consequences, the government can appear divided and chaotic. The code also gives the prime minister ultimate authority: only the PM can decide whether a minister has breached it, not the minister’s departmental boss. As Downing Street stated, “it is not for any individual secretary of state to determine whether the Ministerial Code has been followed, it is a matter for the prime minister alone”. That is why Starmer, not Mahmood, had the final say.
The incident also highlights the tension between a minister’s personal convictions and their duty to the government. Tapp argued he had been working on the policy for months and was simply putting his views forward. Mahmood’s allies claimed he was trying to “steal” her ideas for personal advancement. Regardless, the code puts collective discipline above individual initiative.
Q: What is the Ministerial Code? The Ministerial Code is a set of rules that govern the conduct of government ministers in the UK. It covers standards such as honesty, integrity, and collective responsibility, and is enforced by the prime minister.
Q: What is collective responsibility? Collective responsibility means that all ministers must publicly support government decisions, even if they privately disagreed. The principle ensures the government speaks with one voice and is a cornerstone of the Ministerial Code.
Q: Can a home secretary sack their own minister? No. Only the prime minister can dismiss a minister or decide if the Ministerial Code has been breached. The home secretary can request a sacking, but the final decision rests with the prime minister.
What happens next is uncertain. Starmer said he is “taking advice” on whether Tapp broke the code, but for now both ministers remain in post. The row comes at a delicate time for a government already facing internal strains, and the episode serves as a reminder of how quickly discipline can unravel when ministers go public with their disagreements.