Calls for inquiry into ‘shady attempts to bring back Dominic Cummings’

Published

2 years ago

December 31, 2023

admin

The Liberal Democrats have called for an inquiry into whether Rishi Sunak breached the ministerial code by holding secret meetings with Dominic Cummings.

The Times reported on Sunday that the prime minister had held two sets of talks with the former chief adviser to Boris Johnson as he considered bringing the controversial figure back into Downing Street.

Mr Cummings later confirmed the meetings in December 2022 and July 2023 in a blog post, claiming he had turned down an offer to “work secretly” for Mr Sunak.

But while a Number 10 source did not deny the discussions took place, they claimed “no job was offered”.

Labour criticised the prime minister for “secretly begging Mr Barnard Castle to run Downing Street again”, saying it showed he was “out of ideas and too weak to come up with his own”.

Now the Lib Dems have gone a step further, claiming the meetings with Mr Cummings had not been recorded on Mr Sunak’s transparency returns – despite the requirement of the ministerial code to record any meetings where official business is discussed.

Calling for an official inquiry, the party’s chief whip Wendy Chamberlain said it had been “a clear breach of the ministerial code”, adding: “These shady attempts to bring back Cummings through the back door need to be properly scrutinised.

“We urgently need to know why these meetings weren’t declared in the proper way, and if any officials were present or informed.

“Given reports that major changes to government policy were discussed that would impact on millions of people’s lives, from taxes to the NHS, the public deserves full transparency, not another cover up.”

But a government spokesperson denied any wrongdoing, saying: “In full accordance with the ministerial code, meetings with private individuals to discuss political matters do not need to be declared.”

The talks that came back to bite Sunak

Rob Powell

Political correspondent

@robpowellnews

Out of office but still causing problems for prime ministers – the discussions we now know took place between Dominic Cummings and Rishi Sunak raise several practical and political questions.

Firstly, was the ministerial code broken through the failure to declare these talks?

The Liberal Democrats say yes, as it’s alleged that official business like taxation and the NHS were discussed.

The government says no, claiming the talks were in a private capacity and to discuss political matters.

Secondly, has Rishi Sunak been honest about his dealings?

During the July 2022 leadership campaign, he said Dominic Cummings would have “absolutely nothing” to do with any government he led. Yet months later, the pair were speaking.

Thirdly, does this add to existing tensions between the prime minister and his party?

Some right-wing MPs will see this as proof of collusion between Rishi Sunak and the man who did more than most to bring down Boris Johnson.

Other moderates who were critical of Dominic Cummings’ methods in government will question the judgement of consulting such a controversial figure.

Lastly, does this tell us anything about Rishi Sunak’s political instincts for the direction of his administration?

After bringing back David Cameron, Labour has sought to frame these latest revelations as more evidence of a prime minister out of ideas and desperately reaching out to political figures of years gone by for guidance.

Downing Street would dispute that.

What’s clear though is this is more evidence of aftershocks caused by a tumultuous decade in politics coming back to damage Downing Street.

Speaking to Sky News, Labour’s shadow paymaster general, Jonathan Ashworth, added his call for the meetings to be looked into, saying it was “curious” they weren’t declared when the prime minister “promised to restore integrity”.

He added: “He’s not being straight with the British people. He actually stood on a podium and said Dominic Cummings would have nothing to do with his government – his words. And now he’s on his knees, begging Mr Cummings to return to Downing Street.

“He’s misled, if not lied to the British people. So, of course, these things need to be looked into properly. But in the end, it’s typical of Rishi Sunak.

“He cannot deliver on his promises, whether that’s fixing the NHS, whether that’s making easing the cost of living crisis, because he put up tax or stopping the boats all the promises that he makes to the British people, he breaks.”

According to a post on Mr Cummings’ blog on Sunday, the first meeting between him and Mr Sunak took place shortly after the latter took over Number 10 at the end of 2022.

“The PM wanted an actual plan including how to grip power and get things done, a political strategy and a political machine to change the political landscape and beat Labour,” wrote Mr Cummings.

The former adviser insinuated a job offer was put to him, saying he “might do it”, but his acceptance had “conditions” – including changes to nuclear weapons infrastructure, pandemic planning and the approach to AI.

But he said Mr Sunak “decided against the deal I proposed” and instead wanted Mr Cummings to “work secretly on politics and communication in return for a promise that I could come to No10 and sort out my priorities after the election” – something the adviser “declined”.

Mr Cummings said the pair then spoke in July 2023 when he was “asked to see him again”, but it was “essentially a repeat” of the conversation from the previous year.

“I said I could try to turn things around but my core conditions were the same,” he wrote. “I was not prepared to work as a secret political adviser to win the election without assurances on deep state priorities and the ability to ensure urgent action was taken.

“No deal was possible.”

Asked about the meetings, a Number 10 source said: “It was a broad discussion about politics and campaigning, no job was offered.”

Politics

Soaring demand for mental health, ADHD and autism services to be reviewed after ‘overdiagnosis’ claim

Published

3 hours ago

December 4, 2025

admin

Soaring demand for mental health, ADHD and autism services to be reviewed after 'overdiagnosis' claim

A review into the rising demand for mental health, ADHD and autism services has been launched by the health secretary.

The independent review will look at rates of diagnosis, and the support offered to people.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the issue needs to be looked at through a “strictly clinical lens” after he claimed in March that there had been an “overdiagnosis” of mental health conditions, with “too many people being written off”.

Politics latest: Reform receives largest ever UK donation from living person

Mental health conditions are being more commonly reported among the working-age population, figures analysed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found.

More than half of the increase in 16 to 64-year-olds claiming disability benefits since the pandemic is due to more claims relating to mental health or behavioural conditions.

A total of 1.3 million people claim disability benefits – 44% of all claimants – primarily for mental health or behavioural conditions, the analysis shows.

The review will be led by leading clinical psychologist Professor Peter Fonagy, the national clinical adviser on children and young people’s mental health, who will work with academics, doctors, epidemiological experts, charities and parents.

He will look at what is driving the rising demand for services, and inequalities in accessing support.

The Department of Health said 13 times more people were waiting for an autism assessment in September 2025 compared with April 2019.

There is £688m in extra funding going towards hiring 8,500 more mental health workers so the NHS can expand on talking therapies and increase the number of mental health emergency departments.

Mr Streeting said: “I know from personal experience how devastating it can be for people who face poor mental health, have ADHD or autism, and can’t get a diagnosis or the right support.

“I also know, from speaking to clinicians, how the diagnosis of these conditions is sharply rising.

“We must look at this through a strictly clinical lens to get an evidence-based understanding of what we know, what we don’t know, and what these patterns tell us about our mental health system, autism and ADHD services.

“That’s the only way we can ensure everyone gets timely access to accurate diagnosis and effective support.”

Prof Fonagy said: “This review will only be worthwhile if it is built on solid ground. We will examine the evidence with care to understand, in a grounded way, what is driving rising demand.

“My aim is to test assumptions rigorously, and listen closely to those most affected, so that our recommendations are both honest and genuinely useful.”

The findings will be published next summer.

Politics

Rachel Reeves hit by Labour rural rebellion over inheritance tax on farmers

Published

9 hours ago

December 4, 2025

admin

Rachel Reeves hit by Labour rural rebellion over inheritance tax on farmers

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has suffered another budget blow with a rebellion by rural Labour MPs over inheritance tax on farmers.

Speaking during the final day of the Commons debate on the budget, Labour backbenchers demanded a U-turn on the controversial proposals.

Plans to introduce a 20% tax on farm estates worth more than £1m from April have drawn protesters to London in their tens of thousands, with many fearing huge tax bills that would force small farms to sell up for good.

MPs voted on the so-called “family farms tax” just after 8pm on Tuesday, with dozens of Labour MPs appearing to have abstained, and one backbencher – borders MP Markus Campbell-Savours – voting against, alongside Conservative members.

In the vote, the fifth out of seven at the end of the budget debate, Labour’s vote slumped from 371 in the first vote on tax changes, down by 44 votes to 327.

‘Time to stand up for farmers’

The mini-mutiny followed a plea to Labour MPs from the National Farmers Union to abstain.

“To Labour MPs: We ask you to abstain on Budget Resolution 50,” the NFU urged.

“With your help, we can show the government there is still time to get it right on the family farm tax. A policy with such cruel human costs demands change. Now is the time to stand up for the farmers you represent.”

After the vote, NFU president Tom Bradshaw said: “The MPs who have shown their support are the rural representatives of the Labour Party. They represent the working people of the countryside and have spoken up on behalf of their constituents.

“It is vital that the chancellor and prime minister listen to the clear message they have delivered this evening. The next step in the fight against the family farm tax is removing the impact of this unjust and unfair policy on the most vulnerable members of our community.”

The government comfortably won the vote by 327-182, a majority of 145. But the mini-mutiny served notice to the chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer that newly elected Labour MPs from the shires are prepared to rebel.

Speaking in the debate earlier, Mr Campbell-Savours said: “There remain deep concerns about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief (APR).

“Changes which leave many, not least elderly farmers, yet to make arrangements to transfer assets, devastated at the impact on their family farms.”

Samantha Niblett, Labour MP for South Derbyshire abstained after telling MPs: “I do plead with the government to look again at APR inheritance tax.

“Most farmers are not wealthy land barons, they live hand to mouth on tiny, sometimes non-existent profit margins. Many were explicitly advised not to hand over their farm to children, (but) now face enormous, unexpected tax bills.

“We must acknowledge a difficult truth: we have lost the trust of our farmers, and they deserve our utmost respect, our honesty and our unwavering support.”

Labour MPs from rural constituencies who did not vote included Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower), Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury), Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire), Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley), and Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall), Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk), Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby), Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk), Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth), Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay), Perran Moon, (Camborne and Redruth), Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire), Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal), Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire), John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales), Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr) and Amanda Hack, (North West Leicestershire).

Politics

Reeves between a rook and a hard place after claims she ‘made up’ chess championship

Published

9 hours ago

December 4, 2025

admin

Reeves between a rook and a hard place after claims she 'made up' chess championship

As an opening gambit at PMQs, Kemi Badenoch attacked Labour’s knight, the prime minister, over his Treasury queen, Rachel Reeves.

“We now know the black hole was fake, the chancellor’s book was fake, her CV was fake – even her chess claims are made up,” said the Tory leader.

Politics Live: Labour MP who voted against inheritance tax suspended

“She doesn’t belong in the Treasury; she belongs in la-la land.”

Chess claims made up? Where did that attacking move from Kemi come from? Hasn’t the chancellor told us for years that she was a national chess champion in 1993?

Indeed she has. “I am – I was – a geek. I played chess. I was the British girls’ under-14 champion,” she declared proudly in a 2023 interview with The Guardian.

She posted a video showing her playing chess in parliament and before last week’s budget posed for photos with a chessboard.

But her chess champion claim has been disputed by a former junior champion, Alex Edmans, who has accused her of misrepresenting her credentials.

“Her claim was quite specific,” Edmans, now a professor of finance at the London Business School, told Ali Fortescue on the Politics Hub on Sky News.

“She said she was the British girls’ under-14 champion. There was one event that can go on that title, which is the British Championship. And in the year that she claimed, it was Emily Howard who won that title instead.

“She did indeed win a quite different title. There was a British Women’s Chess Association championship, but that’s a more minor title. I’ve won titles like the British squad title, but that’s not the same.

“Just like running a marathon in London is not the same as the London Marathon, there was one event which is very prestigious, which is the British Championship.

“So the dispute is not whether she was a good or bad chess player. That shouldn’t be the criterion for a chancellor. But if you weren’t the British champion, you shouldn’t make that statement.”

Oh dear! So now, along with allegations of plagiarism, a dodgy CV and “lying” – according to Ms Badenoch – about the nation’s finances, the chancellor is between a rook and a hard place.

Or is she? “This story is absolute nonsense,” a Treasury mate told Sky News. No word from the No.10 knight, Sir Keir Starmer, or his Downing Street ranks, however.

Emily Howard, as it happens, is now an accomplished composer, having graduated from the chessboard to the keyboard.

The chancellor’s opponents, meanwhile, claim her budget blunders means the Treasury queen has now become a pawn, there for the taking.

But since Rachel Reeves did indeed win a chess title, just not the one she claimed, her supporters insist she can justifiably claim to have been a champion.

So it’s too soon for Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives to claim checkmate. The dispute remains a stalemate. For now.