Calls for inquiry into ‘shady attempts to bring back Dominic Cummings’
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
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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Cummings ‘sought to act as PM’
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”.
Read more from Sky News:
What 2024 could have in store for UK politics
This year’s surprise political moments
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.”
United States Senator Cynthia Lummis suggests the crypto industry may be celebrating too soon over the US Federal Reserve softening its crypto guidance for banks.
“The Fed withdrawing crypto guidance is just noise, not real progress,” Lummis said in an April 25 X post. Lummis called the Fed’s April 24 announcement — withdrawing its 2022 supervisory letter that had discouraged banks from engaging with crypto and stablecoin activities — “just lip service.”
Lummis’ tone was different from the rest of the crypto industry
Lummis, a pro-crypto advocate known for introducing the Bitcoin (BTC) Strategic Reserve Bill in July 2024, pointed out several flaws in the Fed’s announcement, even as Strategy founder Michael Saylor and crypto entrepreneur Anthony Pompliano suggested it was a step forward for banks and crypto.
She argued that the Fed continues to “illegally flout the law on master accounts” and still relies on reputational risk in its bank supervision practices. It comes as the Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation (FDIC) is working on a rule to stop examiners from considering reputational risk when reviewing a bank’s operations, according to a recent Bloomberg report.
Lummis also highlighted the Fed’s policy statement in Section 9(13), which hasn’t been withdrawn, stating that Bitcoin and digital assets are considered “unsafe and unsound.”
She also reiterated many of the same staff behind Operation Chokepoint 2.0 are still involved in crypto policy today.
“We are NOT fooled. The Fed assassinated companies within the industry and hurt American interests by stifling innovation and shuttering businesses. This fight is far from over.”
“I will continue to hold the Fed accountable until the digital asset industry gets more than a life jacket, Chair Powell — they need a fair shake,” Lummis said.
Related: If Trump fired Powell, what would happen to crypto?
Custodia Bank founder and CEO Caitlin Long seemed to share a similar view to Lummis.
“THANK YOU for seeing this for what it is,” Long said.
However, many crypto executives praised the Fed’s announcement as a positive development for the industry. Saylor said in an April 25 X post that the Fed’s move means that “banks are now free to begin supporting Bitcoin.”
Anastasija Plotnikova, co-founder and CEO of blockchain regulatory firm Fideum, said the Fed’s decision “is a significant development, as it will simplify the path to institutional adoption.”
Magazine: Ethereum is destroying the competition in the $16.1T TradFi tokenization race
In one of his first appearances as the recently sworn-in chair of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Paul Atkins delivered remarks to the agency’s third roundtable discussion of crypto regulation.
In the “Know Your Custodian” roundtable event on April 25, Atkins said he expected “huge benefits” from blockchain technology through efficiency, risk mitigation, transparency, and cutting costs. He reiterated that among his goals at the SEC would be to facilitate “clear regulatory rules of the road” for digital assets, hinting that the agency under former chair Gary Gensler had contributed to market and regulatory uncertainty.
“I look forward to engaging with market participants and working with colleagues in President Trump’s administration and Congress to establish a rational fit-for-purpose framework for crypto assets,” said Atkins.
Some critics of US President Donald Trump see Atkins’ nomination to lead the SEC as a nod to the crypto industry, acting on campaign promises to remove Gensler — the former chair resigned the day Trump took office — and cut back on regulation. Democratic lawmakers on the Senate Banking Committee questioned Atkins on his ties to the industry, potentially presenting conflicts of interest in his role regulating crypto.
Related: Atkins SEC era sparks massive industry optimism, crypto execs speak out
The direction of the SEC under new leadership
“We’ve noticed that we don’t have to be as concerned […] about being accused of things that we’re not doing, like being broker-dealers for securities,” Exodus chief legal officer Veronica McGregor, who participated in the roundtable, told Cointelegraph on April 24.”It’s just a less scary regulatory environment in general. It is, however, still unclear what the ultimate regs are going to look like for crypto.”
The SEC crypto task force is scheduled to hold two more roundtables in May and June to discuss tokenization and decentralized finance, respectively. Commissioner Hester Peirce, who leads the task force, told Cointelegraph in March that she welcomed the opportunity to work with Atkins to “reorient the agency,” hinting at an SEC with regulations more favorable to the crypto industry.
In addition to the roundtables, the crypto task force has reported several meetings with digital asset firms to discuss various policies and considerations in developing a regulatory framework.
Magazine: SEC’s U-turn on crypto leaves key questions unanswered
Nasdaq has urged the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to hold digital assets to the same regulatory standards as securities if they constitute “stocks by any other name,” according to an April 25 comment letter.
The exchange said the US financial regulator needs to establish a clearer taxonomy for cryptocurrencies, including categorizing a portion of digital assets as “financial securities.” Those tokens, Nasdaq argued, should continue to be regulated “as they are regulated today regardless of tokenized form.”
“Whether it takes the form of a paper share, a digital share, or a token, an instrument’s underlying nature remains the same and it should be traded and regulated in the same ways,” the letter said.
It also proposed categorizing a portion of cryptocurrencies as “digital asset investment contracts,” to be subject to “light touch regulation” but still overseen by the SEC.
Related: Certain stablecoins aren’t securities, SEC says in new guidance
Regulatory U-turn
The SEC has dramatically pivoted its stance on cryptocurrency oversight since US President Donald Trump took office in January.
Under the leadership of former Chair Gary Gensler, the SEC took the position that practically all cryptocurrencies, with the exception of Bitcoin (BTC), represent investment contracts and therefore qualify as securities.
This stance led the agency to bring upwards of 100 lawsuits against crypto firms for alleged securities law violations.
However, under Trump nominee Paul Atkins, who was sworn in as chair on April 21 after a lengthy Senate confirmation, the SEC has claimed jurisdiction over a narrower segment of cryptocurrencies.
In February, the agency issued guidance stating that memecoins — if clearly identified as purely speculative assets with no intrinsic value — do not qualify as investment contracts pursuant to US law.
In April, the SEC said that stablecoins — digital tokens pegged to the US dollar — similarly do not qualify as securities if they are marketed solely as a means of making payments.
Integrating crypto into TradFi
In its April 21 letter, Nasdaq said existing financial infrastructure “can readily absorb digital assets by establishing the proper taxonomy and calibrating certain rules to reflect what is truly new and novel about digital assets.”
The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) — a private US securities clearinghouse closely overseen by the SEC — has been laying the foundation for integrating blockchain technology into regulated financial markets.
In March, the DTCC committed to promoting Ethereum’s ERC-3643 standard for permissioned securities tokens.
Magazine: Ethereum is destroying the competition in the $16.1T TradFi tokenization race
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway