Sir Keir Starmer’s communications chief Tim Allan owns a minority stake in a lobbying firm and still discusses government activity with a senior consultant at the company, Sky News can reveal.

The relationship between Tim Allan, Tom Baldwin and Strand Partners has led to accusations of a perception that one of Downing Street’s most senior figures has a conflict of interest – a potential breach of the special adviser code.

Tom Baldwin is a consultant for Strand Partners, a lobbying firm partly owned by Mr Allan, the government’s executive director of communications.

Multiple sources have told Sky News that Mr Allan and Mr Baldwin have discussed government affairs and politics since Mr Allan joined Number 10 in September. This is not challenged by Downing Street, who say the pair speak in Mr Baldwin’s capacity as a journalist.

Mr Baldwin is also Sir Keir’s biographer, a commentator and has appeared on Sky News.

As part of his role for Strand Partners, he has spoken at private briefings for Strand’s corporate clients about the inner workings of government.

There is no suggestion that Mr Baldwin – who is not a lobbyist – or Strand Partners have done anything wrong.

The revelations about Mr Allan have led to cross-party calls for an investigation and a member of Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee to demand he gives up his 10% shareholding in Strand Partners.

Zack Polanski, the Green Party leader, told Sky News: “I think it’s extraordinary that someone still has shares who’s at the heart of Downing Street… I think there’s lots of questions still to be asked, I think it’s important to know what these supposed appropriate mitigations are, what exactly are those and do they pass the public sniff test?”

Mr Allen is bound by the code of special advisers that says: “Special advisers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their official duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.”

The code also says: “Special advisers must not misuse their official position or information acquired in the course of their official duties to further their private interests or those of others.”

Mr Baldwin and Mr Allan are understood not to discuss Strand Partners business. Mr Allan has undertaken to not take dividends or get involved in the running of the company while he is in government, and resigned as chairman on his appointment to Number 10 at the start of September.

But other lobbyists told me they are jealous of this level of access, giving rise to the perception of a conflict of interest.

Opposition parties are seeking an investigation. Lisa Smart, a Liberal Democrat frontbencher, said: “I’ve written to the cabinet secretary today because this appears to be a clear conflict of interest right at the heart of government.

“It cannot be the case that the executive director of communications for the government has shareholdings in a lobbying firm and is continuing to have conversations with senior consultants at that firm.”

Kevin Hollinrake, Conservative Party chairman, said: “[There] should be a full Cabinet Office investigation. I think the public need to see there are no conflicts of interest and no perceived conflicts of interests, and that’s not where we are right now.”

The member of Labour’s National Executive Committee said: “This is a massive conflict of interest when we promised integrity to the British public. The first thing he has to do is give up his shareholding.”

Since Mr Allan took up his role in September, Mr Baldwin has been allowed by Treasury officials in Downing Street to attend at least one restricted event with Chancellor Rachel Reeves, her news conference on the budget last week.

Mr Allan denies knowing about this in advance and said this is part of a multi-interview feature for a newspaper, but it is a sign of how close Mr Baldwin is with members of the government.

A Labour spokesperson said: “The allegation that Tim Allan has done anything to benefit Strand whilst in Number 10 is categorically false.

“Tom Baldwin is an established journalist, author and commentator, who regularly appears on Sky News. Any interactions with him are in his capacity as a journalist and have not related to Strand, its business or its clients.”

A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: “There is a rigorous process to capture any potential conflicts of interest, and ensure appropriate mitigations are in place to reflect specific circumstances. Ahead of his appointment, Tim Allan fully complied with this process.

“This is set out in the Special Adviser Code of Conduct and lists of special adviser interests are published annually.”

A Strand Partners spokesman said: “Tom Baldwin is a journalist and the biographer of the prime minister. He does not engage in government relations for Strand and this is not part of his terms of engagement with us.

“Tim Allan sought advice on his interests from the Cabinet Office and followed every element of the advice received. He receives no financial benefit from Strand and is not involved in our operations.”

The British Medical Association (BMA) has defended a new round of resident doctor walkouts starting on Friday, insisting medics’ pay is still “way down” compared with 2008 and that the government has failed to finish “a journey” towards restoring it.

BMA chair Dr Tom Dolphin told Sky News the dispute remains rooted in years of pay erosion that have left resident doctors far behind other public sector workers.

“When we started the dispute, […] the lowest level of the resident doctors were being paid £14 an hour,” he said.

“There were some pay rises over the last couple of years that brought that partly back to the value it should be at, but not all the way.

“The secretary of state (Wes Streeting) himself called it a journey, implying there were further steps to come, but we haven’t seen that.”

When asked if the row ultimately “comes down to money”, he replied: “In the sense that the secretary of state doesn’t want to or isn’t able to fund the pay increases to match the value that we had in 2008.”

Dr Dolphin argued that while “the general worker in the economy as a whole” has seen pay catch up since the 2008 financial crash, “doctors are still way down”.

The government points out that its 29% settlement last year was one of the largest in the public sector and was intended to draw a line under two years of walkouts.

But Dr Dolphin said the deal still fell short: “The gap was biggest for doctors and needed the biggest amount of restoration, and that’s what we got.”

He defended the BMA’s use of the Retail Price Index (RPI), a metric rejected by the Office for National Statistics, saying it “better reflects the costs people face”.

Should resident doctors get a pay rise? Have your say in the poll at the bottom of this story.

‘Who do you think is treating the patients?’

With Chancellor Rachel Reeves preparing her budget amid warnings of deep cuts, Dr Dolphin said the BMA is not demanding an immediate cash injection.

“We’re quite happy for that money to be deferred with some kind of multi-year pay deal so that we can end the dispute and avoid having further industrial action about pay for several years to come,” he said.

“Money spent in the NHS is returned to the economy. For every pound you spend, you get several pounds back.”

When pressed on whether the £1.7bn cost of previous strike action could have been better spent on treatment and technology for NHS cancer patients, he hit back: “Who do you think is treating the cancer patients? It’s the doctors.”

Read more on Sky News:
Thousands of NHS redundancies
Sentence and fine over patient death

Strikes will cause disruption, union boss admits

Dr Dolphin rejected suggestions that the dispute could destabilise the government, calling the idea “implausible”.

He admitted prolonged strikes have tested public patience, but said the government had left doctors with no choice.

“A prolonged industrial dispute makes people annoyed with both sides,” he said. “It is vexing to us that we are still in this dispute.”

“I don’t want patients to suffer,” he added. “I accept that the strikes cause disruption… of course that’s upsetting for them. I completely get that. And I’m sorry that it’s happening.”

Japan’s largest stock-exchange operator weighs new restrictions on publicly listed companies that pivot their core business into buying and holding crypto, signaling a potential shift in one of the most active markets for digital-asset treasury (DAT) firms. 

Citing anonymous sources familiar with internal deliberations, Bloomberg reported that Japan Exchange Group (JPX) is exploring stricter scrutiny for companies that shift their core business into large-scale crypto accumulation. This includes adding fresh audit requirements and applying backdoor-listing rules to such companies.

The move comes after a wave of losses hit Japan’s DATs, many of which attracted retail investors earlier this year. Metaplanet, Japan’s largest DAT, holding over 30,000 Bitcoin (BTC), saw its shares fall from a year-to-date (YTD) high of $15.35 on May 21 to $2.66 at the time of writing. This marked an 82% drop from its highest value this year. 

Japanese nail salon franchiser Convano, which saw a breakout performance in August, now trades at about $0.79 per share, a 61% drop from its high of $2.05 on Aug. 21. BitcoinTreasuries.NET data showed that the company is down nearly 11% on its BTC investment. 

Backdoor listing rules would fill a regulatory gap

Applying backdoor listing rules to companies pivoting into crypto accumulation would mark a significant tightening of Japan’s listing standards. 

Backdoor listings occur when a private company acquires an already listed shell company to bypass the traditional initial public offering (IPO) route, and JPX already prohibits such maneuvers. 

Extending the prohibition to listed firms that shift into crypto-holding vehicles would close a regulatory gap that some DATs may have exploited to evolve their business models. 

If JPX formally restricts such pivots, it could slow or halt the listing pipeline for new DATs.

Related: Strategy’s Bitcoin dominance slips in October as corporate treasuries expand

Metaplanet boss highlights governance steps in response to JPX report

Metaplanet CEO Simon Gerovich pushed back against the implication that Bitcoin-accumulating firms may have sidestepped governance or disclosure rules. 

In an X post, Gerovich responded to the report, saying that JPX’s concerns are directed at companies suspected of conducting backdoor listings or pivoting into digital assets without proper shareholder approvals. He said this does not apply to Metaplanet. 

“In contrast, at Metaplanet we have held five shareholder meetings over the past two years (four extraordinary general meetings and one annual meeting), securing shareholder approval for all critical matters.”

He added that they also amended the company’s articles of incorporation and increased authorized shares to fund BTC purchases. He said that the company adhered to formal governance processes under the same management team that had led the company prior to the pivot.