Rebooting Labour

We deserve better than what we are getting from the Tories. But Labour needs to do better if we are to win a general election. The public does not know what Labour stands for and how we would be different from the Tories.

Labour needs a reboot and Open Labour can help provide it. I want to help Open Labour develop the policies and the campaigns that Labour needs.

Some of the areas where I want Open Labour to lead the debate include:

  • building a good jobs economy with high wages, not just a higher minimum wage
  • reforming the police so that the public can have trust in them
  • ensuring the NHS and social care get the funding that they need
  • developing a benefits system that treats people with dignity not stigma and
  • creating a Green New Deal to tackle climate change

I have been working on these issues over the last year on the Open Labour National Committee and am re-standing to keep working hard with the others on the committee.

I would be grateful for your support.

Thank you!

Re-standing for the Open Labour National Committee

Being a member of the Open Labour National Committee for the last year has been hugely fulfilling.

I have greatly enjoyed working with the brilliant Open Labour and National Committee members. 

Over the last year, I am proud that Open Labour has promoted transformative, Left, politics and shown that this can be done in an inclusive and pluralistic way.

I have enjoyed contributing to the work of Open Labour including:

  • Organising events on a progressive response to Covid, building a good jobs economy and reform of the police
  • Helping with the NEC campaigns which saw Ann Black and Alice Perry elected
  • Supporting the launch of climate change and justice member policy groups
  • Working to develop plans for an Open Labour organiser and for a Labour Party diversity charter
  • Developing and launching the Open Labour Activist AcadeI’m restanding for the Open Labour National Committee to keep working hard with others on the committee.

Open Labour has a vital role to play in the Labour Party. Labour needs a reboot with better policies and an improved culture to win a general election. Open Labour has a key role in developing the ideas Labour needs.

We desperately need a Labour government that when dealing with issues like Covid puts people, not markets, first. Instead of the Tory approach, we need to prioritise people’s health and the vulnerable.  Open Labour needs to be at the forefront of arguing for a kinder and more inclusive society.

I am restanding to continue contributing to Open Labour’s important work.

I would be grateful for your support.

Latest writing

Here’s some of my latest writing. I hope you enjoy it!

Why the Covid vaccines alone are not enough (Left Foot Forward)

There’s another solution to the schools fiasco (Left Foot Forward)

I backed a People’s Vote, but Labour must accept the Brexit debate is over (Left Foot Forward)

Labour should not be afraid to be the party of the family (LabourList)

7 ways the government can be held to account over coronavirus (Left Foot Forward)

My pledges supporting free movement and migrants’ rights

The Labour Campaign for Free Movement contacted me to ask me to support their candidates’ pledges in support of free movement and migrants’ rights. I am a strong supporter for free movement and migrants rights. I am grateful for the work that the Labour Campaign for Free Movement has been doing to move Labour to a more prossive position on these issues, including getting this motion passed at the 2019 Labour Party Conference.

I have migrated myself seven times in my life, having lived in the UK, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Egypt and Belgium, as well as partially living in Bangladesh and Jordan, where my father was working for UNICEF when I was growing. Our imigration system is systematically racists and does not properly respect human rights. It needs a complete overhaul.

I campaigned against Brexit at the referendum and as part of Labour for a Socialist Europe for a public vote on the Brexit deal (which I opposed). You can read a piece I wrote for the Labour for a Socialist Europe blog here.

I support all of the Labour for a Socialist Europe pledges, with one qualification (I am on the soft left after all and so love a bit of nuance). However, I also think that there are a number of areas in which the pledges could be made more ambitious and strengthened. In particular, I think that the immigation system and the Home Office needs to operate more fairely and efficiently. I have set out my thoughts on this in more detail below.

I hope Labour Campaign for Free Movement members and supporters will give me their first preference for the Open Labour National Committee. You can find out more information about my campaign here.

Going further

In addition to the Labour Campaign for Free Movement pledges, I pledge to campaign for:

  1. Putting human rights at the centre of the immigration system to make sure people are treated with dignity and humanity.
  2. Defending the Human Rights Act, which provides important protections for migrants and is under attack from the Tories.
  3. Restoring legal aid for immigration and nationality cases, including for EU citizens seeking settled status.
  4. The UK Ratifying the UN International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families
  5. A review of the Home Office’s immigration function to consider whether it needs to be broken up or reformed to make sure cases are dealt with efficiently and fairly
  6. The creation of a regulator with tough powers and oversight over the the Home Office and other bodies dealing with immigration to make sure they they respect human rights, are faire and and operate efficiently.

Supporting free movement

I support retaining and extending free movement. I oppose any reduction of UK and EU citizens to live, work and access education in each others’ countries.

Immmigration system

I oppose any immigration system based on incomes numbers and targets. However, I would not want to close down immigration routes that would stop immigrants from coming to the UK for economic reasons, such as where they had a job, including jobs working for businesses. Many of the Windrush generation came to the UK to work in manufacturing, such as Bill Morris, who went on to become Secretary-General of the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU).

I also think it is right that Labour MPs like Rupa Huq have been supporting the indian restaurant industry to be able to recruit chefs and other workers from overseas. Additionally, I am concerned about undermining the basis of current freedom of movement under EU law, which is based on freedom of movement for workers under Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Closing every detention centre

I support closing all detention centres. Detention centres are cruel and unnecessary.

We should move to a community based system for detention, using bail and electronic tagging where necessary instead. Detention Action has written this report on alternatives to detention.

We should change the approach for serious/violent offenders subject to immigration enforcement, so that immigration issues are dealt with while they are serving their sentences, rather than transferring them to detention centres as the end of their sentences, as is currently done.

In the absence of the closure of all detention centres, a statutory limit 28 days for detention would be a vast improvement on the current system. This has been recommended by the All Party Parliamentary Groups on Refugees and on Migration, the Joint Committee for Human Rights, is contained in a Parliamentary Bill introduced by Tulip Siddiq MP and is supported by Amnesty International, Detention Action, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Liberty.

Ensuring unconditional rights to family reunion

I support unconditional rights to family reunion. Being able to be with your family is a fundamental human right and something we should embed to a greater extent in the immigration system.

Ending “no recourse to public funds policies”

I support ending no recource to public funds. The current system does not respect human rights, is wrong and should be scrapped.

Scrap all hostile environment measures

The hostile environment is a racist policy and should be scrapped. After hostile environment is scrapped we also need action to remove barriers to immigrants and people from BAME backgrounds to accessing public services (for example, registering for a GP). Doctors of the World has been doing important work in this area.

Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents

Limitation of the franchise to British nationals (and certain others) is outdated and unfair. Many UK residents without British citizenship have lived in the UK for years and made a huge contribution, they have just as much of a stake in the country as British citizens and should have the right to vote in all elections.

Dominic Cummings broke the law and took Covid-19 into the heart of government

The media have not given it much coverage, but besides his trips to Durham and Barnard Castle, Dominic Cummings breached the lockdown rules by returning to No.10 Downing Street on 27 March when he should have been self-isolating. This was a breach of the lockdown regulations and brought Covid-19 into the heart of government, putting people at risk who were central to the government’s response to Covid-19.

According to Cummings, on the morning of 27 March, he went into work in Downing Street as normal but received a call from his wife later in the day saying that she felt badly ill. He says he left Downing Street shortly afterwards and returned home. After a couple of hours, Cummings said his wife felt better and “there were many critical things at work and she urged me to return in the afternoon and I did”.

Cummings says that his wife had vomited but she did not have a cough or a cold. Nonetheless, he and his wife thought that she might have Covid, so much so that they drove to Durham later that evening to ensure appropriate childcare was in place should they both succumb to Covid. Cummings wife, Mary Wakefield, is clear in the Spectator article she wrote about her illness that she thought she might have Covid-19, writing:

“that evening, as I lay on the sofa, a happy thought occurred to me: if this was the virus, then my husband, who works 16-hour days as a rule, would have to come home“.

The guidance on this scenario that was in force at the time is clear:

“If you live with others and you are the first in the household to have symptoms of coronavirus, then you must stay at home for 7 days, but all other household members who remain well must stay at home and not leave the house for 14 days.“

By going into Downing Street on the afternoon of 27 March Dominic Cummings breached the guidance as well as the lockdown regulations, a criminal offence. The lockdown regulations at the time of Cummings’ return to Downing Street included an offence for anyone who during the lockdown period leaves the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

There is a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses, including “to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living”. I do not see how Cummings could have relied on this as a reasonable excuse given surely the No.10 policy at the time would have been that he should self-isolate at home and not travel to No.10 for work.

Not only were Cummings actions a breach of requirements that he himself was involved in telling others to comply with but his behaviour put at risk others who were working in one of the most strategically important buildings in the country, 10 Downing Street, where staff were working on the response to Coronavirus. The next day, Cummings had Covid-19 symptoms, meaning that he is likely to have had it when he went back into 10 Downing Street the previous day.

The Durham Constabulary stated that the considered Cummings’ trip to be a minor breach of the lockdown regulations as social distancing was maintained. This is not the case for his visit to 10 Downing Street on the afternoon of 27 March. It seems like this breach of the lockdown regulations is something that the Metropolitan police should be considering and investigating.

Omar Salem writes in a personal capacity.

My statement for the Open Labour elections

Open Labour has made a huge contribution to Labour and I want to help us do even more.

Open Labour should lead the argument that the Covid-19 response should put people’s wellbeing first before business. Covid-19 is disproportionately impacting BAME people and, as Open Labour London BAME Officer, I have been leading work on this issue.

After Covid-19 is over, we cannot just go back to business as usual. The right wants more austerity. We need to argue for building back better to a more equitable, closer-knit and green society.

I fully back Open Labour’s support for a more inclusive culture in Labour and to oppose antisemitism, racism, sexism, transphobia and other forms of discrimination.  

My experience includes being vice-chair of the Society of Labour Lawyers, defending human rights and legal aid. Before I became a lawyer, I co-founded the UpRising Leadership Programme for young leaders from diverse backgrounds. I also worked for Emily Thornberry MP, helping her retain her then marginal seat, campaign for more affordable housing and stop plans for 90 days detention for terrorist suspects.

More of my ideas are at www.omarsalem.com. If you have any questions, please email me: omar@omarsalem.com.  

Please give me your 1st vote.

Omar Salem is standing for an open position on the Open Labour National Committee. You can find out more about why he is standing and what he stands for here.

Is there a Metropolitan Police investigation into Dominic Cummings?

Durham Constabulary issued a statement on Thursday that they would not be taking any enforcement action regarding Dominic Cummings trip to Durham on 27 March or his trio to Barnard Castle on 12 April.

There has been no similar statement from the Metropolitan Police, despite the fact that Cummings breached the locakdown rules by returning to No.10 Downing Street after going home to see his wife, who had suspected Covid-19, on 27 March (before later returning home and driving to Durham).

According to Cummings, on the morning of 27 March, he went into work in Downing Street as normal but received a call from his wife later in the day saying that she felt badly ill. He says he left Downing Street shortly afterwards and returned home. After a couple of hours, Cummings said his wife felt better and “there were many critical things at work and she urged me to return in the afternoon and I did”.

Cummings says that his wife had vomited but she did not have a cough or a cold. Nonetheless, he and his wife thought that she might have Covid, so much so that they drove to Durham later that evening to ensure appropriate childcare was in place should they both succumb to Covid. Cummings wife, Mary Wakefield, is clear in the Spectator article she wrote about her illness that she thought she might have Covid-19, writing:

“that evening, as I lay on the sofa, a happy thought occurred to me: if this was the virus, then my husband, who works 16-hour days as a rule, would have to come home“.

The guidance on this scenario that was in force at the time is clear:

“If you live with others and you are the first in the household to have symptoms of coronavirus, then you must stay at home for 7 days, but all other household members who remain well must stay at home and not leave the house for 14 days.“

By going into Downing Street on the afternoon of 27 March Dominic Cummings breached the guidance as well as the lockdown regulations, a criminal offence. The lockdown regulations at the time of Cummings’ return to Downing Street included an offence for anyone who during the lockdown period leaves the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

There is a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses, including “to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living”. I do not see how Cummings could have relied on this as a reasonable excuse given surely the No.10 policy at the time would have been that he should self-isolate at home and not travel to No.10 for work.

Not only were Cummings actions a breach of requirements that he himself was involved in telling others to comply with but his behaviour put others at risk work were working in one of the most strategically important buildings in the country, 10 Downing Street, where staff were working on the response to Coronavirus. The Durham Constabulary stated that the considered Cummings’ trip to be a minor breach of the lockdown regulations as social distancing was maintained. This is not the case for his visit to 10 Downing Street on the afternoon of 27 March. It seems like this breach of the lockdown regulations is something that the Metropolitan police should be considering and investigating.

Omar Salem writes in a personal capacity.

Putting people first and building back better

Photo by Simon Berger on Unsplash

Coronavirus has extracted a heavy toll. Instead of the Tory approach to dealing with it, we need to put people first. People’s health, the vulnerable, the elderly and school children should come before business and the economy. Economic considerations should be taken into account to the extent that they impact wellbeing, but they should not be the basis of decision-making. Just as Boris Johnson and the Tories believe it is one rule for Dominic Cummings and a different rule for the rest of us, their approach to Coronavirus is not delivering for the many.

Labour needs to fight for a different approach. That means not easing the lockdown until it is genuinely safe to do so and there is a proper tracking and tracing system in place. Health and care workers should be supplied with the PPE they need and there should be stronger safeguards to ensure all workers are as safe as possible. We must stand with trade unions as they fight to protect their members.

We also need to make sure that those who are facing economic hardship get the support they need, for example through rent cancellations. Covid-19 is disproportionately impacting BAME people and we must put in place measures to address this. Victims of domestic violence are also at considerable risk as a result of the lock-down and better support needs to be provided for them.

The government is developing a track and tracing app to help with combatting Covid-19. New legislation is needed to protect the data collected by it and maximise the chances of the public trusting the app, as suggested by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

After the Covid-19 pandemic is over, we cannot just go back to business as usual. Covid-19 has shown the best of humanity, from our NHS and care workers to neighbours helping each other. We should ensure that we build a more equal and closer-knit society after this crisis, like we did after the Second World War.

The coronavirus crisis has now thrown into sharp relief how fragile many people’s existence is. Many workers were living pay cheque to pay cheque before the pandemic, while those out of work struggled on meagre benefits. Many of the elderly are not getting the help they need due to the crisis in the social care system and the NHS has been underfunded for a decade.

Nonetheless, the right is already arguing for a fresh round of austerity. We need to make the case for instead building back better to a more equitable society.

No one should earn less than the living wage, public service workers should get the pay they deserve, not year after year of wage freezes, and public services should get the money they need.

A core priority for Labour must be secure jobs with good wages. Wages in the UK have stagnated since the 2007-8 financial crisis. To address this, we need to increase productivity, for example through investment in education and infrastructure, while also ensuring that workers get a fair share of productivity increases. We also need to improve employment protections and to move away from a long-hours economy.

We need a benefits system that treats people with dignity not stigma. Those receiving benefits are some of the most vulnerable in society. Labour has pledged to scrap universal credit but we need to replace it with a new system that treats benefit recipients with dignity and gives them the help they need. We need to substantially increase benefit levels as well as radically improving the support that is offered, whether that be with job seeking, training or to address health problems.

Coronavirus has exposed the frailty of our care system. We need to put in place a centrally funded National Care Service that provides high quality care for our elderly, as well as decent pay and working conditions for staff.

Labour had great policies for a Green New Deal in our last manifesto but somehow the idea did not cut through with the public. We need to communicate policies in this area better, as the climate emergency cannot wait.

Coronavirus has shown that where there is the will there is a way to bring about major social change, whether that is in how we go about our daily lives or providing massive state support to the economy. We need to translate that capacity for action into the post-coronavirus world and build back better to a more equal society that puts people first.

Omar Salem is standing in the elections for an open place on the Open Labour National Committee.

Why it is now clear that Dominic Cummings should resign

When the reports first emerged of Dominic Cummings’ trip to Durham, my initial reaction was, despite my dislike for Cummings’ politics, to be sympathetic to him. He was after all a father trying to do the best thing for his family, with an ill wife and huge pressure from dealing with the Covid-19 crisis.

I wrote that we should approach these situations with humanity. I would certainly want to make sure my daughter was looked after by someone I trusted if I had Covid-19 and my condition deteriorated. This was not just a matter of wanting ordinary childcare, it was quite possible that Cummings or his wife would need to be admitted to hospital or could even have died.

I also felt that we needed to see the full facts and that it would be much better for an independent investigation to establish what happened and what rules might have been broken, rather than having a trial by media. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister decided not to have a proper independent investigation but instead to speak to Cummings himself and then have Cummings explain the situation to the nation via a press conference in the garden of No.10 Downing Street.

Cummings’ statement in the No.10 garden revealed new information that in my view now makes his position untenable. I set out in this blog the key allegations against Cummings, whether his behaviour in each case breached the guidance or lockdown regulations at the time and why it is right that Cummings resigns or is sacked.

Return to Downing Street

Number 10 Downing Street is the headquarters and London residence of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

According to Cummings, on the morning of 27 March, he went into work in Downing Street as normal but received a call from his wife later in the day saying that she felt badly ill. He says he left Downing Street shortly afterwards and returned home. After a couple of hours, Cummings said his wife felt better and “there were many critical things at work and she urged me to return in the afternoon and I did”.

Cummings says that his wife had vomited but she did not have a cough or a cold. Nonetheless, he and his wife thought that she might have Covid, so much so that they drove to Durham later that evening to ensure appropriate childcare was in place should they both succumb to Covid. Cummings wife, Mary Wakefield, is clear in the Spectator article she wrote about her illness that she thought she might have Covid-19, writing:

“that evening, as I lay on the sofa, a happy thought occurred to me: if this was the virus, then my husband, who works 16-hour days as a rule, would have to come home“.

The guidance on this scenario that was in force at the time is clear:

“If you live with others and you are the first in the household to have symptoms of coronavirus, then you must stay at home for 7 days, but all other household members who remain well must stay at home and not leave the house for 14 days.“

Dominic Cummings return to Downing Street was a clear breach of this guidance. Not only was it a breach of requirements that he himself was involved in telling others to comply with but his behaviour put others at risk work were working in one of the most strategically important buildings in the country, 10 Downing Street, where staff were working on the response to Coronavirus.

Journey from London to Durham

Licence

In his statement, Cummings advanced three arguments for the journey from London to Durham:

  1. He was concerned that there was no one he could “reasonably ask for childcare” if both he and his wife were so ill that they were not able to take care of their child.
  2. That he might be able to get a Covid test and return to work if he tested negative (presumably leaving his wife and son in Durham).
  3. That he was concerned about the atmosphere around his London home, with people coming to his house shouting threats and posts on social media encouraging attacks. He was also worried that given the severity of this emergency, this situation would get worse and about the possibility of leaving his wife and child at home all day and into the night while he worked in No.10.

The applicable guidance at the time said:

“If you are living with children

Keep following this advice to the best of your ability, however, we are aware that not all these measures will be possible. What we have seen so far is that children with coronavirus appear to be less severely affected. It is nevertheless important to do your best to follow this guidance.“

This guidance is vague but does allow scope for Cummings to argue that he did not breach the guidance as he followed it to the best of his ability, but needed to travel from London to Durham for childcare purposes. However, Jess Phillips MP has tweeted that the exemption was “put in because of domestic and child abuse in the home. To say to people who felt their children were not safe could leave. It was not because of childcare crisis, it might lead to confusion but that was what it was for”. This puts into sharp relief the question of whether Dominic Cummings, especially given his position and the scope for him acting out of line with the guidance to undermine the Government’s public health message, should have sought advice on the guidance.

The lockdown regulations at the time of Cummings’ trip to Durham include an offence for anyone who during the lockdown period leaves the place where they are living without reasonable excuse. There is a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses, including “to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm”. Cummings may argue that he falls with this (although the word “escape” does not naturally fit his circumstances) or that he had a reasonable excuse, bearing in mind also that what he did may have been allowed under the guidance.

It is also worth remembering that there is a, probably necessary, gap between: (i) what government communications say people can do; (ii) what the guidance says people can do; and (iii) what is an offence under the lockdown regulations.

Some stuff will be in goverment communications but not reflected in guidance or legislation because it is not practical to communicate all the details of the restrictions. Also, guidance should generally be guidance because it is not reasonable to make it mandatory (e.g. because there are circumstances where it is reasonable not to follow the guidance, including circumstances that the drafters know they might not envisage).

Nonetheless, the regulations might have been clearer (and more helpful to Cummings) if there had been Parliamentary scrutiny of them. Ironically, Cummings, amongst others, is likely to have been involved in the decision for there not to be Parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations before they were put in place. Perhaps one good thing that could come out of this affair is a greater respect for Parliamentary scrutiny from Cummings.

A court in considering the Cummings case would need to take into account human rights issues, including the right to life and family life. We should not forget that how you care for your child is a very personal decision and we should not impinge on people’s choices in this area any more than is necessary and justified (just as the police using drones to monitor people is overkill). On the other hand, Cummings’ trip presented a potential threat to others, including the risk of spreading Covid-19 to a less impacted part of the country, not least as a result of his son being admitted to hospital (accompanied by Cummings’ wife).

In relation to Cumming’s argument about being motivated by the possibility of getting a Covid-19 test and being able to return to work if he tested negative, this seems clearly to be an argument based on the exceptionalism of his position that is unlikely to be a “reasonable excuse” under the lockdown regulations, not least as it had not been endorsed by the Prime Minister or, it appears, anyone at No.10.

In relation to Cummings’ safety concerns, the lockdown regulations allow you to leave the place where you live to “to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm”. It is questionable whether there was a sufficient level of risk to justify Cummings’ move to Durham. It does not appear that Cummings consulted the police on the issue of moving to Durham temporarily or sought advice on whether they thought this would be permissible under the lockdown regulations, which surely would have been a wise thing to do.

Trip to Barnard Castle

Copyright David Dixon and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.

On Sunday 12 April, Easter Sunday, Cummings drove with his wife and son to Barnard Castle, a beauty spot about 30 miles away from where they were staying, and back. It also was his wife’s birthday that day. This is Cummings’ account of the trip:

“On Sunday 12 April, 15 days after I had first displayed symptoms, I decided to return to work. My wife was very worried, particularly given my eyesight seemed to have been affected by the disease. She didn’t want to risk a nearly 300-mile drive with our child, given how ill I had been. We agreed that we should go for a short drive to see if I could drive safely. We drove for roughly half an hour and ended up on the outskirts of Barnard Castle town. We did not visit the castle. We did not walk around the town. We parked by a river. My wife and I discussed the situation. We agreed that I could drive safely, we should turn around, go home. I felt a bit sick. We walked about 10 to 15 metres from the car to the river bank nearby. We sat there for about 15 minutes. We had no interactions with anybody. I felt better. We returned the car. An elderly gentleman walking nearby appeared to recognise me. My wife wished him Happy Easter from a distance, but we had no other interaction.“

This explanation seems somewhat bizarre. It does not seem to be normal to make a 60 mile round trip to test one’s eyesight. Surely, if Cummings was concerned about his eyesight the first thing he should have done was get medical advice. I find it hard to imagine that a doctor would have recommended the course of action he took. Further, it may have been a safety risk, both to Cummings, his family and others, for him to have driven in the condition he was in (especially given than he said he felt sick during the drive). There is a question whether Cummings briefed road safety legislation (such as the Road Safety Act 1988) the Highway Code.

Given the inappropriateness and possible riskiness of the trip to Barnard Castle, it is hard to imagine that it would amount to a “reasonable excuse” under the lockdown regulations. The fact that the trip, to a local beauty spot, took place on Cummings’ wife’s birthday also makes Cummings already strange story seem even more suspicious.

One rule for the few, another for the many

I believe that Dominic Cummings was trying to do what was best for his family and for the country in dealing with this issue. Unfortunately, this has been accompanied by a belief that different rules apply to him from the rest of us.

In relation to Cummings’ return to Downing Street on 27 March and the trip to Barnard Castle, it seems clear that he breached the requirements that everyonelse was expected to follow. The situation in relation to the trip to Durham is less clear-cut, but it certainly would have been wise for him at the very least to get advice/clearance from No.10 or the police.

Cummings’ actions put others at risk of catching a very dangerous disease and have undermined the public health message of the government. We need to all work together to beat Covid-19 and no-one should be above that or above the law. People have been prevented from being with their loved ones in their last moments, from having proper funerals and many other hardships. Cummings remaining in post would be an insult to the British people and a danger to the effectiveness of the response to Covid-19.

Cummings is known as a rambunctious and divisive character. That perhaps is part of his genius but it should surely also be the making of his downfall. If Dominic Cummings does not resign or Boris Johnson does not sack him the message will be clear: there is one rule for the few and other rule for the many. That would be a tragedy for the country.

Omar Salem writes in a personal capacity.