It’s time for Philp to condemn No10’s Cummings and goings

One rule for us, another rule for them

Peter Underwood: people before cars

CROYDON COMMENTARY: If Croydon South’s Conservative MP does not join the calls for Dominic Cummings to be sacked, PETER UNDERWOOD (right) says will be calling for his suspension from the House of Commons

It has been very easy to criticise the government’s handling of the coronavirus crisis but like most of you, my focus has been on helping people to get through it and I intended to save my criticism for the inquiry that will be necessary when this is over.

But last night’s news conference from Boris Johnson has changed that.

Since the start of this crisis we have seen how incompetent this government really is. Their delay in acting to bring in a lockdown and an adequate testing regime has cost thousands of lives. Their cuts to the NHS have left it unable to cope with demands for beds, ventilators and PPE – personal protective equipment. Their policy of moving untested patients out of hospitals into care homes has spread the virus to infect and kill many, including those most vulnerable.

Last night’s statement by Boris Johnson has enraged the nation

All of this is true. But there were already plenty of people pointing this out in the media. So I decided to focus on providing help and support to the people who most needed it.

Over recent weeks I have gone shopping or picked up prescriptions for people who needed to isolate at home. I have messaged and called family and friends who couldn’t leave the house. I have had Zoom calls with friends and work colleagues because we couldn’t meet in person.

I know that all of you have been doing the same. Doing your bit by staying at home to stop the spread of the disease and ease pressure on the NHS or going out to help other people who were doing so. We have stuck to the rules to save lives.

There have been a few notable cases of politicians and officials, in this country and others, who have broken those rules. Rightly, they have been forced to resign, or at the very least disciplined and demoted. But then there is the case of Dominic Cummings.

The press reports have provided ample evidence that he travelled hundreds of miles across the country when everyone else was being told to stay where they were. Worse than that, he knew he was infected the virus and so by travelling he was turning everywhere he came into contact with into a high-risk area.

The press reports go on to suggest that this wasn’t a one-off incident but that he made at least two trips to different locations.

Social media has been full of heart-rending stories. Friends being unable to be there for each other when they were needed most. Family members not seeing each other for weeks on end. Grandparents not being able to see new grandchildren, some who have since tragically died of the virus and so never will.

All of these people following the rules for the sake of others, while Dominic Cummings completely ignored those rules.

And, to make it even worse over 50 Conservative MPs and our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, have publicly said that he has done nothing wrong.

The government’s guidance on lockdown was clear. Cummings broke the rules

The explosion of anger among the public has been immense, and quite rightly so. Despite the many failings of this government, we have stuck to the lockdown rules they wrote. Then it turns out they felt they could ignore them if they wished.

Today, from across the political spectrum, including some Conservative MPs, there have been calls for Cummings to resign, and dismay at the way that Boris Johnson has failed the country by deciding to back him instead of sacking him.

Here in Croydon, Labour MPs Sarah Jones and Steve Reed have condemned Cummings and spoken against Johnson.

But what of our MP for Croydon South? So far Chris Philp has said absolutely nothing.

I have directly asked him on Twitter if he will call for the sacking of Dominic Cummings and the resignation of Boris Johnson over his handling of the affair, but I have received no reply. And I’m not the only one. Many other constituents have asked a similar question of their MP but have had no response.

This is not a time to cower in a corner and hope it all blows over. This is a time for politicians to stand up and be counted. If Chris Philp does not publicly demand the sacking of Dominic Cummings for breaking lockdown laws then he has betrayed all his constituents who have done their duty by following those rules.

I have had many disagreements with Chris over the years as we have very different views on what a government and an MP should do. But this goes beyond party politics. If Chris Philp is not willing to stand up for his constituents and instead backs a criminal who has put other people’s lives at risk, then he is unfit to be an MP.

MP Chris Philp: will he speak for his constituents, or his party?

The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament states that MPs have a “duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents” as well as requiring that MPs “shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons”.

If Chris Philp does not speak out, then he failing on both of those counts. At the time of writing, he has made no public statement, but this cannot be allowed to continue. If he doesn’t make a clear statement in support of his constituents, demanding the sacking of Dominic Cummings, and criticising Boris Johnson for his handling of the situation then I will be petitioning the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to ask that Chris Philp is suspended from the House so that we can begin the process of removing him as our MP.

In the meantime, I will continue to do what I can to support people during lockdown and I hope you do the same. I equally hope that you don’t use the dreadful example set by a senior member of the Tory government as an excuse to ignore the rules that keep us safe.

As the Government’s own poster said, “If one person breaks the rules, we will all suffer – Stay Home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives”.

  • Peter Underwood is the Green Party’s candidate for Croydon and Sutton in the next London Assembly elections, whenever they are held…

Croydon Commentary is a platform for all our readers to off their personal views about what matters to them in and around the borough. To submit an article for publication, just email us at, or post your comment to an Inside Croydon article that has caught your attention

About insidecroydon

News, views and analysis about the people of Croydon, their lives and political times in the diverse and most-populated borough in London. Based in Croydon and edited by Steven Downes. To contact us, please email
This entry was posted in Chris Philp MP, Croydon Greens, Croydon South, Peter Underwood and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to It’s time for Philp to condemn No10’s Cummings and goings

  1. Chris Flynn says:

    I’d also encourage constituents of Croydon South to use your right to email Mr Philp to express your views on the matter, and find out position he intends to take.

  2. sebastian tillinger says:

    The delay in the UK government bringing in the lockdown was due to Dominic Cummings not coming up with a catchy phrase on time. The lockdown was delayed until he had conjured one up.

    Of course, there’s no truth in the suggestion that he also advised the PM to adopt a ‘let old people die’ strategy.

    Lovely guy.

  3. Ron West says:

    This Green Party candidate has painted Cummings’ trip to see his needy 4-year-old child as being a joy-ride. Has he spent the same energy condemning Neil Ferguson who told the Government that hundreds of thousands could die and then went visiting his lover? Or concerning all the many others who are aligned to his political views?

    But here he conveniently omits the relevant paragraphs from the actual restrictions and specific exceptions, namely 6.(2).(d):

    “to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within paragraph 7(3)B of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(a), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance”

    • Dan Maertens says:

      Here we go again Ron, never let the facts get in the way of a good yarn …….. the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 says in clause 58(1) ‘This Act does not apply to any activity which is carried out in the course of a family relationship’. Mr Cummings, his wife and their child are therefore in a ‘family relationship’ and not vulnerable in accordance with the Act, so is not therefore a ‘reasonable excuse’ – and in any event, there was no ’emergency’ as he admits that he travelled to Durham ‘in anticipation’ of not being able to care for his son, not because at the time that he breached the stay at home order there was an emergency.

      • jackgriffin1933 says:

        Here we go again Dan. With respect , don’t let a failure to appreciate the role of the clause in a sentence stand in the way of an opportunity to castigate someone who doesn’t see the world through your prism.

        “To provide care or assistance” is not exclusively under Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(a), but includes that.

        The relevant sentence – “to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within paragraph 7(3)B of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(a), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance” – can be simply rendered, by considering the clause as a qualifier, thus:

        “to provide care or assistance to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance”. And that includes under the Safeguarding Act, but isn’t dependant on it.

        As it happens, I think Ron is mistaken and don’t think this is relevant to DC as believe him to be relying on a different facet of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (with which I have had to familiarise myself for various reasons).

        To whit:

        Regulation 6 states:

        6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living
        without reasonable excuse.
        (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need…”.

        It then lists examples of what is a ‘reasonable excuse’ through the word ‘includes’. Yet one would infer that those examples are not definitive nor exhaustive. Otherwise it would have said ‘a reasonable excuse is…’.

        Reasonable or variants appear a few times in the Regulations – ‘reasonably possible’, ‘reasonable force’, ‘reasonably believes’, ‘reasonable instruction’, ‘reasonably necessary’ and ‘reasonably detailed’.

        Where ‘reasonable’ features in English law, it is generally for courts/ juries to decide what that constitutes following a prosecution.

        It is subjective.

        Hence DC’s heavy quoting of the word ‘reasonable’ throughout his press conference.

        It is the general ‘reasonableness’ or otherwise of his actions that is in question, not whether those actions are encompassed by one of the excuses specifically mentioned.

        Durham should have nicked him – it would have been a ‘summary conviction’ – and then he could have appealed it.

        If they had, BJ would have had to park him until any hearing at least.

        As it is, even if he has to go now, it’ll be a ‘Mandleson sacking’, whereby he spends six months (10 for Mandelson) treading water and then is brought back.

    • sebastian tillinger says:

      You can only watch the Cummings press conference and form your own opinion. We can all find worm holes in rules but not all of us want to secrete oil and wriggle into them.

      Please excuse the worm mixed metaphors- I thought they were particularly appropriate in this instance, though.

Leave a Reply