Why I called for a public inquiry into the unconstitutional powers of Carrie Symonds

7 min readFeb 21, 2021

You might have noticed over the weekend that I temporarily re-entered politics. This, I promise really was temporary. I will be back in the world of business, finance and technology on Monday morning.

The reason I dipped my toes back into the political debate was after hearing the news about how Oliver Lewis was forced out of 10 Downing Street by Government Advisers; Baroness Finn and Henry Newman and by the Prime Minister’s girlfriend Carrie Symonds.

I worked with Oliver, as well as with Henry and Carrie at Vote Leave. Oliver is one of the kindest, hardest working and most intelligent people I have ever come across. His exit is a loss to our nation.

What angered me the means which he was forced out. Now if it was just an internal dispute between Downing Street staff members or Ministers, I may have tweeted my disapproval, but what drove me to draft a campaign late on Friday night was the actions of Carrie Symonds.

You have to understand this is not a personal attack against Carrie at all, she been nothing but cordial to me in the past. It is the simple fact that she was involved in Oliver’s exit. This worried me as it is just more evidence of the unconstitutional nature of her role within the Government.

It was clear that Carrie is acting as more than just the Prime Minister’s private confidante. If reports are true, which I believe they are, then her role in Government is similar to that of the Chief of Staff. This is of serious concern as Carrie has not been security vetted and is not accountable to anyone.

She does not answer to anyone with legal authority, and cannot be fired or voted out.

Anyone holding so much unelected power, and who cannot be removed, is not only unconstitutional but is damaging to British democracy.

It is one thing for the significant other of the Prime Minister to offer their opinion (I’m fine with that), it is quite another for them to be running, or even involved in, the day-to-day business of Downing Street.

This is a fundamental constitutional question, as well as a matter of national security.

This is why; together with Ben Harris-Quinney I drafted a press release; late Friday night calling for an independent inquiry into the powers over government being exercised by Carrie.

As the Prime Minister’s girlfriend, Carrie has been able to take up residency in Downing Street (flat of 11 Downing Street) and Chequers Court. She holds no official role in government and is both unelected and unaccountable.

Constitutionally she does not have any right to be involved in the running of the Government of the United Kingdom.

Historically the spouse of the Prime Minister has been granted limited special privileges. For example, Samantha Cameron had a taxpayer-funded Special Adviser to assist with her diary. At no point however was SamCam involved in the business of the Government, either in government hiring or appointments or in policy making.

Even if Carrie was the spouse of the Prime Minister, the Spouse of the Prime Minister has no official role within Government, and should not be involved in the running of the country, or the internal affairs of Downing Street.

As the Prime Minister’s girlfriend Carrie is not:

Accountable — SPADs are accountable to a Minister; Ministers to the Prime Minister; the Prime Minister to the nation.
Tied by a code of conduct — All Minister’s, government employees, and Civil Servants must act within the Ministerial Code and are often bound by the Offical Secrets Act.
Vetted — All Ministers, Advisers and Civil Servants are background and security vetted. Access to privileged information held by the government is limited only to those authorised to hold it and see it. Carrie has no such authorisation.
Holding Authority — Government decision making flows from those entrusted by the government, and by extension the public, to make decisions on behalf of the nation. Carrie has no such authority to make any decisions on behalf of the government, citizens, or taxpayers.
Elected or Appointed- At no point has Carrie been elected or appointed to any government position. She has no greater authority than any other citizen to make any decisions on behalf of the government.

Thus if Carrie does or has had any involvement in the business of government it is unconstitutional. She cannot be fired, does not answer to anyone, and has not been elected or hired.

Even the seemingly trivial actions of instructing a tax-payer funded photographer is unlikely to have any basis in law.

When it comes to guiding the policy direction of the government, making government staffing decisions, and accessing or speaking to the press about privileged government business, these actions are likely to be found to be unlawful for someone in Carrie’s position by any formal review process.

This call for an inquiry really was in consideration of the recent reports in the press that make reference to:

Carrie’s role in approving her friend Nimco Ali to the role of Government Advisor, in receipt of public funds.
Carrie’s role in the removal from the Government of Dominic Cummings, Lee Cain, and Oliver Lewis.
Carrie’s role in the appointments of Allegra Stratton, Henry Newman, and Baroness Finn.
Carrie’s role in the setting and implementation of government policy.

The inquiry should look into:

The specific role Carrie plays in Downing Street.
Details of any Government meeting attended by Carrie.
Any orders given by Carrie to Special Advisers and Civil Servants — even minor.
All communication between Carrie and Government Advisers must be examined — particularly between Henry Newman; Allegra Stratton; Nimco Ali; Baroness Finn.
All communication between Carrie and members of the press relating to the privileged business of the UK Government and internal affairs of Downing Street.
The possible interference and influence Carrie has had in Government hiring and appointments.
The possible interference and influence Carrie has had in the policy and communication strategy of the Government.
Carrie employment history and previous actions when formally employed by the Conservative Party, and how they relate to the Government.

Now, this call for an inquiry really took off with it being covered in almost all major national news publications, the BBC, SkyNews and all the majority of the regional newspapers (thanks to Associated Press). We didn’t get a mention in The Sun- strangely.

Now, Downing Street and the ‘friends of Carrie’ in the media have been briefing that the reason Ben Harris-Quinney (no mention of me) is only calling for an inquiry is that Ben is a sexist, without evidence.

Regardless if it was true or not (which it isn’t) and no matter what Ben and my own motives are (there really isn’t a secret agenda), this line does not answer the central charge that Carrie is acting unconstitutionally.

The other line being used by Downing Street and ‘friends of Carrie’ is that she should be running the show in Downing Street as she was Director of Communications at Tory HQ.

Now to be very harsh for a second. The Director of Communications job at CCHQ, in the middle of the term of office with no elections, is not as senior as they make out. You would presume the most talented would have a job as one of the hundred or so Special Advisers working inside Downing Street or for a Minister.

Let’s also visit the fact that Carrie was only in the Director of Communication job at CCHQ for a matter of months, until she was allegedly let go after poor performance and abusing her expenses.

Admittedly that does not matter. Carrie could be Winston Churchill, the simple fact is the husband, wife, girlfriend or boyfriend of the Prime Minister should not be in a possession of power in the Government, just because they happen to be the partner of the Prime Minister. Carrie has not been security vetted neither does she adhere to a code of conduct. She can not be sacked.

It is simple. Carrie Symonds appears to be wielding unconstitutional power and that’s why I called for a public inquiry.