Good riddance to Anneliese Dodds, the minister without sense

Telegraph

28-02-2025

It is perhaps unfair to pose of Anneliese Dodds' resignation as International Development Minister the oft-cited philosophical question: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
It is a rare thing now for a minister to resign on a matter of principle, all the more so in a Government which appears not to have any principles beyond the occupation of office. In that context, Dodds deserves some credit.
But in every other context her resignation is of almost no consequence. First, because Dodds is herself of almost no consequence. And second – more importantly – because her reasoning for doing so is completely wrong.
Anneliese Dodds is one of those MPs in all parties whose rise to the top is almost inexplicable. The story is told that she was appointed shadow Chancellor in Keir Starmer's first shadow Cabinet 2020 because he had enjoyed talking to her on a long car journey. It was certainly difficult at the time to think of any other credible reason, given her unspectacular political history. Her shadow Chancellorship was quickly taken from her after the party's poor showing in Hartlepool.
She then bounced from shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities to Minister for International Development upon the party taking power. The move was generally considered a demotion, blamed perhaps on her car-crash performance on Radio 4's Woman's Hour where she failed to define womanhood. Emma Barnet, clearly exasperated by her failure to answer what should have been a perfectly simple question, then reminded her that she was the shadow Minister for Women and Equalities.
Dodds' sterling determination to ignore reality has brought her some benefits. It was reported that she turned up at the Government's first Cabinet meeting last July even though she was only a Minister of State. Apparently nobody had the heart to tell her she shouldn't be there, so she stayed and kept coming.
Starmer's apparent decision to keep her in the dark on his new defence priorities show precisely how little weight he placed on the importance of her Government position. As such, her resignation is unlikely to provoke much soul-searching in No. 10. The West faces an existential threat from Russia and China, a threat that exists almost entirely because we have shown ourselves to be unwilling to defend ourselves and our allies. The Prime Minister understands hard decisions will have to be made to ensure our protection. A shame, then, the question was never asked of Dodds: 'which department should we cut to fund defence – education or health?'