The revenge of Dominic Cummings

The spectacle of Dominic Cummings’ marathon session in Parliament yesterday resembled a high-stakes bearpit, much to the bitter pleasure of all those only too keen to draw out the most

withering lines about the Prime Minister and his coterie. As the accusations piled up, and the ministerial failings, institutional incompetence and dithering and ineptitude were unveiled, it

was hard not to wonder whether much of it really would stick to the notoriously unadhesive Johnson administration. From the man who coined the slogan, this was Cummings’ attempt to take

back control. From whom is clear. Though for what reason, is, as ever with such a man, mysterious. 

Cummings’ wrath has previously been subject to the tedious press coverage he yesterday scorned. Yet its importance must be noted; it was with his anger at the Westminster system that the

Brexit campaign was saved, it was with his dogmatic iconoclasm that Johnson was able to get hold of the election victory and Brexit victory he wanted, and it was while grappling with his

heady notions of Whitehall shake-ups that the whole system was so fluked by the incoming pandemic last year. What remains most remarkable about this recent episode is the ease with which he

is prepared to defy his former master in the most public of terms, and the flippancy in which he insults the very people who a year ago were to be the new political masters of Britain. 

And insult he certainly did. Matt Hancock, for many the face of perpetual pandemic doom par excellence, was accused of “criminal” behaviour, guilty of “lying to everybody on multiple

occasions” throughout the whole crisis. Much of this is centred on the initial fiasco of the test and trace system; in order to meet his publicised daily target of 100,000 tests, Hancock was

willing to create a system which would “hold tests back” in order to let himself take the credit for meeting the target in his TV addresses. Cummings’ plan, to create a more medium-term

system to process more tests, was ignored. It was a piece of expediency which caused “serious harm”. Whether it will do anything of the same to Hancock’s political ambitions, given the

litany of recent scandals, remains to be seen. 

That Cummings so vociferously targeted Hancock subtly hides Johnson from his ire. There was less vitriol towards the Prime Minister; merely the solemn insistence that he was “unfit” for

office. That this comes from a man not long ago touted as the holder of the real reins of authority in Downing Street should not be forgotten: but it certainly hides Johnson from the

headline attacks. And it cannot be repeated enough: not only can our Prime Minister apparently evade every scandal, he can more often than not use them to his advantage. This Cummings

realised, and employed devastatingly when they worked together. Now apart, it seems hard that any mounting pile of invective from outside will be able to hit enough punches to bring the

leader down. 

Beyond the immediate Westminster hubbub, the only thing likely to be gleaned from this episode is the premonition of the national inquiry to come. Cummings may be attempting to shield

himself from the waves of anger when his role is critiqued in full, while figures such as Hancock may just be beginning to dread the full scale of retribution when the truth is uncovered.

Indeed, it was apparently the Prime Minister’s solution to keep Hancock in place until the inquiry, for him to then be sacked to provide a political shield. Such ministerial fodder may

easily become garments in Johnson’s armoury as he manages to evade responsibility, another of his most potent abilities. Cummings may well become yet another casualty of such

petard-hoisting, and Hancock seems destined to be the next accused of letting the side down. The Cabinet was stuffed full of yes-men at the worst possible time, and even Cummings’ insistence

on total loyalty could not bear the “failures” all around him. How far all who remain are prepared to go protect their boss may define the next years of an increasingly streaky

administration. 

Cummings’ ambition in government was to change it beyond previous recognition. He knows that in this he failed; not even he could force the mandarins out in his short time at the helm. That

he is now defending himself so vigorously from the failures of others may be simply a characteristic bluntness. It also manages to hide one man from the responsibility which ultimately lies

at his door, and Boris Johnson wouldn’t take responsibility if it came with the offer of a free divorce lawyer and the freedom of the city of Liverpool. 

Speaking of the Johnson Government as a mafia does not really suffice, given that it would be an incredibly dysfunctional mafioso who refused to get rid of Priti Patel and Robert Jenrick,

while letting his former consigliere break an omertà so easily. Yet Johnson still gets a ludicrously high polling rating for a leader whose record of governance this last year would lead one

to predict anything but. He is also blessed with a void for an opposition: Starmer’s rival gang is as threatening to their territory as a drunken police officer in Thirties Chicago. If the

Cummings fiasco reveals much more than the hearty bucketful of Westminster gossip, it should serve to remind us of such a void which lies at the heart of government, a Government led by a

man seemingly able to escape any scandal under the perpetual guise of being a leader in crisis. Hindsight’s a wonderful thing, we’ve been reminded over the past year, as well as scolded in

daring to think that anyone else would really be able to do a better job. Dominic Cummings told us yesterday that indeed many could easily have done. To take his sermons as truth would be

foolhardy. But perhaps not as mistaken as to trust our Prime Minister in many more of the words which come out of his mouth. 

Britain is not a one-party state; to describe it as such is facetious enough to dismiss the real grasps of authoritarianism which are sweeping over much of Europe, and which this Government

seems so keen to ignore. But the fact that its leader can evade the scrutiny and unrest which would have ruffled not only his party benches but a less placid electorate only a few years ago

deserves notice. Dominic Cummings has, not for the first time, stuck two of his fingers up at the Conservative Government. That he extends the gesture to almost all of the rest of the

political sphere seems irrelevant. But his opponents, Tory or not, should stop and think about what he has said beyond the ridicule and the vendettas. The country is run by a man without the

necessary skills required to tackle this crisis or the next, and the decisions of the nation are taken by lacklustre flatterers behind closed doors, apparently with more focus on press

conference gambits than the fates of its citizens. It all seems rather a long way from taking back control. 

By proceeding, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and our Privacy Policy.

If an account exists for this email address, you will shortly receive an email from us. You will then need to:

Please note, this link will only be valid for 24 hours. If you do not receive our email, please check your Junk Mail folder and add info@thearticle.com to your safe list.