May 30, 20204 min read

A lack of ‘Cumminication’

Updated: 2 hours ago

The adventures of Dominic Cummings and their far-reaching political consequences

In this Op-Ed, Zac Cash discusses the social repercussions of Dominic Cummings' decision to travel to both Durham and Barnard Castle over the past two weeks. While Prime Minister Boris Johnson has chosen to draw a line under the ordeal, politicians from across the spectrum have expressed their disapproval over the chief adviser’s behaviour.

Dominic Cummings is, by all accounts, an extremely clever man. His uncle was a former Lord Justice of Appeal, and Cummings himself was privately educated at Durham School before going up to Oxford to study Ancient and Modern History, graduating with a First in 1994. After graduating, he moved to Russia to work on various projects, and eventually returned to England to become Michael Gove’s Chief of Staff before successfully masterminding the ‘Vote Leave’ campaign between 2015-2019. His actions during the current COVID-19 pandemic, however, have not been representative of such education, familial judicial prowess, or cunning. Rather, they have been concocted from ignorance, a lack of compassion, and large measures of elitism on the side.

Image credit: Bradford Timeline via Flickr

From a man whose job means that he should stay largely in the metaphorical political shadows of Downing Street, Cummings has been remarkably publicly involved, with his first remarks emerging after a private conference where, thanks to The Sunday Times’ investigation, he claimed that the government’s strategy in dealing with the Coronavirus was ‘herd immunity… and if some pensioners die, then too bad’. While Downing Street strenuously denied both Cummings’ remarks and the plan that Cummings had supposedly laid out, it was undoubtable that suspicion had been raised over Cummings’ integrity as the Prime Minister’s ultimate aide. However, his latest excursion has been the most politically outrageous and damaging event, for both Cummings’ prestige and influence, as well as the authority of Johnson and his party. Cummings travelled almost 250 miles to visit family in Durham, claiming that his actions were valid and just, due to his need to find childcare for his son since his wife was in total isolation.

Yet, the hypocrisy in Cummings’ actions is so stark and absurdly driven out of exclusivity that it is almost unimaginable. The rule, that has been drilled into every single member of the British public since this entire crisis started, was that if a member or members of a household had Coronavirus, or was ill or extremely medically vulnerable, then every member of that family should self-isolate for fourteen days- no ifs, no buts. For Dominic Cummings however, that rule apparently does not apply. Cummings’ wife was suspected to have COVID-19 during his trip, but this of course would not stop Johnson and other members of the Cabinet to not condemn, but rather commend, his actions, claiming that he had acted “responsibly, legally, and with integrity”. But why then, does it seem that there is one rule for Cummings and other senior figures of authority (Chief Medical Officer for Scotland Catherine Calderwood and top government scientific advisor Neil Ferguson, to name but a few) and another rule for all the ‘great unwashed’, rest of us?

But the saga doesn’t end there. Cummings then travelled to the town of Barnard Castle, 30 miles outside of Durham; this was before lockdown rules had been eased, and was supposedly an opportunity to assess his "weird" eyesight.

After both his journeys were cast into the public eye, the events totally divided the Conservative Party, with notable members such as Steve Baker, the ex-chairman of the European Exit Research Group endorsed by Rees-Mogg (EERG), calling for Cummings’ resignation and that the government should “end this pantomime and that [Cummings] should go”. Further criticism was heaped on by Alistair Campbell, the former Number 10 Director of Communications under Tony Blair, as well as current Labour Leader Keir Starmer who asserted that “a very swift explanation” was needed to justify such controversial actions.

With Cummings having just delivered a press conference claiming that, whilst his actions were politically and socially contentious, he “did not regret” them, it is clear that his both his job and the gradually corroding, tenuous hold that the government has over the public’s actions regarding Coronavirus is being flung into the balance.

Perhaps Cummings’ actions will result in a potential public rejection of lockdown rules, flaunting his recent activities as a just reason to breach the imposing restrictions that remain in our everyday lives? Johnson’s authority, after defending Cummings’ actions, is surely now cast under doubt, even though Cummings claims that he never offered or even thought about offering resignation to Johnson. However, it remains that Johnson is still left with a dilemma. Sack Cummings, and regain the respect of the British public, but lose his top advisor who essentially delivered Brexit. Or allow Cummings to retain his job, but risk undermining every government message and public conference that has happened since the virus arrived in Britain. Either way, the way forward for British politics is now once again in the offing, with Cummings’ own reputation and career, as well as his livelihood, being at the forefront of its future.