04 June 2020
Keeping Cummings
Only common sense.
By Robert Kilconner
In a curious way the Cummings affair seems to have become a proxy, the level of public anger being sustained not just by the behaviour of Mr Cummings himself but rather by dismay at the disastrous results of the Government’s laid-back approach to the virus, which allowed it to get a hold. That is particularly painful for those of us, and I have to count myself as one, who thought that, like SARS, it would have limited effect in the West and so supported a wait-and-see approach at the time. What a lesson hindsight has taught us.
Still, for whatever reason, the affair has gripped the public imagination and we have been treated to many a column inch on whether Mr Cummings could have broken the law or, if he did not break the law, if he failed to follow guidance, or whether he let people down generally. I certainly do not intend to add to this literature but will, if you’ll excuse the whole subject being raised again, reflect a little on Mr Johnson’s attitude to the affair and why I imagine that he took it.
I have never met Mr Cummings but his reputation is that he is difficult, arrogant, confident and politically ruthless. That does not mean that he is other than perfectly pleasant in his private life, of course, but rather that he will follow through the logic of policies as he sees them and is little influenced by the fact that others disagree with him. That has made him unpopular in certain quarters and I even heard someone fatuously observe “he is very unpopular you know” as clear evidence that he had breached the lockdown rules. Still, this sort of ruthlessness can be a valuable quality in some circumstances and dealing with a disease is one of them. In this country we pride ourselves on compromise, the ability to give a little here in return for a little there and to arrive at a solution which everyone can live with. That is a fine way to reach a political decision, let us hope it secures a good Brexit agreement, but it is not the way to make decisions in relation to a pandemic where the most popular of concessions may mean a second peak.
There must be quite extraordinary pressures on the Cabinet of the moment. All of the ministers are members of Parliament with constituents who carry on businesses. Many of them have portfolios which bring them into close contact with important parts of the economy. The level of lobbying must be ferocious and make the finding of a balance between the need to minimise the damage to the economy and the need to save lives particularly difficult. Add to the mix the natural desire of politicians to look good to their own supporters and you have a very complex position indeed. It is no surprise to hear that there are factions within the Cabinet asking for different things.
Now put yourself in the position of Mr Johnson. What you do? It is not your function to sit down with medical and statistical textbooks and try to master the details of disease spread yourself. Nor, as the scientists continually and rightly point out, is it open to you to delegate the decisions back to them. Instead you have to listen to the arguments and take your view as to the policy to be adopted. How valuable would it be in those circumstances have someone at your elbow who has the gift of being able to listen to those arguments without being pushed around by the political noise? If Mr Cummings fills that role he is valuable indeed and, whether or not he infringed the rules, Mr Johnson is right to retain him. That may disappoint those who love to run with the hounds but here it is clear thinking which has the best prospect of saving lives and if you are prepared to put the satisfaction of even a well-deserved kill before that you have to answer the question of how many lives you would risk for that satisfaction.
Mr Johnson has certainly made mistakes in his handling of the pandemic but I doubt whether retaining Mr Cummings is one of them.
