28 May 2020
View from the Cotswolds
The Ugly Duckling
By Paul Branch
The sideshow that is Dominic Cummings is continuing apace as I write this. Either he stays or he’s history. Having listened to his press conference, I still don’t understand why he did it, or why he thought he could do it, but maybe that’s just me.
Questioning by the press came across as somewhat anodyne and repetitive, not the forensically clinical dissection that was expected. It all focused on comparing his situation with others not so fortunate to have a convenient family estate bolthole with willing teenage carers on call if needed, and whether he had any regrets or felt the need to apologise. His assertion that he stuck to the guidelines as allowed in the small print seemed to whistle by unchallenged. So let’s have a go, in rough chronological order.
His wife was taken ill and so understandably he shot off home – no problem, shame about Mary and glad she’s now over it. He then assumed that there was a good chance that he’d come down with it, at some unknown juncture. Again, pretty reasonable assumption.
The contingency plan then seemed to kick in – bundle sick wife and four-year-old in the car and shoot off to the isolated cottage in Durham, because their child would have been left high and dry if both parents were out of action. These are the exceptional circumstances that Cummings thought allowed him to diverge from the basic guideline of “Stay Home”.
No other alternatives presented themselves – no family or friends in London who could have stepped in, no one in Downing Street, with all the powerful machinery of government at their disposal, who could have helped or suggested a different course of action, and no boss to fall back on as Boris was also indisposed at that point and understandably had other things to worry about. And for the avoidance of doubt, I’m very pleased that he and Matt Hancock have both recovered.
This is where I start to wonder about the logic in Dominic’s cunning plan. Firstly, and as he made such a song and dance about the guidelines which presumably he helped write, let’s look at those. They do indeed say that the Stay Home basic tenet is subject to exceptional circumstances in the case of a child being put at risk. But they also spell out what to do: you call the local authority hub for help, not jump in the car and whiz up North.
As a comparative aside, my own children have children of their own and have obviously been worried about what to do in similar circumstances. Sensibly they had already thought through contingency plans which are feasible and reasonable, break no laws or government guidelines, involve no use of privilege or obfuscation, and would involve considerable but necessary hardship on their part in order to keep their own children safe. I realise every case is unique in some respects, but it ain’t rocket science and shouldn’t be beyond the grasp of the hottest ever government adviser.to resolve sensibly.
Cummings took medical advice about the journey to Durham, and was assured it was OK to leave home and make that drive. Now was that his GP who advised him? Or was it the aforementioned local authority hub? Or one of his colleagues in SAGE?
It also sounds like the trip happened with No 10 being none the wiser. Boris was incapacitated sure, but what about having a chat with others in the Cabinet: Dominic Raab maybe who stood in for Boris, or even Cummings’ old boss Michael Gove? Or maybe there was no time.
Then the Mission Implausible itself – 250-odd miles, four hours probably, lucky the tank was full so no need to stop and risk infecting anyone else. But that must have been pretty uncomfortable for the sick Mary, and as for the toddler .. I’ve had small children, many of them, and I know the dire consequences of a non-stop four-hour car ride.
Then the trip back to London, where Dominic just had to be back at Downing Street as soon as he was out of isolation after his own bout of the virus, and I’m happy that he too is fully recovered. He’s clearly very important to Boris and our government, especially in handling the many jobs he listed as being on his urgent to-do list: vaccines, track and trace are ones that spring to mind. Before driving back he still wasn’t feeling well, and his eyesight was a concern. So instead of ringing up the office and saying “Sorry, still not 100%, I’ll work from home up here for a bit longer”, what better way of testing if you’re up to another 250 miles down the motorway than taking the car out for a spin, with your wife and child in the back, to check that your eyesight and everything else is really up to it?
And finally, from the sound of it Cummings has a very full work agenda with responsibility to match. If he’s that indispensable even when sick, why is he, as an adviser apparently, possibly project managing the whole government response to the coronavirus? Shouldn’t that be the job of someone who’s maybe elected into the post — the Minister for Health maybe, or given the severity of the situation even the Prime Minister? I can recall one Prime Minister who assumed that role during WW2.
At the very least his judgment under pressure has been found wanting, and is that something we want in the man whose job it is to guide us out of this viral mess?
It would be interesting to see the contract Cummings has with this government, especially the definition of his role and responsibilities. Or perhaps it’s one of those sweeping catch-all documents designed for maximum flexibility (eg, the adviser shall do whatever he deems fit in the service of the Prime Minister, in whatever manner he/she deems appropriate, and shall be answerable to the Prime Minister only but may involve his/herself in just about anything) but with questionable levels of oversight. Who knows?
One thing springs to mind though, concerning the indispensability of Cummings: if he is in charge effectively of the overall response to COVID-19, his presence back in the office was obviously essential considering how well that project’s been going since January. 35,000+ dead and counting, more have died from this pandemic in a few months than in the whole of the 1940 Blitz. Winnie would have been proud of his successors.
So, given the swelling of anger and disgust amongst the populace and the rush of support from many (but not all) government ministers and MPs, where to now? Keeping him on would go against most if not all of the commonly accepted criteria for doing a good job, and would do a lot of harm to the public’s perception of this government’s integrity, priorities and character. The statements made by Boris in Cummings’ defence, after hours of face-to-face discussions, rang hollow and were in the usual testiculatory mode of confusion. And why hours of discussions? “Dominic, did you or didn’t you” is presumably all it needed. Michael Gove’s assertion that the alleged actions were perfectly in keeping with those of any caring father were gobsmackingly and condescendingly naïve – he did succeed however in affirming his reputation for having nothing to say but saying it anyway.
Letting Cummings go would test Boris in his ability to carry on as leader, if he really is as reliant on DC as he seems. Svengali or Rasputin, take your pick. But it would obviously take the focus off this ridiculous sideshow and put it back firmly where it belongs: virus and economy.
But here’s a thought – Cummings, like Trump, is not a complete idiot, and both have special abilities in getting things done. My first inclination would have been to ship Dominic out as part of a trade deal with the USA (maybe along with Nigel Farage for good measure), but Sod’s Law would have him succeed in getting Trump re-elected so that’s no good. But getting DC to apply his skills to something worthwhile and useful would be win-win all round. Maybe UN special peace envoy for the Middle East …. or did someone already try that?
Maybe there is only one path left, as the song goes (roughly):
There once was an ugly duckling with feathers all scrubby and brown
And the other birds in so many words said Quack get out of town ….
And he went with a quack and a waddle and a quack, and a very unhappy frown.
(with acknowledgment and apology to HC Andersen and D Kaye)
