Wednesday 21 July 2021

Dominic Cummings's Indecent Exposure

If you're reading this, there's a very good chance you watched Laura Kuenssberg's interview with Dominic Cummings. If you haven't, it's worth watching. The chaos inside Number 10 from the start of Boris Johnson's premiership to now is well known, if not well documented. But the vignettes of cluelessness and seat-of-the-pants winging it, while neither surprise nor shocker, help flesh out what life is like behind the famous black door. Naturally, Cummings had a lot to say, like last time, and much of it was damning. As someone fond of porkie pies himself, the precautionary principle would recommend a sceptical eye be cast over his claims. But we're talking about Boris Johnson here, so everything said about lack of preparedness, a callous disregard for the lives of others, herd immunity as the default Covid strategy (borne out at the moment), etc. have enough truthiness about them. And besides, Cummings was cocksure that a public inquiry with evidence given under oath will bear out his claims. He thinks too much of himself to say something now that would show him up later.

Cummings clarified the circumstances around his celebrated trip to Barnard Castle, how he came to be in Downing Street, and the power struggles between his faction of apparatchiks and the Carrie Johnson squad, who he relished referring to as a purposely infantilised "Prime Minister's girlfriend". But what really came across was less the detail of the Cummings exposure, but the manner of his statements. Every utterance dripped in arrogance, knowing cadences, and cynicism. Despite having a chummy relationship with Cummings, as well as the Prime Minister, Laura Kuenssberg clearly found the tone discomfiting. Talking about his role in brokering a failed Tory leadership deal between Johnson and Michael Gove in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum, she was aghast that he, someone who wasn't elected should be playing such a crucial role in establishment politics. Her astonishment ramped up again when Cummings discussed the circumstances of his hiring just prior to Johnson's coronation. He said the future Prime Minister asked him to work in Downing Street. Cummings revealed his conditions: seeing Brexit through to its conclusion, serious investment, and doing something about civil service reform. That he had the temerity to seek assurances from Johnson before working for him was as if a blasphemy had been uttered in Kuenssberg's presence. Who were you to dictate terms to an elected politician was her exasperated response.

There was plenty more. Asked about the infamous £350m/week for the NHS splashed on the side of that bus, and the disingenuous spin put out about Turkey's accession to the European Union, he could not suppress a wry grin and a cheeky twinkle. He tried defending them as good faith interventions, but Kuenssberg's persistent line of questioning was surplus to requirements - anyone could see he was lying his head off, and was proud of duping the millions who took Leave's arguments at face value. Kuenssberg affected an appalled tone, as if this was the first time she had encountered cynicism in politics. Which, we know for a fact, it isn't. But what offended her most was Cummings's confessions of plotting. With the royal we, he talked about selecting the Tory candidate most amenable to his ends (Johnson), and within days of a famous victory was talking about getting shot. "Who are you to decide who stays and who goes Dominic Cummings?" intoned Kuenssberg on several occasions. Thankfully, on this occasion, she did not shy away from asking the most interesting question - who is this "we" Cummings was talking about? And he fessed up: a network of Vote Leave elites and interested others numbering no more than three dozen. This was almost too much for the BBC's chief political correspondent to bear. Here we had spelled out in black and white terms the reality of British politics, how its prime movers are mixes of elected and unelected players, the latter consisting of the propertied, the rich, and the well-connected. Cummings pulled down the pants of British parliamentary democracy and revealed the ugly truth in its naked obscenity. And all before the watershed.

Latter day adherents of the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association were up in arms. Lisa Nandy condemned Cummings's performance as "incredibly narcissistic" and was outraged that someone appointed and unelected might try and bend government in the direction of their agenda. "How did Boris Johnson come to appoint a man of this moral character?" she asked. It's a good job the congenial hosts of Good Morning Britain didn't ask the shadow foreign secretary how Labour could readmit unelected officials who'd done so much to undermine the elected party leadership in the lead up to 2017. I also suppose Nandy has a poor grasp at what goes on in the constituency offices of Labour MPs, where unelected employees regularly bitch and plot against local councillors and sometimes, whisper it, sometimes talk about removing the elected member - their boss. Cummings is a toerag and no mistaking, but there was plenty of ammunition here Nandy might have used to to make some anti-Tory points, but given the opportunity to highlight Johnson's reckless Covid strategy she walloped the ball firmly into her own net. If past comments about letting the bodies pile high and repeated instances of lying isn't enough to move people, drawing attention to the PM's moral fibre was just about the weakest option in front of her. You can't say it enough: every hour is amateur hour on the shadow front bench.

As for Cummings himself, he'll no doubt be gratified. Kuenssberg will be chuffed with her "shocking" and much-discussed expose, but he emerges with his reputation enhanced. Lauded as a magus of the dark arts, unconcerned by petty things like public opinion and parties, Cummings is the distillation of bourgeois disdain with bourgeois democracy. But beneath the swagger and disrespect for the rules of the political game, what are we left with? A technocrat with a hard science fetish, a tough-talking apparatchik no different in substance to the likes of Andrew Adonis. His kind can thrive because both front benches are bereft of ideas, and trapped by their respective forms of decadence. This means we probably haven't seen the back of Cummings, and unless establishment politics is challenged by a new surge of politicisation along the lines of what happened in 2015, our leaderships will throw up one, two, many Cummings clones in the years to come.

Image Credit

5 comments:

Blissex said...

«he chaos inside Number 10 from the start of Boris Johnson's premiership to now is well known, if not well documented. But the vignettes of cluelessness and seat-of-the-pants winging it»

Therefore the "forensic", "managerialist" Starmer looks like a perfect substitute.

Except that voters don't think like that: most work in messy, dysfunctional places, most don't expect anything different from the state than from private businesses, and they are care mostly about their material interests and vote-moving issues.

As far as most tory voters are concerned share prices and property prices are booming, so "the markets" are giving a big endorsement of this government, and they don't worry about the details.

«a tough-talking apparatchik no different in substance to the likes of Andrew Adonis. His kind can thrive because both front benches are bereft of ideas»

Which ideas are needed when "the markets" are booming? "We are all thatcherites now". :-(

Dialectician1 said...

Anyone with a background in political sociology will not be surprised In any way by this interview. It said more about Kuenssberg than it did about Cummings. Her cringeworthy obsequesiousness towards the revered institutions of parliamentary democracy was almost too nauseous to watch and her hand-wringing was as fake as Cumming's Brexit promises. It was such bad acting from a senior political correspondent already deeply embedded within the whole rancid system. As Owen Jones points out in this morning's Graun, following the muted backlash after Labour's disasterous liberal adveturism in Iraq, the Tories know they can get away with almost anything. The whole British parliamentary system was rotten from its inception. Our public broadcasters are disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Blissex said...

«the Tories know they can get away with almost anything. The whole British parliamentary system was rotten»

But that is not the “parliamentary system” itself that is “rotten” (even if it is quite flawed), but it is the voters who are corrupt: the governing party can “get away with almost anything” only as long as "the markets" and tory voters (whether they prefer the Conservatives, New Labour or LibDems) are pleased with booming share and property prices.

When a cheap £400,000 two bedroom flat in the Home Counties or London generates £30,000-£40,000 (usually entirely tax-free, not just work-free) per year of purely redistributive profit, plus the mortgage is cheaper than the rent, plus it is virtually government-guaranteed, grateful "aspirational" tory voters and "the markets" write a blank cheque to the government: in which conditions are they going to vote against a government that redistributes to them from the lower classes that much profit?

Voters have become corrupt pretty much in every country where governing right-wing parties have bought votes with rapid inflation of housing and pension costs; that has happened even in no-longer socialdemocratic Sweden, and may start to happen in Germany as well. That usually results in long term decay as rentierism crowds out productive activities, but in the meantime which right-wing party dislikes a blank cheque?

NB The old issue of the influence of asset prices on voters, like the current test-trace-isolate one, is one of those that leftoids as well as the right seem happy to pretend they don't see; a quote from a previous commenter may be relevant:

I raised the problematic policy on my CLP Facebook group. I was stunned by the support for the policy from the countless landlords who were Party members! "I can't afford to give my tenants a rent holiday" "This is my pension, I'll go bust" etc etc. Absolutely stunning. I had no idea how many private landlords there were in the Party. Kinda explains a lot...

Blissex said...

«When a cheap £400,000 two bedroom flat in the Home Counties or London generates £30,000-£40,000 (usually entirely tax-free, not just work-free) per year of purely redistributive profit»

That is at current prices; but millions of voters bought their properties 10-20-30 years ago, and that flat probably only cost £100,000 or less (at 7% prices double every 10 years, at 10% they double every 7 years) in 2001, with a cash deposit of £5,000-10,000. Those millions are the core constituency that Keir Starmer is trying to appeal to.

Some but not many of those tory voters are going to vote against a government that gives them a gross return 4-6 times (400-600%) cash invested *per year*, regardless of whatever that government does to someone else, whether here or in Iraq etc.
"Blow you! I am alright Jack" is a very powerful vote motivator.

BCFG said...

Kuenessbergs jacket really did go very well with her surroundings.

Great coordination.