Sometimes you just have to wonder how senseless and shortsighted the British public had to be to elect this government late last year. Because after the turbulence of the last decade, we have put in power a bureaucracy that is fast fashioning this country into the complete antithesis of what we call "democracy".
The Dominic Cummings scandal that has emerged this weekend is, in my opinion, one of the revealing and startling scandals in British political history. I cannot admonish Boris Johnson's key political adviser's infringement of lockdown alone, after all I have constantly defended Neil Ferguson for his alleged lockdown breach by having a lover visit him on two occasions, as I believe his work is invaluable in saving people's lives. But it is what has followed in Cummings' case that concerns me, and I am sure many others, immeasurably.
On the penultimate Friday night of May, the Guardian and the Mirror published a joint exclusive suggesting that Cummings travelled from London to Durham to visit his parents whilst he and his wife were infected with coronavirus. The article also quoted a spokesman from police in Durham suggesting that Cummings, who had likely been in close contact with infected Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock days before, was warned about breaching guidelines.
In itself, this is perhaps worse than Ferguson's, and indeed Catherine Calderwood's, the Scottish Chief Medical Officer who went twice to her second home, already. Cummings travelled to visit family over 250 miles away whilst infected. Despite undeniable breaches of the rules, the other two were not infectious and yet they both resigned. Logic dictates that it was inevitable Cummings would have to be next.
Wrong. What has followed will lie in political folklore as potentially one of the biggest governmental embarrassments ever. And there have been many. I would personally go as far to say it undermines any shred of political class, legitimacy and authority that this country possibly had left.
On Saturday morning, there came a government response. Their explanation was that Cummings broke lockdown as he needed family to care for his young son, because his wife was infected and he might soon become infected. They had not been spoken to by the police either, according to the statement.
Ministers flooded to his defence. Rishi Sunak, Michael Gove and Dominic Raab all tweeted in Cummings' support. But the most striking defender of Cumming's breach was Matt Hancock, who just weeks ago said he was "speechless" at Ferguson's contravention of the rules, and supported any police action against him. This time, Hancock said Cummings was correct to seek childcare, as he himself supposedly knows the severity of the illness, given previous infection.
There were others too. In response to a tweet by the Mirror journalist who published this exclusive, the BBC's Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg rushed to the defence of Cummings, citing a source that suggested Cummings and family believed there had been no infringement of the rules. The BBC ran it as a minuscule, secondary story on their News at 10, just over two long hours after it had been broken. The Attorney General, MP Suella Braverman, was another of the ministers who tweeted that Cummings was a good parent for protecting his family, and that the situation should not be politicised. Even his wife, Mary Wakefield, had written an account of their experience with COVID-19 in the Spectator weeks before, but had conveniently omitted their visit to Durham.
So far, we have the entire Cabinet, the taxpayer-funded media, and the judiciary stoutly coming to the defence of Cummings and the government for a breach of lockdown which was, in fairness, not explicitly against the lockdown rules imposed by the government on March 23rd. Suspicious, but no lower than I expected from this bureaucracy.
But on Saturday night, things became ugly for the government and those who had vocally supported them. Having spent the day peddling the aforementioned story, they were hit with another Mirror and Guardian exclusive (the same journalists) that alleged Cummings broke lockdown to go to Durham multiple times, travelling from London to Durham and back twice. He was seen with family at Barnard Castle, 30 miles from Durham, on April 12th, pictured back in London on April 14th, and seen again in Durham on April 19th.
Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, had held the daily briefing on Saturday, defending the adviser's actions on account of his quarantine there in Durham, in line with the story circulated by Number 10. Whether he, and all the ministers who were tweeting support for Cummings all day, knew the extent of the breach, remains to be seen.
Nevertheless, the government has effectively attempted to propagate a complete lie about the situation. And that is abhorrent for many reasons.
 |
| Dominic Cummings (Credit: The Young Witness) |
Should the government have forced the now state-media and Attorney General to tweet in Cummings' support, they cannot be defended. An action as North Korean as that is beyond reprehensible. Kuenssberg's source conveniently gave the same account as the government, and was released as a response to another journalists article, which is widely regarded in the industry as quite unprofessional. That smacks of desperately trying to protect the government. They have threatened to end the license fee and thus the freedom of the BBC, who are now effectively nothing more than government mouthpieces.
The Attorney General's endorsement of Cummings' actions, is perhaps even worse. Even before this second revelation, there was legal uncertainty over the legality of his actions. But if infected, as the government said at the time, the law stated he must stay at home under all circumstances. Braverman was not in a position to brush this off so nonchalantly goven her role in upholding justice. The legal precedent set is one of lawlessness and undermines the whole justice system.
Even Durham Police detailed that they had spoken to Cummings in another statement on Saturday night. Yet the government had denied this too. Who do we trust, witnesses, the media and the police, or the government?
And on Sunday, it emerged that a police complaint had been filed to Durham Police constabulary, with an investigation into Cummings' behaviour, on the grounds of public interest, now seemingly inevitable. If the Attorney General is either willing, or being coerced into covering for the government, can we have faith this police investigation will lead to justice of sorts?
Knowing this vindictive government, they will probably try and suppress it. But the police force in question will not appreciate the government's flat-out refusal to acknowledge or accept the facts given in the aforementioned police statement. One would imagine that they will seek to establish their own authority and possibly force criminal charges on Cummings.
It will make no difference. Boris Johnson has already proved that he is willing to oppose and lie to the public, the media and the police to defend his aide, who is credited with masterminding the 2016 Vote Leave campaign and 2019 General Election victories. Should he continue to defend Cummings if criminal charges are held against him, it will set a dangerous anarchic precedent: that the law means nothing.
Just when I thought I might finally be able to publish a blog I originally drafted on Saturday night, Monday afternoon happened. Cummings himself gave a statement and took questions on his conduct.
He explained his visit to Barnard Castle as a trip to verify whether his eyesight was good enough to drive back to London from Durham, having struggled with eyesight issues whilst suffering from COVID-19. He needed to access childcare going up there in the first place, supposedly, as there was no one in London he could rely on to care for his son.
It doesn't really wash. This was the completely opposite story put out by Number 10 on Saturday morning, indicating the government lied about what happened. He didn't apologise. He didn't show even the slightest shred of remorse to the millions of people who have obeyed lockdown but are now being told that we could have bent these rules if we wanted to. Or rather, if we were part of the elite.
Cummings' story dictated that he also needed to stop as his 4 year-old son needed the toilet, on the way back from Barnard Castle, so they stopped and played for a bit. It seems convenient at best that his son needed the toilet in a 30 mile journey from Durham to Barnard Castle, but not at all on a 260 mile trip from London to Durham, when he and his wife were infected.
As if it couldn't get any worse. Special advisers are, by definition, advisers. They should not be the centre of public controversy, period. When they are having to release public statements surrounding their behaviour, their position becomes untenable. The government has tied themselves to him, and their credibility in the long-run will be damaged as a result.
The Monday afternoon press conference in the Rose Garden at Downing Street showed why Cummings is an adviser. Unlike politicians, he cannot put up a false persona convincingly. The stammering excuses were those of a man caught red-handed, yet whose head was still buried firmly in the sand.
To cap it all off, Johnson led a Stalin-esque daily briefing in the hours after, where he deflected blame from Cummings and cut off protesting journalists when he did not like what they were trying to say. Subtlety is not a characteristic of populist leaders, but in this instance it was on show to hide the slow erosion of free media.
Honestly, I think the story will only get worse. A junior Conservative minister has already resigned over the debacle, and there will push-backs from within the party that could have long-term implications on its future.
I thought it could not get more astounding after the revelations on Saturday night. The emergence of the story itself was a surprise, the stout defence of Cabinet ministers slightly perplexing and then the daily briefings conducted by Johnson and Cummings' press conference changed the narrative even further. Trying to amend this piece to keep up with the weekend's events has been almost torturous, and it makes me realise how much of a skill quick, accurate journalism really is.
That is worth touching on. For years I wondered whether the (let's face it, predominantly right-wing-owned) media would ever get a backbone and challenge the government when they made a huge blunder. This weekend, they have stood up and been counted. Investigative questions put to ministers, attempts to ascertain the truth, acting in the public interest and gauging public mood superbly. It is a step in the right direction, if they can balance that against the harassment of people's personal lives which, regretfully, has happened to Cummings and family in the last few days.
Anyway, Cummings is far too arrogant to resign, as he showed in the press conference. It is likely that they will not sack him too, for he probably has too much information on ministerial crimes and these clowns who govern will not want those released. Or he is actually running the government, and his departure would show Johnson up for the blundering mess that he really is.
It only further illustrates that Cummings is a de-facto, unelected Prime Minister. Democracy? Don't make me laugh. Let us not mock North Koreans, Chinese, or Russians for their lack of critical thinking and acceptance of their government. Electing these crooks has shown we lack any of that ourselves.
But the worst thing about this? It will kill people. The government has effectively changed their own guidelines to suggest that if there are people you need to safeguard on account of their well-being, you may go and see them. What's to stop the whole country from going to see their families? You could reasonably cite that their mental health needs to be safeguarded.
Their inability to act on this suggests also that those who are ill can go and break lockdown rules more freely than those who are healthy. How can that possibly be logical?
It is clear that we have not done enough yet to end lockdown. I'm not planning to do anything against the rules, nor even stretching them to their extreme when they are further relaxed. Cases have not plateaued far enough to allow us to roam free again. We are only endangering ourselves by going back out, especially with sunny weather like this. Yet that is what people will do. And that is the fault of Cummings and the government, for they have completely invalidated lockdown's purpose.
But to be honest, I cannot really blame people for doing so. We have been shown now that it is acceptable to go out and see parents without punishment. Those in the spotlight are not getting punished anymore, like they were in late April and early May, when Calderwood and Ferguson were called to resign by ministers. Why should everyone else have to follow lockdown, when it is one rule for the government; and another rule for everyone else?
Whether he resigns, is sacked or remains in post does not matter now, the damage is done. The government's refusal to sack Cummings after his offence has undermined the principle of lockdown, whether that be this current one or future possible lockdowns, and it will kill even more people than their incompetence has already done. We must make sure that is a point that is never forgotten in time. It would be a disservice to the thousands who have died, to the NHS and care workers, those working on a vaccine. This government does not care.
Most of all, this scandal has demolished any legitimacy they had left as leaders. They have shown themselves to be out of touch with the public, people who don't care about anything other than increasing inequality and protecting their friends.
They are hypocritical cowards. Let that be their legacy.
Comments
Post a Comment