Dominic Cummings has run out of answers

Spectator

10 hours ago

On Wednesday, The Spectator dispatched me to Dominic Cummings's Pharos lecture in Oxford. Packed into the Sheldonian theatre were an interesting crowd. I spotted several X anons, my A-Level politics teacher and Brass Eye creator Chris Morris. For many in the audience, this was a rare opportunity to see their hero; for one or two hecklers, it was a unique chance to harrumph at the villain of Brexit, lockdown, and Barnard Castle. You can read a transcript of it here.
I'm a Cummings fan. Having first discovered him via our political editor's books, I began reading his blog as a teen. I worked through the reading lists, defended his eye test in my student magazine, and heralded him as the future of the right in an article only last year. Throughout my career, he has been a unique guiding light. Which is why, I'm sorry to report, Wednesday was a disappointment.
With the speech being entitled 'What is to be done?' – a nod to the originator by Britain's premier Leninist – one was expecting a call to arms. We sat in the audience sat ready to be given our marching orders. But this was no declaration of revolution. Instead, for those of us habituated into shelling out £10 a month for his Substack, it was dispiritingly familiar.
This was Dom's Greatest Hits – David Bowie at Glastonbury, but with more references to the European Court of Human Rights. For 'Starman', take a condemnation of deranged MPs addicted on the old media. For 'Ashes to Ashes', try Whitehall ignoring Cummings over the pandemic and Ukraine. For 'Rebel Rebel', take parallels with post-Napoleonic Europe and the idiocy of a permanent civil service. But unlike with Bowie, one was hoping to hear a few new tunes between the earlier works.
There were the usual spicy turns of phrase. The Home Office was said to be waging a 'constant jihad' against talented would-be migrants; Whitehall was condemned for hushing up 'the industrialised mass rape of white English children by Pakistani and Somali gangs over decades' while importing 'people from the exact same tribal areas responsible'. Speak for England, Dom.
But as eye-catching as this was – and several other attendees texted me cheering him on – it wasn't new to any habitual X user. We have always known the rape gangs were there; we have always known the state was covering it up; we are now braced for the inevitable whitewash when Keir Starmer's inquiry reports in 2037.
Even his concluding recommendations – replacement of senior officials, closing the Cabinet Office and Treasury, reforming procurement, more focus on science and technology, decentralisation, and a wider reading of nineteenth-century Russian literature – were well-trodden. The talk could have been packaged as A Very Short Introduction to Dominic Cummings in the style of the handy, generalist tomes one can pick up at Blackwell's across the street.
Yet my trip to Oxford was far from fruitless, and not only because I revisited a couple of my favourite student hostelries. A Q and A with Steven Edginton followed. The US Video Editor of GB News has made a name for himself by asking prominent figures on the right questions the left-leaning media never would. I particularly enjoyed his exchange with Liz Truss, exposing the ex-PM as the clueless, over-promoted and self-obsessed charlatan she is.
His approach to Cummings was no different. At times in his speech, the former Number 10 adviser had almost seemed to have forgotten he had been in government: more 'here is what I would do' than 'here is what I should have done'. Edginton pinned him down on his own record, especially on the central and most spectacular failure of the last Conservative government: immigration.
Cummings was quick to distance himself from the Boriswave. He was out of government by the time numbers exploded, he argued. Instead, a combination of Boris Johnson's desire to make up with the Financial Times and powerful bureaucratic forces – the Treasury's addiction to human quantitative easing in particular – meant a new immigration system designed to prioritise high-skilled workers was hijacked to take numbers three times higher than the levels that when Britain voted to Leave. Combined with the ECHR preventing the Royal Navy from stopping the 'stupid boats', this meant a total betrayal of the promises Johnson made in 2019.
Edginton also asked for Cumming's views on how mass deporations and other remigration policies – citing the US and Sweden as examples – would be with voters. Having tied both Nigel Farage and Richard Tice in knots over this, it was refreshing to hear Cummings explain or why Reform UK are squeamish. Farage formed his views 'in the 1990s and 2000s', and it is 'very hard for [him] to adjust to a world where the conventional ideas of that time are broken down'.
Farage and Tice are in their 60s. They are surrounded by a distinctly unimpressive coterie of hangers-on, media personalities and court eunuchs. Are they serious about confronting the institutional resistance and media uproar a sensible centrist approach to immigration would require, or will they fail just as the Tories and Labour have done? The latter, on the available evidence.
Will he embrace the vibe shift, or only gesture towards it?
They are yesterday's men. Yet seeing Cummings in conversation with Edginton, I couldn't help but get the sense I was watching a new right confronting the old. Edginton ended by asking his interviewee if, after the failure after failure of government after government do what they promised, whether democracy was overrated. Cummings replied by suggesting his hope was to 'find a way of reviving the regime' rather than seeing it 'replaced'. But what does that look like?
Another attempted takeover of the Tories? The much-heralded but little-seen Start-Up party? Or a new mass movement, like the 'Looking for Growth' group from academic Lawrence Newport that Cummings has promoted? I've met with Newport and agree with much of his analysis. But Britain's future will not be saved by a few over-eager young men scrubbing the Bakerloo.
Who are the coming generation? They have grown up absorbing the analysis of Cummings. They are conscious of living in a Britain blighted by his failure to deliver the reforms of which he has spoken for so long. They live in the Britain of Scuzz Nation, of Yookay Aesthetics, of Nick 30 Ans. Their hope is exhausted. They have enormous respect for Cummings and Vote Leave. But they will not compromise with a regime that they despise. Cummings may still struggle to use the language of mass deportations; to tomorrow's right, they are but a necessary first step.
Cummings is still a prophet. Most Brits say the country is in decline, feel poor, hate politicians, and have little hope for the future. For those of us familiar with Cummings, this is all unsurprising. We are a country falling ever further into stagnation and inter-ethnic violence, labouring under a performatively useless political class. A crisis point is being reached. Welcome to Weimar Britain, where politics doesn't work, everyone is getting poorer, and the streets are filled with violence.
Can the country be turned around by reviving the existing regime? Or is a different form of government required? And if Cummings was – and is – the man to turn Britain around, why did he allow himself to be outwitted by a patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation? Why did he topple Johnson without a clear plan to replace him? Will he embrace the vibe shift, or only gesture towards it? He is a Lee Kuan Yew afficionado. Does he still have that iron in him? He has spoken about stepping back. That would be a waste. Robert Jenrick is only a phone call away.
Commentators as disparate as friend-of-The–Spectator Curtis Yarvin, Tory MP Neil O'Brien, and my former colleague Henry Hill have all spoken of the need for an Anglo Meiji Restoration – a hard reset of our governing institutions, political class, and economic geography. It is a project requiring the sort of dedicated revolutionary vanguard that I hoped Cummings would call for on Wednesday. His talk was a missed opportunity. The burning questions of our movement remain to be answered.