Dominic Cummings has run out of answers
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Post-Brexit chaos as EU citizens living in Britain wrongly barred from UK
EU citizens waiting for the government to decide their pre- Brexit residency status have been wrongly refused entry to the UK, forcing them to give up their lives here. The Independent Monitoring Authority for Citizens' Rights Agreements (IMA) has expressed 'serious concerns' after some who left to go on holiday or visit family were barred from entering Britain on their return. Among those affected was a 34-year-old Spanish woman who was removed from the UK despite showing Home Office documents which proved her right to live and work in the UK. She had flown to Spain to see her sister and her new baby at Christmas, The Guardian reported. Another EU citizen, Greek Cypriot Costa Koushiappis, was forcibly removed after taking a short trip to Amsterdam in November, the paper said. The IMA has now written to the Home Office, warning that those waiting for a decision on their residency should not be removed if they make short trips overseas, including for business or leisure. It advised that those who hold a valid 'certificate of application' (CoA) from the Home Office can use it with Border Force officials at airports or ports to show they are allowed to travel. Miranda Biddle, chief executive of the IMA, said: 'Our position is that a citizen with a valid certificate of application has a right to exit and enter the UK while waiting for a decision on their EU settlement scheme application, subject to providing additional documentation required at the border.' She said she was 'keen to continue to work with the government' to 'ensure citizens are not discouraged from exercising their rights'. The group has called on the Home Office to clarify the CoA rules before a new system requiring visitors to the UK to have an 'electronic travel authorisations' is enforced. Campaign group the3million said it was 'very disappointed' that the IMA had agreed with the Border Force approach of asking EU citizens to carry documents to prove their residence before Brexit took effect on 31 December 2020. A CoA was sufficient proof of rights until such time as a final decision is taken, the group said. A Home Office spokesperson said: 'All individuals with a certificate of application are made aware that they may be asked for evidence to show that they qualify under the scheme before they are allowed entry to the UK. Equivalent guidance has been issued to Border Force officers and published online.'
New Statesman
6 hours ago
- New Statesman
Palestine Action and the radicalisation of grandma
Demonstrators attend a pro-Palestine Action protest on Saturday 9 August. Photo byLast weekend (9-10 August), the Metropolitan Police arrested more than 500 people on Parliament Square for displaying signs supportive of Palestine Action, a group the government has recently categorised as a proscribed terror organisation. One of the things that has led coverage of these mass arrests is the average age of those involved: of the 519 people who provided the police with a date of birth, just under half were over 60, with 15 octogenarians detained. On my Instagram feed, among the blur of holiday pictures, a video of a woman in her sixties or seventies being carried across the grass plays again and again. 'That could be your grandma,' an offscreen voice tells the police who are carrying her. Surprise at protesters' ages led several BBC bulletins and the coverage of various newspapers. This angle suggests that Palestine Action's supporters were formed of a novel demographic composition. But this is not a silent cohort at last moved to action, some slumbering conscience of the nation. The old maids haven't ditched their bikes mid-misty cycle to Holy Communion to rush to Parliament Square and get arrested for terror-related offences. Or if they have, it shouldn't surprise us: these statistics describe no more than the demographic in the United Kingdom that does politics. People of every age have political beliefs, of course, and polling can tell you that the young are more concerned about events in Gaza, or more sympathetic to Jeremy Corbyn's new party, than the old. Age (along with education level) is a good predictor of political opinion, but it's a less useful metric when you consider not what people are thinking about politics but who is actually doing it. The average age of the Labour Party membership after the surge when Corbyn was elected leader was 51. Councillors are the base unit of political activism in this country, and only 16 per cent of them are under 45 (on average, they're 60). More than half of trade union representatives are over 50, and anyone who has ever run a local Labour branch knows that retired public-sector workers are the party's most dogged foot soldiers. I'm sure the same goes for the Conservative Party and retired private-sector workers, or the Liberal Democrats and retired biologists who play the French horn. Politics is an old person's game. I spent much of this year writing a book about the anti-Brexit movement – a serious political force between 2017 and 2019 – and arguably Britain's biggest protest movement since the campaign against the war in Iraq. The People's Vote marches – lampooned as the 'longest Waitrose queue in history' – pulled in hundreds of thousands. Its base was what you'd expect. A survey of Remain activists by the political scientists Adam Fagan and Stijn van Kessel found 87 per cent were 45 or older, with 41 per cent over 65. Part of the reason for all of this engagement, of course, is simply free time: whether you're becoming a councillor or standing outside parliament with Steve Bray every Wednesday, retired or retiring people generally have more of it than younger people. But when it comes to protest that brings with it significant legal jeopardy – such as that undertaken by the Palestine Action protesters – we can think a little more deeply than 'they have the time'. While the Extinction Rebellion protests were cross-generational, over-65s were over-represented among post-protest defendants. A criminal record is not damaging to the prospects and future of a retiree who is more likely to own their home outright in the way it is to a 21-year-old who is likely to rent. As with anti-Brexit protesters who talked about rights they enjoyed being taken from their grandchildren, older people who took the legal risk over climate protests often did so with inter-generational fairness on their minds. A similar calculation played out this weekend. All of this protesting and activism is downstream from the most important bit of political engagement that older people reliably do at much higher rates than younger people – vote. One can post up a storm about youthquakes and Gen-Z radicalism, but in assessments of activity rather than of disposition, it's the old who are more relevant and more engaged, in all kinds of ways. Our political system acknowledges this – two-child limit, acceptable; winter fuel means test, unacceptable – but culturally it's not something we seem to grasp. That the political activist in our collective mind's eye looks more like Phoebe Plummer, the 23-year-old Van Gogh soup-thrower, than Alice Oswald, the 58-year-old poet who was among the Palestine Action arrestees, is one of our many national failures of perception. It is probably helpful for Palestine Action's supporters that we have a media environment that tends to take the concerns of people with grey hair more seriously than those with pink. But who actually does politics is a fact of public life that Government strategists would do well to reckon with, instead of doubling-down on the 'hippy-punching' stance that got it into this mess in the first place. That could be your grandma; and she definitely votes. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Palestine Action and the distortion of terrorism] Related
The National
8 hours ago
- The National
One million young Scots can shape our route to independence
As an SNP MSP, I've seen firsthand how severely a failing political system can hold a nation back. Inaction and sticking with the status quo is not an option. A million young Scots who were too young to vote in 2014 will be eligible to have their say by the end of the next Scottish parliamentary term. They are growing up in a post-Brexit world defined by insular politics and broken international partnerships, and that will shape their decision-making. While nations around the globe are forging new alliances to tackle shared problems, the UK has chosen to turn inwards, leaving behind our place in Europe and the vital connections that came with it. This isn't just a domestic issue; it's an international identity crisis. READ MORE: Investigation urged into radioactive leak in Scottish loch and 'cover-up scandal' For our young people, it meant the immediate loss of the Erasmus programme and the severing of cultural and educational links. Studying abroad became more difficult, young musicians from the Highlands and Islands had opportunities snatched away almost overnight and psychological connections to Europe and the rest of the world were diluted. We're represented on the global stage by a government whose values often feel a million miles from our own; whether it's raising tuition fees for students in the rest of the UK or enabling human rights breaches across the world. The choice for Scotland's youth is clear: do we want to be part of a country that builds walls, or one that builds bridges? Do we want to be part of a UK political system that seems incapable of taking climate change seriously, or do we want to seize our vast renewable energy potential and become a global leader in the just transition, playing our part in tackling this international danger? The contrast with our Scottish Government's approach is stark. While we're held back from rejoining the international community, we've shown that we can govern with an outward-looking, progressive mindset on the issues within our control. An independent Scotland would not just be a new nation; it would be a new voice on the world stage: a voice for co-operation, human rights and climate action. We've heard the promises of 'change' so many times before. From one UK government to the next, we're told that a new policy here or a new spending plan there will be enough to fix things. But this is an illusion we have to break. You can't solve a crisis with a quick fix, you don't get radical change by repainting the walls in Westminster and you can't build a fair society on a broken foundation. The real, lasting progress that our generation needs won't come from opportunistic promises; it will only come when we have the power to change the foundations of our society and build a new, fairer system from the ground up. This is why independence is not merely an option, it's an imperative. It's the only way for Scotland's young people to take their place in a global community that is crying out for progressive, internationalist leadership. For the million of you now, or soon, eligible to vote, this is your moment. You have the power to turn your frustration with the current state of affairs into a force for global change. Let's not waste it.
