Damaged goods: can Boris survive to fight another election after Cummings fallout?
In Dublin during the early eighties, a man subsequently convicted of murder, who had been on the run from the police, was apprehended in a property belonging to the Attorney-General. Charles Haughey was then the Taoiseach. There was always a whiff of sulphur about him. To try to distance himself from the whole affair, he inadvertently added to the political lexicon by describing it as “grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented.” Conor Cruise O’Brien shortened that to “Gubu” recalling the play Ubu Roi, the beginning of the theatre of the absurd.
Boris Johnson does not resemble the principal character in Ubu Roi. But he has brought the theatre of the absurd into Downing St. Gubu rules.
There are many unbelievable aspects and not just the PM’s dealings with his interior decorator – whoever paid for it, how on earth could they have spent so much money? But what on earth prompted Boris to hire Dominic Cummings? Cummings has qualities. He also has the defects of his qualities. It was King Duncan who told us that “there’s no art to find the mind’s construction in the face.” Looking at what happened to him a few hours later, we should disregard his advice. Dominic Cummings has the face of an angry gargoyle. That is not a suitable characteristic for a senior employee in Number 10.
In his days as Education Secretary, Michael Gove employed Cummings as a special advisor and had an immense regard for him. They both went to war against the “Blob” – the educational establishment which was doing so much to lower standards in schools. It was a necessary campaign which is still producing a good harvest. That said, there was a strategic weakness. Not all teachers are Trotskyites. That is not even true of all Department of Education officials. Equally, not enough was done to win parents’ confidence. It may have been that Gove would have been better off with a more emollient aide, who could have helped him to find allies, rather than a bull who carried his own china shop around with him. But there is someone who strongly disagrees with that: Michael Gove. There may be a compromise assessment. Cummings is the man to have by your side if you are going into a free-fire zone. He is also the man who will turn any situation he encounters into a free-fire zone.
That was David Cameron’s view. When Michael Gove moved jobs, Cameron insisted that Dominic Cummings stopped being employed by the government. But the ex-spad had his revenge, while working for the Vote Leave campaign. He was so rude to anyone whom he regarded as insufficiently able that Bernard Jenkin tried to have him sacked. He failed. If he had succeeded, it is possible that the UK might still be in the EU. If Cummings had gone, Michael Gove may have abandoned his plans to join the Leave side. Boris himself, who was calculating the odds and by no means immune to cowardice, might not have entered the field. There would have been no “Take back Control”. The Leave campaign would still have had the intellect of Iain Duncan Smith, the gravitas of Nigel Farage and the wit of Bernard Jenkin. That might not have been enough.
“Take back Control” entitles Cummings to be regarded as a game-changing phrase maker. But that does not qualify him to be a chief of staff. Government needs more than phrases. It requires the ability to think through difficult questions. Even Churchill did far more thinking-through than is often acknowledged. Government also requires timing and patience. The people at the centre are all very clever – or should be. They are also over-worked, coping with big problems to which there are no easy solutions. Life is stressful enough, without having to deal with someone who cannot control his ego.
The ideal Conservative leader should deploy a blend of political courage and Tory scepticism. He should understand that governing often involves the orderly management of original sin. Lefties believe that the human condition is perfectible. Wise Right-wingers know better. “The troubles of our proud and angry dust are from eternity and shall not fail.”
To be fair to him, Cummings has never claimed to be any sort of Tory or Conservative. He is an angry, impetuous, radical. So why did Boris choose him?
To answer that question, we have to speculate about one of the most unknown regions in modern British politics: Boris Johnson’s personality. Only on one point can we be certain: what we see on the surface bears no relation to the interior. Boris has always used goofiness and charm to extricate himself from the regular scrapes that he blunders into. I suspect – and much of this is surmise – that he is astonished at people’s willingness to buy his act. That results in a mixture of hubris and insecurity. Underneath the clowning, there are two defining qualities: ambition, and selfishness. The ambition is contentless. Boris wants to be things, not do things. In one of the Just William books, William announces that he wants to be King. Another Outlaw – good chief of staff material, perhaps – asks what he would do when he became King. “I’ll rule” William replies. For William, read Boris, in many respects.
The selfishness is profound. Boris has very few close friends and no interest in other people’s inner lives. To him, others are relevant solely as a means of his gratification. As if these unattractive qualities were not enough, we must also add jealousy. When he makes envious remarks about David Cameron, it has been assumed that he was joking. That is almost certainly untrue. I suspect that he has not forgiven Cameron for getting a First when he got a Second and becoming Prime Minister while he, Boris, was still in the foot-hills.
When the nonsense about Greensill broke, as well as announcing enquiries, all Boris needed to do was express his absolute confidence in the former PM’s integrity. He was too mean-spirited to do so. “The whirligig of time brings in his revenges.”
Revenge leads us to Dominic Cummings. Is this to be The Revenger’s Tragedy, or The Revenger’s Farce – or both? If Boris were capable of engaging with others’ personalities, he would have realised the folly of bringing Cummings into Downing St. Organise a think-tank role for him, encourage him to act as a goad – but keep him away from the inner team. But it may be that he wanted to choose a man whom David Cameron had rejected. It may also be that Boris was inwardly aware of a lack. He would have to find someone to do his thinking for him. This Wooster needed a Jeeves.
There is a well-founded report that Cummings did play a crucial role early on, over the inoculation programme. It is said that some senior officials were alarmed. They wanted lots of tests before the vaccine was unleashed. But Cummings persuaded the PM to steam-roller them and press ahead. It would be ironic if that turned out to be correct and his fingerprints are all over Boris’s principal success.
Again, if Boris had taken notice of other people’s characters, he would not have treated Cummings as he has. Even a brief study of the psychology of that individual would have warned him of the folly of starting a war with the angry gargoyle. In that conflict, the former advisor has two advantages over the PM. First, he does not care about the consequences. He will do whatever damage he can. Second, Cummings is truthful. No-one has ever accused Boris of that.
British troops are due to leave Afghanistan in September. Boris must wonder when he will be able to evacuate his forces from Dominic-stan. In The Gay Place, a novel about Texas politics in the Fifties – gay is not being used in today’s sense – we encounter Governor Arthur Fenstenmaker, LBJ to the life. A young politician is facing a tough re-election race against an older opponent whom he defeated last time. The old guy is flinging all sorts of mud at him. The youngster consults the Governor. Should he reply in kind? “No, son” comes the advice: “You never want to get into a pissin’ contest with a pole-cat.”
Whatever the nature of this contest, Boris will be damaged. Most of his MPs are aware of his failings, but forgive him because he is a winner. If that ceased to be self-evident, Boris would not be able to fall back on either affection or respect. It is no longer certain that he will fight the next election.