Cummings should have gone to Specsavers

Hell hath no fury like a nation that has been dutifully following lockdown rules for nine weeks suddenly discovering that the Prime Minister’s chief adviser does not believe the restrictions apply to him.

The scandal over Dominic Cummings and his ill-advised Odyssey from London to Durham has been raging since journalists from The Mirror and The Guardian dropped the bombshell on Friday night. But Cummings is no longer even the main story. Instead, it is the eye-opening contortions from government figures – including the PM himself – to defend both the Durham journey and the subsequent excursion to Barnard Castle (now one of the UK’s must-see tourist destinations) that have taken centre stage.

From Boris Johnson’s insistence that his aide acted “responsibly, legally and with integrity”, to a coordinated Twitter campaign of Tory MPs waxing philosophical about the challenges of parenthood, to Michael Gove tying himself in knots this morning over whether he himself had ever taken a 60-mile drive to test his eyesight, the government’s strategy has been to back their man at all costs.

And costs there will be. Government allies are trying to paint this as a classic Westminster bubble row that makes journalists froth at the mouth but will be of little interest to the general public.

But this time it may be different.

According to a new YouGov poll released today, 71 per cent of the public think that, whatever the Prime Minister might say, Cummings broke lockdown rules, while 59 per cent believe he should resign. Tellingly, these numbers have got worse since Cummings addressed the nation on Monday. The debacle has hit Johnson’s approval ratings too, which have fallen 20 points in four days, and are now negative, as are the government’s.

There are many reasons why “Cummings-gate” appears to be cutting through when so many government scandals have gone virtually unnoticed. But do not underestimate the powder keg of public frustration. For nine full weeks, people have been confined to their homes, prevented from saying goodbye to their loved ones, banned from attending funerals, shamed for sitting in parks, and denied the right to have any human contact at all if they live alone. They have lost their jobs, had their weddings cancelled, seen their businesses collapse, their children’s education disrupted, their savings annihilated.

All of it, we were told, was necessary. And for the most part, the public mood has been not only compliant, but supportive. The government’s message that “we’re all in this together” resonated, especially coupled with the slogan that staying at home equalled saving lives. To see that same government retrospectively change the rules, to try to argue that the decisions Cummings made were not only legally sound but what anyone with common sense would have done, is clearly regarded as an insult to the personal sacrifices made by the vast majority of the population.

Not everyone agrees, and a study of social media suggests there is a minority view, strongly-held, that blames the media and backs Boris.

And none of this is to belittle the dilemma facing Cummings back in March when he realised he and his wife would struggle to look after their child if they became ill. Many will have sympathised with his account of his decision-making process at the Rose Garden press conference, and the PM was right when he implied that any parent in his position would have wanted to make sure their child was well cared for.

The problem that will not go away is that thousands of parents (many in far less fortunate positions than Cummings and his wife and their single child) have faced exactly that predicament over the past two months when they have fallen ill, believing that they would be breaking the law if they sought help from friends and family. Some may even have been fined for behaviour far less dramatic than a 260-mile trip across the country.

Why, they will be asking, does the “anti-elitist” Dominic Cummings get special treatment? When quizzed on this by an angry member of the public – a vicar – at today’s briefing, Matt Hancock suggested that any lockdown fines issued for childcare-related reasons would be reviewed. Never mind that this is essentially a retroactive change in the law – what about travelling to a funeral? Or to see a terminally ill relative one last time? Or to seek family support during a mental health crisis? Are lockdown fines even a viable penalty now?

The pressure on the government is not fading, as ministers hoped. Scotland Office minister Douglas Ross quit the government in protest today (a move that does not bode well for the Conservatives’ chances in next year’s Scottish Parliament elections), and some Tory backbenchers are furious.

A calmer response to the original allegations from Number 10 at the behest of Cummings on Friday might have prevented the situation from getting out of control. Cummings could either have apologised unequivocally on Friday and stepped down, on the quiet understanding that he could return to his job in a year or so when the Covid-19 crisis was a distant memory, or he could have answered the questions and defended himself politely. Instead, there was sneering and a refusal to take it seriously. Number 10 then chose to prioritise his job over its own coronavirus strategy and long-term political prospects. Why?

As the crisis-within-a-crisis unfolds, no doubt further revelations are in store. And I’ve learnt in recent years that political predictions can easily be wrong. But it’s hard this evening to see how the Johnson-Cummings duo can recover.