Introduction

In November 2020, in slightly confused circumstances, it came to public attention that Dominic Cummings, the senior special adviser to the PM, Boris Johnson, was leaving their post by the end of the year. The exit seemed to have come about in the context of serious disagreements between members of the inner circle around the PM involving Cummings. This episode was the latest incident in a career of which controversy had been a frequent feature. Cummings had been a senior figure in a series of political campaigns: against UK membership of the European single currency (in the late 1990s-early 2000s); against devolution to the North East of England (at the referendum of 2004, see: chapters 8 and 11); and in favour of leaving the EU (at the 2016 referendum, see chapter 8). Though not a member of the Conservative Party, Cummings was an adviser to the Conservative politician Michael Gove, and was special adviser to Gove at the Department of Education from 2011-14. Cummings became well-known, most notably for his part in the 2016 referendum. He ran the lead ‘leave’ campaign group, Vote Leave. In this post he placed great emphasis on the value of online campaigning (see: chapter 9).

The general conduct of the 2016 referendum subsequently became a subject of critical scrutiny, with attention focusing matters such as the use made of data and supposedly inflammatory communications techniques. When the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee sought to take evidence from Cummings related to these matters, he refused and was as a consequence found in contempt of Parliament in 2019. Shortly afterwards, Cummings became special adviser to Johnson when the latter became PM. Cummings continued to attract negative attention, with media coverage focusing on matters such as his supposedly eccentric behaviour. Another successful campaign followed for Cummings, when he took a prominent role in the Conservative victory at the 2019 General Election. Cummings had become one of the most well-known participants in the Johnson government, despite not holding a ministerial post and not being a Member of Parliament. In May 2020, allegations about his supposed breaking of pandemic lockdown rules the previous March led to widespread calls for Cummings to be removed from office. Those demanding that he leave his role included a significant number of Conservative MPs. Yet Johnson assisted on retaining the adviser; only to end his tenure later in the year.

Diving deeper

The power of the PM

A consideration of Cummings and the manner of his final departure is revealing regarding the nature of the power of the PM. While working for Johnson, Cummings seemingly sought to exercise influence across the whole of government. This activity extended as far as removing advisers working in other parts of government, coming into conflict with senior civil servants, some of whom left their posts, and even appearing to force the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sajid David, into resigning in February 2020. Cummings was credited with a leading role in the shaping of important government policy approaches, such as plans for the overhaul of the Civil Service; possible curbs to the power of the judiciary (see: chapter 5); and the agenda for the ‘levelling up’ of less prosperous areas of the UK (see: chapter 10). As a key campaigner for Brexit, he helped maintain momentum towards leaving the EU and doing so in a way that distanced the UK from the legal and customs arrangements of the bloc (see: chapter 13). He took part in high level policy discussions, for instance involving the pandemic response; and recruited a number of staff who fit with his objectives to No.10 Downing Street. By 2020 some observers were depicting Cummings as a powerful figure in his own right, upon whom Johnson, as they saw it, was dependent.

But another way of interpreting the position is that Cummings only possessed the authority that Johnson chose to vest in him. By early 2020, Johnson was in a politically strong position, having won a General Election victory late the previous year. He delegated a significant amount of work and authority to Cummings. An aide who was seen to speak for the PM and enjoy his confidence was, by extension, powerful also. But, before the end of 2020, Cummings had seemingly outlived his usefulness. Always controversial, he had become an even greater source of public criticism following claims in May 2020 that he had broken lockdown rules in March. Those demanding his removal included not only opponents of the Conservative Party and government, but MPs from within the party itself. Initially, Johnson remained loyal. By autumn, the Johnson government was experiencing political difficulties related to its handling of the pandemic, and Cummings was at the centre of disputes within Johnson’s own inner circle. At this point, he appears to have lost the confidence of the PM, leading to his exit from No.10 Downing Street. Without the backing of Johnson, he lost any power he appeared to possess. The PM turned to others for the services previously provided by Cummings.

Democratic accountability

As Cummings became an increasingly prominent and controversial figure, one objection raised regarding this aide was that he was ‘unelected’ and therefore not properly accountable, yet at the same time a powerful figure within government. In fact, no holders of offices within the UK government are specifically elected to their roles. Senior permanent civil servants generally reach their roles as part of a career path that commences following a competitive recruitment process (see: chapter 3). Ministers are not elected to their posts, though most of them have seats in the House of Commons to which they have been elected, though by single constituencies. But ministers are held accountable by Parliament, one of the chambers of which, the House of Commons, is elected – in other words, indirect accountability (see: chapter 4). Cummings, however, was not a member of either the House of Commons or House of Lords, and could not answer to it in this way. Indeed, as we have seen, even before becoming an adviser to Johnson as PM, Cummings had resisted attempts by as House of Commons committee to question him. In theory, Johnson was accountable for the actions of his adviser. There was certainly much parliamentary criticism of the PM centring on the activities of Cummings, and in this sense accountability operated. But direct oversight was harder to achieve. 

The role of special advisers

One way of analysing Cummings is from the perspective of the way in which he was employed: as a special adviser. He had previously held a post of this type, when working of Michael Gove as Secretary of State for Education from 2011-2014. Special advisers are a type of civil servant. But unlike regular civil servants, they are employed on temporary contracts, are chosen directly by ministers or PMs who want to employ them, and are not subject to the requirements to be politically impartial or objective set out in the Civil Service Code (see: chapter 3). Through employing special advisers, it is possible to recruit people who have previously taken part in political campaigns, who have particular skill sets they have developed elsewhere, and are very firmly associated with particular political outlooks and policy ideas. Cummings fits into these categories. While many special advisers are largely unknown to the outside world, they have sometimes become controversial figures. Therefore, though Cummings was among the more notorious of special advisers, he had precursors. One unusual feature of Cummings was that, though working with Conservative politicians for much of his career, he distanced himself from the Conservative Party itself. In this respect he differs from many (but not all) special advisers, who are often chosen specifically for their loyalty for the party of government.

Criticising the Civil Service

Cummings was a critic of the Civil Service. Notably – while working inside government, at No.10 Downing Street – he published a blog in January 2020 calling for potential new staff members to come forward, and discussing the defects of the existing Civil Service that he hoped to correct through making some new recruits. Cummings referred to ‘profound problems at the core of how the British state makes decisions’; and saw a need for staff who were more willing to take risks; suited to implementing changes connected to Brexit; and able to provide expertise increasingly needed in government, in areas such as data science. Cummings argued this version of a more diverse Civil Service should replace existing objectives for the staff to be more reflective of the profile of society. The blog, for instance, criticised what Cummings described as ‘babbling about “gender identity diversity blah blah”’ and called for ‘genuine cognitive diversity.’ (Cummings, 2020). In this respect, Cummings consciously rejected the position held by many public institutions that they should recruit and promote more widely from underrepresented groups (for discussion of social diversity see: chapter 10). While the views Cummings advanced were strident in tone and generated controversy, some of them were arguably not particularly original, in particular the idea that the Civil Service was lacking in essential expertise. Many advocates of reform had previously made similar claims (see: chapter 3).

Summary

Dominic Cummings built his career as a successful political campaigner, most notably working on the 2016 European Union referendum. He worked as a special adviser to Michael Gove as Secretary of State for Education in 2011-2014. In 2019, after becoming PM, Boris Johnson appointed Cummings as his most senior special adviser.

As a special adviser, Cummings was employed as a temporary civil servant. But he was highly critical of the Civil Service as an institution. Some of the arguments he advanced in this respect were not entirely original.

Cummings was frequently at the centre of controversy. He became an influential figure within the Johnson government, helping set policy and decide who did and did not hold certain posts. Ultimately, the divisions and tension he was often associated with led to his removal from office.

Test Your Knowledge