Dominic Cummings: oracle of the new British berserk
Photo by James Manning/PA
The woman next to me wanted more on Nikolay Chernyshevsky. She'd been reading about him and was telling me how his ideas about utopian socialist communes are gaining increasing traction on the American right. The talk was titled 'What Is to Be Done?', an allusion to his most famous work. How had he not been mentioned?
If you're wondering which event could pull this sort of crowd, we'd been listening to Dominic Cummings. On 11 June, he spoke to a packed Sheldonian Theatre over the pealing bells of a midsummer Oxford evening. In the audience were the university's male nerdfolk, in their standard sky-blue shirts and navy trousers, an assortment of academics and curious civilians. Above us was the theatre's scarlet and brimstone ceiling fresco, titled 'Truth Descending upon the Arts and Sciences to Expel Ignorance from the University'. Introducing Cummings, Professor Nigel Biggar called him an 'oracle'.
He didn't look like one. The outfit was of the same pedigree as throughout his latest and ongoing media campaign: red-and-white baseball cap, the same sneakers he mows the lawn in and a polo shirt in storm-cloud grey. The only upgrade in Cummings' 2025 couture has been a pair of finely wired aviator-style spectacles, elevating the look to one of a briefly heralded 2010s house DJ.
And he didn't sound like an oracle either – if oracles are supposed to speak in looping epigrams. As during his career as a freelance critic of the British state, Cummings was clear and frightening. He is a rhetorician of simple invective. Our governing 'regime has become cancerous', he opened, in a speech that also mentioned 'industrialised mass rape', 'stupid [small] boats', 'stupid old tanks', and a 'constant jihad' waged against skilled migration within the Home Office. He was here to tell us how to fix it all.
If there is such a thing as a Cummings critique, this represented its most comprehensive digest. He recited his current favourite examples of state failure – fugitive terrorists using human rights law to sue the Ministry of Defence, deep-state officials murmuring of riots in the provinces, politicians who hide from responsibility behind the scripts of their civil service administrators. He connected this with his current favourite historical parallel: the crisis of capitalism, technology and ideology of the 1840s, which he compares to the revolutions in AI and 'biological engineering' in Silicon Valley about to 'smash into all our lives'.
Cassandra in tracksuit bottoms, then. And given the scale of this upheaval, the corresponding Cummings programme is remarkably precise, but limited. His great theme is, to put it facetiously, paperwork management. Government should be narrower, sharper, modelled after the administrations of Pitt the Younger (he speaks as if there is no difference between late-18th-century carronade procurement and modern bureaucracy). The Cabinet Office should be shuttered. 'Science and technology' should be embedded in the prime minister's office. Only then will we 'at least have a functioning regime that can build things'.
Cummings is probably Westminster's most influential public intellectual, at least among its media-Spad-apparatchik networks. It is odd, therefore, how little actual politics intrudes in his work or recommendations (in this potted account of 20th-century history, the development of socialism and fascism came and went in two sentences). What matters instead is the cyclical appearance of material crises and the attempts of political elites to manage them. Though his present case studies are so extreme as to be unverifiable (in the Q&A after his talk, Cummings alleged an active conspiracy to cover up the grooming gangs inside the Department for Education in the early 2010s), his arguments come laced with what feels like sincerity. Outrage at terminal decline is the best form of patriotism the political right can muster.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Britain has seen similar outbursts at times of failure. In his claims of discontent among special forces and military intelligence, in his thunderous warnings of ethnic-sectarian civil warfare, Cummings has acquired the frantic disposition of mid-1970s British officials. Watching him, the person who came to my mind was William Armstrong, another chief adviser to a prime minister (Ted Heath), and another man once considered the true power in No 10. He too was prone to dark, rambling introspections about the state of Britain; in 1974, on a rain-lashed government away day at a stately Oxfordshire home, he suffered a nervous breakdown during which he stripped naked, furiously smoked cigarettes and ranted about Red Armies and the collapse of the world order.
Dominic Cummings is nowhere near such a state of dissolution. His arguments about the structural depth of Britain's dysfunction are increasingly axiomatic on the left and right. And there is nothing academic about his pronouncements: Westminster is full of rumour about the extent of his associations with Nigel Farage and Robert Jenrick, and a project to 'unite the right'. However, like Armstrong, he is a man who has been driven berserk by his exposure to state failure. His reforms for government, pitched somewhere between the Hanoverian and the Singaporean model, may or may not be a solution. But his allegations, and his very Russian vision of a politics wracked by elemental forces, are, at the very least, a vivid symptom of this bout of British sickness.
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Presiding Officer to step down at Holyrood 2026 election
Alison Johnstone has been in the role since 2021 and was the sixth person – and only the second woman – to hold the position. She entered politics in 2007 when she was elected as a Scottish Greens councillor in Edinburgh. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: Numbers prove that the world is ignoring those who talk Scotland down She was then elected as an MSP in 2011, and 10 years later became the first Scottish Greens party member to take up the role of Presiding Officer. Alison Johnstone (Image: PA) Announcing her decision to step down, Johnstone told The Times that "it was always my intention that this would be my last term in Holyrood". 'I came from a wholly non-political background and got involved in a campaign to save a school playing field," she said. 'I was not in a political party but campaigned for the creation of a Scottish parliament and I then worked as an assistant for Robin Harper, the first-ever Green parliamentarian in the UK elected to the first-ever Scottish parliament.' Most recently, Johnstone made headlines after she expelled former Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross from the debating chamber after he refused to follow rules. Ross tried to bring the matter up a week later, and was slapped down again after he inferred Johnstone had not acted in a "neutral manner". READ MORE: UK Government 'set to proscribe Palestine Action after RAF protest' Holyrood's Presiding Officer is impartial – when MSPs take up the role, they give up their party affiliation. They are responsible for chairing meetings in the debating chamber, selecting which questions will be asked at First Minister's Questions, as well as chairing Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and Parliamentary Bureau meetings. The Presiding Officer is supported by two deputies – currently Annabelle Ewing (SNP) and Liam McArthur (LibDem). According to the Scottish Parliament website, the Presiding Officer receives a salary of £130,500.
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Why is China rushing to grow its nuclear arsenal?
China is growing its nuclear arsenal at a faster pace than any other country on the planet, according to new figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). It estimates that Beijing now has more than 600 nuclear warheads and is adding about 100 per year to its stockpile. That means that by 2035, it will have more than 1,500 warheads, still only a third of the arsenal of each of Russia and the US, but nevertheless an enormous increase and a marked shift away from its proclaimed policy of 'minimum deterrence'. To facilitate this expanding arsenal, China is building fields of new missile silos in its western desert regions. The Federation of American Scientists, which identified the silos via satellite imagery, has described them as 'the most significant expansion of the Chinese nuclear arsenal ever.' China is engaged in one of the largest military build-ups ever seen during peacetime The Pentagon believes China is planning to quadruple its nuclear weapons stockpile by 2030, and its fears have been further heightened by People's Liberation Army (PLA) tests of nuclear-capable hypersonic weapons designed to evade America's nuclear defences. One test involved the launch of a rocket into space, which circled the globe before releasing into orbit a highly manoeuvrable hypersonic glider. The nuclear-capable glider – which has been likened to a weaponised space shuttle – had the ability to surf along the earth's atmosphere before powering down to its target at up to five times the speed of sound (hence the hypersonic). Hypersonic weapons are far more difficult to detect and destroy than traditional ballistic missiles. This week, China's foreign ministry spokesperson insisted: 'China has always adhered to the nuclear strategy of self-defence, always maintained its nuclear forces at the minimum level required for national security, and has not participated in the arms race.' This claim is almost as hackneyed as that of China's 'peaceful rise', but understanding China's evolving military doctrine is especially challenging because Beijing 'is refusing to take part in nuclear arms control talks. China last year suspended talks over arms control and nuclear proliferation with the US ostensibly because of American arms sales to Taiwan. However, Beijing has always been a reluctant participant. It is engaged in one of the largest military build-ups ever seen during peacetime, yet there are none of the protocols and little of the depth of mutual knowledge about capabilities and intentions that existed and provided a level of stability during the last Cold War with the Soviet Union. Western strategists believe that one aim of the rapid nuclear build-up is to deter America from coming to the defence of Taiwan, which China claims as its own, and which it has repeatedly threatened to invade. The thinly disguised message to Washington is that America is deluding itself if it thinks a conflict over Taiwan could be contained to the immediate area and not endanger the American homeland. Trying to make sense of China's military doctrine is made all the more challenging by an ongoing purge at the top of the PLA and a heightened level of intrigue surrounding both the army and the Chinese Communist party (CCP). Earlier this year, General He Weidong, the number-two officer in the PLA and a member of the CCP's 24-strong politburo, was removed from his post. This followed the disappearance of Miao Hua, a navy admiral and one of six members (along with He) of the party's powerful central military commission, which is chaired by President Xi Jinping. Miao was also head of the PLA's political works department – charged with ensuring CCP control over the military. The PLA is a party organisation, and in the military pecking order, Miao was regarded as more powerful even than defence minister Dong Jun. Rumours have also swirled that Dong himself has been under investigation. He appears to have survived, at least for now, but if deposed, he would be the third successive defence minister to face corruption charges. China's rocket force, the most secretive and sensitive branch of China's military responsible for overseeing in part all those shiny new nukes, has also been the target of an extensive purge. Those targeted included the two heads of the force. Among others purged have been a navy commander responsible for the South China Sea and several others responsible for procuring equipment – long a notoriously corrupt part of the military. When Xi came to power in 2012, he pledged to clean up the PLA, which ran a business empire so big that preparing for war often appeared to be a secondary concern. In spite (or possibly because of) Xi's efforts, the graft only seems to have got worse – though it should be noted that 'corruption' is frequently used as a catch-all and a pretext for the removal of those considered insufficiently loyal to the leader. Because many of those now being targeted include Xi's hand-picked officials, it will inevitably be seen as an indictment of his abilities and judgement. This week's figures from SIPRI certainly confirm the worrying extent of China's nuclear ambitions. For the country's top brass charged with wielding these fearsome weapons, however, navigating the corridors of power at the pinnacle of Xi Jinping's capricious CCP is proving considerably more dangerous than the battlefield.
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Are you ‘upset'? The dangers of flags in Scottish schools
Ms McDonald also said in the letter that she'd spoken to her pupils and explained the symbolism and association of flags and symbols to different groups of people, and how using the pictures was contrary to the school values of respect and kindness. 'I hope this helps everyone understand where mistakes have been made,' she said, 'and we can move on enjoying the rest of the end-of-term celebrations.' The language, the tone, the phrasing – 'inclusion', 'acceptance', 'offensive', 'upset', 'I hope this helps' – is a good example of the way some people in the public sector have learned to talk, indeed feel they must talk: plaintive, patronising, passive aggressive. I also dread to think what Ms McDonald said to the pupils when she 'explained the symbolism and association of flags'; if her letter's anything to go by, she's the last person who should be explaining it. But as I say, the headteacher has now said sorry through her council, East Renfrewshire. A council statement said she'd never meant to suggest the union flag was sectarian and 'apologised for any offence and upset that has been caused' (more upset and offence you'll notice). The council issued its statement after the local MSP, Tory Jackson Carlaw, said he was angry about the head's letter and that equating the Union flag with sectarianism was deeply offensive (I think we may need to ban the o-word). We also need to put all the apparent offence and upset in perspective. It would seem that someone saw the pictures of the event, noticed the Union flags, and contacted the school to say they were upset. The headteacher then reacted in the way she did, writing her letter, which upset other people, meaning the headteacher then had to apologise to them as well and suddenly we're in a spiral of offence and apology. The problem is that, in a hyper-sensitive culture, we assume someone being 'upset' requires some kind of reaction: a there-there, a soothing letter or placating policy announcement. Consult your granny: it does not. Read more These are the latest plans at the Glasgow School of Art. Really? No more Edinburgh Book Festival for me – where did it all go wrong? A Scottish legend says cancel culture is over. Yeah right The fact that someone was upset by the pictures of the event at Arthurlie Primary is also an indication of how flags work. Stick a flag up a pole – any flag, any pole – and you'll immediately please some people and upset others. The Union flag makes a particular type of Scottish nationalist puce with fury – God forbid any Scottish supermarket that puts it on British sausages – and increasingly the same applies to the saltire and a particular type of Unionist. The situation also got a lot worse after 2014, but we are where we are. What it means a decade on, in 2025, is that putting up a Union flag, or a saltire for that matter, in a school, or anywhere, is not a neutral act. Maybe there was a time, before the Scottish referendum, when flags went up without much comment; I also used to think, with some satisfaction, that a lot of Scots find naked patriotism and flags a wee bit embarrassing. But the referendum changed things, flags led to more flags (flagflation) and now there's anger because the flag you see isn't the 'right' one. Hence someone looking at a picture of an event at Arthurlie Primary and getting upset. There-there. The position the school takes now is that it was not their intention to imply the Union flag is sectarian but beyond that, it's unclear what their policy is. The council statement says the school should be 'focused on a diverse British society' and 'foster an ethos of respect for diverse perspectives and national identity'. So does that mean it's OK to put up Union flags to reflect one of the diverse national identities? Or does it mean it's not OK to put up Union flags because it only reflects one of the diverse national identities? They may have withdrawn the 'sectarian' accusation but where they actually stand on flags is uncertain. Jackson Carlaw (Image: PA) Perhaps if Ms McDonald had chosen her words more carefully, we wouldn't be in this position. The use of 'sectarian' was certainly ill-advised given its connection to the Troubles and traditional religious tensions which still bubble in parts of Scotland. She also failed to take into account that many Scots, including some of the parents of kids at her school, will feel positively about the Union flag and so ended up committing that most heinous of modern crimes: offending someone, while trying to avoid offending someone. She also appeared to be handing a kind of veto to people who get upset by the Union flag but get over-excited by saltires. You know the type. And why is it always me who ends up sitting next to them at parties? Anyway, expressed in a different way that didn't appear to single out the Union flag, perhaps the headteacher could have explained that there are dangers in all flags in schools. There will be some who argue that the Union flag is different and that it's the national flag of the UK and therefore represents everyone, but I'm afraid – given everything we've been through in the last ten years – that would be naïve at best or evasive at worst. Best, perhaps, for schools to just try to be neutral and, crucially, consistent: no Union flags, no saltires, no flags at all, not mine, not yours. The risk you run otherwise is that you start to introduce the kind of stuff that comes with flags. You may remember a few years ago Michael Gove suggesting 'British values' should be taught in English classrooms, no doubt draped with union flags. Some Scottish nationalists also talk about 'Scottish values' and maybe one day they'd like to teach them in schools plastered with saltires. But in this country, we're rather sceptical about all of that or used to be – it's something the Americans do, not us. And maybe that's something we should try to keep hold of. And maybe the best place to do it is in a classroom free of flags.
