Dominic Cummings at Warwick Speakeasy

Not many political advisors ever reach public awareness. Normally they dwell in small offices in Downing Street or government departments, scurrying through the corridors of Westminster or standing silently, shadow-like, behind a Minister or Shadow Cabinet member. In fact, it is often said that once an advisor becomes the story, they have failed in their job. It often doesn’t take long for them to quit or be fired.

He is probably both the best-known, and the least-liked, political advisor of the past 15 years

Few, however, have reached the heights of Dominic Cummings, and even fewer are so viscerally hated by the general public. He is probably both the best-known, and the least-liked, political advisor of the past 15 years. He has also continued to be involved in the national political debate after his departure from frontline politics, far more than many former advisors. This is why, when I got the chance to hear him speak at the University of Warwick, I jumped at the opportunity.

I clearly wasn’t the only one. Warwick Speakeasy, the non-SU affiliated society who hosted the event, had to close off the booking because of popularity and lack of seating. The room was full and there was a video for those who weren’t able to view it. Logistically, it was well run and everything seemed to go smoothly.

The evening followed a simple, predetermined structure: Cummings gave an opening address of about 15 minutes, followed by a series of questions by Speakeasy’s President Vinay Kapoor, and then with about 45 minutes of questions from the audience. It seemed laid back and flexible, with the opening interlude providing a useful springboard for questions. There was no real censorship of questions, and Cummings continued to answer after the event (admittedly backed into a corner by hordes of inquisitive 20-somethings). In all, the event had a pleasant air and many of the students seemed interested to hear what he had to say.

“Maybe ask a few annoying questions or heckle a bit”

A Warwick Labour Supporter

I was struck by how some of the anger towards Cummings, which was notable before the event, seemed to dissipate during the conversation. Waiting outside before the event, I noticed a group from Warwick Labour who, when asking each other why they had decided to turn up, said something to the effect of “maybe ask a few annoying questions or heckle a bit”. However, I noted no heckling, and apart from one punchy question on accepting his own blame for the governmental failures during Covid, questions were all asked in good faith.

Maybe the more partisan individuals were surprised by his thinly veiled loathing for all of the parties, particularly the Conservatives (who were also represented at the event). His verdict on Labour was expected – contempt for a complete lack of ideas or willingness to break things to get things done in government. He was no less scathing of the Tories, who he saw as having squandered 14 years in government and as having failed to deal with the issues they complained about. He showed a degree of hope about what Reform could achieve but remained sceptical of their ability not to get sidetracked by issues such as climate change or immigration.

So who are ‘his people’ in politics? He has attached himself to certain people in American Republican circles and clearly liked to think of himself as moving with the ‘tech bros’. It has been speculated that he has increasingly been acting as an advisor to Elon Musk on British issues with a Cummings-esque style to President Trump’s recently established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

On this side of the Atlantic, Cummings has continued his lengthy ranting on Substack to his audience of about 60,000. More interestingly, he recently spoke at the launch of ‘Looking for Growth’, a campaign to boost economic growth in the UK by building nuclear power stations, power lines and infrastructure. This is headed by Dr Lawrence Newport, who headed the anti-XL Bully campaign and has also collaborated with Cummings in a ‘Crush Crime’ campaign. When asked during the Q&A what he was focusing on in the UK these were the things he mentioned, as well as making clear he had other projects ongoing which he couldn’t make public.

Yet, what first caught my attention, before he even started speaking, was his appearance. He was rushing past us as we waited outside when I caught a glimpse of him. He looked like he had gotten dressed in the dark. He wore, if I remember correctly, a beanie under a baseball cap (the latter remained on for the course of the evening), baggy trousers half-tucked into black hiking boots, an Air Jordan t-shirt, and a large hoodie.

He had the air of someone who did not care what people thought of him. This was striking given the fact that he seemed to particularly enjoy the laughter of the audience. He got hearty laughs from the audience following a line about judicial review paying for Land Rovers for lawyers – it was notable that he used the line twice more during the evening. He was very performative – scribbling on the whiteboard, painting vivid images of individuals such as Sunak as “choosing to be a complete NPC (non-player character)” and mildly cajoling Kapoor for his questioner selection (only picking men, albeit from a male-dominated audience).

This persona he tried to portray linked closely to the theme of his talk. He was violently anti-establishment, placing the blame for most of the failures of government on a talentless and unimaginative state, plagued by inertia. He was scornful of officials, pointing out that the “failed” Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health, Chris Wormald, is next in line for the role of Cabinet Secretary, the top Civil Service role over less established figures such as Antonia Romeo or Tamara Finklestein.

“The country is sound and the people are great, the problem is the political and technocratic class”

Dominic Cummings

He spoke at length about how Civil Service structures mean that young and talented people often leave the service early or turn to other industries. Those who do stay become culturally homogenised as talent fails to be rewarded. The service is full of “generalists with humanities degrees” as opposed to people with real technical talent and skills. In his own words: “The country is sound and the people are great, the problem is the political and technocratic class.” The only solution in his eyes to the problems facing the nation today is to “cut out the cancer” of the bureaucratic elite.

Lawyers, particularly those involved in human rights and environmental cases, were subject to particular ire for preventing the democratic work of government in the realms of immigration and house-building respectively. International organisations, such as the EU, were also seen as hampering economic growth and government activity.

In fact, most of the people he had interacted with he seemed to treat with contempt, as intellectually inferior and powerless. MPs, cabinet ministers, and advisors are all essentially pointless compared to the power of the bureaucratic state. Boris Johnson was described as “completely lost, completely useless” while Sunak, who he met prior to the 2024 election, “was catatonic with despair”. He saved special fury for “mad Carrie” (Symonds), Johnson’s wife, whose “rampage” cost him his job.

In all, the evening was interesting, intellectually stimulating, and pleasant. Speaking for myself, I certainly did not come out of the room feeling any more sympathetic or affectionate towards Mr Cummings personally. Although, I was more persuaded by some of his ideas regarding government ineffectiveness than before. I imagine that is the crucial thing to understand with Cummings – his life and ideas are a contradiction in and of themselves. He is a man characterised by his hatred of the heart of government, yet he failed to achieve his aims while there. He personally propelled to Downing Street a politician, who he thought was manifestly unfit for the job of Prime Minister. He furiously criticises the very government which he was in essence in control of and refuses to take any specific blame (“I’m sure I made mistakes, but..”) for any of the problems at that time. The question for policy thinkers is this: can one dissociate the abstract ideas from the disagreeable personality, in order to learn lessons for the centre of government?