The government’s handling of the Dominic Cummings row has led to a loss of public trust

Dominic Cummings’ trip to Durham, and Boris Johnson’s decision to stand by his chief adviser, have given the impression that there are different rules for the public than for those who work for the prime minister. However much the government protests that this is unfair, its attempts to deal with the furore have only made the situation worse – and have far wider consequences than whether Cummings holds on to his job.

The government has increased confusion about the law and its own guidance

In its defence of Cummings, the government has made repeated references to the ‘rules.' The government response muddles up questions over whether Cummings broke statutory regulations that are enforceable by the police, with about whether he breached government-issued guidance on how people should behave during the lockdown. Both are important. The debate about whether he broke the law is largely about whether his justifications for his movements constituted a ‘reasonable’ excuse. Ministers have said they think they did. In the end, though, this is a test to be applied by the police and the courts if a case were brought.

Perhaps more damaging is the government’s argument that Cummings didn’t breach government guidance. This matters because it has further confused what that guidance is and how binding it should be. There is a great deal of guidance on government websites: Cummings read out a section of the NHS website in his press conference. But to many people, this guidance extended to the messages which the prime minister issued in his televised addresses, his letter to the nation on 28 March – ‘We are giving one simple instruction – you must stay at home’ – or the health secretary’s urging for people to stay at home over Easter, no matter the temptations, as a ‘test of the nation's resolve’. Many people interpreted these messages as government instructions and a moral imperative.

And it is the damage to those moral arguments that is, probably, most troubling: the government has undermined its own ability to ask people to do the right thing for the good of the general populace rather than their own individual circumstances. By arguing that Cummings was right to follow his ‘instincts’ and respond to the guidance in a way which matched his own circumstances, the government is arguing that guidance could be interpreted as people saw fit. This is the root cause of so much anger for those who responded in good faith despite difficult circumstances and sometimes tragic consequences.

The government’s comms approach over Cummings has increased the loss of trust

These confused messages were made worse by the way in which the government attempted to respond to the coverage of Cummings’ trip to Durham, an approach which has undermined trust even further. Cummings himself has acknowledged that his handling of the story was a mistake, admitting that he should have issued a statement earlier. If Cummings had apologised, explained his actions, and accepted a reprimand, then the government might have found a way to keep him in post without undermining its messaging on the lockdown. This approach would have made better sense as a comms strategy, and might also have carried greater moral weight.

Instead, a hostile approach has probably exacerbated the loss of trust in the government’s message – and with that trust comes the consent of the public for the restrictions which the government put in place. The whole Covid response – the guidance on what can and can’t be done, the laws imposed to regulate behaviour, even the role that the police play in enforcing those laws – relies on public consent. It is the nature of democracy, but it is also practical. All policing rests on consent: the police do not want to impose fines or make arrests, and policing would be unsustainable if everyone flouted the rules.   

The government will urgently have to rethink its comms for the next phase  

In some respects, easing the lockdown may look easier than imposing it in the first place: it means granting people more freedoms and greater flexibility in their lives. The government can make some good news announcements, with the prime minister taking the opportunity to distract from the Cummings fall-out by using his press conferences to hint at measures to ease the lockdown.

But the reality is that the government now faces an even harder task in the next phase of its response to Covid-19. Easing lockdown means taking difficult decisions which can easily increase confusion and frustration. Huge rows over some schools returning for some pupils, with parents and teachers alike worried about safety, are an early example. Now, with the government setting out plans for reopening of shops, questions are being asked about why shops are being opened before families are allowed to reintegrate. Latent anger in the population makes all of these choices far harder. The loss of trust in the government makes the public question each and every decision. This will be even more important for contact tracing, which relies so heavily on people trusting the government and abiding by its restrictions, even if they themselves aren’t infected but may have been exposed to someone who is.

There are even bigger risks ahead. The government has repeatedly said that if the infection rate increases then lockdown-easing measures may be delayed. Easing the lockdown may take place at different speeds for different demographics or different parts of the country. And a second peak in cases, whether across the country or in some parts of it, means that the government may have to impose a second lockdown.    

The government will have to explain, time and again, the choices it is making, and it will need to reassure people that these choices are being taken on the basis of reason and fairness. This will require the trust and consent of the public, and consistent communication from the government. In the course of one Bank Holiday weekend, however, the government has failed on the latter and, as a result, has lost the former. With approval ratings plummeting, it faces a considerable battle to win back public trust.