A third would have done same as aide

Survey shows one in three would have acted similarly to Cummings if they had been in his position

VOTERS have “bigger things to worry about” than the Dominic Cummings controversy and have not raised it unprompted in focus groups, a leading pollster has said.

James Frayne, founder of the Public First research agency, said the behaviour of the Prime Minister’s chief adviser “would not make the top 100” in the list of what families were worrying about this weekend.

It came as a poll for The Sunday Tele

graph showed that a third of the public would have done the same as Mr Cummings if they had felt the welfare of their child was at risk. Separately, in an article for this newspaper, Lord Carey of Clifton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, describes the controversy as “ridiculously overblown” and said a series of bishops had “done themselves and the Church a disservice” with “knee jerk” interventions over the issue last week.

Lord Carey accuses many bishops of being “absent from the public debate” on issues such as the coronavirus lockdown and the “effect of this crisis on vulnerable and chaotic families who have no access to outside space, or to online learning, or sufficient nutrition for their children”.

Police said on Thursday that Mr Cummings “might” have contravened public health regulations during his 14day stay in Durham but that it warranted no further action.

Writing in this newspaper, Mr Frayne said the Cummings saga was “beyond an irrelevance” to the majority of the public, who were far more concerned with job security, schools reopening and being reunited with family and friends.

He said that, while opinion polls showed public disapproval for what Mr Cummings did, they involved people being asked for their view on a specific subject, rather than asking them what subjects mattered to them. Mr Frayne,

Data taken from 2085 interviews carried out 27-28 May 2020 director of communications at the Department for Education while Mr Cummings was a special adviser to Michael Gove, argues that the matter “will not and cannot have caused lasting damage in the eyes of the public”.

Voters were more likely to lose trust in the Government because of its slow response in helping the self-employed or, even worse, allowing a second peak of coronavirus or a spike in unemployment.

Meanwhile, an Office for Public Responsibility poll published today shows that 29 per cent of the public would have driven 260 miles to their parents’ home during lockdown if they felt the welfare of their children was at risk.

However more than half – 56 per cent – said they would have stayed at home.

The same poll shows that Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, is regarded as showing more leadership than Boris Johnson. Almost half of those polled – 45 per cent – thought Sir Keir was “showing leadership” during the crisis, with just 28 per cent saying the opposite.

Almost as many people thought Mr Johnson was doing a good job, 42 per cent, but 51 per cent thought he was failing to show leadership. Far fewer respondents had no opinion on Mr

Johnson than did on Sir Keir. The majority of people do not think the spread of the virus is under control, with 54 per cent saying it is not, compared with 33 per cent who think it is.

The poll also shows what scientists will regard as worrying levels of resistance to taking a coronavirus vaccine if one is developed

This follows the rise of the so-called “anti-vax” movement.

For the nation to develop so-called herd immunity to a virus, between 80 and 90 per cent of people typically need to be vaccinated, though the number can be higher or lower than that for some illnesses.

However, 14 per cent of people say they would not be willing to take a coronavirus vaccine if it was developed in record time.

Eleven per cent said it would not be safe, while seven per cent regarded it as unimportant.

Last weekend I felt thoroughly dispirited by the fact that in the midst of a global war against an invisible killer which has stopped freedom of movement, worship and even work, the only subject people were discussing was the comings and goings of the Prime Minister’s chief adviser. And to make it even worse, just as this adviser and his family were being harassed in their own street by apparent neighbours and activists, some bishops piled into the fight.

I have no idea why they chose to intervene. This controversy is ridiculously overblown. Mr Cummings is not an elected official. He reports to the PM, who has heard his explanation and has decided to stand by him. The PM is, however, accountable in Parliament and to the people through the ballot box. And it is not that I have any strong opinion on Mr Cummings and whether he transgressed the letter or even the spirit of the law, but that I am much more concerned about the hysterical, coarsened and divisive nature of our debate which is creating a dangerous culture war that could harm civic life.

In choosing to express their disapproval on Twitter and joining a storm of hatred and controversy, I believe the bishops have done themselves and the Church a disservice. Some attacked the integrity, morality, leadership and character of the PM in highly personal terms. I have never seen such partisan pronouncements by church leaders.

These interventions will have done the Archbishop of Canterbury no favours. It is he who has regular meetings with Boris Johnson and his ministers, and will have to undo some of the damage that has been done. I ministered to three Prime Ministers, Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair, and it was possible to have robust and polite disagreement – in public and in private. But I also had a pastoral relationship with them, and occasionally they would share difficulties and seek impartial advice.

This is not to say that the Church must simply bless what governments do. Bishops have a serious, prophetic ministry to offer our nation, founded upon a gospel of love and respect.

There should be a challenging relationship. In the late 1980s for example, when the Church of England produced the ground-breaking report ‘Faith in the City’, the bishops were described as ‘Marxists’ by one government minister, but they never repaid the insult in kind. The work involved could never have been summarised in a 280-character tweet. This was the painstaking effort of two years of a high-powered commission which powerfully described the plight of a poverty-stricken underclass in UK inner cities. Though the report led to a short-term ‘row’ between church and state, it altered government policy.

My predecessor, Archbishop Robert Runcie, addressed the divisive politics brought about by opposing groups lobbying the Church. “Lobbies have their place,” he told General Synod, “But the Church of England cannot be taken over by them. There is no escape from the need for reasoned, persistent, patient work on the issues.”

I suggest that something of that painstaking work on the issues raised by Covid-19 is surely required from the bishops, rather than kneejerk tweets.

I cannot help but sympathise with ministers, advisers and civil servants as they deal with a nightmare situation which confronts us all. In the developing world, lockdown has brought starvation, mass unemployment and even mass migrations. In the UK, I have never seen anything like it, and as a child I lived in London in the last world war and have seen some terrible things.

I would have liked church leaders to address with hope and faith our existential fears about this virus. Where has the Church stood on the effect of this crisis on vulnerable and chaotic families who have no access to outside space, or to online learning, or sufficient nutrition for their children? More important, what are the bishops saying about the character of a loving God who cares for his creation?

Many local ministers and priests have offered powerful, sacrificial service to the poor and depressed struggling in isolated lockdown. But with the doors of the churches closed, many church leaders have been absent from public debate. Have we nothing confident to say to our world?

I think we have. In the words of George VI at the outbreak of war: “Go out into the darkness and put your hand into the Hand of God: That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way”.