In defence of poor Matt Hancock
Twenty odd years ago, Marshal of the RAF Sir Peter Harding, the then Chief of the Defence Staff, committed an indiscretion, was exposed by that unlamented publication, the News of the World, and was obliged to resign. In its leader on the subject, The Times came up with a memorable phrase: “Whichever organ governs male sexual desire, it is not the brain.”
Poor Matt Hancock. Yes, he broke the rules. Worse still, he aroused a lot of outrage. There was a widespread feeling of “strict rules for us, self-indulgence for them.” That has surely now been refuted by his resignation. He was also scuppered by the charge of hypocrisy, arising from various forthright comments he had made when insisting that the rules ought to be obeyed. There, he had no choice. If there had been any hint of wiggle-room, the entire lockdown policy would have been in jeopardy.
As for the resignation, there was no alternative. One can understand why Boris Johnson did not instantly grasp this, given his own record. In his case, it is not a matter of different rules for them and us. There is a different code for him and for the whole of the rest of mankind.
Matt Hancock had another problem: envy. He is a tall poppy. As soon as he arrived at the Commons, he won golden opinions. George Osborne was his first patron and admirer. David Cameron concurred. Hancock rocketed through the junior ministerial ranks and became a very young Privy Councillor. Briefly out of favour under Theresa May, he quickly resumed his upward momentum, joining the Cabinet before he was forty. Not all his parliamentary colleagues were happy to applaud his progress. He could never have been accused of lacking self-esteem, and his self-confidence sometimes grated on the less gifted.
Moreover, he was a Remainer, which aroused suspicion in some quarters. Equally, apart from the actual libertarian rebels, there are plenty of closet lockdown-sceptics on the Tory benches. They were not reassured by Hancock’s enthusiasm for the restrictions.
Nor was he helped by the PM’s early criticisms, as reported by Dominic Cummings. It may be that when the Covid enquiry eventually reports, this will turn out to be grossly unfair. It is important to remember that in the pandemic’s early days, there seemed good grounds for near-panic. Back then, no-one knew how virulent Covid would be, or how lethal. Were we dealing with a severe winter flu, or with Spanish flu Mark 2? In Bergamo, an efficiently-run city, health facilities were overwhelmed. There was clearly a risk that the same thing could happen here. We do not have to believe all Dom Cummings’s tittle-tattle to accept that even before the PM fell ill, he was not noted for command of detail or rigorous assessment of priorities. Matt Hancock’s Oxford First, plus his training both as a Bank of England economist and as George Osborne’s Chief of Staff, equipped him well for an exceedingly difficult ministerial posting.
That included handling contracts for PPE and other vital supplies. It may be that corners were cut and customary cautious procedures were over-ridden. But these were not normal times. In matters of life or death, excessive caution could have ensured that death won. As long as the enquiry does not over-indulge in hindsight and concentrates on the options that seemed realistic at the time, it may help to restore Matt Hancock’s reputation.
In 2019, Matt Hancock was briefly a candidate for the Tory leadership. As he is only 42, it did not appear absurd to believe that he was entitled to ambitious dreams. Equally, it would have made sense to move him to another post once the lockdown is over. When the long-postponed reshuffle does come, there should be at least two vacancies: education, and housing. Now, everything is changed utterly.
In politics, second acts are never easy. At the moment, all Matt Hancock’s thoughts should be with his family and no-one else should intrude on pain, tears and regrets. Labour MPs appear determined to indulge in misery-gutted resentments, followed by gloating. It is to be hoped that they are misreading public opinion and that the story now dies.
Yet there will be a longer term for Hancock and we can be sure about one point. He is an able fellow. Whatever field he chooses, a distinguished career awaits him.
There is an irony. Dominic Cummings has one unique achievement to his credit, or discredit. No previous special advisor had ever been responsible for a Chancellor’s resignation. We should express a devout wish: that the uniqueness is preserved. Now, however, the defenestration of another Cummings foe has enabled Sajid Javid to return for his next act.
In one respect, he may be lucky. If we are approaching the end of lockdown, he will be the deliverer of good news. He will also be able to deflect criticisms of the government’s record: “not on this watch – and wait for the enquiry.” Javid is an interesting fellow with a fascinating background. In his previous ministerial incarnation, he seemed oddly reluctant to highlight that, or indeed to use any methods of self-projection. He could sometimes come across as a bit wooden: a one-dimensional exponent of Thatcherite orthodoxy. I heard one or two of his colleagues make the same point. Wonderful back story: where is the front story?
He now has a chance to answer that question. In so doing, he ought to make it impossible for Labour to claim that the Tories want to destroy the NHS, without also making it impossible to introduce sensible reforms. There is one obvious reform, which is easy to express: much harder to deliver. At its best, the NHS is superb. So how do we ensure that it reaches those heights far more often?
Sajid Javid was always going to return to the cabinet. As he is a decent and generous-minded man, he will regret the circumstances. But as the late Alan Watkins often reminded us, politics is a rough old trade. Matt Hancock now knows what he meant.