Hancock
An uncharacteristic defence of a politician - in this case, Matt Hancock.
This article was originally published in the Stornoway Gazette.
Matt Hancock.
What springs to mind? Health Secretary, probably. “Former” Health Secretary, crucially. Why? Because of the lockdown-rule-busting affair he had last year. He’s also a Conservative MP to this day. He has the - almost - unique experience of being Health Secretary during a pandemic, and not many can claim that (other than Sajid Javid). During our present chapter - summer 2022 - he’s supporting Rishi Sunak to be the next Conservative leader, and prime minister.
We interviewed him on Times Radio Breakfast on Saturday. He said a few particularly interesting things. Notably, the day on which we were speaking to him was the day that prospective PM Sunak had decided that there were five areas of life that are in crisis, which, in sum, had led to a state of national emergency. One such area he identified as “in crisis” is the National Health Service. Oh, I hear you think - the same NHS that Matt Hancock was in charge of from 2018-2021? Yes, that’s the one - you’re familiar with it, I see. You’d be a good journalist. Naturally, we asked Mr Hancock how much responsibility he took on himself for the crisis that his chosen one had now identified. He dodged it somewhat.
So we came to Rishi Sunak’s plans for the NHS which were receiving some full-throated support from Mr Hancock. Of course, he leaned on the concept of “learning from what we got right in the past” - a wink and a nod to his own perceived NHS successes.
So then, we asked him, what about who should be in charge, say, as Health Secretary, of a new policy direction for the NHS? Mr Hancock conceded that he hadn’t had any conversations about becoming the Health Secretary again, should Rishi Sunak be the next one to dish out cabinet positions. So we asked if it was something he thought about himself - that he considered that he, Matt Hancock, would be best placed to implement the changes being promised by a potential prime minister Sunak. He chuckled and moved us on diplomatically.
He also offered some interesting comments on the prospect of the return of Boris Johnson, either to cabinet or to be first among equals once again, which he basically said was very unlikely. Press reports since have reinforced the idea that Boris Johnson might fancy the idea of being as close to power as possible once again. Mind you, how dependable is he, given he’s having another party with his wife Carrie to celebrate their wedding at the house of a Conservative donor? So reports The Mirror. Which also got the details of Partygate spot on. Anyway I digress.
As is often the case, the response from our listeners was actually what was most striking about the interview with Matt Hancock. Almost unanimously, a tranche of text messages, Tweets and emails began to flash in. None engaged with the particulars of Mr Hancock’s interview. They were all about him, the man himself. To sum up in a print-friendly manner, there was a feeling that those listening did not want to hear from a “philanderer” and “failed health secretary”. One said: “What right has this Covid rule-breaking liar got to give his public opinion on anything?”
It’s not a frequent occurrence but on this occasion, I felt it necessary to actually defend Mr Hancock on air, who had been generous enough to spend time with us on the programme to talk about our potential prime minister. I promise I shan’t make a habit of defending politicians - it’s very much not my style. As you know, I am always enthused and happy to take feedback from our listeners - it’s one of the joys of radio. But Mr Hancock deserved a hearing. First of all, he is actually a serving Conservative MP. That makes his take valid and valuable in the context of a leadership contest. Second of all, he was a real-life serving cabinet minister who, lest we forget, served alongside Rishi Sunak during the pandemic. His experience, particularly on a day of announcements about the struggling NHS, is hard to replicate. He has sat in the cabinet room on some of the biggest decision-days of our modern history, shaping them and announcing them. Bear in mind, too, that when he broke the rules, apologised and had his apology accepted by Prime Minister Johnson, Mr Hancock still resigned. Other rulebreakers have not quite followed the same - efficient - trajectory. As a result of these things, he remains a high-profile and influential member of the Conservative party.
It was the lack of forgiveness that struck me, not because I agree or disagree with you on whether or not Matt Hancock should be forgiven. But the lack of forgiveness seemed to override any interest in what he had to say, and obliterated any potential value in the analysis, experience and thoughts of a man who served in one of the highest offices in the land. His failures are well-advertised and we didn’t shy away from them even in this interview. We are eager to hear from those who have something to offer - insight, analysis and expertise. He has all three. I fear vitriol could cloud the comments of someone like Mr Hancock, whose comments we, naturally, interrogate and scrutinise.
Here endeth the defence of politicians. Normal service will resume next week.
I agree with you Calum. He atoned for his error in judgment by resigning and with time that should wipe the slate clean (more or less).
Testosterone fueled errors in judgment are easier to forgive than greed fueled ones
One (atoned for) error should not a pariah make
For me, this is not about any perceived sense of forgiveness - professionally it is competence, choice and consequence - the former Health Secretary got far more wrong than right during his tenure.
My fear is that with Hancock, as with Cummings and Frost - there is a tendency to airbrush their record whilst inferring that these same people are some form of a wise political sage full of insight and expertise simply because of the job they had at a time of national crises, irrespective of their record and decisions during a national crisis.
All that said, I do think Times Radio nails the ability to interview without needing to resort to the all too frequent combative nature on the airwaves. Whenever I see headlines like "owned" or "destroyed" to describe an interview, I tend to avoid it altogether. Stoking up division, seeking to condemn before attempting to understand - the current arguments played out nationally are often zero sum. There is no real platform for nuance or context. We need to want a better standard of debate to get a better standard of debate - and I fear that all too often the appetite for a long-form debate or interview is dismissed in favour of the short angry soundbite.