COVID inquiry: Matt Hancock’s defence seems unlikely to have changed many minds

Published

2 years ago

December 1, 2023

admin

Ever since Matt Hancock was forced to resign for kissing his closest aide, Gina Coladangelo, in his office – in breach of his own COVID guidelines – the former health secretary has been trying to defend his record.

The now ex-cabinet minister appeared on I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here as he sought to rehabilitate his reputation with the public and defend his handling of the pandemic.

He wrote a book, The Pandemic Diaries, that offered his version of events ahead of the official COVID inquiry, and he gave countless interviews defending his actions, be it around the protection – or lack thereof – of care homes, the pandemic plan, or his handling of government PPE contracts.

Politics live: Hunt hails Darling as ‘one of the great chancellors’

Given all of that, I didn’t really expect Mr Hancock to turn up at the official inquiry today and offer some retrospection of what he got wrong, as well as where he thought he was right.

With utter predictability, the former health secretary sought to cast himself as the man who single-handedly tried to wake up a sluggish Whitehall machine to the threat, and who was thwarted by the “toxic culture” in Number 10 and government that prevented him from slowing down the spread of the virus.

This wasn’t so much self-reflection, but self-protection. In his version of events, Mr Hancock was never part of the problem, but always trying to find the solution.

That, of course, is not how other former aides and officials recall what happened during the pandemic.

Former deputy cabinet secretary Helen MacNamara told the inquiry Mr Hancock displayed “nuclear levels” of overconfidence, and that he regularly told colleagues in Number 10 things that “they later discovered weren’t true”.

Boris Johnson’s top adviser, Dominic Cummings, said he was a “proven liar” and “unfit for the job”.

The government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, told the inquiry Mr Hancock had a “habit” of saying things that weren’t true, while the former cabinet secretary Lord Sedwill told his hearing he would have to “double-check” things to make sure the then-health secretary “wasn’t over-promising”.

To all those accusations of lying, Mr Hancock told inquiry barrister Hugo Keith simply that he had not lied and there was “no evidence from anybody who I worked with in the department or the health system who supported those false allegations”.

In other words, it was “them” – Number 10 and the Cabinet Office – versus “us” – Mr Hancock and his health department team.

But trying to cast these claims and counterclaims as a feature of turf wars between different government factions wasn’t so easy on Thursday as Mr Hancock brought another to the inquiry that wasn’t backed up by any evidence.

He claimed he told Mr Johnson a lockdown was necessary on 13 March 2020 – 10 days before the country was shut down.

Mr Cummings immediately tweeted that Mr Hancock was “flat out lying” and had been pushing the herd immunity plan at the time, rather than a lockdown.

The inquiry barrister also questioned the claim, noting Mr Hancock had made no such entry in his book, and there was no written evidence in the thousands of pieces of documentation acquired by the inquiry to back up his versions of events.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

In fact, he pointed out that when Mr Hancock sent WhatsApps to the prime minister on the 13 and 14 March there, was nothing about an immediate lockdown mentioned at all.

When he walked into the inquiry this morning, Mr Hancock was asked by the crowd outside whether “he lied his way through this pandemic”.

And what we heard from the former health secretary today was a version of events at odds with other testimony.

He went into defend his record, but it is hard to see that he came out changing many minds.

Politics

Another tantrum from the Labour backbenches is inevitable

Published

2 hours ago

July 6, 2025

admin

Rachel Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn budget after welfare bill U-turn

In common with many parents across the country, here’s a conversation that I have with my young daughter on a semi-regular basis (bear with me, this will take on some political relevance eventually).

Me: “So it’s 15 minutes until your bedtime, you can either have a little bit of TV or do a jigsaw, not both.”

Daughter: “Ummmm, I want to watch TV.”

Me: “That’s fine, but it’s bed after that, you can’t do a jigsaw as well.”

Fast-forward 15 minutes.

Me: “Right, TV off now please, bedtime.”

(Pause)

Daughter: “I want to do a jigsaw.”

Now replace me with the government, the TV and jigsaw options with axing welfare cuts and scrapping the two-child cap, and my daughter with rebellious backbenchers.

Politics latest: Former Labour leader calls for wealth tax on assets above £10m

That is the tension currently present between Downing Street and Labour MPs. And my initial ultimatum is the messaging being pumped out from the government this weekend.

In essence: you’ve had your welfare U-turn, so there’s no money left for the two-child cap to go as well.

As an aside – and before my inbox fills with angry emails lambasting me for using such a crude metaphor for policies that fundamentally alter the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society – yes, I hear you, and that’s part of my point.

For many in Labour, this approach feels like the lives of their constituents are being used in a childish game of horse-trading.

So what can be done?

Well, the government could change the rules.

Altering the fiscal rules is – and will likely remain – an extremely unlikely solution. But as it happens, one of Labour’s proverbial grandparents has just popped round with a different suggestion.

A wealth tax, Lord Neil Kinnock says, is the necessary outcome of the economic restrictions the party has placed on itself.

Ever the Labour storyteller, Lord Kinnock believes this would allow the government to craft a more compelling narrative about whose side this administration is on.

That could be valuable, given one of the big gripes from many backbench critics is that they still don’t really understand what this prime minister stands for – and by extension, what all these “difficult decisions” are in aid of.

The downside is whether it will actually raise much money.

The super-rich may have lots of assets to take a slice from, but they also have expensive lawyers ready to find novel ways to keep their client’s cash away from the prying eyes of the state.

Or, of course, they could just leave – as many are doing already.

In the short term, the future is a bit easier to predict.

If Downing Street is indeed now saying there is no money to scrap the two-child cap (after heavy briefing in the opposite direction just weeks ago), an almighty tantrum from the backbenches is inevitable.

And as every parent knows, the more you give in, the harder it becomes to hold the line.

Politics

UK restores diplomatic ties with Syria

Published

8 hours ago

July 6, 2025

admin

The UK has re-established diplomatic ties with Syria, David Lammy has said, as he made the first visit to the country by a British minister for 14 years.

The foreign secretary visited Damascus and met with interim president Ahmed al Sharaa, also the leader of the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and foreign minister Asaad al Shaibani.

It marks the latest diplomatic move since Bashar al Assad’s regime was toppled by rebel groups led by HTS in December.

In a statement, Mr Lammy said a “stable Syria is in the UK’s interests” and added: “I’ve seen first-hand the remarkable progress Syrians have made in rebuilding their lives and their country.

“After over a decade of conflict, there is renewed hope for the Syrian people.

“The UK is re-establishing diplomatic relations because it is in our interests to support the new government to deliver their commitment to build a stable, more secure and prosperous future for all Syrians.”

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has also announced a £94.5m support package for urgent humanitarian aid and to support the country’s long-term recovery, after a number of British sanctions against the country were lifted in April.

While HTS is still classified as a proscribed terror group, Sir Keir Starmer said last year that it could be removed from the list.

The Syrian president’s office also said on Saturday that the president and Mr Lammy discussed co-operation, as well as the latest developments in the Middle East.

Since Assad fled Syria in December, a transitional government headed by Mr al Sharaa was announced in March and a number of western countries have restored ties.

In May, US President Donald Trump said the United States would lift long-standing sanctions on Syria and normalise relations during a speech at the US-Saudi investment conference.

He said he wanted to give the country “a chance at peace” and added: “There is a new government that will hopefully succeed.

“I say good luck, Syria. Show us something special.”

Politics

Secret Service seizes $400M in crypto, cold wallet among world’s largest

Published

10 hours ago

July 6, 2025

admin

Secret Service seizes 0M in crypto, cold wallet among world’s largest

Secret Service quietly amasses one of the world’s largest crypto cold wallets with $400 million seized, exposing scams through blockchain sleuthing and VPN missteps.