I imagine so StevieG!
---------------------------------0------------------------
In what is being described as a 'bonfire of the regulations', Boris Johnson has this evening executed a reversal of pretty much the entire Government strategy in respect of how it has been tackling the Covid crisis.
While this is pretty momentous stuff in itself (and short of the alternative - a bonfire of the entire frikkin' country - had, really to be done) this is not what I'd like to consider here, rather looking instead at what conclusions we may 'reverse engineer' in respect of the Hancock departure and how this was brought about.
I think the first point that needs to be taken on board is that, contrary to what the papers would have us believe, this sudden shift from cautious back and forth into overdrive opening up cannot be down to the influence of one single man, the newly appointed Health Secretary Sajid Javid. This has to have been a decision taken before today, indeed I'd say, before Javid was appointed (he's only been in situ for a week or so) and was no doubt brought about by the behind the scenes understanding that somehow this had to be brought to a close and the economy allowed to reopen. This was imperative if the country were to begin to start the recovery process that will be needed if we are not to go bankrupt as a nation (it's still going to be a hard ask, but getting the economy moving was an essential first step).
Equally clear however, was the fact that this could not be achieved with the existing Health Secretary in situ. Hancock it appears, had done all in his power (not inconsiderable as one of the key Ministers in the Government) to keep the lockdown restrictions in place, even it is reported failing to present the up to date data to the 'quad' meetings at which key decisions were made. There was little chance that Hancock was going to acquiesce to a sudden and fast reversal of the restrictions, he certainly wasn't going to resign and the PM couldn't sack him without appearing to prove true the Labour and press accusations that he had been remiss in not sacking Hancock much earlier as it appeared that he wanted to. The PM's position is wobbly enough as it is without giving his enemies the chance to crow at an apparent confirmation of his weakness and inability to make a decision.
So Hancock had to go, but by a means whereby the PM could not be seen to be involved in it. Step up the 'disgruntled employee' who released the CCTV footage to the Sun newspaper of Hancock grabbing the arse of his workplace squeeze in contravention of his marriage vows and the social distancing policy of which he was the chief instigator. It was interesting to see Victoria Newton, editor of the Sun newspaper which broke the Hancock story, on TV at the weekend saying that she would go to prison before she would spill the identity of the whistleblower; as completely safe a promise as ever was made, because if she did, the name she would have to reveal would most likely have the initials BJ and that ain't never going to happen. But just think about it. What has happened here is that CCTV footage from what should be the most secure location in the country has found its way into a national newspaper and it seems to be a matter of nil concern to anyone. Ordinary the security services and special branch would be all over it like a cheap suit and Ms Newton would be singing like a canary to keep her own sorry ass out of jail, yet she is cock-sure enough to be bragging that she won't spill the beans even if they beat the soles of her feet with rubber hoses. No - this is a woman that knows she is on solid ground and hence the confidence of her words.
So we now can pretty much assume that we are being led by an administration that will sacrifice the happiness of six children and two adults in order to achieve their political ends and that cannot be a good place to be in. We may well be happy about the turn of events in respect of the lifting of restrictions - I certainly am - but not the one of us should feel happy about how we got here.
