The belated official inquiry into the UK government’s handling of the COVID-19 outbreak is shaping up as the finest entertainment in London. It was strictly adults-only this week, however, as expletive-ridden WhatApp messages between ministers, advisers and civil servants were read aloud in the open hearings.
Life imitates art. Malcolm Tucker, the volcanic spin-doctor and anti-hero of The Thick of It, Armando Ianucci’s cult television satire about Whitehall, appears to have inspired a generation of potty-mouthed political operatives.
Newspaper readers might laugh at the colorful language, but the cost of this extravaganza is no joke — enormous sums were spent even before the inquiry chair, Heather Hallett, convened her first session. The final bill might end up in the hundreds of millions of pounds. In any case, proceedings should have begun years ago.
The fault lies with Boris Johnson. As former prime minister, he kept delaying an inquiry because he feared that revelations about chaos at No. 10 would color the next election. Now his prevarication has ensured that it would.
After Johnson was forced to resign over the Partygate scandal, his successors should have taken charge of the inquiry’s remit. Procedures are too cumbersome, and a new breed of professional inquiry lawyer is growing rich on fat state fees — they have every incentive to spin out proceedings into the late 2020s. Sweden’s own crisp inquiry into its signature COVID-19 policy — no lockdowns — began in 2020 and concluded early last year.
Yet what matters is to improve the state machinery responsible for responding to national emergencies. That overhaul should have already been completed. Instead, Hallett’s inquiry could take years to assign blame for failures among politicians and civil servants. The two objectives should have been separated from the start — business before pleasure, if you will.
In the meantime, the British media is having fun with the treasure trove of WhatsApp messages disclosed at the inquiry. Johnson’s own communications director thought he lacked the right “skill set” for the job as he dithered and ducked decision-making during the pandemic; civil service chief Simon Case accused Johnson of “Trump-Bolsonaro levels of mad and dangerous” behavior.
Downing Street’s pandemic response was warped by its “macho culture,” Case’s former deputy, Helen MacNamara, said at the hearing on Wednesday. The WhatsApp evidence suggests that she is correct. Most macho of all was Johnson’s chief adviser and establishment scourge, Dominic Cummings, who called MacNamara all manner of four-letter words and wanted to “personally handcuff her and escort her from the building.” Cummings claims his behavior was not sexist because he was more offensive to men.
National Health Service (NHS) Chief Executive Simon Stevens testified that in the event that the NHS was overwhelmed by COVID-19 casualties, Hancock “took the position that in this situation he, rather than the medical profession or the public, should ultimately decide who should live and who should die.”
Liberal-left newspapers rejoice that the inquiry is finally nailing Johnson’s gross incompetence. A reminder of the government’s failings also conveniently drags Prime Minister Rishi Sunak into the frame, making it harder for him to make a break with his tarnished predecessor. Sunak would be forced to testify to defend his stewardship of the economy as chancellor during the pandemic.
Right-of-center commentators in turn deplore the inquiry’s failure to challenge the efficacy of the three COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns that stalled the UK economy. Instead, Conservatives moan, there is just the same old tittle-tattle about bad Boris.
Both the left and right have a point. Although the UK’s mortality rate from COVID-19 was eventually lower than that of Germany, Italy or Spain, failures at the pandemic’s outset need addressing. Millions of pounds were wasted on defective personal protective equipment, and insufficient care was given to the old and vulnerable.
Yet libertarian critics of the process also have a strong case: A proper cost-benefit analysis of lockdown is long overdue. The inquiry promises to examine the use of lockdowns, the efficacy of social distancing and face masks — but not yet. The state better have an answer before the next pandemic hits.
We already understand the deficiencies of government decision-making. Economists and social scientists should have formed part of the panel of experts advising the government. The former prime minister relied on the advice of medical experts and scientists alone — often to their own intense discomfort. Many of them knew that scientists could not provide all the answers about how a society works under stress.
Failures of governance at No. 10 are hardly new either. Johnson has been likened to a supermarket trolley veering this way and that down the aisle, but almost 20 years ago the Butler Report condemned the informal “sofa government” of Tony Blair that led to his decision to join the US’ invasion of Iraq.
Nor was Johnson’s record all bad. The mass vaccination program was rolled out in record time, while the furlough assistance and Universal Credit welfare payments prevented private enterprise from going bankrupt, saved jobs and aided the poor.
There is also a surprising amount of unanimity about the civil service’s shortcomings — not least from within itself. More technical specialists need to be recruited at the highest levels. Yet Cummings’ bull-in-a-china-shop approach to opening up the system was guaranteed to work against his objective.
Most of these issues could be resolved quickly. Instead the inquiry would be busy poring over tens of thousands of WhatsApp messages for years to come. Funny that nobody thought to hit the disappearing messages button.
Martin Ivens is the editor of the Times Literary Supplement. Previously, he was editor of the Sunday Times of London and its chief political commentator. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
To The Honorable Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜): We would like to extend our sincerest regards to you for representing Taiwan at the inauguration of US President Donald Trump on Monday. The Taiwanese-American community was delighted to see that Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan speaker not only received an invitation to attend the event, but successfully made the trip to the US. We sincerely hope that you took this rare opportunity to share Taiwan’s achievements in freedom, democracy and economic development with delegations from other countries. In recent years, Taiwan’s economic growth and world-leading technology industry have been a source of pride for Taiwanese-Americans.
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS