The Covid Inquiry, the news agenda and the election
coverage of the Covid Inquiry will move on faster than its effects on the electorate. But will it have a real effect on government?
This is the fortnightly free version of my weekly email. I rely, in part, on the income I get from my writing, so I would be delighted if you were able to sign up. I am currently offering a 25% discount.
Hard Thinking on the Soft Left is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Subscribed
If you cannot subscribe but feel you have gained something from today’s piece, a donation would also be welcome. As always, I appreciate this is far from possible for everyone.
The Covid Inquiry is an interesting beast. Its modular set-up has been such that it is able to report its findings faster than the usual model of a public inquiry (some of which take years and years in the UK). However, it is also - in classic British bureaucratic style - taking significantly longer than inquiries in other countries, notably Sweeden which has already finished its investigations.
There has been a lot of box office over the last few weeks as the module investigating ‘core UK decision making and political governance’ or rather - the complete lack of such a thing.
What we’ve seen has been shocking but deeply unsurprising.
Who knew that Boris Johnson was fundamentally unsuited to be Prime Minister - well a lot of people. And even many of those who didn’t know it in 2019 have certainly been convinced of the case a long time before the lurid revelations over the last week.
Who knew that Dominic Cummings was so high on his own supply that he’s impossible to work with? Literally everyone except Dom himself.
Who knew that Matt Hancock was the same - just less sweary? See above.
No wonder the two hate each other - they’re probably competing over who gets to have the biggest ego. They are just two different flavours of macho shitheels who populate too much of the people who run our lives.
The stories coming out of the inquiry - delivered, let us not forget, in front of the families of many who died and who deserve answers - are horrendous and describe a government that was fundamentally unable to govern even in relatively benign times - and were absolutely the most disastrous people to be running the government in the worst crisis since World War 2.
The misogyny, the sweary WhatsApps, the endless quotes from Johnson about letting the virus being nature’s way of dealing with Tory voters (sorry, the elderly). All of this has been covered and followed breathlessly. Never in the history of a British bureaucratic process has the popcorn emoji been more used or more appropriate.
And yet…
Here’s what concerns me. In covering the inquiry like a ghastly soap opera, we might forget that we’re supposed to be learning and understanding real lessons here. As the Inquiry moves away from the gossipy end of its evidence collection into more mundane areas (though look out for module five on procurement which may well give us all something to Mone about), so the charabanc will move on, the coverage will lessen and the lessons will be lost.
This inquiry, as far as I can see, has three key purposes.
The first is to satisfy the need to know of the families of those who died after contracting Covid, possibly in ways that could have been avoided by better public policy making.
The second is to look at where our government failed and expose those failures to the light.
The third is to make sure that the UK government - the politicians and the civil service - all learn lessons to make sure that we can maintain ready to implement in the case of the next emergency.
The first mission is emotionally important. We need closure, all of us really, but particularly those who lost people. But it is, by its nature, backwards-looking and is unlikely to have long-term implications for politics and policy-making.
The second mission may be politically important in the short term. By keeping the appalling mismanagement of the Tory Party in the headlines, it helps to usher these charlatans out of office. This may well be why there is a significant amount of ‘nothing to see here’ coming from the Tory-supporting press.
But ultimately, when the Tories have left office and Sunak is busy working for Elon Musk finding new ways to patronise people who are a little upset about the demise of Twitter; Hancock is finding new ways to get himself on the telly, like a warped, clean shaven Noel Edmonds; and Cummings is, well, still writing 10,000-word blogs on why he’s still right about everything and we’re all idiots for not recognising his genius, the soap opera will have long since moved on. So while in the immediate term, listening to the Newsagents debate the etymology of the term FuckPigs was fun and interesting it isn’t what really matters.
What really matters is what the UK does next. And my worry is that as the stories die away, so too will the interest in the Inquiry and the pressure to make sure that we are ready for whatever comes next.
It’s almost certain that whatever the next big shock to the UK system is it won’t be exactly the same as Covid. The answers won’t be as simple to find at looking at what did and didn’t work in terms of the last crisis and replicating the good while stripping out the bad.
Because the thing about shocks is that they are shocking. They are unexpected and difficult. What is needed is not specific plans, but a reformation of Whitehall and in Town Halls that ensures that three things happen that will be needed in any crisis that we simply don’t have now:
Firstly, we need to reverse the disastrous effects of the austerity years on governmental delivery capacity and national, regional and local levels. Understanding that government is a vital part of our lives and cutting it to the bone was not just a false economy (we never did pay down the debt) but also that we need that capacity in a crisis. We can think of other things for that capacity to be used on when not in crisis mode, but we also have to have the flexibility and forward thinking to make sure we are able to pivot to crisis immediately and not left - once again - twisting in the wind.
Secondly, we need a culture that allows for continuous dialogue between national and local government; between government and civil service; and between government and civil society. We have to end the endless seeking of enemies within and without and instead engage in constructive dialogue. Governments have to accept that they will be subject to criticism - fair and unfair - and steel themselves accordingly without closing their ears, eyes and hearts to the possibility that that criticism might be justified and helpful.
Finally, we need a lot more diversity in government. One of the most chilling things to come out of last week was just how unlistened to the few women in government were. They were raising concerns that affected half the population and more than half of frontline NHS workers. There needs to be viewpoint diversity as well as spaces for concerns to be properly raised and challenges made by those who do not fit the Old Etonian model. This will only ever improve government - even if it might take a little time and effort the Old Etonians are unused to putting in.
We have a few more weeks of box office left, with Rishi Sunak, Matt Hancock and Boris Johnson still to testify. But the story will move on. Let us make sure that when it does, pressure to truly learn the lessons of this inquiry doesn’t quietly slip away too.
.
Venom and Poison
My new play opens in just over a week and I’d love to see you there. Tickets can be bought here. It’s running from 14-18 November at the Golden Goose in Camberwell.
As a taster, here’s a video with me singing a cover of Poison by Alice Cooper which I am doing live (GULP) in the show. Warning - this video contains snakes - the show does not!
What I’ve been up to
I reviewed Boy Parts - about which my sister and I disagreed enjoyably.
Other than that, I have largely been focused on learning my lines! Come and see if I managed it at Venom.