By Ben Kerrigan-
Head Of Nhs, Sir Stevens’s failure to respond to a question asking whether he thinks Matt Hancock is hopeless, raises concerns for a few reasons.
Sky News political editor Beth Rigby pushed Sir Stevens on whether he believes the health secretary is “hopeless.” Smirking uncomfortably and bouncing from side to side, the Nhs boss responds: “I mean, that is a political question.” Rigby then modifies her question, and asks ” but having worked with him, do you have confidence in him? A voice in the background can be heard saying, ”we don’t agree with the question”, to which the Sky News editor says, you don’t want to answer the question, that’s fine.
Implicit messages can sometimes be deduced from silence, and when an experienced Nhs boss like Sir Stevens dodges a question with automatic implications, it raises serious concerns. If the Nhs boss had a defense to make on behalf of Mr Hancock, he would have done so, not smirk and display a body language that indicates his answer, but his unwillingness to make his answer public.
Mr Cummings said in his blog post that the health secretary sought to blame Sir Simon, the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, and the Cabinet Office for a “PPE disaster” in April last year.
Mr Cummings alleged: “The lack of PPE killed NHS and care home staff in March-May.”
He said the initial post shows that “No10/Hancock have repeatedly lied about the failures last year” and accused them of now trying to “rewrite history”. Cummings revelations provides the answer Sir Stevens refused to give openly, and confirms the allegations made by Mr. Cummings, who has a motive to air all the dirty laundry of the government in public.
Having a Health Secretary who is hopeless is a big problem for the British government and the British public. How can the pubic expect to trust advice given by a Health boss who is hopeless?
It comes after former aide Dominic Cummings published text messages from Boris Johnson in which the prime minister appeared to describe Mr Hancock as “totally f***ing hopeless”.
Mr Cummings also published another private message about the struggles to procure ventilators for Covid-19 patients.
“It’s Hancock. He has been hopeless,” a contact appearing to be Mr Johnson replied on 27 March last year.
In another message, on 27 April last year, the prime minister appeared to call the situation around personal protective equipment (PPE) “a disaster” and alluded to diverting some responsibilities to Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove.
“I can’t think of anything except taking Hancock off and putting Gove on,” Mr Johnson apparently added.
Mr Hancock , who last week criticized Cummings statements and said he was yet to provide the joint Health and Social Care Committee with any written evidence. has not commented about the former senior aide’s published whassap messages which shows the prime minister to want the Health Secretary axed.
When he appeared before the same committee last week, Mr Hancock said he had seen no evidence to suggest any medics died because of a lack of PPE.
There isn’t available evidence for everything in life, but if PPE has a high chance of saving life, it is logical to conclude the reverse is true.
The British government may have some serious questions to answer if its prime minister and others in power were aware and agreed that one of its significant members was operating in a way that was hopeless.
The hopeless charge against Matt Hancock must be defended, otherwise it could question the public confidence in Matt Hancock at this moment in time to lead the department of health.
Hopeless people have little hope of producing anything good, and Dominic Cummings has scored a knock out punch with this particular revelation.