A kiss in early May with aide Gina Coladangelo has sealed Matt Hancock’s future fate in the political sin bin. There are a few obvious lessons and irregularities pointed out by dead-tree press. A key one is there is a temporary renaissance of the prying media in the wake of the prying state. As the Spectator’s Editor Fraser Nelson argues, government has made our private lives their business. As a result, minister’s private lives are, for the next few months, our business. This is a break from recent reticence. The editorial boards of most major papers treat politicians and celebrities with respect and have grown wary of publishing rumours or private matters. People have rights to private lives.

Many have expressed ire at Hancock – Starmer brought up the case of a leukemia victim unable to see his mother in the days before his death. Against this backdrop, Hancock’s fling seems insulting.

Hancock is indefensible. Despite this, something slightly more complex is going on here. Scandals like this were going to happen – not because of the elitism of those likely to make up the top rank of the cabinet, although that does play a part, but rather something more basic.

Humans will break restrictive rules like those previously imposed on society – and it often only takes social awkwardness to force them to do so. My anecdotal evidence would suggest even those who talk up danger of the pandemic and necessity of following rules have at times strayed. I certainly have. Life is messy and often some degree of selfishness is justified. I don’t want to ruin a friendship by taking a tough line when an extra person rocks up to a gathering. This is true despite Britain’s ability to largely stick by rules. There is no contradiction here - people can justify occasionally breaking a rule they generally abide by.  

At the same time, restrictive rules can be justified. A deadly pandemic justifies speedy, wide-ranging action if that reduces the intensity and duration of suffering.

Here we have a conundrum. Politicians are humans, will occasionally stray, yet at the same time are occasionally justified in legislating draconian rules. They must deliver an order not to stray – one that they know they may not be able to keep themselves.

This is just part of the rough and tumble of politics. Society should expect these people to resign, yet simultaneously it is only half the politician’s fault. Politicians are putting themselves under conditions that they know may eventually result in their resignations – and should willingly do so. There is an arbitrariness as to who is targeted by the wrath of either the mob or media. Dominic Cumming’s indiscretion was a breach of rules, but it seemed like something most people would have done. A slight breach of the rules in order to ensure his autistic child had childcare was somewhat justifiable, yet also clearly against legislation he designed. Most people get distracted – life can seem really important in the moment. It can take both mental energy and bravery to make a stand up for what’s best for the country. Sometimes this will be possible, but sometimes we will lounge into the status quo, following the path of least resistance. It is only human.

The public was also hungry for it. With Hancock and Cummings, a vocal portion of the public made known their anger. It may be that this scandal was half-inevitable – the incentive is strong for the media to latch onto one key figure to express untapped fury.

Politicians, if they want what is best for the country, should put themselves in potentially untenable positions. This can involve embarrassment. This can involve failure. This could end their career. If the choice is maintaining an effective pandemic response or saving a politician’s career – the second option will kill. A politician’s resignation can act as lubrication for the effective running of government. In this context, a resignation should be treated as necessary – a signal to the public that their demands matter. Even if this signal is imperfect and only loosely based in fact, the smooth running of the political machine is more important than perfect treatment of well-meaning functionaries. The ego of a politician conflicts with the enormous responsibility of government. The politician, not the government, should be sacrificed.

Yours,

William