In the dying days of Rishi Sunak’s leadership campaign, he gave an interview to The Spectator about lockdown which he was grilled on today at the Covid Inquiry. At the time he was speaking candidly: it was clear that Liz Truss would win the Tory leadership contest. Now, he is Prime Minister and has to defend the record of the Conservative government, including decisions he argued against. So he was in a difficult position when the inquiry asked him about that interview.
When lockdown struck, there was an air of Mr Smith Goes To Washington about Sunak (who, in 2020, was still relatively new to politics). Why, he said, should people not be told the truth? And isn’t it basic ethics to do a cost-benefit analysis in public health? If lockdowns might mean more people die long-term from cancer not being diagnosed, surely we should explore that urgently?
Sunak was asked about this in the inquiry: what did this mean?
I had written in my article: ‘He tried not to challenge the prime minister in public, or leave a paper trail.’ Sunak was asked about this in the inquiry: what did this mean? Why not leave a paper trail? He dismissed this point by saying these were my words, not his. That’s true. But I was summarising his words. Here’s what he said:
‘So I was indexing for loyalty as well. I’d say a lot of stuff to him in private. This is me being new to it. So I don’t put 50 things in the system so there’s some written record of everything. Because generally, people leak it. And it causes problems.’
A crucial point – and one this morning’s inquiry skimmed over. Sunak’s crucial challenge – how sure are we that lockdown won’t claim more lives than it saves? – was one he felt could not have been processed ‘in the system’ of government. Because he felt that asking this, even in private, would be seen as an act of hostility against the prime minister. Sunak did not want to leave a paper trail (for example, for an inquiry to discover) which meant that basic questions could not be considered.
It is a screaming red light that, in a pandemic, a challenge to the PM’s position was regarded as treachery. Such an environment is quite obviously unsuitable for guiding a country through a pandemic. Difficult decisions were not properly challenged; even the chancellor felt he could not use the Whitehall system to do so. Everyone was in ‘see-no-evil’ mode. This is why a special red-team is needed next time: an awkward-squad whose job it is to throw every possible challenge at whatever the PM decides. The political apparatus is too easily paralysed by paranoia and tribalism: as we saw. Let’s hope the inquiry doesn’t suffer the same fate.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Rami G Khouri
visit website
