A recent report evaluating the United Kingdom’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic has sharply criticized former Prime Minister Boris Johnson for his leadership failures during a crucial period in early 2020. The inquiry revealed that his inaction and lack of decisiveness contributed to a higher death toll, with the conclusion that more lives could have been saved if not for a “lost month” of inactivity in February 2020.
The report, chaired by Heather Hallett, outlines a period when Johnson was largely disengaged from the escalating crisis. While Covid-19 was spreading rapidly in countries like Italy and confirmed in the UK, Johnson was at Chevening House without receiving daily updates on the situation. The inquiry noted, “It does not appear that he was briefed, at all or to any significant extent, on Covid-19,” highlighting his absence from essential governmental discussions.
Johnson’s supporters have recently suggested he might make a political comeback, but the findings of this report cast serious doubt on that possibility. Critics, including the Covid-19 Bereaved Families group, expressed devastation at the thought of lives that could have been saved under different leadership. They emphasized the urgent need for effective governance during such a national emergency.
The inquiry also scrutinized Johnson’s personality traits, indicating that his “optimistic disposition” led to underestimating the severity of the crisis. It stated that he relied on assurances from Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who was characterized as someone known for “overpromising and underdelivering.” The report concluded that Johnson should have recognized the need for urgent leadership earlier in the crisis.
In addition to outlining leadership failures, the report provides a clear timeline of events that depicts a government seemingly complacent about the emerging pandemic. During a critical week in February 2020, Johnson did not chair any meetings of the government’s emergency Cobra committee, exacerbating the lack of coordinated response.
The inquiry’s findings have drawn mixed reactions. Dominic Cummings, a former adviser to Johnson, criticized the report for allegedly rewriting history and shifting blame towards scientific advisers. He claimed it was a “vast rewriting of history” and contended that the legal costs associated with the inquiry were exorbitant, providing little new information. Yet, the report emphasizes that the ultimate responsibility lay with the Prime Minister, stating, “He was the prime minister, not his advisers or scientists.”
Text messages from Cummings shed light on Johnson’s mindset during the early stages of the pandemic. On March 3, 2020, the day of Johnson’s first national press conference regarding Covid-19, Cummings noted that Johnson did not perceive the situation as serious. He wrote, “He doesn’t think it’s a big deal…his focus is elsewhere.” This reflects a concerning detachment from the urgent realities facing the nation at that time.
Overall, the inquiry reinforces the notion that Johnson’s leadership, or lack thereof, played a significant role in the UK’s pandemic response. The report serves as both a reminder of the critical need for effective governance during emergencies and a reflection on the consequences of complacency in leadership roles. As discussions about the future of Johnson’s political career continue, the implications of this inquiry will likely resonate in the public discourse surrounding accountability and leadership in times of crisis.
