X Close

Would Jeremy Hunt have done better? Britain would have had a very different pandemic under the leadership of the former Health Secretary

Jeremy Hunt, as a would-be Tory leader. Credit: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images.

Jeremy Hunt, as a would-be Tory leader. Credit: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images.


October 23, 2020   6 mins

Looking back on British politics in 2019, historians would agree that it was the Metropolitan Police who made Jeremy Hunt prime minister. In late June, with the Conservative Party leadership election down to the final two candidates, the Met issued a short press notice confirming that one of those candidates, Boris Johnson, was being charged with an offence of affray under the 1986 Public Order Act, in connection with an incident at the London flat he shared with his fiancee, Carrie Symonds.

Johnson, accompanied by Symonds for an immediate news conference, categorically denied wrongdoing, accusing the Met of a “shameful attempt to subvert democracy”. Friendly newspapers screamed about “unelected Remain-voting police chiefs’ political correctness”. Hunt extravagantly proclaimed his support for his rival, but in a way that left the Johnson camp furious: “Like anyone else accused of a serious crime, Boris Johnson is innocent until proven guilty,” Hunt solemnly declared.

The Met dropped the charges in September 2019, leading to the resignation of Commissioner Cressida Dick. But, by then, Hunt had settled into the role of Prime Minister, having been elected Tory leader on — of course — a 52:48 result. Keenly aware of that narrow margin, and the argument among some that his victory was illegitimate, he went to great lengths to accommodate Johnson allies in his Cabinet: Dominic Raab got the Home Office and Priti Patel the FCO. The biggest surprise was not Michael Gove as Chancellor though. It was Lord Cameron of Dean’s return to Government as International Development Secretary. “We are one Consevative family governing for One Nation,” Prime Minister Hunt declared after his first Cabinet meeting.

But there was no place for Johnson, even after his exoneration: it was rumoured that he’d turned down Hunt’s offer of a new super-ministry for regional growth and industrial policy with the job of “narrowing the gap” between English regions. So that job went to young Rishi Sunak, while Johnson returned to the backbenches and writing lucrative columns finding fault with the new administration’s handling of the Brexit talks.

Such was Johnson’s detachment from government that there was even speculation that he would not seek re-election to the Commons when Hunt announced he would seek his own mandate from the electorate in a “battle of the Jeremies” general election in November 2019. Offered a stark choice between Hunt and Corbyn, Britain gave the new PM a majority, albeit a modest one. Labour clung on to several Tory target seats in the Midlands and the North, but the Tories enjoyed not just victory but the removal of every Lib Dem MP in England.

Back in office with a majority of just 40, many analysts predicted that Hunt risked becoming a posher John Major, picked apart over Europe by Tory rebels led by a reinvigorated Johnson.

That was the state of play in early January when the first reports came in of a human fatality from an unknown virus in the Chinese city of Wuhan.

“As a confident, global leader with first-rate businesses, scientists and technology, it’s important that we do everything we can to help our Chinese friends manage this virus,” Hunt told the Commons as he announced an offer of British assistance with the outbreak.

The ensuing debate was mostly focused on the fact that the Chinese had shown no interest in the British offer, with Labour MPs accusing the PM of using international affairs to distract from his own party management worries. The paragraph in Hunt’s statement about a Cobra meeting to consider the UK activating its own domestic contingencies got much less attention.

In the six weeks that followed, Hunt statements on “the coronavirus” became a common occurrence at Westminster, and saw him start to build a modest international reputation as a leader just about ahead of the curve on what was now recognised as a pandemic. Some Westminster cynics were surprised by what they saw as the transformation of Hunt into a gritty national leader: “It’s like seeing a Blue Peter presenter presiding at a funeral,” wrote one sketchwriter.

But close Hunt-watchers were not surprised, remembering his days in mortal combat with the doctors’ union over new contracts for junior doctors in 2016. Then, he didn’t back down, even though that meant playing the heartless Tory hatchet-man while white-coated saints condemned him. No 10 aides briefed hacks that this battle had taught him that taking the harder road can pay off in the end.

In late February, in a decision influenced by Cameron, Hunt stepped up his “national leadership” pitch by inviting Labour’s shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth — but not his outgoing party leader, Corbyn — to join a new Cabinet subcommittee on the virus. The same invitation was also extended to the candidates to replace Corbyn, with Keir Starmer the first to signal acceptance. Hunt considered inviting Tony Blair to No 10 to discuss the pandemic, but instead settled for giving Blair’s old lieutenant Alan Milburn a cross-bench peerage and job at the Cabinet Office coordinating pandemic planning.

“Jeremy’s Big Tent politics” riled the Conservative Right, and gave Johnson more material for columns, but the polling data muffled the protests. Hunt went into March 2020 with strong approval ratings and a hefty Tory lead over Labour. That meant that when on March 5, acting in coordination with the government of Italy, Hunt announced a three-week national lockdown “to take control of the virus”, his decision was broadly welcomed in Parliament and among the public.

Yet that decision was also where the trouble began for Hunt. By the early summer, Covid-19 had killed more than 25,000 Britons and the British figures were better than those for Italy and France and broadly comparable with Germany’s. But the UK economy had fallen off a cliff and Hunt faced accusations of not doing enough to support businesses and workers; anxious about the public finances are wary of being accused of trashing the Tory commitment to sound money, he’d limited the Treasury’s new “furlough” scheme to paying just two-thirds of workers’ wages.

Worries about the economic impact of the lockdown combined with a touch of hubris to persuade Hunt to declare “victory” over the virus in late June 2020, a couple of weeks after New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern had declared her nation covid-free. “Britain is open for business again and we can now lead the world into the post-Covid future,” Hunt declared at a smoothly choreographed press conference at the Royal Festival Hall in London, where a slightly underwhelming line-up of British business leaders announced plans to reopen and rehire.

Oddly though, Business Secretary Sunak was missing from the event. No 10 claimed that was down to mundane logistics (“His helicopter broke down”) but party colleagues knew that Sunak had been spending more and more time in conversation with Johnson. Johnson himself was saying little, beyond columns in which he called for more Government spending to support the economy and the “British heartlands that have suffered so much this year”. He also made repeated appeals for Hunt to guarantee that the Conservative Party conference would go ahead in Birmingham as planned.

After a blissful summer of something like normal life, that conference took place as Hunt’s “victory” started to fray. Covid cases were starting to tick up again, prompting another Cobra meeting and talk of another early intervention from the PM.

But Johnson moved even earlier. His conference speech was packed with admirers ignoring the notional government guidance on social distancing, and his message was clear: no more restrictions. “My friends, I have reluctantly reached the conclusion that our admirable Prime Minister has used an industrial grade twin-cylinder tungsten steel power hammer to crack the microscopic nut that is this virus. And in so doing, he has shattered businesses, jobs and something even more precious, our ancient British liberties. I say, No More Lockdowns. I say it’s time to take back control of this country from doomsaying doctors and this gloombucket government. No More Lockdowns! Set Britain Free!”

Facing a resurgent Johnson, backed by the old Vote Leave machine and firing out barrages of three-word slogans, Hunt struggled to hold together the coalition he’d built for his safety-first approach to the pandemic. Tory grumbling about economics and liberty grew, but in the end, it was events inside the Labour Party that did for him.

With the virus returning in parts of the country, Hunt sought a series of regional deals with local leaders to agree new control measures, an approach that left him even more reliant on Starmer’s cooperation to secure local Labour buy-in. That bipartisan approach was to prove fatal to his leadership when the time came to agree a deal for Greater Manchester.

The beginning of the end of the Hunt premiership was Sunak’s resignation over the prospect of a north-west lockdown. The end came two days later with the striking spectacle of Johnson and Andy Burnham, side-by-side on a wet Manchester pavement in angry protest against what Johnson called the “pub-closing, job-wrecking, fun-crushing tyranny of the medical elite and their puppet in Downing Street”.

Burnham’s key contribution to the fateful press conference was to call Hunt “a Surrey millionaire sitting in his big house in London, making plans with his Westminster mates to send Northern businesses to the wall — including a Labour leader who should be standing up to him, not sucking up”.

From there, there were only a few short steps to a position where Johnson was installed as Britain’s fourth prime minister in four years, at the head of a Cabinet conspicuously lacking a development secretary following that post’s brisk abolition. (“Sorry, Dave old chum.”)

At his first PMQs in early November 2020, the new premier wished his predecessor well in his new role as British ambassador to China, and greeted Starmer with a cheery smile and a benediction: “May I wish him all the best of British luck in his own leadership contest against the estimable Mayor of Greater Manchester, Mr Speaker?”


James Kirkup is Director of the London-based Social Market Foundation

jameskirkup

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

33 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Adrian
Adrian
4 years ago

One of the biggest myths of the pandemic is that government action has been the deciding factor in death rates.
So we blame Brazils ‘high’ death rates on Bolsonaro, and claim Germany’s ‘low’ death rates are something to do with superior German organization.

And yet South America has overall high death rates, perhaps because they locked down way too early to effectively ‘flatten the curve’. There seems to be no correlation between politics and death rates. The Guardian contends that the high death rates in Peru are down to nasty individualists ignoring the advice of their socialist leaders, and the lower death rates in Brazil are down to the nasty individualists following the advice of their ‘far’ right leader. Yet the trajectory of South American coronavirus deaths seems to affect all countries almost equally.

We have a similar geographic grouping in Germany, Denmark, Austria, Poland, Latvia and Belarus. Very similar Covid death graphs. Not very similar politics.

What this should be telling us, is that we are missing something vital about Covid transmisssion and mortality. Instead we are obsessed that the type of politics we personally dislike is causing the issue.

Glyn Jones
Glyn Jones
4 years ago
Reply to  Adrian

My big question for governments and advisors is:

If lockdowns really work, why are are other respiratory deaths only down 9% between mid March and now, compared to the 2015-19 average? (This is statisically significant and makes 2020 the lowest for 10 years).
Map that reduction to Covid and that implies that all the lockdowns and restrictions may have saved as few as 10,000 lives. Make some really, really generous assumptions (compare 2020 to worst years rather than average – assume no affect on non influenza like respiratory illnesses etc) and I can get an estimate in the 25-35K range for lives saved.
This seems quite a bit below the estimates of how many lives lockdown is costing.

Or, you can believe SAGE that their restrictions reduce COVID deaths by 90% but all other respiratory disease deaths by 9%.

carolstaines8
carolstaines8
4 years ago
Reply to  Adrian

Fully endorse your view that we are missing something vital about Covid transmission….

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
4 years ago
Reply to  Adrian

I think there are other differences between socities and what have you that can (and are thrown in) but the real answers will probably be found in a complex interplay intreplay of a number of factors as you say, than this or that ideologically driven interpretation.

There’s divided socities (us, Scotland, USA..Brexit, Independence , Trum) with very partisan media especially broadcast, amplifying divisiions, but also population density, societel habits of behaviour, centralised health services, against de-centralised, over reliance of private companies , under reliance on them, the leraned behaviours in the far east from previous scares pandemic-wise, and the list can go on and on.

The big panic here (basically caused by that video from Bergamo hospital at a crucial time, to *protect the NHS* that then caused hasty and careless of decanting of patients into care homes….one can go on and on.

The fact is the virus IS stillvery novel, we are still finding out different things about it, and trying to create a kind of dogma of certainty out of the fluctuating statistics just risks piling on another layer of bad outcomes.

Glyn Jones
Glyn Jones
4 years ago

Sorry, Is this the same Jeremy Hunt (who is actually the MP for the end bit of my garden) who was Health Secretary from 2012 – 2018? The one who was told in 2016 (after exercise Cygnus) that the UK health system was badly prepared for a pandemic, yet did nothing?
And you think he would have done a better job?

Adrian
Adrian
4 years ago
Reply to  Glyn Jones

You should have got into your shed and wrote him a letter.

Glyn Jones
Glyn Jones
4 years ago
Reply to  Adrian

I should have done. I do actually have a shed in his constituency.
I don’t know who is worse. Jeremy Hunt or my actual MP Damian Hinds.

Jeanie K
Jeanie K
4 years ago
Reply to  Adrian

‘written’ him a letter, not ‘wrote’

Glyn Jones
Glyn Jones
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeanie K

Adrian and I are common people. We both understood “wrote”.

Adrian
Adrian
4 years ago
Reply to  Glyn Jones

You may have understood it, I’m afraid I have never understanded wot I wrote.

juliabaytree
juliabaytree
4 years ago
Reply to  Glyn Jones

If some modern educationalists get their way, we will see children expressing their own grammatical style not dissimilar from all of the above!!

Adrian
Adrian
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeanie K

I should have knowned that, but at my school we only did wrote learning.

Glyn Jones
Glyn Jones
4 years ago
Reply to  Adrian

Adrian, please. I’m sure you mean “rote” not “wrote”. You are just giving our Ken extra ammunition.

Adrian
Adrian
4 years ago
Reply to  Glyn Jones

I knows wot I meant and I knows wot I rote. Ken can ken wot he can ken.

Adrian
Adrian
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeanie K

While there’s still time to edit Ken, you might want to remove the unnecessary hyphen from your own eye…
He who is without grammatical sin and all that.

psciagar
psciagar
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeanie K

‘written’ a letter to him. Not ‘written’ him a letter.

Scott Carson
Scott Carson
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeanie K

….as any fule kno.

Jeanie K
Jeanie K
4 years ago
Reply to  Glyn Jones

Yes, and Hunt’s “cabinet” includes Burnham who, as Health Minister, refused 8 times, a call for investigations into the un-necessary and premature deaths of around 2000 people in Staffordshire hospital. Indeed, he was accused of covering up the scandal for some years.

Ray Hall
Ray Hall
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeanie K

So the average British PM would consider him just the chap or chapess for the job!

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
4 years ago
Reply to  Glyn Jones

I know it’s possibly off the specific topic but one thing I know about is news, the news media and the cataclysm created by the digitisation of all forms of information…all of which came together in jeremy Hunt’s incredibley useless version of John Prescott’s incredibly useless original suggestions of local/hyper local TV stations, (like they have in canada) which instead of creating a field of flowers flourishing locally and providing news, has created a TV channel populated by the worst sort of cable TV channel content only waiting for some VC type takeover…or to collapse into extinction, which without the ludicrous hidden subsidy from the BBC…it would have already.

The fact is the *channel* should have been internet based.

Jeremy Hunt’s championing and engineering of it in the form it took was just dim.

LUKE LOZE
LUKE LOZE
4 years ago

Or maybe reacting to the Imperial random number generator Jeremy decided to bring in lockdown earlier and harder. To clear the hospitals covid positive patients are shunted into care homes a few weeks earlier than happened, with the earlier seed time and colder weather the cooped up residents die at twice the rate of as happened – so 50,000 dead in care homes.

With schools shut more grandparents in the cold early March weather are looking after grand kids. The harsher lockdown measures mean no going outside apart from shopping, the disease which had been circulating unoticed in schools for a month spreads with ease to the grandparents, who along with their other chronic conditions are too scared to bother the NHS. Another 50,000 die. With the death toll > 100,000 and growing fast the blunt lockdown measures become harsher and harsher, all deaths caused by the lockdown must now be blamed on the virus, this becomes a vicous circle.

Speculation is fun. Perhaps a mildly competent political class and health bureaucracy would have protected rather than sacrificed care home residents. Care workers would have been prioritised for testing and emergency measures put in place to massively increase the number of care workers, with sick pay. Live in workers on £1000 a week would make headlines but save lives. Home deliveries of food would be prioritised for those deemed most at risk. Young people could have been repeatably told that their risk was tiny, but to take sensible precautions. The private sector could have been allowed to help with testing and PPE.

Andy Tuke
Andy Tuke
4 years ago
Reply to  LUKE LOZE

Actually in computers there actually is no such thing as a random number, Imperial simply wrote a huge piece of crap software to confirm what they believed anyway

Guy Johnson
Guy Johnson
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy Tuke

Something of which Prof Ferguson is blissfully unaware.

bjgfdr
bjgfdr
4 years ago
Reply to  Guy Johnson

too busy making merry!

LUKE LOZE
LUKE LOZE
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy Tuke

There are ways to get truly random numbers into computers with sensors, I doubt Imperial went this far.

The ‘code’ seen online was apparently the heavily cleaned up version, which is really scary considering how bad it is.

The lack of structure and use of concepts deemed dangerous 50 years ago is shocking.

Imperial’s arrogant claim that because it used random meant it couldn’t be tested for consistent results shows the amateur nature of the team. Multiple jnr devs I’ve known could have done it with ease.

I suspect most of the Imperial team have high IQs, but were truly unaware of what a hacked piece of unmaintainable spaghetti code they wrote.

And of course all the variables they put in about the virus such as infection rates and fatality rates were guesses too, often 10 fold off.

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
4 years ago
Reply to  LUKE LOZE

Spot on…it seemed one news video at a key moment (of Bergamo medics and hospitals being over run) sparked the panicky idea that above all the Health Service needed to be protected..rather than the patients in it…who were decanted with the disease into care homes with the results that the countries that *protected their Health service* best actually seem to be the ones with most deaths….

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
4 years ago

Seeing the headline on the landing page and not noticing the photo I assumed this was the other Jeremy. Namely, Corbyn. In which case the UK would have faced the virus as an increasingly Islamic version of Venezuela. All the Jews rapidly fleeing in the country would have been unable to travel, leaving them massively vulnerable to the ongoing pogroms.

But it’s Jeremy Hunt, in which case I don’t suppose the response would have been any different to the grotesque combination of tyranny and farce that has unfolded over recent months.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
4 years ago

Summary: “if only we had a functional, establishment, leader instead of that populist, Brexit-loving, loony…”

Macron is a prototypical establishment leader in Europe, but France’s COVID cases are terrible. Looking across Europe, there is little apparent correlation between leadership style, party, mask mandates, border closures, lockdowns, and COVID hospitalization / death rates.

That’s not really that surprising for an partially airborne disease. What is surprising is the number of people wasting ink trying to “prove” that their government policies would have made it better.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
4 years ago

Pondering counterfactuals is fun, but in my humble opinion, that is not how any of this works. It is driven by currents at different scales short, medium and long term, over which individual leaders have almost no impact – the important factors are the playlist of human sensibilities aggregated at national and supra-national level. I would even include, say, WWII in this – ie the fact Churchill (and Hitler) were leader in place had little impact – what played out would have happened mostly the same, with minor differences, regardless. As such, the only important long term trends are the rise of algorithmic and genetic technologies. The medium term ones are globalisation and demographics. The short term stuff is entertaining (cartoons often are) but pretty much irrelevant.

Consider WWI for a moment. Countless Historians have pasted on lines of reasoning as to why it happened, what triggered it (Bosnian assassination blah blah) etc, but I have, after years of buying all that, come to the conclusion it is retrofitted rubbish (all them History professors have to justify their salaries somehow, and the entertainment businesses is as good as any). Imagine different leaders and different choices by them across the whole of Europe at the time of WWI. I don’t for a second now believe that WWI would not have played out pretty much the same with minor variations. Imagine no rise of Hitler. I still think a war in Europe at about the same time and of the same magnitude would have happened. Patterns playing out, outside human agency.

Jay Williamson
Jay Williamson
4 years ago

Really? I know you dislike Boris Johnson, but this is a waste of time article.

David Simpson
David Simpson
4 years ago
Reply to  Jay Williamson

You should have finished reading it, it has a “happy” ending

Roger Inkpen
Roger Inkpen
4 years ago

I assumed the headline was referring to whether Hunt would have handled the pandemic better than Matt Hancock! As health sec, I don’t suppose he’d have been any better at challenging the alleged ‘science’ behind any of the restrictions.

As for JH becoming PM, I guess all your scenarios have a ring of plausibility. But what happened with the chaos in Parliament over Brexit? Would Hunt have forced through a transition deal? would he have given more time for a trade deal? Then more time? And then agreed to another EU ref?

Big Al
Big Al
4 years ago

A Kirkup’wet dream’…