Further fallout from the Matt Hancock affair

If No 10 insists that the “correct procedures” were followed in appointing Gina Coladangelo to Matt Hancock’s department (Hancock and Coladangelo: questions that need answers, 27 June) at taxpayers’ expense, I suggest the recruitment policy is in need of a drastic overhaul.

The difference between governing and campaigning seems to have become markedly blurred, but surely it would seem logical for political appointees to work from the Conservative campaign HQ, unlike those working in government departments, who are recruited by the civil service commission without grace or favour.
Angela Croft
London

On 15 June, cabinet supremo Michael Gove, flanked by ministers and civil servants, launched a little-noticed reform agenda for the civil service. The announcement included “enhanced roles for non-executive directors”. In the light of this announcement two weeks ago, clarity on process and transparency are surely more necessary than ever?
David Blunkett
Labour, House of Lords

It was actually John Crace who kickstarted Matt Hancock’s downfall. Early last year (Digested week, 3 April 2020), after Hancock had had Covid, Crace wrote: “Still, at least we have Hancock back tomorrow. Though I have frequently made fun of the inverse relationship between his Tiggerishness and effectiveness, I am quite fond of him as he is definitely a minister who means well and I sent him a message saying so, along with hopes for a speedy recovery. He replied asking me not to mention this to anyone as it would ruin both our careers.”

Fortunately, John is still riding high, but does he regret those words?
Jennifer Henley
London

Will you please stop publishing daily pictures of Matt Hancock and his “aide”. The endless images of Dominic Cummings in the past were bad enough, but at least all they brought to mind were his clothes shopping habits.
Isabella Stone
Sheffield

Comments are closed.