Baby-faced Hancock is more Tintin than Stalin

The role of health secretary – especially a Conservative one – can be thankless. Presiding over a system in eternal crisis, he or she must suffer the slings and arrows of shouty interviews with junior doctors and endless Guardian articles accusing them of conspiring to privatise the NHS. Universal unpopularity in such circumstances seems inevitable, failure guaranteed. So, who among us can really blame Matt Hancock for seizing the chance of absolute power? He is not a natural dictator, however, as I saw yesterday. Standing at the dispatch box, the Health Secretary seemed strangely indecisive. His delivery veered wildly from serious to faux-jovial; marooned between Stalin and Mr Bean as he attempted to offset grim news with optimism.

“We are seeing some concerning trends … These are not measures we take lightly.” “The Rule of Six” made a reappearance, with its echoes of Conan Doyle; Hancock Holmes on the case (or was it the Grinch? Foiling families’ dastardly plans to gather together at Christmas).

Amid the gloom, glad tidings for the Rees-moggs; “if a single household or support bubble is larger than six, they can still gather”, he conceded.

To larger families fretting about their continued existence, fear not – you do not have to abandon that unlucky fifth child.

The Health Secretary grew animated on the topic of “Operation Moonshot”, the latest cutting-edge, world-beating – albeit not-quite-readyyet – programme, for mass testing. Yet, suddenly – disastrously – MPS began to snigger.

Quite apart from the Government’s ongoing logistical struggles, the name does not inspire confidence, suggesting “Long shot” or even “Shot in the dark”.

Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth delivered the multi-billionpound question: “How on earth does he expect to deliver this Moon shot?”

“I think the shadow minister was rather better when he was supporting the government action in the first part of his statement,” replied Hancock, to clubbable guffaws from the Tory benches. Though weak, Hancock’s answer reflected an important point.

Save a couple of interventions from Tory backbenchers, few questioned the broader strategy. Surely the Lib Dems would kick off about the imposition of illiberal restrictions without parliamentary oversight?

Munira Wilson of Twickenham proved a sad disappointment on this score. “We all want life to return to normal. But as things stand,” she said, proving the adage that everything before the word “but” is meaningless, “20,000 spectators are currently scheduled to travel to Twickenham to watch the rugby international.” The Health Secretary hastily reassured Wilson that the decision was “under review”.

Some insist Hancock is simply too baby-faced to be taken seriously as overlord, and I sympathise. But what if tyranny in the 21st century did just happen to have the face of Tintin? For all the bluster, we are living in a one-party state, and the party is Lockdown.