There's no handier scapegoat than a figure of fun - though clearly Johnson has no moral standing whatever in such matters. But let it be said in Hancock's defence: he was fully engaged with his responsibilities at a level of considerable detail.
I am reliably told that when specific ministerial decisions were required, region by region, he would always call for the full stats down to the level of individual second-tier local authorities - the smallest level of granularity dealt with by Whitehall - and consider them in detail (where most politicians would pretend to cast a quick eye, and go with whatever the functionaries were proposing).
I realise some of you may respond - so HE'S the bastard responsible! And he had to go. But he has my respect on these grounds. The Napoleons and Wellingtons of this world did not achieve what they did by idly accepting the plans of others and taking the detail on trust. We have too many lazy f*****s "at the Top" in public life who want to be everything but are content to do nothing. "King of the World", my arse.