You said: "Am I alone in not really caring what Cummings had to say beyond it was a badly managed government response."
You should care as this is clear (very early) insight into where most of the failings seem to lie, and it's probably the most truthful account that you're likely to see, within the next few years. You're not going to get that from those that messed up the most of course, they will try and pin blame on others. The buck has to stop at someone and I'll bet my ass there's more proof it's BJ and Handjob, rather than this hired gun, Cummings or any others. DC was clearly not the PM or Health Secretary, and the failings were even worse when he was out of there. He actually admitted a lot of blame and also give credit to a lot of people, it's not like he slagged everyone off, and praised himself as a messiah.
Just see how much gets denied, with actual proof, as seemingly DC can apparently back up the claims he's making and has little to gain by lying. It's all that everyone basically expected, but it's basic validation from an insider, that we were unlikely to otherwise get.
I'm sure there will be some accounts from SAGE, Whitty, Valance, Van Tam that will come in time (much later down the line), that will largely back all this up, and they're not likely to have their credentials or morals questioned.
Hopefully this targets blame at key people and key decisions, and praises other people and other decisions, at least then the idea is we listen more to the competent people and experts, rather than listening to idiots or letting them pass the buck. If there's accountability, then people will have to be more accountable. If there's no accountability, then people will just self serve, again and again. That's one of the lessons that need learning.
You are right, in as much as it is probably as close to the truth as we are likely to get, enquiry not excluded.
My point is, whats the point? Without really strong evidence that is unequivocal, can't be misconstrued or interpreted in different ways, it comes down to a he said she said, or more accurately, that's not what I meant.
Even if the evidence is irrefutable, without removing parliamentary privelidge and having a robust legal system to see criminal prosecutions brought, again, whats the point.
They have stolen billions from us, they have directly contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands. So Hancock looses his cabinet position. It doesn't bring anyone back and it doesn't stop Johnson and others going ahead and repeating the entire thing.
Of all public positions, parliament should have tougher legislation to manage and punish than any other role. They have barely none. They are judged almost solely in the court of public opinion.
Maybe, just maybe Hancock doesn't care that his political career is about to end, he made a fair few quid, job done!
I am starting to get very jaded with politics. Yesterday we have an ex aid telling the country that Johnson and his cabinet directly caused people to die and on another thread we have someone complaining that Starmer isn't fit to lead because he didn't like the way he asked the questions at PMQ's.
The whole thing has turned into a team sport with winners and loosers depending on who is in no10 not on policy. Some folks don't want Labour in power because they aint left enough for them. That suggests they are happy with the current incumbent.
We have hundreds of tory back benchers who, I assume, are not happy with the current decision makers, yet sit idly by because Johnson is on their team.
of course they care as long as your not over 80, disabled, state pensioner or on any sort of welfare. 
