What matters is 'what government did'. Yes, of course, 'the government' consists of a number of individual human beings, but deciding what government actions were 'good', which were 'bad' and which could probably have been done better, and how (hence could be done better next time) in no way requires consideration of which particular human beings were involved in the government's actions.
As above, what matters is what the government did, and why.
The "government" is not an independent sentient entity. It may be legally independent, separate, but it has no agency by which
it can make its own decisions, issue its own directives, etc.
Whatever "the government" does, it is actually people who did it, so of course we have to consider the people involved - there is no-one else.
If you think otherwise please give an example of how the government entity The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care of the United Kingdom could have carried out an action, like making a decision, or voting in Cabinet, or placing a Statutory Instrument in the Commons library, or whatever, which had not been carried out by the person Matt Hancock.
If C-19 had been perhaps only C-18, and the Cabinet musical chairs had stopped at a different point, Gavin Williamson could have been Health Secretary.
So what if "the government" was found to have screwed up because the Health Secretary had refused to read a SAGE email because he didn't like the way it was formatted. Where is there behaviour which can be questioned, and what is the entity which should change? The entity known as the Government? The entity known as the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care of the United Kingdom? Or the entity known as Gavin Williamson?
The actions of The Government are the symptoms.
The actions of the particular human beings involved are the cause.
So if the symptoms indicate a pathology which we'd rather not have, should we address the symptoms or the cause?
Essentially still 'as above'.
Interesting - in which case I think you probably need to clarify your political inclinations, since you appeared to be presenting an 'anti-Capitalist' argument.
And as for ideologies - it's funny, but when I look at countries with better run health services, better run railways, water bodies who don't pump s**t into the rivers, roads that get repaired, an education system which works and doesn't have buildings that fall on pupils' heads, a justice system which works, local government which actually works, etc, etc, etc, I don't see any "extreme Socialist" ones, I see capitalist ones.
You don't have to be anti-capitalist to want better run health services, better run railways, water bodies who don't pump s**t into the rivers, roads that get repaired, an education system which works and doesn't have buildings that fall on pupils' heads, a justice system which works, local government which actually works, etc, etc, etc.
