tbh, my conspiracy theory (and it avoides judgements here, as I really don't want it to tip over into t'other thread!!) is similar to Cummings.
At that point, certain sectors of the population were quite happy sitting at home, not enthused by eating out to help out, going on holiday etc. What you need to do is change the collective psyche a little, and one way of doing that is to loosen those chains where people follow authority fairly literally. Once Cummings tested his eyesight, there was a discernable shift where people weren't as worried about following rules literally, as he hadn't after all.
We're in a similar position now. Hancock can serve a purpose in just loosening those psychological chains ever so slightly, showing that rules are there to be bent and, when they loosen more, it encourages people to take advantage of those loosened rules rather than self-selecting.
In that way... Hancock can provide a service. You *then* move him away, and he either ends up the patsy for errors, or the blame if you need to re-introduce restrictions down the line. Meanwhile, his authority is damaged so he doesn't get any attention paid to him if he butts againstt the government.
The political (small p) move might be to keep him there, given the stage we're at.
(Of course what's more likely is that he's a hopelessly incompetent insincere buffoon who has no grasp of the role he's supposed to play in government, but who doesn't like a conspiracy theory eh
)