Firstly, the OP repeatedly claims there are 128 accounts involved. However, not a single screenshot or handle from any account other than the original account is actually given in the thread. Why is there not a single other account public?
Secondly, Hootsuite being used isn't really suspicious, it's pretty common. But what I've never seen is what OP is claiming here - that he can see who the Hootsuite account is assigned to, and its contributors, from the outside.
That leads to the claim that he's identified the person behind it, but isn't naming them publicly. Which is weird, because in earlier tweets he has named people, and then in later tweets, says he doesn't know who's behind it, but just has "several names". 
He's also convinced he knows who the marketing agency is - and hasn't revealed any details about that - yet is curiously unaware of how it actually operates, but is confident Matt Hancock isn't involved.
Again, none of these accounts have been revealed publically
This account is fake. But it looks like a half-baked parody account, not an astroturfing operation. We can see that from the tweets, which are mockings of identity politics. Some elements just don't make sense - why would they want to #BANTHECLAP ?
And why would a government plan be based on a pretty offensive joke aimed at 'inclusiveness', when the goal is to support the government message?
Next, something you should be deeply suspicious of in a thread is "more to come..." with some vague claim about legal protections, that this responsible person apparently didn't bother to do beforehand, particularly when OP is also tweeting about trying to build a bigger audience
The OP is also tweeting previously debunked nonsense, which should give you a lot of pause about whether he knows what he's talking about
Also worth reading:
And Twitter are now saying it's also not a thing.
I went straight to the weekly NHS clap for obvious reasons, but this is correct. Proves it's a pretty basic parody account. Whoever is behind it seems to be torn between mocking people and pushing the government line, which suggests a random user.
Literally none of this is proved.
One more to add
