Finally the prime minister enacts some fairly unequivocal measures and orders a lockdown of the UK. Across the country a collective sigh of relief was exhaled.
In comparison to other countries’ response to Covid 19 we are second only to Italy for the number of deaths from the virus before imposing a lockdown. A troubling statistic indeed, especially considering Italy has almost twice the number of critical care beds than the UK.
The government has been behind the curve on the public’s response to the crisis the whole way. Rather than No10’s ‘nudge unit’ stealthly manipulating our behaviour, it seems rather it has been society’s response which has been nudging government policy. From the u-turn on herd immunity, the sporting industry cancelling events prior to government advice, to polling last week which revealed a 52 – 26 percent margin in favour of declaring a state of emergency. The government has consistently appeared to be playing catch up with public sentiment.
This has largely been blamed on a mixture of incompetence and a lack of preparedness, from a government and political party which is much more comfortable cutting the necessary public services that are vital for an effective response to the virus than investing in them. Whilst these are both undoubtedly true, could there also be a third, somewhat more discrete element at play?
Boris Johnson is known to be a self-serving politician, whose political leanings and relationship with the truth are dictated by what’s in his best interests, rather than those of the country – or political party for that matter. This was best evidenced by his initial ambivalence on the Brexit referendum, but has been a conspicuous character trait throughout his career. Facilitating this self-serving shape shifting, has been his newspaper columns from where he’s engaged in a constant stream of dog whistle politics. A platform which at once can send a wink and a nod of agreement to a more extreme right-wing fringe, via an often not so subtle use of language, whilst by appealing to a writer’s ‘journalistic flair’, ‘colourful language’ or ‘artistic licence’ (choose your excusatory phrase), allows him to distance himself from overt, clear public endorsement of the more extreme right-wing elements in society. In so doing he’s able to capture this electoral demographic, whilst with the help of the mainstream media’s lack of interrogation on such issues, is also able to project a more acceptable moderate image, peculiarly aided by a sort of lovable buffoonery which endears him to a more centre-right demographic.
From an electoral perspective this strategy is very effective. Whilst voter turnout at general elections averaged around 75 percent from the onset of universal suffrage in 1922, once New Labour adopted much of the neoliberal philosophy driving Thatcherism, voter turnout significantly declined as the difference between the two parties lessened. This decline however was starkly reversed around the time of the Brexit Referendum, which through the manipulation of issues around identity and targeted dog whistle politics, re-engaged a significant margin of the electorate to the right. In the context of a stagnant mainstream centrism, which recoils at even moderately social democratic reforms from Labour, this re-engaged, identity focused demographic is the critical margin necessary to get the Tories across the line in our first past the post electoral system.
Now considering all this, I’m sceptical that the government’s inept response to this crisis is entirely the result of incompetence or an ideological barrier. As noted above, whilst I don’t doubt both of these are playing a significant role, (I blogged about the latter last week) it seems extremely fortunate that in so doing they can both act as a cover, a more plausible and almost acceptable reason for the paucity of the government’s response, than an open acknowledgement the government is playing politics by signalling that it is not deaf to the opinions of that all-important right-wing fringe. For is it not convenient that until yesterday, the actual effect of government policy has coincided with many of the soundings off of that fringe; the likes of Brexiteers such as Tim Martin, imploring us to keep going to the pub. Being only ‘advised’ from visiting pubs and clubs could be seen in the same context of the dog whistle strategy which Johnson has utilised to capture that important right-wing demographic. For this less than clear messaging has the space to be interpreted by many on the right that Johnson is not deaf to their concerns. Moreover, by appearing to be forced into the current more draconian measures, a demographic which has a less than coherent relationship with the media, can interpret Johnson’s belated actions as him having to reluctantly capitulate to pressure from the establishment media, and the sleepy masses who apparently don’t understand that not going to the pub is an attack on their individual freedom akin to surrendering to the Nazis. Thus even in the foothills of the coming storm, it appears Johnson has been able to signal to this winning margin that he’s still on their side.
Considering this delay in decisive action will result in many unnecessary deaths, some may think that Boris Johnson (the lovable buffoon) is not capable of such heartless politicking with people’s lives. In response I would point to the already many instances of such actions, for example; who were the first demographic to be offered help? The key Tory electoral demographic of business and homeowners. Nothing for workers or renters, and whilst PAYE employees have now finally been offered help, the fact this has yet to be extended to the self employed reveals the electorally minded selectively around policy choices.
Despite this I’m not suggesting playing to this right-wing demographic is the principle objective behind Johnson’s actions, but rather it is a convenient boon which follows from the prime minister’s confusing messaging. Distasteful as it is, considering his unscrupulous history and the radical right-wing philosophies of his senior advisor Dominic Cummings, who is known to obsess about demographic oriented electoral science, I think it would be naïve to think that these considerations have not played any role in the prime minister’s response. That this response has also been characterised by incompetence and ideological barriers is without doubt, but it’s unlikely the Cummings/Johnson double act has forgotten entirely the importance of its winning margin.
From the Outside Looking In 