"Why did it take weeks to implement a lockdown and announce emergency economic measures? Why did the government spend so much of the time it had still speaking of "herd immunity" and warning that closing schools would cost 3 percent of GDP? Why, instead of instructing pubs and restaurants to close, did Johnson prefer to ask nicely? Why has it taken until now for the government to hint that it will impose quarantine for those coming to the UK via airports? Why did the government never introduce temperature checks or screening for incoming travellers? Why are government officials briefing the press that they have been bounced against their will into lockdown, by public opinion, and shocked by the extent of public support for it? And why is there still a faction in government pressing for an early exit, despite the risk of repeat waves of the virus?
This comes back to the strategic void at the heart of Conservatism. Like austerity, Brexit solves none of the chronic dysfunctions of British capitalism: low labour productivity, a lack of exportable goods, a failed housing market and grotesque regional imbalances. It even adds new complications by forcing the UK to find new trading partners, in a world that turns out to be rather indifferent to the fate of a declining north Atlantic state.
What Brexit has done, however, is revived popular conservatism. While austerity sparked a radical left opposition, and a radical secessionist movement in Scotland, the Tories found a way to link Brexit to an infrastructure spending boom funded by cheap credit – take, for example, Johnson's promise that building "free ports" after Brexit (in which importing and exporting firms can avoid normal tax and customs rules) would create jobs for "left behind" communities. The government neutralised the opposition and parked its tanks on their lawn...... ...... , the opposition would be split by the Brexit culture wars and there would be almost no media scrutiny. Everything was going so well........