Support 100 years of independent journalism.

  1. Politics
  2. UK Politics
14 July 2020updated 23 Jul 2021 9:57am

Why did the UK government change its position on face masks?

The shift in policy may owe more to public opinion than any deeper ideological struggle. 

By Ailbhe Rea

Face masks are to be made mandatory in shops and supermarkets in England, with shoppers facing a £100 fine if they do not wear one, Matt Hancock is set to confirm later today.

The new rules, extending the current requirement for masks to be worn on public transport in England, come into effect from 24 July for everyone except children under 11 and people with certain health conditions. This follows Scotland, where face coverings have been mandatory in shops since last week. There is no change in Northern Ireland, where face masks are mandatory on public transport, and they are to become mandatory on public transport in Wales from 27 July.

It has been quite the journey for the humble face mask in recent months. In the early days of the pandemic, the government insisted there was no, or weak, evidence that masks worked, while privately scrambling to source enough of them for health and social care workers. This was followed by their introduction as mandatory on public transport but in no other settings, with Michael Gove remarking at the weekend that wearing face coverings in shops was “basic good manners” but not an appropriate area for legislation.

This latest development on masks tells us quite a lot about the government’s approach to the Covid-19 crisis, but not necessarily in the way you might think. It certainly is ripe for an analysis of the noble struggle between Boris Johnson’s libertarian instincts and his commitment to protecting people from the virus following his own brush with death. And that does seem to be a part of it, but it isn’t the whole picture.

Since shifting its message from “stay at home” to “stay alert”, the government has hoped to redistribute the burden of responsibility away from government rules and towards individual judgement. It is a more comfortable position for ministers in both practical and ideological terms: a more comfortable balance between state control and individual responsibility, a more suitable approach for the complexities of this stage of lockdown easing, and, ministers may hope, a small shift towards collective, rather than government, responsibility for the next stage of the pandemic.

Select and enter your email address Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. Your new guide to the best writing on ideas, politics, books and culture each weekend - from the New Statesman. A weekly newsletter helping you fit together the pieces of the global economic slowdown. A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. The New Statesman’s weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.
  • Administration / Office
  • Arts and Culture
  • Board Member
  • Business / Corporate Services
  • Client / Customer Services
  • Communications
  • Construction, Works, Engineering
  • Education, Curriculum and Teaching
  • Environment, Conservation and NRM
  • Facility / Grounds Management and Maintenance
  • Finance Management
  • Health - Medical and Nursing Management
  • HR, Training and Organisational Development
  • Information and Communications Technology
  • Information Services, Statistics, Records, Archives
  • Infrastructure Management - Transport, Utilities
  • Legal Officers and Practitioners
  • Librarians and Library Management
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • OH&S, Risk Management
  • Operations Management
  • Planning, Policy, Strategy
  • Printing, Design, Publishing, Web
  • Projects, Programs and Advisors
  • Property, Assets and Fleet Management
  • Public Relations and Media
  • Purchasing and Procurement
  • Quality Management
  • Science and Technical Research and Development
  • Security and Law Enforcement
  • Service Delivery
  • Sport and Recreation
  • Travel, Accommodation, Tourism
  • Wellbeing, Community / Social Services
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how New Statesman Media Group may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.

But we don’t know if ministers actively debated introducing compulsory face masks in shops, before deciding against and U-turning in advance of today’s announcement. I have heard it suggested that simply “no decision was made”. It exemplifies the pitfalls of an instinctively laissez-faire approach, or, more precisely, the pitfalls of governance by a man who asked in a recent meeting “who is responsible for implementing this?”, only to be told, “you, Prime Minister”. As many a French philosopher will tell you, not choosing is, in itself, a choice.

Content from our partners
How to navigate the modern cyber-threat landscape
Supporting customers through the cost of living crisis
Data on cloud will change the way you interact with the government

We know that this government receives near-daily polling, and that new public polling by YouGov indicates strong public support for masks and a plurality in favour of them being made compulsory in shops. That, combined with increasing pressure from journalists over what seems a policy with few downsides, may explain the shift more than any deep ideological struggle. Yes, the government is instinctively libertarian and, presumably, uncomfortable with the level of state interference required by the pandemic.

But this volte-face is perhaps more indicative of another tendency within the government: to move slowly, to fail to decide, and to be more swayed by public opinion than ideology.