{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020016680567139282, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003336113427856547, 'mean_word_length': 4.853658536585366, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ruling the Pandemic

In this chapter, a case study demonstrates how apparently binary lines between lawfulness and unlawfulness, and between formal and informal models of government have blurred. In the period until the late 1970s, when relations between central and local government were characterized as autonomous and laissez-faire, there are plenty of examples of government by circular which lacked any form of legislative backing, but which were simply accepted as providing the basis for an obligation. What the case study exposes is the way in which policy-making has blurred lines between different types of legislation, and producing entirely new ways of governing by letter, usually heralded by self-congratulatory and inaccurate tweets. Of course, it may well be said that this is the price we have to pay for governing in an emergency; and, no doubt, there is something in that. It might also be said that, certainly as far as secondary legislation is concerned, these processes have been in place for some time. The real test, however, will be how these new techniques of government are used and developed as we move out of Lockdown and back to some sort of normality in everyday life.