On his return next week, Boris Johnson’s biggest coronavirus challenge could be with his own cabinet

The prime minister will try to reach middle ground. But while a majority of ministers probably want a swift end to the lockdown, others are more cautious, writes Andrew Grice

Johnson records a video message at No 10 on Easter Sunday after being released from hospital, before leaving for Chequers (Getty)

Boris Johnson, who is expected back at work next week, will return to the most agonising dilemma of his political life to date, and probably the biggest he will ever face: when and how to lift the lockdown.

Concern about its economic damage spooks a growing number of cabinet ministers and Conservative backbenchers. Debate about an exit strategy has rightly begun in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, as the devolved administrations think about going their own way in easing some restrictions.

Johnson wants to maintain a UK-wide approach. In London, ministers try to suppress the debate as well as “the curve” of coronavirus cases. It can’t last. The government is starting to look rudderless without its prime minister. The cabinet is waiting for Johnson.

The mood among Conservative MPs is changing, though not quite as dramatically as some headlines suggest. Many MPs are being lobbied by businesses who might go under if the lockdown continues much longer. It is striking that demands for an exit plan are coming mainly from Tories on the party’s right, such as Iain Duncan Smith, David Davis, John Redwood and Bill Cash. While concerns about the economic damage were raised at this week’s meeting of the shop stewards on the 1922 Committee executive, opinions on a WhatsApp group for Tory backbenchers were more balanced, with many recognising the need to protect lives as well as livelihoods.

Thatcherite think-tanks, which have close links with right-wing Tory MPs, are leading the charge for an “economy first” approach. The Centre for Policy Studies calculated the government’s emergency measures could raise borrowing to about £300bn this year, higher than the £273bn suggested by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the fiscal watchdog. The Adam Smith Institute warned: “When the politicians get round to flicking the on switch, they’ll find the machine’s innards have rusted away.”

These think-tanks do not like the state’s enhanced role in this crisis and ache for it to end, though surely even their idol Margaret Thatcher would have said: “There is no alternative.”

Right-wingers hope Johnson’s libertarian instincts, and his reluctance to impose the restrictions in the first place, will bring him into their camp. But they will likely be disappointed. His life-defining personal experience of the virus and desire for the country to avoid a second wave of the disease point to the restrictions being lifted very slowly.

While a majority of the cabinet probably wants a swift end to the lockdown, those in the inner “war cabinet” are more cautious. Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, is keener in private on lifting the restrictions than in public, where he accepts the official line that acting prematurely would have an adverse impact on health and therefore the economy.

But Matt Hancock, the health secretary, declared on Friday he would not allow the curbs to be diluted until the threat of a second wave had been eliminated. It is unlikely he would have done that without knowing Johnson shares his view, and the two men did speak on Thursday. Michael Gove is sympathetic to Hancock’s view, as is Dominic Raab, who is deputising for Johnson.

Ministers are very wary of tiptoeing into the minefield of the trade-off between health and the economy. As the former cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell noted, the government has to balance economic costs, including unemployment, lower incomes, lower self-esteem and job insecurity, “against the increased number of deaths that will result from ending the lockdown”.

O’Donnell wants the crunch decision to be based on “wellbeing”, a concept fashionable when David Cameron was prime minister. It will therefore be viewed with suspicion by Team Boris (and is seen as rather airy fairy by critics), but might now be an idea whose time has come.

It was significant that Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, rather than a politician, offered the most candour this week, suggesting some restrictions could remain for 12 months, as I predicted here last week.

One minister told me: “We are not going to choose between the economy and public health.” But brutal choices will have to be made soon.

Johnson will look for a middle way. But some ministers fear there will not be one. Keeping the average number of people infected by someone with the virus below one (so the disease does not spread) will be very difficult to achieve as the measures are relaxed. If the number of cases rises sharply again, restrictions might have to be reimposed. The public would probably be less compliant the second time round and support for the government’s approach could melt away.

Ministers will no longer be able to play pass the parcel and say they are acting on scientific advice. The scientists are making it very clear they will merely present ministers with a menu of options.

Normally, politicians like citing the mantra that “advisers advise, ministers decide”. They are suddenly less keen on it now.