If they really love the NHS, the Tories will forget about the economy

It is impossible to overreact when we know the hundreds of people dying will soon become thousands. ‘Whatever it takes’ must mean whatever the cost

The government admits the coronavirus pandemic is an economic as well as a health emergency, but which should take priority?

Ministers argue that they do not need to choose between them, but governments around the world must make very difficult decisions on which to put first. Their dilemma will become even more acute once the virus has peaked, and the need to ensure economic recovery as quickly as possible competes with building extra health capacity to handle a second wave of coronavirus or second pandemic. The threat to the global economy, as well as cooperation on a coronavirus vaccine, will be discussed by leaders of the G7 nations today and the G20 tomorrow.

It’s no surprise that Donald Trump leads the charge for the “economy first” brigade. “The cure cannot be worse (by far)than the problem! ” he tweeted. He raised hopes of a return to normality by Easter, which is ludicrously optimistic. Nothing to do with his re-election prospects in November, of course.

It seems France might take the economic route after the initial health crisis, while Italy can understandably focus only on a “health first” approach. The Netherlands searches for a third way: protecting the vulnerable amid a “controlled distribution” of the virus among people least at risk.

UK ministers deserve credit for their unprecedented intervention in the private sector to pay 80 per cent of the wages of workers who would have been laid off. This makes sense because it will save otherwise solvent companies and jobs, allowing the economy to bounce back more quickly. (Even then, it will probably be more than a year before GDP returns to where it was at the start of the outbreak).

Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, has promised the NHS whatever it needs to tackle the crisis. Yet there is a tension between that and the desire, as one government aide put it, “not to crash the economy.” Although the government can safely borrow more with interest rates at an historic low, the damage to the public finances will take years to repair.

This tension broke surface in a row over whether non-essential construction workers should still go to work after Johnson’s “stay at home” edict. Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, and Sadiq Khan, the London mayor who is worried about overcrowding on the capital’s tube network, wanted building sites to close. But they were overruled by ministers, at least as far as England is concerned.

Ministers denied this had anything to do with the Tories’ £1m of donations from housing developers before December’s election. Perhaps there’s a more prosaic explanation: Johnson’s desire not to alienate white van man, especially while Sunak still struggles to finalise financial support for the five million self-employed.

Talk inside government of “limiting the economic hit” could become dangerous for Johnson, if voters perceive it as not doing “whatever it takes” to save lives. Although opinion polls suggest the public back his handling of the crisis, a toxic counter-narrative could easily emerge: Johnson was slow to react, to ensure enough testing, ventilators and safety equipment for health workers - and his lockdown was “too little, too late.”

Downing Street got its fingers burnt after its scientific advisers talked up achieving “herd immunity” when 60 per cent of the population had had the virus. The implication was that more older people would die. No wonder Number 10 slapped down suggestions that Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s most influential adviser, supported this, even if he then become a passionate supporter of a lockdown in the light of scientific evidence.

Ministers cannot join a debate about whether we should not overreact to coronavirus by “wrecking the economy for the next generation.” It is true that today’s pensioners have never had it so good, and were spared the axe of austerity, while services for children have been cut and the majority of young adults can only dream of owning a home. But this debate leads to intergenerational conflict, just when the country needs to come together; it is best left to the commentariat.

For me, it is impossible to overreact when we know the hundreds of people dying will soon become thousands. Johnson should live up to his own words: putting “people first” means putting lives first, not the size of the nation’s debt pile.

The Tories have a unique (if unwanted) opportunity to show they truly are committed to the NHS. Traditionally, voters have trusted Labour more on its strongest issue and seen the Tories as the party of economic competence, though the Tories made significant progress on health at December’s election. But the Tories would not be trusted on the NHS for a very long time if, once the crisis had passed, voters judged that the “party of austerity” since 2010 had not prepared adequately for it, or acted quickly and generously enough when it happened.

“Whatever it takes” must mean whatever the economic cost.