YOU would imagine that one reason people go into politics, apart from being bossy and wanting to swank about the place, is because they have ideas about how the world might be better, or at least differently, arranged. They have different, and for the most part wrong-headed, notions of the prescription for the new Jerusalem, but in general terms, politics is about agency: getting something done.

So there’s a problem when – as is currently the case – events conspire to prevent you from doing anything that interests you, because you’re too busy trying to stave off disaster. To make matters worse, there is no obvious line to take against a virus from whatever might be your own underlying political philosophy.

The battle against coronavirus, despite tiresome efforts of some people to pretend otherwise, is not more effectively waged by a unionist or nationalist approach, or by free market rather than social democratic principles. Those things might still affect other decisions (like how well the economy recovers, or how effectively children catch up on education), but they aren’t really considerations when it comes to the R number or getting people vaccinated.

This is apparent from the fact that we have an avowedly Conservative government at Westminster that last year borrowed £400 billion, about nine times more than in 2019, yet despite flinging it about, saw the economy contract by very nearly 10 per cent. We have a prime minister whose instincts are socially liberal, veering towards libertarian, who has introduced the most restrictive and authoritarian measures ever imposed in peacetime. We have ministers threatening prison terms for lying about where you’ve been on holiday that are worse than you would get for arms dealing or gang rape.

Unless you have a tinfoil hat and think that the vaccine is a plot cooked up by Bill Gates so that he can spy on you with 5G, you couldn’t imagine that the current UK government actively wanted to do any of that. That’s not affected by whether you think they’ve done well or badly – just an observation that, by their own admission, they had limited choices. Lockdown sceptics and those who think it hasn’t gone far enough may both (for opposite reasons) think politicians have bungled things, but only a few wild-eyed loonies like Piers Corbyn are claiming that it was part of some deliberate scheme.

Yet there are now some people who are quite keen on restrictions continuing, not because it seems essential or prudent, but because it furthers some other cause they favour. The most obvious of these are campaigners on lifestyle or environmental issues who see an opportunity to “reset” carbon emission or safe drinking levels, but there are plenty of other hobby horses, from universal basic income to taxing tech companies more, being pushed on the back of what were supposed to be temporary essential measures.

It is presumably to resist such tendencies, and to hold the UK Government to its own claims that it is doing only what it is compelled to by necessity, that there should be a “Covid Recovery Group”, made up of about 70 Tory backbenchers. They tend to be suspicious of restrictions, but not altogether hostile – 53 of them voted against the introduction of tiers in December, but only a handful opposed the lockdown at the beginning of January. They did, however, call for the publication of a plan for lifting lockdown by the deadline for the first vaccination target (which was yesterday).

They’re not going to get that, but there does seem to be some acknowledgement from the Prime Minister that people need details of which sanctions may be lifted, and when. The current suggestion is that that will happen progressively from March 8 with schools the priority, as they are in Scotland. Here, the early years are due to go back to primary school from next Monday.

Following that, most businesses should reopen by the end of April. On previous form, most of the UK will do most of the same things at roughly the same time. All this, however, more or less has to be provisional.

In the early stages of the pandemic, Boris Johnson was accused, with justice, of being overly optimistic, if not blasé. But the vaccination programme genuinely is proving a success; not only was the first target reached before deadline but, barring some huge change, it looks certain that everyone over 50 or in a vulnerable group will have had a chance to get the first jag by the end of April (indeed, if the current pace continues, it would be by the end of March). There is also the consideration that its roll-out will, on the evidence of last year, coincide with the point when the spread of the virus naturally declines with the seasons.

This, and the urgent need to get the economy moving again, makes a compelling case for information about what will happen when. Mr Johnson is being chivvied on one side by the CRG and serial backbench pests like Steve Baker, previously of the European Research Group, by business, and by people who are just fed up, and on the other by guidance from ministers like Matt Hancock and public health officials (who have little to lose by being too cautious, but lots if they are too optimistic).

The emergence of variants, and the fact that the UK Government has had to backtrack in the past, naturally gives the latter group the upper hand. But people do need expectations and guidance about a timetable; you can’t just fling open the doors of a school or a restaurant or Glastonbury at a moment’s notice.

All the same, precisely because of those unknowns, any programme of relaxation is going to be provisional. It is unreasonable to insist on firm promises, but it does not seem out of line to ask for clues about what might happen if current trends continue, or to set out targets: a particular figure for hospitalisations or infections, say, at which change will be warranted.

Until other countries catch up with vaccination, the one thing that probably can’t change will be travel restrictions. The Prime Minister may soon tell you that he thinks you’ll be able to go to the pub by June; it’s less likely that he’ll let you go to Torremolinos. But then, he doesn’t get to do what he wants either.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.