Anthony Browne

The double-decapitating explosion over BBC bias is a gift for commentators, but much of the commentary misses a key central point. It is not just that the BBC is paid for by a compulsory tax on television ownership, which people are sent to jail for not paying. But just as importantly, it enjoys a position of unrivalled, semi-monopolistic power in our national debate. This BBC morning editorial meeting is group think in institutionalised form Some of those on the left often love to complain, normally alluding to one Rupert Murdoch, about concentration of power in the media, and the need for diverse sources of journalism.

The British media has got into one of its regular funks about Britons not learning foreign languages. As the only monoglot in a family of polyglots, it is an issue I have had a lifelong sensitivity about. But as always, the national hand-wringing displays more ignorance than insight. The wailing follows a regular pattern – we Brits are lazy, it damages our international reputation, and is bad for the economy. But given that our children are leading the Western world in reading, writing and arithmetic, it is unlikely that they are noticeably more lazy than those of other countries.

There is no getting around the fact that these are awkward times for fiscal conservatives, such as myself. It has never been harder to make the case for lower taxes. We have the largest national debt for half a century as we come out of the worst recession for three hundred years, with zero political appetite for public spending cuts. It is essential – for both the Conservative party’s political prospects and the country’s economic prospects – that the UK retain our reputation for sound finance. This is why the Treasury Select Committee have been gathering evidence on the options for tax after coronavirus, with our recommendations to be published tomorrow. One thing is clear: there are no easy options for the Chancellor in his budget this Wednesday.

It is not usual for the Governor of the Bank of England to ask permission to make a statement about a completely unrelated issue when giving evidence on inflation to the Treasury Select Committee. So we knew it was serious when Andrew Bailey yesterday told us his concerns about Brussels trying to force banks to relocate their euro clearing from London to the EU.  It is not a surprise that the EU wants to do this – France has been pushing for this for years before Brexit, leading to it losing a case to the UK at the European Court of Justice – but what is concerning is the desperate extremes the EU seems prepared to go. It was, Mr Bailey said, bordering on the illegal.

Two of the most unpopular taxes in Britain are stamp duty and council tax, property taxes both, seen as economically damaging and unfair. So it is not surprising there is a noisy campaign, gaining widespread coverage, to abolish them both and replace them with a simple 'proportional property tax'. The more your home is worth, the more you pay — what could be fairer and simpler? Although well intentioned, this new property tax is a genuinely bad idea. To be revenue neutral for the Treasury, campaigners estimate it needs to be set at 0.48 per cent of the value of the property per year — so that someone with a £1 million home will pay £4,800 a year in this tax.

Should we be worried that the UK didn’t get all that it wanted for financial services in the UK-EU Trade deal, as the PM mentioned to the Sunday Telegraph? Financial services are our biggest export industry by some margin, including to the EU, as well as (arguably) our biggest taxpayer, so anything that hampers it could have serious economic repercussions. The EU for its part has said that it will consider in its own time if it will grant ‘equivalence’ to UK financial services, making it easier for UK based institutions to serve customers in the EU, and will only do so if it is in the EU’s interest. The Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, has already unilaterally granted EU equivalence status, providing continuity for EU financial services companies operating here.

How is Britain doing in the battle against coronavirus? Many have repeatedly declared we have the worst track record of any country, with both the highest death rate in Europe and suffering the highest economic hit. Newspaper headlines have constantly loud-hailed our alleged failings, from the shortage of ventilators to putting ourselves at the back of the vaccine queue by not joining the EU’s programme. The only trouble is that this is just not true. In many ways, the UK’s response to coronavirus is quite literally, dare I say it, world-beating. Clearly there have been many setbacks and hiccups. Clearly there are many lessons to be learned. But just as clearly, we are leading the world in many of the most important ways.

That France was the country to throw a grenade threatening to blow up the UK-EU trade talks just as they were about to pass the finish line, does not come as a surprise to seasoned euro-watchers. No other EU member would so brazenly promote its own domestic self-interest at the cost to other EU members such as Germany and Ireland. To the British it has echoes of de Gaulle saying ‘non’, when vetoing the UK’s first attempts to join the Common Market. Many of the EU’s problems and (in my view) the ultimate reason Brexit happened, is down to a fundamental cause that is little remarked on in the UK.

It is very rare (although not unprecedented) for law breakers to attempt to be law makers. But Extinction Rebellion is trying to do both, simultaneously. This weekend they are planning to illegally blockade airports and Parliament, reportedly launch cyber-attacks, while pushing a new law to be laid before Parliament when it reopens this week by Caroline Lucas, the sole Green Party MP. It is called the Climate and Ecological Emergency (CEE) Bill. I have huge sympathy for the objectives of Extinction Rebellion – we have an absolute moral duty to pass on a sustainable world to the next generation, and it must be a political priority for which tough decisions need to be made. But I do not agree with their methods.

The public reaction to the Dominic Cummings saga shows how difficult many people have found the lockdown. It has disrupted the lives of everyone in the country and the education of all schoolchildren, caused an unprecedented recession, soaring unemployment, kept families and lovers apart and led to worrying mental health problems. Tens of thousands have died. Many people were not able to say good-bye to or go to funerals of loved ones. So it is perhaps rather surprising that a poll for the Daily Mail a week ago found that actually many people seem to be liking it. Asked if they were enjoying being at home more, 43 per cent said yes and just 25 per cent said no. More feel better off financially (33 per cent) than worse off (29 per cent).

Having a passionate national debate now about specific future tax and spending plans is like having a debate about how to fund the restoration of Notre Dame while it is burning down. It is too early for many reasons, but mainly because we just don’t know yet what the shortfall is. Put the fire out, assess the damage, get estimates for the cost of repairs, and then work out how you will fund it.  Our budget discussion is hampered by the fact we don’t know the depth of the recession, how quickly the economy will bounce back, what the national debt will be at the end of it, nor – very importantly – what the annual budget deficit will be. Estimates of the post-pandemic national debt range wildly, and annual borrowing was already predicted to grow from 2.

Jeremy Corbyn’s claim that the Conservative government’s economic response to the coronavirus package shows that his policies were right proves what an astonishingly poor grasp of economics he has. The economic rescue package has involved a massive increase in spending and borrowing, and also a temporary part nationalisation of people’s wages – both things he has argued for. But the circumstances are totally different and what helps in an unprecedented crisis can be massively damaging if carried out in normal times. In medicine, some life-saving treatments can be life-threatening if inflicted on a healthy patient. If someone’s heart has stopped, it can be right to put electric pads on their chest to give them an electric shock to restart the heart.