Matthew Lynn

In some ways we will miss John McDonnell. His reheated 1970s student union Trotskyism was always an easy target for a column. From free broadband, to nationalising great swathes of industry, to raising taxes to punitive levels, and banning just abut anything he disapproved of, he managed to come up with a constant stream of terrible ideas. But, hey, never mind. Now there is Anneliese Dodds. The new shadow chancellor may be painted in some places as representing a shift back towards the moderate centre. And yet while she may have endeared herself to working parents on lockdown everywhere with her daughter’s impromptu appearance on Sky News this morning, we should also get real about her very limited abilities.

Rising death rates. Economies closing down. People forced to stay at home. The coronavirus is a health, social and economic emergency for every country where it hits. But in Europe it has also mutated very quickly into something else as well, and which, while it may not be quite so threatening in the short-term, could well do even more damage in the years ahead. A currency crisis. Over the last couple of weeks the eurozone has been engulfed by a furious argument over ‘coronabonds’ – a joint eurozone financial instrument that could raise money to help deal with the crisis. The highly-indebted Southern economies, along with France, are in favour. Predictably, Germany and the Netherlands are against. You can argue about the rights and wrongs of that proposal.

Ten billion? Twenty billion? Thirty billion? To borrow a phrase from the American senator Everett Dirksen when scrutinising the escalating costs of the military, ‘pretty soon you are talking about real money.’ Chancellor Rishi Sunak has already thrown huge sums of money at rescuing the economy. He may well spend a lot more over the next few weeks. You can argue about the rights and wrongs of that. But one thing is already becoming clear, and the more you pause to think about it the more worrying it becomes. It is already looking like he has hugely miscalculated the cost.

It will be impossible to calculate. There will be widespread fraud. And there is no mechanism for sending out the money. As the Chancellor Rishi Sunak scratches around for ways to bail out the UK’s five million self-employed in the same way he has done for employees he faces plenty of obstacles. No doubt his Treasury officials have come up with a list of reasons why any scheme he comes up with won’t work in practise, will prove too expensive, will break the IT system, or can’t be implemented until 2029 at the earliest. But hold on. That's crazy. In fact, the self-employed deserve their bail-out more than anyone. Sure, it is difficult. The self-employed don't have regular salaries in the way employees do.

At least no one can say it isn’t bold. The United States is fiddling around with some possible cuts to payroll taxes. Most of Europe is stuck with some printed money from the ECB. But the UK is embarking on one of the most radical experiments in modern economic theory, and one that will no doubt be studied for decades to come. With his latest announcement today, a whole 48 hours after his last intervention, the Chancellor Rishi Sunak has effectively turned the UK into a wartime economy.

A £330 billion package of loans to business. A huge tax break to any company in the hospitality or leisure industry. Mortgage holidays to anyone who has been impacted by the coronavirus. People can accuse the Government of being behind the curve on delaying the spread of Covid-19 through the population. But it is hard to accuse it of not moving quickly enough to mitigate its financial impact.  Only last week, alongside a rate cut from the Bank of England, the Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced huge rises in Government spending. Today he followed that with a massive round of state intervention, more money for industry, and the hint of a rolling programme of bail-outs as companies run into trouble.

A dramatic dawn cut in interest rates. A huge blast of public spending. And immediate cash help for companies that might find themselves temporarily in trouble as their customers stay at home and staff call in sick. We will find out over the next few weeks whether the British government has done enough to fight the coronavirus emergency it suddenly faces. But there can be no question it has at least done everything it can to fight the economic crisis that will surely follow. Likewise in the United States, the Federal Reserve has already sprung a cut in interest rates on the markets and may well make another move before the end of the month. President Trump has already announced a plan to cut payroll taxes, and is working on a stimulus package.

It is too expensive. It mostly goes to Southerners who already have plenty of money. And it doesn’t even work very well, while the money would be better spent elsewhere. As the Chancellor puts the finishing touches to his Budget, the leaks suggest that the most generous tax relief for entrepreneurs will either be curbed, reduced or potentially even scrapped completely. But hold on. That's crazy. It's just about possible that there might be a worse message to send out about post-Brexit Britain – nationalising the banks, perhaps, or a three-day working week – but it is hard to think of one. In fact, entrepreneur’s relief has been a huge success. Instead of scrapping it, we should think about extending it.

Supply chains are shutting down. Factories and offices are closing. Flights are being cancelled, conferences postponed and football and rugby games rescheduled. It remains to be seen how much of a blow the spread of the coronavirus turns into for the global economy. But one thing is now certain: it is going to lead to a sharp slowdown. And the real question now is this: how should governments and central banks respond? The medical response is already clear. Communities are put into lockdown. The infected are quarantined. Borders are closed where necessary. And treatment centres are braced for a vast increase in the number of patients. How well it works, and how quickly, remains to be seen. But at least a plan has been put in place. The economic response?

She’s back. With Brexit ‘done’ and with most of the country just grateful to have moved on from the whole saga, we might have thought we had heard the last of Gina Miller. Miller, who became something of a figurehead in the anti-Brexit movement, could quietly return to doing whatever it was she used to get up to. Not so. Now she is back on the attack, demanding a ‘review’ of the appointment of Andrew Bailey as Governor of the Bank of England. What’s her complaint this time? Apparently as head of the Financial Conduct Authority, Bailey presided over “a toxic cocktail of negligence, incompetence and indifference to the needs of ordinary depositors, investors and pensioners”.

We will export less. There will be less competition. Prices will be higher and productivity lower. Textbook economics tells us that trade friction – that is anything that makes it harder for goods or services to flow across borders – is a very bad thing. So why is the British Government suddenly accepting trade frictions with the EU? As chief Brexit negotiator David Frost made clear in his key speech yesterday, the UK is willing to accept some restrictions on trade with the rest of Europe if it has to. The answer? Because they are not necessarily as bad as the textbooks predict and the prize is a big one. True, in an ideal world we would have completely free trade with the EU. There would be no tariffs or quotas. We would remain members of the Single Market.

It will be big, shiny and it will make a difference. Even with its astronomical and rising cost and its wobbly economics, it is possible to see the gut appeal of HS2, especially to a big spending government such as this one which can borrow freely at virtually zero cost. After all, it needs to do something to close the gap between the regions. It also needs to improve the country’s transport infrastructure and this project is, at least, almost ready to start. The trouble is, there are far better ways of spending what is likely to be £200 billion by the time the final bill is due. After all, high-speed trains are a 40-year old technology. There is nothing especially modern about them anymore.

At least no one will be able to accuse it of not caring about the environment. The government has just bought forward its ban on all diesel, petrol and hybrid cars to 2035. From that date onwards, you will only be allowed to buy electric or hydrogen vehicles. The gas-guzzling, polluting SUVs we all like so much will be banished from the road, and all those petrol stations will be replaced with sleek charging stations. There is a problem, however, and it is far from a minor one. The government shouldn’t be telling us what to drive – because consumers left to themselves can decide for themselves. True, there is nothing wrong with electric cars. They are far, far better for the environment.

Less than the cost of a Spotify subscription. Less than Netflix charges you every month. True, you might not be able to get the latest Taylor Swift remix or episodes of Stranger Things, but the Labour Party is trying to reach out to the streaming generation with the claim that the state costs you less than either your music or TV fix. According to its Twitter feed, someone earning just £82,000 a year has to pay only £8.33 a month for ‘free healthcare, free education, properly funding the NHS, lifting children out of poverty, ending the climate crisis, and ending homelessness.’ https://twitter.