Rishi Sunak’s Summer Statement: It Gets Better If You’re Rich.
On the 8th July 2020, British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak announced his Summer Statement — a proposed £30 billion support package to jump-start the economy. The Chancellors support package included: no stamp duty on homes valued at less than £500,000 until March 2021, a VAT cut from 20% to 5% and the most comical of all, the “Eat out to help out” discount scheme. The discount provides restaurant goers with a £10 discount off of restaurant meals, cafes and pubs in August, ultimately to inject some life back into the economy.
This announcement coincided with the new British mythical holiday ‘Super Saturday’, where non-essential shops, such as British pubs, hair hairdressers and restaurants reopened. This also overlapped with Americas 4th of July celebrations. Our politic discourse is now littered with very catchy straplines “Eat out to help out”, “Get Brexit Done”, “Save the NHS”. These strap-lines are very reminiscent of wartime language; lambasting the British public with catchy slogans which aim to rally support for the Government. And for a time, it works. However, we must be critical in the messages we are being delivered.
The newest iteration of this jingoism “Eat out to help” is a cry for the British public to spend their hard-earned cash — or furlough payments for some — on going out and eating in restaurants. On the face of it, it’s a welcome step towards ‘normality’ I have missed eating out with friends, I would be dishonest if I were to deny it. It almost seems like a lifetime ago that I was in Dutchie ( a Caribbean restaurant in South London) getting ‘tun’ on Wray and Nephew rum punch — it was a simpler time pre-lockdown. It is a very attractive offer — I cannot deny that; when the alternative is staying at home and eating the same meals you have been eating since the beginning of the lockdown.
However, my initial glee to return to Dutcies soon turned sour. I asked myself “is this appropriate in a pandemic”? Is this what the British public needs? In a time where we have had one of the worst responses to the Coronavirus, with one of the largest death tolls on the planet, one of the latest responses to lockdown measures being implemented, shaky and unreliable statistics, poor procurement of PPE for NHS staff and no concrete explanation as to why the virus seems to affect disproportionately, Black and Minority Ethnic People the hardest; all further underpinned by ten years of austerity. The list goes on. Yet, “Eat out to help out” is exactly what the Government thinks we need — more contact with people outside of our household.
I don’t condemn anyone from wanting to partake in the reopening of Pubs and Restaurants, it is natural to want to reclaim some form of normality. My issue is that there has been a war of attrition waged on the British publics mental fortitude. From the outset of the virus, our Prime Minister implemented (not formally) herd immunity — which was not backed by the scientific community, subsequently resulting in a U-turn in the language being used to combat the virus. To very vague and ambiguous guidance with regards to returning to work, visiting members of your family, childcare, transport, distancing in public spaces and so on. We the British public are simply exhausted, and for some — restaurants opening is a welcomed change.
The irony is that on the following day of the Chancellor’s statement, statistics provided by the Independent Food Aid Network had highlighted that there has been a 135% increase in the number of people who are being supported by food banks within its network when contrasting that against May 2020 and May 2019. Statistically, there has been an 85% increase in the number of children also being supported by food banks. The Chancellor failed to provide any reassurance for families already struggling to feed their families adequately.
No further solution for reducing the number of people claiming Universal Credit, which rose by 80%. Domestic abuse referrals to Refuge, the U.Ks largest domestic abuse charity have increased exponentially, which saw a 700% increase in calls to its helpline in a single day, while a separate helpline for perpetrators of domestic abuse seeking to help to change their behaviour received 25% more calls after the start of the Covid-19 lockdown.
Renters find themselves in a precarious position as no real protection was articulated during the Summer Statement. Shelter, one of the largest homelessness charities in the U.K, estimate that 227,000 adult private renters have fallen into arrears since the start of the pandemic, subsequently meaning that they could lose their homes when the evictions ban ends on the 23rd August. It is also revealed that 174,00 private tenants have already been threatened with eviction by their landlord. Shelter further articulates that the toll this pandemic is having, in conjunction with evictions on the horizon is harming renters mental health, which will most likely get worse as the furlough scheme draws to a close.
A potential solution that could be submitted; would be that the Government takes a stronger stance on taxing the wealthiest of individuals in the country. The U.K’s wealthiest people have long benefited from lower tax rates, often being able to afford the privilege of hiring talented lawyers and accountants to hide or manage their asset to avoid paying the appropriate tax as well as the Governments also spending over £164 billion a year on tax reliefs.
Taxation in the U.K is a taboo, often politicians are too afraid of imposing taxation on the wealthiest of individuals and businesses in the U.K. resulting in £35–£90 billion of tax going uncollected per year.
Tax, ultimately, aids in redistributing wealth into society. Everyone benefits from it. From better hospitals and schools to better roads and public services. The reluctance in paying the correct tax by the richest of society further deepens inequality.
The Chancellors Summer Statement only serves to reinforce the government’s stance on the protection of private wealth. Socialism for the rich is completely acceptable in neoliberal societies, i.e. subsidies, tax breaks, corporate bailouts. Whereas, Socialism for the most vulnerable in society, is often rejected or propositioned as being a restraint on personal growth.
The juxtaposition between those who benefit from a reduction in stamp duty and discounted meals and those who cannot afford to pay their rent as well as feeding their families is telling. This in itself is testimony to who the Summer Statement is catered for. What we the taxpaying public are being offered here, is a ‘soft bailout’ for private wealth.
