Aditya Chakrabortty (Johnsonism’s first budget is floating on hype and hot air, Journal, 12 March) is right that “the grand sum of £94.25 sick pay a week is just not enough to live on”. But spare a thought for those who do not qualify for sick pay or who have to rely on other benefits for longer periods. The equivalent for which they qualify is the grand sum of £73.10 (£57.90 if under 25) which, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research, represented only 12.5% of median earnings last year compared with 20% in 1984. This is supposed to cover an individual’s living expenses other than at least part of their rent. Perhaps one consequence of the Covid-19 epidemic will be that many more people are made aware of the paltry, indecent, amounts we expect our fellow citizens to live on day in day out.
Ruth Lister
Labour, House of Lords
• Les Summers suggests “few will understand” that Rishi Sunak’s budget was merely “repairing the damage to the British economy and social wellbeing” caused by 10 years of Tory austerity (Letters, 13 March). I think most people will soon realise that it will take far more than one budget adopting a limited Keynesian approach to restore society to its pre-austerity situation. With rents still too high, the lower-paid no better off, rich individuals and corporations neither contributing more nor having their tax avoidance methods checked, and social services struggling to survive, the message is clear. Little has changed. No one should be fooled: anyone believing that this budget proves Johnson’s government is pursuing so-called “one-nation Conservatism” should study the evidence.
Bernie Evans
Perth, Western Australia
• The £800m the chancellor has pledged to carbon capture storage technologies represents the best of intentions, but misses the opportunity to highlight the value that can be created from captured CO2. The money may not only prove to be a drop in a rising ocean, but it must surely be extended to cover development of technology that allows carbon to be utilised.
Not only do such technologies allow emissions to be cut, but they also generate a net economic benefit, which can offset the costs of storage. Overall offering a real step towards a sustainable net-zero carbon economy. Of course, developing the utilisation technologies within CCUS (carbon capture, usage and storage) may require a larger investment than the £800m pledged for CCS alone, but the environmental benefits and long-term cost-effectiveness of the total CCUS deployment would make this worthwhile. If we want to achieve economically sustainable zero net carbon, we must invest in all of the right technology components; we need storage and utilisation.
Dr Rowena Sellens
CEO of Econic Technologies, Macclesfield
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition
