John Harris’s article rightly pointed out that the government “seems split between indifference and paralysed panic” in its response to the “economic calamity being loaded on to the poorest people” (‘Cost of living crisis’? No – this is a social emergency that will define who we are, 3 April). I would argue that its response can be characterised by a mixture of cynicism and inertia that sees it behind the curve on almost every front, not just the cost-of-living bombshell.
Cynicism because Rishi Sunak believes that he only needs to throw a few crumbs to “hard-working” families now and save the real loaf as a pre-election bribe to voters. Surely it must be obvious to voters, as well as to Tory backbenchers, that Sunak simply does not get it? And how could he be expected to, when his family fortune runs into hundreds of millions? If only the government would instead call in Martin Lewis. He does get that the poorest and the vulnerable are suffering the worst right now; he cares about their plight; he would know which economic levers to pull to help; and he would put windfall tax revenue to good use now, not in early 2024.
Andy Jinman
Worthing, West Sussex
• John Harris’s excellent exposé of poverty in the UK points out that absolute poverty is defined as being “a household income less than 60% of the median income level of 2010-11, adjusted for inflation”. However, this definition is self-evidently couched in relative terms. If it is to have a real and distinct meaning, “absolute poverty” should be used to refer to an extreme applying universally to human circumstances regardless of place and time, and to the inability to satisfy the most basic human needs where survival is threatened.
This is not to underplay the importance of seeking to improve the conditions of poor people, however defined, but the erosion of conceptual distinction in the use of these terms, by the same kind of inflation of outrage that escalates mass murder to “genocide”, erodes their meaning and therefore undermines the power of advocacy associated with them.
Stephen Smith
Glasgow
• I was incensed to read your story about the non-dom tax status of the chancellor’s wife, which allows her to save millions in tax (6 April). Her reported share dividend income of £11.5m a year equates to about £22 a minute. Perhaps these startling numbers explain why the chancellor cannot comprehend the difficulties faced by the majority of people in the UK. As people are forced with having to choose between eating or heating, just imagine what it must be like to accrue £660 while watching Corrie. What a missed opportunity that Ed Miliband’s proposal to scrap non-dom status, part of his 2015 election manifesto, did not gain the support of the British public.
Nigel Hay
Roke, Oxfordshire
• How heartwarming to read of Rishi Sunak’s generous donation to his old school (Report, 5 April). Perhaps he didn’t realise that most public schools already benefit from the tax breaks and rate relief that come with charitable status, and if funds are getting a bit low they can always sell off a chunk of surplus land for development, as Winchester college has done. It’s a mystery to me how any organisation that charges enormous fees for its services, whether in the education or health sectors, can be classed as anything other than businesses and taxed accordingly.
So next time Sunak has a bit of spare cash to dish out, I suggest he considers a genuine charity like Winchester Basics Bank, which is working round the clock to help the rapidly rising number of families with a “eat or heat” dilemma.
Karen Barratt
Winchester
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
