Are Covid measures catering to the elite?

Keir Starmer’s proposed Covid restrictions could cause a two tier society. Who are the winners and losers?  

Photo by Keir Starmer on Flickr

With the recent rise of Covid-19 related deaths and hospitalisations, the dilemma of whether restrictions should be reintroduced has once again been raised. Labour Leader Keir Starmer has called for the government to implement a series of measures designed to curb the spread of the disease. He specifically proposed that No10 should bring back compulsory face masks for indoor areas and working from home guidance.

What struck me were not the policies themselves, which are hardly surprising given the rise in infections, but Starmer’s decision to prioritise working from home guidance over measures to keep the workplaces safe. This reflects an ongoing trend seen since the beginning of the pandemic. Time and time again, journalists and politicians alike have discussed the advice relating to home working. In and of itself, this should not come as a surprise; it is an important issue. But it is perhaps true to say that it has enjoyed a disproportionate level of focus.

After all, most people cannot work from home. Research by the ONS found that while this practice increased dramatically during the pandemic, home workers neither constituted, nor could constitute, a majority of those employed in Britain. Even by the end of 2020, only 36% of the public had ever worked from home.

Among those, they tend to come from more affluent areas. 70% of people from the wealthy borough of Richmond in London - which has a relative child poverty rate of 17% - have worked from home as opposed to the fewer than 14% of people in the northern towns of Burnley and Middlesborough. To compare, 42% and 39% of children grow up in poverty in Burnley and Middlesbrough respectively.

In this light, Keir Starmer’s emphasis on working from home could be seen as the prioritisation of a socio-economic elite over the majority of the public. This was certainly the way many Twitter users interpreted the Labour leader's announcement. One user, @ScouseJayne from Liverpool, asked whether this represented the creation of a “2 tier society where the office elite are babied to stay at home while the rest of us work as us”. In a subsequent tweet, she suggested that politicians have a “WFH (working from home) focused” worldview.

It is hard to deny that she has a point. While the question of how to protect those who cannot work from home has not been ignored, it is yet to be sufficiently answered. It is true that the government laid out specific guidance for businesses requiring them to uphold certain standards of hygiene. They have, and still do, provide support for businesses struggling to cope with the extra costs that coronavirus has imposed. Yet, there is little enforcement of these requirements, and they are often ignored.

Is this neglect the result of policymakers being stuck inside their working from home worldview, as Jayne suggested? Or worse, a deliberate disinterest in the concerns of the majority? Or, in actuality, is this simply the best our government can do in response to a difficult issue?

The answer is a complicated one. It is natural, if still unfair, for leaders to focus on the issues that they see most in their day to day lives. Until very recently, regional inequalities were largely ignored as a major political issue. This was in part because journalists, politicians and civil servants were concentrated in London, the most affluent part of the country. Similarly, the rise in female legislators in various countries has been linked with an increased focus on issues specific to women. In this light, it seems inherently likely that the political class has unintentionally focused on working from home because they are more exposed to this issue  in their day to day lives. This is unfair to the people who are left with less effective representation, but hard to correct in any practical system.

It is difficult to see how the government could effectively enforce covid-safety restrictions for businesses with staff who cannot work from home. There is no guaranteed way to ensure that businesses follow the government's instructions. Any measure relies upon the goodwill of managers to enforce that measure. There is no doubt that many businesses have consistently followed the rules, but equally, it is impossible to stop those that have flouted them.

It is also important to note that despite the frustrated response of many to Starmer’s announcement, the majority of the public support the substantive nature of his suggestions. According to a recent YouGov poll, 76% back mandating face mask-wearing on public transport and in shops and 69% of people would support government advice to work at home where possible.

It is clear that the measures Keir Starmer outlined enjoy broad popular support. But it is also clear that many among the public are increasingly frustrated by a political system dominated by leaders who neither think nor act like the majority, whose lives and experiences are utterly divorced from ordinary people. It is hard to see how this could be changed, at least in regards to working from home. Yet, regardless of whether a cure exists, the discontent is there and it is not going away.

Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.