Rishi Sunak is not all he appears to be and there is certainly a chasm between his rhetoric of just and compassionate concern and his actions. This is another contribution to my ‘greedy bastards’ series. First a reminder: what as a sociologist I’m interested in is the structural relations – notably of class and state or command – that eminently replaceable individuals like Sunak surf to the advantage of themselves and their families. But we should focus too on these individual exemplars of structural inequality. They are, I suggest, in a very literal sense ‘greedy’ and ‘bastards’, the former because they privilege the accumulation of personal and family capital over much, sometimes all, else, and the latter because they betray a callous indifference to those struggling to cope, even to survive. I’m less interested in whether they are nice to their pets or donate to charity.
Conveniently, Michael Ashcoft has written a biography of Rishi Sunak (Going for Broke), which supplies a number of details. Rishi Sunak’s father, Yashvir, was born into an upper middle-class Punjabi family who, before partition, came from Gujranwala, now in Pakistan. Yashvir studied medicine at Liverpool University. His future wife Usha graduated in pharmacology from Aston University and, introduced by family friends, they married in 1977 prior to relocating to Southampton where Yashvir worked as a family doctor before starting a pharmacy business. Rishi Sunak was born on 12 May 1980. A brother, Sanjay, arrived in 1982 and a sister, Raakhi, in 1985.
Rishi was sent to a prep school, Oakmount, but when it closed suddenly in 1989 the Sunaks moved him to Stroud, a private prep school. He subsequently won a place at Winchester College. A growing political awareness encouraged him to deliver leaflets on behalf of the local Conservative candidate in 1997. From Winchester he went on to Lincoln College Oxford to study philosophy, politics and economics. A two-year MBA course at Stanford University followed, taking him to Silicon Valley, an experience that apparently further whetted his appetite for making money.
Even more significantly, while at Stanford he met his future wife, Akshata Murthy, whose father, Narayana Murthy, is now the sixth richest man in India with a net worth of $2.7 billion. Armed with his MBA, in 2006 Sunak joined one of the UK’s best-performing hedge funds, The Children’s Investment Fund. When he and Akshata married in 2009, his best man was James Forsyth, his closest friend from Winchester days and the future political editor of the Spectator. The couple bought a penthouse in a smart complex called the Waverley, in Santa Monica, for $7.2 million, and had two daughters.
After a period living in the USA, Sunak began – in 2013 – to think he might get involved in politics in the UK. His friend James put him touch with Tory aide and speechwriter for David Cameron, Dougie Smith. To make an impact Sunak volunteered to undertake research for the Policy Exchange on British ethnic minority communities. His report was picked up by the media and made a splash. When Tory leader William Hague announced that he would not seek re-election for the rural constituency of Richmond in Yorkshire, Sunak won the race to stand. He decided to buy a local property and ‘constituency base’ and settled on a Grade II listed manor house in the village of Kirby. While he had plenty of money at his disposal, he didn’t want his conspicuous wealth to count against him with local voters, so only once elected did he and Akshata fork out the £1.5 million for this property. In July 2019 Sunak became chief secretary to the Treasury.
Four years after the marriage Akshata became director of Catamaran Ventures a Bangalore-based venture capital fund headed by her father. In 2018 she was worth £300 million and listed as owning 0.91% of her father’s business, Infosys (her shares in Infosys are currently estimated to value £430 million and each year her shares entitle her to millions in dividends). Her mother heads the Infosys Foundation, a Bangalore-based non-profit organisation to support the underprivileged.
Earlier this month (17 November, 2020) Sunak’s affairs were queried by a team from the Guardian, who reported that Akshata and her family hold a multimillion-pound portfolio of shareholdings and directorships that are not declared in the official register of minister’s interests. According to the ministerial code, Sunak, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, is required to declare any financial interests ‘relevant’ to his responsibilities, and which could conflict with his duty to the public. Ministers must also disclose those interests of their close family, including siblings, parents, spouse and in-laws, which might give rise to conflict. Sunak’s entry apparently only mentions his wife and refers only to her ownership of a small, UK-based venture capital company. Other relevant interests are:
- A combined £1.7 billion shareholding in Infosys, which employs thousands of staff in the UK and has held multiple contracts with government ministries and public bodies;
- A £900 million-a-year joint venture with Amazon in India, through an investment vehicle owned by Sunak’s father-in-law;
- A direct shareholding by Akshata in a UK firm, International Market Management (IMM), which runs Jamie Oliver and Wendy’s burger restaurants in India;
- Five other UK companies where Akshata is a director or direct shareholder, including a Mayfair outfitter that supplies the tailcoats worn by pupils at Eton College.
Sir Alistair Graham, former chair of the committee on standards in public life, which acts as a watchdog for UK public office holders, has described Sunak as taking ’the most minimalist approach possible’.
In a follow-up report by journalists at the Guardian (30 November, 2020) Akshata’s invested in IMM, which was set up in 2014, alongside some of the best known names in UK hedge fund circles, was again noted. Before entering parliament Sunak worked in hedge funds, eventually co-founding the US arm of the Cayman Islands registered Theleme Partners. IMM is chaired by David Stewart, who was previously chief executive of the fund headed by Crispin Odey, a leading backer of a no-deal Brexit.
Stewart raised financing for the IMM venture from a group of wealthy friends and acquaintances, with Odey Asset Management taking 20% of the shares and Hugh Sloane, a founder of the Sloane Robinson fund, taking a 30% share. Akshata spent £500,000 on a 5% share (according to documents seen by the Guardian). Each of the investors holds shares in IMM, which is a UK-registered company. Instead of investing directly in the two Indian subsidiaries that operate the restaurants, IMM funnelled the money raised from its shareholdings through an intermediary company in Mauritius.
After reviewing the IMM structure, experts from the Indian Revenue Service and the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation, a campaign group, concluded that the arrangement could reduce the taxes payable on any profits in India. If the business is sold there will be no tax on any capital gain in India. Had IMM invested directly it would have been liable to pay the Indian government 20% on any capital gain, at current rates. The setup also reduces the amount of tax payable on dividends in India, from 10% to 5%. It seems that the IMM administrators were aware of all this when they set up their intermediary company, IMMASSOCIATES Mauritius. The tax structure is legal, but controversial. But then who makes laws? As the Guardian notes:
‘By setting up letterbox companies in Mauritius – essentially shell companies with no staff and no trading activity – investors can channel money from Indian businesses to the tax haven. Investments routed through Mauritius are estimated to have cost India between $10 billion and $15 billion over the last 20 years in lost capital gains tax, dividends tax, and tax on interest and royalty payments.’
Although IMM’s restaurants in India have yet to show a profit, they are ‘poised for rapid expansion’.
So much for greed and immoral practice (C Wright Mills’ telling phrase, the ‘higher immortality’ of the ‘power elite’, comes again to mind). Sunak is a Tory, and Chancellor of the Exchequer at that. So let’s look at his voting record in the House of Commons.
On social issues: he has never voted on gay rights or allowing marriage between two people of the same sex, has generally voted against laws to promote equality and human rights (0 votes for, 5 against, 2 absences between 2015-2019), and he has never voted on allowing terminally ill people the right to be given assistance to end their life.
On foreign policy and defence: he has consistently voted for the use of UK military forces on combat operations overseas (2 votes for, 0 against in 2015), voted against investigations into the Iraq war, has consistently voted for replacing Trident with nuclear weapons (4 votes for, 0 against in 2016), has generally voted against more EU integration (15 votes for, 62 against, 6 absences between 2016-2020), has consistently voted for a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU (4 votes for, 0 against between 2015-2016, has generally voted against a right to remain for EU nationals already living in the UK (1 vote for, 17 against, 4 absences between 2016-2020), has almost always voted against UK membership of the EU (1 vote for, 19 against, 4 absences between 2016-2019, and has consistently voted for military action against ISIL (Daesh) (2 votes for, 0 against in 2015).
And one of the most relevant categories, on welfare and benefits: he has consistently voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability (0 votes for, 8 against between 2015-2016), and has consistently voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits (32 votes for, 0 against between 2015-2016).
On taxation and employment: he has consistently voted for raising the threshold at which people start to pay (11 votes for, 0 against between 2015-2018), has consistently voted for higher taxes on alcoholic drinks (3 votes for, 0 against in 2017), has consistently voted against higher taxes on plane tickets (2 votes for, 0 against in 2017), has consistently voted against higher taxes on banks (0 votes for, 8 against between 2015-2018), has consistently voted for more restrictive regulation of trade union activity (10 votes for, 0 against between 2015-2017), and has consistently voted for reducing capital gains tax (7 votes for, 0 against in 2916).
I’m confident anyone reading this will fathom my emphases here.
On business and the economy: he has consistently voted for reducing the rate of corporation tax (9 votes for, 0 against in 2015-2016), has voted a mix for and against measures to reduce tax avoidance (4 votes for, 5 against between 2016-2020), and has generally voted for the new high speed rail infrastructure (2 votes for, 0 against, 1 absence between 2016-2019).
On health: he has voted for reforming the NHS so GPs can buy services on behalf of patients (1 vote for, 0 against in 2019).
On education: he has consistently voted for academy schools (3 votes for, 0 against in 2016).
On constitutional reform: he has consistently voted for reducing central government funding of local government (4 votes for, 0 against between 2016-2019), has voted for an equal number of electors per parliamentary constituency (1 vote for, 0 against, 1 absence between 2016-2020), has voted for fewer MPs in the House of Commons (1 vote for, 0 against, 2 absences between 2016-2020), has voted against proportional representation (0 votes for, 1 against, 2 absence between 2016-2020), has voted against a wholly elected House of Lords (0 votes for, 1 against in 2016), voted for local councils keeping money raised from taxes on business premises in their areas (1 vote for, 0 against in 2019), has voted against removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords (0 votes for, 1 against in 2016), has almost always voted against transferring more power to the Welsh Assembly (2 votes for, 19 against, 1 absence between 2016-2020), almost always voted against transferring more powers to the Scottish Parliament (4 votes for, 11 against, 1 absence between 2016-2018), has generally voted against more power for local councils (4 votes for, 11 against between 2016-2018), and has always voted against a lower voting age (0 votes for, 4 against, 1 absence between 2015-2016).
On home affairs: he has almost always voted for a stricter asylum system (10 votes for, 0 against, 1 absence between 201502020), has consistently voted for stronger enforcement of immigration rules (9 votes for, 0 against between 2015-2016), has voted for mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities (1 vote for, 0 against, 2 absences in 2016), and has consistently voted for merging police and fire services under Police and Crime Commissioners (3 votes for, 0 against in 2016).
On Environmental issues: he has consistently voted against measures to prevent climate change (0 votes for, 12 against, 1 absence between 2016-2020), has voted against financial incentives for low carbon emission electricity generation methods ((0 votes for, 1 against in 2018), and has voted for greater regulation of hydraulic fracking to extract shale gas (2 votes for, 0 against, 1 absence between 2016-2019).
On transport: he has generally voted against greater public control of bus services (1 vote for, 1 against in 20160, and has consistently voted against a publicly owned railway system (0 votes for, 3 against in 2016).
On housing: he has consistently voted for phasing out secure tenancies for life (5 votes for, 0 against between 201502016), and has consistently voted for charging a market rent to high earners renting a council home (5 votes for, 0 against between 2015-2016).
I have recorded Sunak’s votes in detail for two reasons: first, in combination they betray what Bourdieu rightly called a class habitus. In other words, a discrete mind-set that is also a predisposition to think and act in predictable ways. He is a Tory through and through. And second, it is abundantly clear where his interests lie, not least the very personal interests he shares with his family. Sunak is an example of those ‘capital monopolists’ who not only buy power to shape policy their way, but who are now in government to make policy their way. This tendency is discernible in the USA and has been documented. It is reasonable to claim that it is well underway in the UK too. It is deep structural change that is required and it is the likes of Sunak that stand in the way.