Immerse yourself in the setting: London’s bustling Festival Hall, a vibrant Wagamama restaurant, and Rishi Sunak, the former Chancellor, dishing out plates of tantalising katsu curry in a bold bid to capture the hearts of the public. This captivating scene marked the pivotal moment when the man hailed as the economic saviour found himself at the centre of government controversy.

In the throes of the pandemic, Sunak had garnered acclaim as the hero of the economy, having generously distributed a staggering £176 billion in furlough payments, loans, and tax breaks. However, his “eat out to help out” initiative swiftly altered the tide. Meant to revive the struggling hospitality sector, this policy led to division among the public and unforeseen consequences.

As Sunak merrily served up noodles, flouting public health guidelines, he unwittingly drew the gaze of both the media and the populace. Suddenly, the previously obscure Chancellor ascended to become the government’s shining star, outshining even Boris Johnson in popularity. It almost seemed as if Sunak was auditioning for the role of Prime Minister, with his calculated rebranding and distinctive mark being imprinted onto Treasury policy notes.

Despite the initial frenzy, the controversial scheme soon came under intense scrutiny. Critics contended that the policy’s encouragement of widespread dining out could have contributed to a surge in Covid cases, exacerbating the crisis that had already claimed countless lives. The treasury had been presented with alternative, safer ways to kickstart the economy, but where was the catchy slogan in those proposals?

By the time the scheme concluded, over £849 million had been claimed through discounts on 160 million meals. Yet, the economic benefits were short-lived, and the over-enthusiastic policy seemed to have yielded more harm than good. Criticism of the scheme reached its zenith during Sunak’s testimony to the Covid inquiry, with expert epidemiologists expressing fury and dismay at the imprudent actions taken.

As the inquiry delved into the origins and feasibility of the contentious scheme, it became apparent that scientific advice had been disregarded in favour of a headline-grabbing initiative. The lack of transparency and accountability gave rise to concerns, underscoring how the thirst for positive publicity had overshadowed the need for a cautious and practical approach to the crisis.

The debacle of the ‘eat out to help out’ scheme not only casts doubt on Sunak’s leadership but also sheds light on the government’s handling of the pandemic as a whole. It exposes a pattern of neglecting scientific consensus in favour of sensational headlines, leading to doubts about whether the government has truly absorbed the lessons from its mistakes.

The days ahead will serve as a test for Sunak’s leadership, as he grapples with intensified scrutiny in the aftermath of the ‘eat out to help out’ debacle. The saga has uncovered a darker side to the government’s management of the pandemic, and time will reveal whether genuine lessons have been internalised. The events of that fateful summer have left an indelible mark on Sunak’s legacy, and the aftershocks will echo for years to come.