Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think the UK should have a National Food Service again? (Like we basically had in WW2)

215 replies

Staybymw · 05/12/2025 05:49

During WW2 and for years after, the UK did have a kind of National Food Service.
The government controlled prices, ran bakeries, managed rationing, guaranteed flour/milk supplies, and kept basic staples affordable so people didn’t starve. It wasn’t fancy, but it worked.

So with the cost of living crisis now, rising food prices, food banks everywhere, and benefits going up because families literally can’t afford groceries… why don’t we bring back a modern version?

I’m not talking about anything complicated.
I mean basic, no-frills staples produced not for profit:

  • bread
  • rice
  • pasta
  • tinned tomatoes
  • flour
  • oats
  • basic cooking oil
  • tinned veg / beans

All stuff we can grow or easily manufacture in the UK.

If the government owned the land, the factories, and the distribution, they could:

  • create thousands of jobs ( more people paying tax)
  • stabilise food prices
  • make sure no one goes hungry
  • massively reduce the need for benefits to keep rising
  • put pressure on supermarkets to stop hiking prices

Other countries already do versions of this:

France controls wheat prices
Japan buys rice from farmers and sells it back at stable prices
Egypt subsidises bread for millions
India has state-run ration shops
Brazil provides government food baskets
Saudi Arabia subsidises milk, flour, staples through state industry

It’s not a wild idea lots of countries see food as a strategic, essential service.

A National Food Service would mean:

  • no shareholders to pay
  • no profit margin
  • steady UK jobs
  • cheaper food
  • more secure supply chains
  • less reliance on private companies
  • more tax revenue from the workers it employs

It could help families massively.
Especially those who are working but still struggling, or whose benefits are swallowed by food prices.

Given everything going on, food inflation, child poverty, constant arguments about increasing benefits, would a simple, not-for-profit national food range actually save money in the long run?

OP posts:
EmeraldRoulette · 05/12/2025 15:23

Staybymw · 05/12/2025 14:14

It would raise tax money not cost tax money

How would it raise tax money?

And it would cost a fortune for the government to do this in the first place.

ThisMintSwan · 05/12/2025 15:22

Alicorn1707 · 05/12/2025 15:07

@ThisMintSwan

"Relative poverty is not a particularly good measure of suffering" !!!

Ah! yes you're right, as long as the children are housed, fed and watered they're highly unlikely to feel excluded, they may even feel lucky, eh?

So absolute poverty should be our measure then? seriously

I didn't say absolute poverty should be the measure we use. I just don't think relative poverty is a particularly good measure.

Alicorn1707 · 05/12/2025 15:20

CraftyGin · 05/12/2025 15:04

As long as they get their nails done before visiting the next door vape shop.

@CraftyGin

"As long as they get their nails done....

So, it's women that are actually at the root of our childrens misery.

Laughable

EuclidianGeometryFan · 05/12/2025 15:10

CraftyGin · 05/12/2025 15:02

No

Mathematically, yes.
Fewer people with very little money, so the line shifts, so children that were above the line are now below it. Their circumstances have not changed at all - just the line has shifted.

Although if they were only just above the line before it shifted, they were never "wealthy". They were some other description, like "just about OK" or something.

Alicorn1707 · 05/12/2025 15:07

@ThisMintSwan

"Relative poverty is not a particularly good measure of suffering" !!!

Ah! yes you're right, as long as the children are housed, fed and watered they're highly unlikely to feel excluded, they may even feel lucky, eh?

So absolute poverty should be our measure then? seriously

CraftyGin · 05/12/2025 15:04

Bumblebee72 · 05/12/2025 15:01

But surely have kids they can't afford to feed is a badge of honour in their circles. The thing that we have learnt from the 2 child benefit cap, and the lack of impact it had on the number of children people had, is that these parents just don't give a shit about the quality of the lives they are giving to children.

As long as they get their nails done before visiting the next door vape shop.

CraftyGin · 05/12/2025 15:02

Bumblebee72 · 05/12/2025 14:55

But in relative terms that would just bring some of the currently "wealthy" children into the poverty definition.

No

Bumblebee72 · 05/12/2025 15:01

CraftyGin · 05/12/2025 14:52

You could have fewer children in poverty if their feckless families had fewer children.

But surely have kids they can't afford to feed is a badge of honour in their circles. The thing that we have learnt from the 2 child benefit cap, and the lack of impact it had on the number of children people had, is that these parents just don't give a shit about the quality of the lives they are giving to children.

EuclidianGeometryFan · 05/12/2025 15:01

ThisMintSwan · 05/12/2025 14:00

31% of children live in relative poverty. Relative poverty can't be resolved. It is impossible. And food prices aren't the problem.

Actually relative poverty can be pretty much solved, although not resolved mathematically.
It is just maths.

Relative poverty is 60% of median income (that is one definition).
The median is found by "lining up" all the population and finding the one in the middle of the line.
But say two people have the same income, for the sake of this illustration they have to stand one behind the other, not next to each other in the line.
If everyone has very similar incomes, the line becomes very short, with most people standing behind.
Then 60% of the median becomes very close to the median, so close it doesn't matter.

In other words, the solution to relative poverty in practical terms (if not mathematical) is preventing income inequality - nobody should be paid massively more than anyone else.

Some object to this on political grounds. But it is possible.

ThisMintSwan · 05/12/2025 15:00

Alicorn1707 · 05/12/2025 14:52

heaven forfend, let our children suffer for our fiscal expediency then, sweet!

Relative poverty is not a particularly good measure of suffering. It is more a measure of inequality (compared to most of the world and history, we're doing alright here too), rather than an indicator of deprivation.

Bumblebee72 · 05/12/2025 14:55

CraftyGin · 05/12/2025 14:52

You could have fewer children in poverty if their feckless families had fewer children.

But in relative terms that would just bring some of the currently "wealthy" children into the poverty definition.

Alicorn1707 · 05/12/2025 14:53

Bumblebee72 · 05/12/2025 14:50

Your response suggests a level of condescension is required.

😉RS

Alicorn1707 · 05/12/2025 14:52

Bumblebee72 · 05/12/2025 14:49

That is how maths works. The only way not to have any children in relative poverty is for everyone to sit within a very narrow income band - we would need many professions to take a pay cut.

heaven forfend, let our children suffer for our fiscal expediency then, sweet!

CraftyGin · 05/12/2025 14:52

Bumblebee72 · 05/12/2025 14:49

That is how maths works. The only way not to have any children in relative poverty is for everyone to sit within a very narrow income band - we would need many professions to take a pay cut.

You could have fewer children in poverty if their feckless families had fewer children.

Bumblebee72 · 05/12/2025 14:50

Alicorn1707 · 05/12/2025 14:47

Condescending? surely not

Your response suggests a level of condescension is required.

Bumblebee72 · 05/12/2025 14:49

Alicorn1707 · 05/12/2025 14:05

@ThisMintSwan

"Relative poverty" oh well that's ok then, it's all relative after all!

That is how maths works. The only way not to have any children in relative poverty is for everyone to sit within a very narrow income band - we would need many professions to take a pay cut.

Alicorn1707 · 05/12/2025 14:48

Bambamhoohoo · 05/12/2025 14:46

Yes this. @Alicorn1707 would you be also getting upset about the relative poverty in Monaco? Or Switzerland? It’s hardly the same is it?

and this would concern me why? I'm British

Alicorn1707 · 05/12/2025 14:47

ThisMintSwan · 05/12/2025 14:44

Do you understand what relative poverty means?

Condescending? surely not

Bambamhoohoo · 05/12/2025 14:46

maddiemookins16mum · 05/12/2025 14:44

A lot of these basics you mention, a lot of people struggling don’t want them. The oats, lentils and tinned veg at our church ‘supermarket’ are often left. A lady the other day asked for Kellogs cereals as her kids won’t eat Asda Weetabix.

I would never eat supermarket cereals as a kid either. I always leave branded in the food bank donation.

Bambamhoohoo · 05/12/2025 14:46

ThisMintSwan · 05/12/2025 14:44

Do you understand what relative poverty means?

Yes this. @Alicorn1707 would you be also getting upset about the relative poverty in Monaco? Or Switzerland? It’s hardly the same is it?

maddiemookins16mum · 05/12/2025 14:44

A lot of these basics you mention, a lot of people struggling don’t want them. The oats, lentils and tinned veg at our church ‘supermarket’ are often left. A lady the other day asked for Kellogs cereals as her kids won’t eat Asda Weetabix.

ThisMintSwan · 05/12/2025 14:44

Alicorn1707 · 05/12/2025 14:05

@ThisMintSwan

"Relative poverty" oh well that's ok then, it's all relative after all!

Do you understand what relative poverty means?

IsntItDarkOut · 05/12/2025 14:41

How much cheaper do you want pasta to be. 41p for 500g is cheap!
supermarket lose money on these foods and they have the infrastructure in place where they are making money from other products. A National scheme would need all new infrastructure and it would end up costing more?

AnotherForumUser · 05/12/2025 14:36

SnoopyandSweep · 05/12/2025 11:21

Sorry - I posted too soon. I do eat them regularly. Alot of people also cannot eat pulses regularly , due to dietary issues. I work with children with complex and multiple disabilities and some of these children cannot digest pulse properly. I myself have thyroid issues and have to limit the amount of pulses I eat due to the detrimental effect it can have on my condition. I do enjoy a bean chilli though!

Slight derail but try black eye beans. They can have less of an impact to people who have difficulty digesting them. Also If using dried lentils soak them before. Makes them easier to digest and reduces cooking time.

EuclidianGeometryFan · 05/12/2025 14:34

5128gap · 05/12/2025 07:47

Yes it's a great idea OP. I'd like to see all essential services nationalised. Unfortunately we are deeply mired in capitalism so there would be huge resistance from those who benefit from it and who prioritise their wealth over others wellbeing.

I would love to see all essential and monopoly public services nationalised: water, trains, gas, electricity, etc.

But if a state tries to nationalise or subsidise goods that are easily packaged and transported, it just creates black markets, and market distortions at national borders.
For example, jerry cans of petrol being transported over the border from a country with artificially low prices and sold in the neighbouring country.

It does not work for the state to subsidise food or liquid fuel.

Instead, the tax and benefit system needs to ensure everyone can afford to buy food and liquid fuel at international market prices.