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

[Staybymw]

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?

My immediate reaction, irrespective of the merits or demerits of the notion, was that it'd be one long, tawdry saga of Big Food lobbying, bungs, parliamentary enquiries, and shamed ministers.

The WW2 theme would include the renewed exertions of spivs, who as a genus never went away and who’v had many decades in which to hone their activities, and they'd be flogging out of date government olive oil off the back of lorries at Sunday markets along with the usual packs of twenty Shergarburgers for two quid.
Happy days are here again! .

I’m all for renationalising all utilities, (and banning the NHS from sharing staff or resources/ facilities with private medicine)

Isnt it taught any more? God even I had sewing and domestic science lessons at school (it was a very academic kind of place) and both turned out to have been excellent investments.
When I later attended a state school, the boys there all learned woodwork and metalwork, the lucky beggars. I hope that’s still going on, though cookery would be more use than metalwork I guess!

We, the UK is ranked as the world's sixth-largest economy.

31% of our children in the UK live in poverty. Just think about that.

It means 4.5 million children, @Staybymw

To re-iterate* 4.5 MILLION of the children, in OUR country, in the 21st century are in households with incomes below the poverty line*.

WHY? there is zero political will to resolve it.

Too many benefit scroungers doncha know and I'm alright jack-ers,

It is a damned disgrace and shameful and leads some of our well-meaning population to think of trite solutions.

It is well within the political remit of both our current and previous governments to have resolved!!

No can do, too many vested interests highly likely.

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

How on earth would setting up this massive government machine not cost money? The initial setup would take years to pay back otherwise prices would have to be high to cover it.

@ThisMintSwan

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

It would raise tax money not cost tax money

The same way businesses start and make profits. There will be an initial cost but after that it would be making money.

It would be open to all of the public to buy, some people will some people won’t.

This makes no sense.

you're talking about the compulsory purchase of numerous farms, warehousing and supply chain. How can that not cost anything upfront?!

Absolutely. Some people on this thread have very short memories. Shocking isn't it

Considering that a child in poverty is one living in a household of less than 60% median income, you are always going to have a large number of children in poverty.

Yes but businesses use their profits to support the start up costs. Your idea has a huge cash outlay followed by a reduced cash inflow because of heavily restricted profits. that will lead to failure. In a government world it leads to more government debt.

How on earth would it make money? You've already been told that the profit in a supermarket on food staples like this, is at most 2%. But you want to lower costs, so that will have to come down. And you will also have set up a whole new growing, manufacturing and storage system that needs paying for. All while producing rice and tomatoes cheaper than where they naturally grow! It doesn't make sense.

How would these government-issued foods be packaged? Would they be in packaging that could possibly embarrass the purchaser?

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.

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.

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?

Do you understand what relative poverty means?

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.

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

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

Condescending? surely not

and this would concern me why? I'm British

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.