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?

Your response suggests a level of condescension is required.

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

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

😉RS

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

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.

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.

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.

No

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

@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

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.

@CraftyGin

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

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

Laughable

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

How would it raise tax money?

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

I know. Tragic.

This would be a terrible idea.

We want less government intervention not more.

They would probably ban white bread for being racist

but poverty of our children is acceptable, whichever the measure, in the 21st century within the 6th largest economy in the world?

This is intolerable but sadly we leave it up to "the establishment" who are living in a Westminster bubble and have zero motivation to concern themselves with our children.

They're too busy dealing with the leak of Reeves' budget, the collapsed China spy trial (just confusion, not cover-up obvs), delay of mayoral elections until 2028 and on top of all of that the ongoing scrutiny of people like Michelle Mone and her ilk, who screwed the country with her sub-standard products during covid.

So I do understand, they're "busy", our children can live in "relative" poverty or whichever label you'd like to use.

It's not as if they're having a rubbish childhood through no fault of their own, is it? SMH

🃏

I'm not sure why you're so cross with me. Relative poverty isn't "my label".
Below average in a rich country is still doing pretty bloody well. That's all I'm saying.
It's also derailing because our cheap food isn't the problem either way.

@ThisMintSwan I am not cross with you in the slightest.

Apologies for derailing

Exactly being below average in terms of income in the UK on a global basis is like being the shortest player on pro basketball team - still quite tall on the grand scheme of things. If someone wants to move from being relatively poor to being relatively rich simply move to some other part of the world.

Exactly?

perhaps they should move to the sub Saharan then, so they'll enjoy an embarrassment of riches?

Child poverty in this country is unacceptable but okay it can be justified because there are others throughout the world who are much worse off.

Probably because their mother's are painting their nails and vaping.

@Staybymw not why you started the thread, I apologise.

I really cannot embrace the defenders who find child poverty in the UK, in any way, "relative"

Yeah I think the cost of administrating all of that would cost more in tax than you’d save Op. Most of those items are already less than £1 or £2. Those are not the items people are going without. I volunteer at a food bank and we have loads of that stuff and the supermarkets even donate tonnes of spare bread and fresh fruit and veg that’s about to reach its sell by date.

What we need is education. People don’t know how to cook and make meals cheaply and expect to eat meat and dairy (£££) with every meal. They don’t know that you can buy bulk dried beans for cheap or even how to make bread or balanced meals. Huge swathes of the country eat freezer or convenience foods weekly or daily.

I recently spoke to someone who didn’t realise cows had to get pregnant to make milk… they had no idea that lactation was linked to pregnancy.

I think food tech and domestic science needs to come back. And a TV show for adults explaining it all.

But it is relative - by definition: below 60% of median income adjusted for housing costs.

Whatever people earn, there is always going to be this figure.

You could change the figure to below 50% and lift huge amounts of children out of 'poverty', or 40% and lift out another huge tranche.