Skip to main content

The price of a loaf of bread

It is of course the standard interviewer ambush, what is the price of a loaf of bread or a pint of milk? Few politicians can answer such a question unless well-prepared. On its own the answer or lack of it reveals little of substance.

Yet it matters in a time of austerity, when the poorest are being pressed the hardest and made to pay for the financial sins of others.

A hard pressed mother or father watching the pennies is very much aware of the price of a loaf of bread. I should say they know the price of loaves of bread and they know the price of having to choose the least nutritional option.

So when politicians demonstrate their inability to answer, it demonstrates their distance from the hard realities of life. They clearly do not understand the pain and suffering of the poorest.

If there is an economic recovery, it isn't yet being experienced by people in general who are still feeling financially squeezed. And this is the problem for the coalition. The feel good factor is hard to find. Millions can find only part-time employment, often at wages lower than the statutory minimum. Their rents are rising as is the cost of living in general.

Far from being sympathetic, government ministers brand the poor feckless and work-shy and in 'welfare dependency'. Not only are the poorest on low earnings, but their benefits have been cut. The poor know the price of a loaf of bread or a pint of milk!

It isn't so much whether a politician 'knows' the price of a loaf of bread that matters. It is whether they can demonstrate by their response an understanding of the difficulties faced by the poorest.

Members of this government signally fail to demonstrate such understanding. Boris Johnson brushed the question off as if it didn't really matter, or that it was some kind of funny business on a panel game show. Ian Duncan Smith blames the poor for their poverty.

The poor suffer from some kind of Victorian disease called 'welfare dependency' from which they need to be shaken. The unemployed need to be forced into slave labour in return for their benefits. The story is told of the unemployed failing to look for work. This is nonsense of course because many do find work, but for the majority it is either part-time or at best temporary.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, yet the government not only behave as if this doesn't matter, but that it is something about which we should rejoice. Let's not blame the rich for the mess we are in, rather we should admire them for making money. Yet, for the rich to make money is pretty easy stuff compared to the difficulty of raising a family on the minimum wage and still finding time to help others.

It is time we readjusted our values. It is time we knew the price of a loaf of bread.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,