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

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well. No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing. The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party. That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team. Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't