This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/20/ed-miliband-grocery-bill-malnutrition-media-value-shopper

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Of course Ed Miliband doesn't know his grocery bill: who on a decent income does? Of course Ed Miliband doesn't know his grocery bill: who on a decent income does?
(about 1 hour later)
How much does Ed Miliband's family spend on groceries? Is it "£70, £80 a week on groceries at least, probably more" as he suggested, or more like the average of £83.60, excluding alcohol? Is Ed Miliband just a thrifty shopper, or is the world about to be plunged into another financial crisis, if this socialist, careless shopper and son of "the Man Who Hated Britain" is given the keys to 10 Downing Street by the electorate next year? Right wing commentators have latched on gleefully to these, apparently, most vital questions. The people must know. How much does Ed Miliband's family spend on groceries? Is it "£70, £80 a week on groceries at least, probably more" as he suggested, or more like the average of £83.60, excluding alcohol? Is Ed Miliband just a thrifty shopper, or is the world about to be plunged into another financial crisis, if this socialist, careless shopper and son of "the Man Who Hated Britain" is given the keys to 10 Downing Street by the electorate next year? Rightwing commentators have latched on gleefully to these, apparently, most vital questions. The people must know.
The expression "can't see the wood for the trees" has never been more apt. Last month wages caught up with inflation for the first time in six years: six years of a real-terms squeeze on average households, following a global bust with which they had nothing to do, but for which they were asked to pay. Today, just as we were all dusting off our branches of palm tree, ready for the arrival of George Osborne on a donkey, data released by the Office for National Statistics shows that inflation rose again last month, to 1.8% – outpacing wage growth again. The squeeze continues. But the important question, it seems, is whether Miliband buys from the "value" or the "finest" range.The expression "can't see the wood for the trees" has never been more apt. Last month wages caught up with inflation for the first time in six years: six years of a real-terms squeeze on average households, following a global bust with which they had nothing to do, but for which they were asked to pay. Today, just as we were all dusting off our branches of palm tree, ready for the arrival of George Osborne on a donkey, data released by the Office for National Statistics shows that inflation rose again last month, to 1.8% – outpacing wage growth again. The squeeze continues. But the important question, it seems, is whether Miliband buys from the "value" or the "finest" range.
Meanwhile, the number of food parcels handed out by a single charity has almost tripled ove the last year to 913,000; churches warn of a hunger epidemic; and the NHS has seen a doubling in malnutrition-related admissions – ailments that we thought had disappeared for good from the sixth-richest nation in the world. As sections of the media ridicule Miliband for his estimate coming in at a whole £3.60 below average, they miss the most pertinent point: that it is an average. Meanwhile, the number of food parcels handed out by a single charity has almost tripled over the last year to 913,000; churches warn of a hunger epidemic; and the NHS has seen a doubling in malnutrition-related admissions – ailments that we thought had disappeared for good from the sixth-richest nation in the world. As sections of the media ridicule Miliband for his estimate coming in at a whole £3.60 below average, they miss the most pertinent point: that it is an average.
Ed Miliband was criticised for plucking a figure that was below that average. If he had said any number above the average, he would, no doubt, have been criticised for that. Ye everyone must know that this average of £83.60 will include households surviving on minimum wage jobs or living on benefits, which spend significantly less than the average, as well as households that spend a whole lot more. The key point is that the "squeeze" does not affect them equally. A cross-party committee found last week that the poorest households now spend 40% of their income on housing, fuel and food, more than ever. Miliband was criticised for plucking a figure that was below that average. If he had said any number above the average, he would, no doubt, have been criticised for that. Yet everyone must know that this average of £83.60 will include households surviving on minimum wage jobs or living on benefits, which spend significantly less than the average, as well as households that spend a whole lot more. The key point is that the "squeeze" does not affect them equally. A cross-party committee found last week that the poorest households now spend 40% of their income on housing, fuel and food, more than ever in modern times.
This means that small drops in real earnings, which have happened month after month for six years, have had a disproportionate effect. The rise in VAT to 20%, which affects a surprising amount of groceries, was presented as a temporary austerity measure and described, risibly, by the chancellor as "progressive". It has been shown to have resulted in a loss of income for the poorest decile, proportionately double that of the richest. Where is the announcement on reversing this temporary measure now that, according to the government, everything is going splendidly?This means that small drops in real earnings, which have happened month after month for six years, have had a disproportionate effect. The rise in VAT to 20%, which affects a surprising amount of groceries, was presented as a temporary austerity measure and described, risibly, by the chancellor as "progressive". It has been shown to have resulted in a loss of income for the poorest decile, proportionately double that of the richest. Where is the announcement on reversing this temporary measure now that, according to the government, everything is going splendidly?
The likely truth is that Miliband doesn't know accurately how much he spends on groceries – most people with a steady stream of decent income don't. I didn't when I was one of them. As income increases, the weekly grocery bill forms an ever-diminishing portion of household finances. It becomes almost irrelevant. We see what we fancy at the supermarket and we get it.The likely truth is that Miliband doesn't know accurately how much he spends on groceries – most people with a steady stream of decent income don't. I didn't when I was one of them. As income increases, the weekly grocery bill forms an ever-diminishing portion of household finances. It becomes almost irrelevant. We see what we fancy at the supermarket and we get it.
We don't see those loitering by the chiller cabinets for the final reductions on food that is about to go off. We play a game of "guess how much" with our partners, as we approach the till. We don't see the people adding up all the items in their basket obsessively, dozens of times, because a mistake means the embarrassment of being short. We see a nice new wine bar on the high street, as we drive home. We don't see the person settling in for the night on a bit of cardboard in a doorway. We don't see, because it is painful and ugly and damning and we don't want to see. We don't see those loitering by the chiller cabinets for the final reductions on food that is about to go off. We play a game of "guess how much" with our partners as we approach the till. We don't see the people adding up all the items in their basket obsessively, dozens of times, because a mistake means the embarrassment of being short. We see a nice new wine bar on the high street as we drive home. We don't see the person settling in for the night on a bit of cardboard in a doorway. We don't see, because it is painful and ugly and damning and we don't want to see.