Support 100 years of independent journalism.

  1. Politics
  2. Welfare
20 January 2021updated 29 Jul 2021 10:54am

Many people think poor families don’t deserve pleasure. Our insulting “food hampers” prove it

The woefully inadequate food parcels sent out to needy children undermined the dignity and the basic well-being of those who received them.

By Megan Nolan

Many things in the world today seem outside of our control. There is the pain of the pandemic juddering on and on, deaths accumulating at a rate impossible to fully comprehend. There are the dire economic consequences we can hardly yet begin to project. There is the influence of the far right exploding into public view. And in case those current and imminent issues weren’t enough, thousands of species are threatened with extinction because world leaders refuse to take the coming climate apocalypse seriously.

The helplessness we feel in the face of these problems is why it’s so dispiriting to witness acts of pointless cruelty. There are some things that are within our ­control in this country, in an immediate and non-academic sense; feeding hungry children is one of them.

The images of the woefully inadequate food parcels sent out to needy children that circulated online and in the press recently were a nauseating sight. They were insulting – undermining the dignity and the basic well-being of those who received them. They did not contain enough food on even the minimal basis of calorie fulfilment, let alone providing a well-balanced and enjoyable meal. One mother spoke of her and her child’s sadness as she unpacked a parcel, realising that these meagre items were supposed to make a week’s worth of lunches.

One image showed a tin of beans, a loaf of bread and eight single cheese slices. Another showed a bell pepper cut in half, a single potato, a carrot stub and loose tuna delivered in a coin bag. Thanks to pressure from the footballer Marcus Rashford, Chartwells, the company hired by the government to deliver what it described as “hampers”, issued an apology (though Chartwells said “the picture in circulation that features the pepper” was not one of its parcels). The government later reinstated its system of giving food vouchers directly to parents.

[see also: How do you solve a problem like Marcus Rashford? It’s a question the Tories are struggling to answer]

Select and enter your email address Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. A weekly newsletter helping you fit together the pieces of the global economic slowdown. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The New Statesman’s weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.
  • Administration / Office
  • Arts and Culture
  • Board Member
  • Business / Corporate Services
  • Client / Customer Services
  • Communications
  • Construction, Works, Engineering
  • Education, Curriculum and Teaching
  • Environment, Conservation and NRM
  • Facility / Grounds Management and Maintenance
  • Finance Management
  • Health - Medical and Nursing Management
  • HR, Training and Organisational Development
  • Information and Communications Technology
  • Information Services, Statistics, Records, Archives
  • Infrastructure Management - Transport, Utilities
  • Legal Officers and Practitioners
  • Librarians and Library Management
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • OH&S, Risk Management
  • Operations Management
  • Planning, Policy, Strategy
  • Printing, Design, Publishing, Web
  • Projects, Programs and Advisors
  • Property, Assets and Fleet Management
  • Public Relations and Media
  • Purchasing and Procurement
  • Quality Management
  • Science and Technical Research and Development
  • Security and Law Enforcement
  • Service Delivery
  • Sport and Recreation
  • Travel, Accommodation, Tourism
  • Wellbeing, Community / Social Services
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how New Statesman Media Group may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.
THANK YOU

The parents should have always been trusted with money or vouchers, so that they could make the appropriate choices for their children and take advantage of offers in local shops. But there are always those waiting to jump in and attack impoverished parents. They couldn’t be trusted with money, or even a voucher. They were poor, after all. Naturally, they would just spend it on booze, cigarettes and lotto tickets. (In fact, food vouchers can’t be used to purchase age-restricted items.)

Content from our partners
Building the business case for growth
“On supporting farmers, McDonald’s sets a high standard”
City of London Corporation brings stakeholders together to drive climate action

I thought that feeding hungry children would be a rare bipartisan issue, but when I looked at the comments on a Daily Mail story about the food parcels, there were plenty of people falling over themselves to say that the recipients were ungrateful, since the food was free. The child should be delighted to eat beans, a dry carrot and old bread. What else do they expect?

Let’s indulge the fears of such commenters and imagine a parent who spends all their money on vodka and Benson & Hedges cigarettes. According to this cruel logic, the child of such a parent should have to eat inadequate scraps as punishment for their parent’s fecklessness. It doesn’t matter that this is a child with even less power over their circumstances than their parent. Because they are poor, they must be punished.

The food parcels scandal seems an especially sordid expression of an impulse some people in Britain have towards those who struggle financially and require help from the state: that they ought to experience no pleasure at all. It is not that the government can’t afford to provide the poor with solace or enjoyment, but that it would be actively wrong to do so. It’s as though any hint of pleasure would only further spoil those ­stupid enough to find themselves poor.

This hateful and nonsensical drive was disgusting enough when applied to people who receive benefits and spend some of it on alcohol, smoking or a television. But to extend its twisted logic so far that a child can’t eat anything more than scraps? That is a sign of a very sick society indeed.

[see also: Free school meal scandal: Why the government is failing to feed people during the pandemic]

There’s a man who asks for change sometimes outside my local supermarket. On the days I don’t have cash on me I ask if he would like something bought for him. Usually this is a meal deal or some chocolate, but recently he asked me to buy him some cigarettes. As I agreed, another woman passed us by and sharply tutted, shaking her head with disapproval at us both. But as I smoke myself, why should I feel any animosity towards him for doing so? Why shouldn’t he ask me for something extraneous that he doesn’t need for survival but which gives him some small relief, if I have the money to spare, as he correctly inferred that I do?

The pervasive pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps delusion grows thinner all the time, as the huge wealth disparity between bosses and low-rung workers grows, and property ownership becomes an ever more distant dream for those without inheritance. But still we are told to blame ourselves and our insistent need to drink a takeaway coffee once a week, or smoke a pack of cigarettes, or buy a television. The Tory London mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey recently suggested that homeless families could simply save up £5,000 for a deposit in a buy-to-share scheme, epitomising the ridiculous idea that people without wealth simply haven’t had the bright idea of getting some yet.

Most people without money instinctively and correctly sense that without a dramatic unforeseen change in circumstance they are unlikely to level up social class through sheer perseverance alone. To say to them, “If you only eat a carrot and a potato for each meal instead of nicer and slightly more expensive things then you’ll save some more money,” is absurd. The money saved by eating into the vanishing pleasures of an impoverished life is always going to be negligible, marginal, nothing at all compared to what would actually need to happen for them to live with dignity. 

Topics in this article :

This article appears in the 20 Jan 2021 issue of the New Statesman, Biden's Burden