Tuck in for Britain

In an attempt to combat “food poverty”, the government have announced a pilot scheme to set up state-subsidised restaurants offering cheap and nutritious food, with the first examples set to open in Nottingham and Dundee.

This conjures up memories of the British Restaurants that were set up during World War 2 to offer workers cheap and appetising lunchtime meals that were outside the scope of food rationing. These proved very popular and at their peak there were over 2,000 examples. They are well and sympathetically described in the linked article. However, with post-war prosperity their appeal faded and the last examples had disappeared by 1960.

In the current environment, there doesn’t seem to be any shortage of cafés serving cheap and cheerful sit-down meals, plus there is always the option of Wetherspoon’s who offer a variety of straightforward dishes at very affordable prices. So it’s hard to see that many people are really excluded from eating outside the house because it’s beyond their means.

However, the powers-that-be probably don’t think commercial catering outlets achieve appropriate nutritional standards. So expect an absence of fried food and processed meat, and a strong emphasis on vegetarian and vegan options. We may even see a return of that wartime delicacy Woolton Pie. Whether this approach will win favour with the target market is of course open to question.

Add to this the lack of commercial acumen typically displayed by local authorities, and a take-it-or-leave-it attitude to customer service, and these subsidised diners may end up having very little appeal. Their only selling point is likely to be dirt-cheap prices. Although if, against predictions, they do prove successful, private sector rivals may well complain that they are victims of unfair competition.

The wartime British Restaurants were aimed at working people, but it appears that their modern equivalents are intended for those living on benefits and unable to work due to sickness or unemployment. Given this, might it be a better use of public money to provide people with support to encourage them to cook their own meals from fresh ingredients, which would save them even more money?

At the end of the day, this scheme will probably not amount to very much. But it is another example of well-meaning but patronising nannying that seeks to discourage self-reliance and promote dependence on the State.