According to my Dictionary compiled by Samuel Johnson and dated 1870:
Oats are 'generally given to horses'.
Under Porridge, which Johnson notes derives, 'from porrum, Latin for Leek, porridge is food made from boiling meat in water; broth'.
According to Baroness Jenkins porridge costs 4p and is 21p cheaper than sugary cereals.
Apparently in an earlier edition of my Dictionary Samuel Johnson completed his entry for oats by adding after the reference to horses, 'and which in Scotland supports the people.
Well now, after the Eton educated Archbishop of Canterbury's committee reported its findings on food poverty in the UK, it is apparently now recommended that oats also support the people in England.
It seems that if you had porridge every day of the week it would cost only marginally more than if you ate Cereal on one day.
In fact if you ate porridge every day instead of breaking your fast in the Cereal Cafe you might save even more.
This morning I made porridge.
The oats cost 39p and there were enough Oats in the packet to make porridge for myself and the indoor critic for five days which confirms the Baronesses view that a serving costs 4p (although I confess to cheating by adding cream to my porridge which almost doubled the cost for my bowl).
Possibly the Archbishop and the Baroness being knowledgeable in Latin would be able to calculate what it might cost a poor family to boil their meat in water in order to create porrum or meaty broth.
I have in a previous blog retaled the story of the WEA Class held in a working class part of the North East.
As the lecturer arrived for his talk he noticed that there was a cookery class in session entitled 'Fish Head Soup'.
He immediately changed the title of his own talk to 'Who got the rest of the fish?'.
Dr Johnson not withstanding it seems to me that the real question here is not: Is a 4p bowl of porridge cheaper than a bowl of sugary cereal at 25p? But rather, how is that in this country to day hundreds if not thousands of families are reliant on food banks in order to feed themselves?
In his book Political Order and Political Decay, Frances Fukuyama poses the question: 'How do we get to Denmark?'.
Well if that is the Question then to quote another well known writer, today it seems: 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark'.
The national conversation to which amongst others, bloggers seek to contribute, is currently confused by a major public aversion to politicians and political life and debate.
What is called 'pantomime politics' and which can be seen as evidence of the political decay that Fukuyama points toward.
But in addition to this the waters are muddied by a political false way which is opening up and which the leadership of can, in all seriousness, describe the problems experienced on a journey on the M4 as arising because of 'immigration'.
But it seems that a large swathe of the public are of the opinion that the only alternative to the major parties is a party that has no possibility of being elected to form a Government, no Programme to offer and no obvious way of financing its contradictory policies.
Austerity, which has proven to be a major tax on the poorest in our society but which it seems barely touches the wealthy is it seems to me almost directly responsible for the rise in food poverty and it is to the credit not only of customers in stores which hold collections for food for redistribution but also for churches and congregations which collect food and support food banks in their communities that the food is there, whether it is porridge for 4p or sugary cereals for a treat.
I generally avoid alumni gatherings and I am not an Eton Alumni but I imagine that both the Archbishop and The Prime Minister might possibly be, but whether or not I imagine that they afford each other opportunities to meet.
It would be hard to imagine what might be said on such occasions?
Maybe the conversation might start with breakfast.
I have in a previous life, had two invitations to breakfast at 10 Downing Street, on the first, the PM of the day instead of being there to greet his guests, sent a video message, so I breakfasted on fruit kebabs with a hologram rather than porridge and I imagine the fruit kebabs cost more than 4p?
Whatever might or might not be said, it is possible to hope that the Archbishop might just ask, given the commitment to austerity with tax cuts:
Who benefits?
Oats are 'generally given to horses'.
Under Porridge, which Johnson notes derives, 'from porrum, Latin for Leek, porridge is food made from boiling meat in water; broth'.
According to Baroness Jenkins porridge costs 4p and is 21p cheaper than sugary cereals.
Apparently in an earlier edition of my Dictionary Samuel Johnson completed his entry for oats by adding after the reference to horses, 'and which in Scotland supports the people.
Well now, after the Eton educated Archbishop of Canterbury's committee reported its findings on food poverty in the UK, it is apparently now recommended that oats also support the people in England.
It seems that if you had porridge every day of the week it would cost only marginally more than if you ate Cereal on one day.
In fact if you ate porridge every day instead of breaking your fast in the Cereal Cafe you might save even more.
This morning I made porridge.
The oats cost 39p and there were enough Oats in the packet to make porridge for myself and the indoor critic for five days which confirms the Baronesses view that a serving costs 4p (although I confess to cheating by adding cream to my porridge which almost doubled the cost for my bowl).
Possibly the Archbishop and the Baroness being knowledgeable in Latin would be able to calculate what it might cost a poor family to boil their meat in water in order to create porrum or meaty broth.
I have in a previous blog retaled the story of the WEA Class held in a working class part of the North East.
As the lecturer arrived for his talk he noticed that there was a cookery class in session entitled 'Fish Head Soup'.
He immediately changed the title of his own talk to 'Who got the rest of the fish?'.
Dr Johnson not withstanding it seems to me that the real question here is not: Is a 4p bowl of porridge cheaper than a bowl of sugary cereal at 25p? But rather, how is that in this country to day hundreds if not thousands of families are reliant on food banks in order to feed themselves?
In his book Political Order and Political Decay, Frances Fukuyama poses the question: 'How do we get to Denmark?'.
Well if that is the Question then to quote another well known writer, today it seems: 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark'.
The national conversation to which amongst others, bloggers seek to contribute, is currently confused by a major public aversion to politicians and political life and debate.
What is called 'pantomime politics' and which can be seen as evidence of the political decay that Fukuyama points toward.
But in addition to this the waters are muddied by a political false way which is opening up and which the leadership of can, in all seriousness, describe the problems experienced on a journey on the M4 as arising because of 'immigration'.
But it seems that a large swathe of the public are of the opinion that the only alternative to the major parties is a party that has no possibility of being elected to form a Government, no Programme to offer and no obvious way of financing its contradictory policies.
Austerity, which has proven to be a major tax on the poorest in our society but which it seems barely touches the wealthy is it seems to me almost directly responsible for the rise in food poverty and it is to the credit not only of customers in stores which hold collections for food for redistribution but also for churches and congregations which collect food and support food banks in their communities that the food is there, whether it is porridge for 4p or sugary cereals for a treat.
I generally avoid alumni gatherings and I am not an Eton Alumni but I imagine that both the Archbishop and The Prime Minister might possibly be, but whether or not I imagine that they afford each other opportunities to meet.
It would be hard to imagine what might be said on such occasions?
Maybe the conversation might start with breakfast.
I have in a previous life, had two invitations to breakfast at 10 Downing Street, on the first, the PM of the day instead of being there to greet his guests, sent a video message, so I breakfasted on fruit kebabs with a hologram rather than porridge and I imagine the fruit kebabs cost more than 4p?
Whatever might or might not be said, it is possible to hope that the Archbishop might just ask, given the commitment to austerity with tax cuts:
Who benefits?
No comments:
Post a Comment