Food prices

[jon0844]

Why is it always down to "The State", by which you mean the hardworking taxpayers, who can be bothered to get off their backsides, and work for a living, and have to pay tax to fund someone who is too lazy to work and always has an excuse as to why someone else should provide their booze, cigarettes, gambling money and the latest mobile phone?

There are plenty of jobs available now. That excuse is long-gone.

You might want to change your username to AynR.

 

[DelayRepay]

I doubt you are interested in reality so I will leave you to your ill-informed rantings. However I would say that from my experiance many people using foodbanks are working and paying tax.

This. I refer to my bus driver dad and part time cook mum, who bought a home an raised a family with no more state support than Child Benefit. You simply could not do that these days.

 

[david1212]

No matter how secure you may think your employment, business, or other main source of income, there is always a chance (however small) that anyone could experience financial devastation through a a range of possibilities including illness, natural disaster or another unforeseeable event beyond your control, and become reliant on public services and welfare support very heavily, even if for a short time. Why anyone thinks that support should be so poor as to dehumanise an individual I fail to understand. That could one day be you.

Indeed.

One fundamental problem we do have but there is no easy solution to is discriminating between those who for whatever reason can not work, those who are working but need state support to balance the books for a basic standard of living and those who are perfectly capable of working but know how to manipulate the system not to work. If the latter category were working 35-40 hours at minimum wage they may well still need state support but at least a lower level.

.... No one needs to use a foodbank. Lots are used by people in Range Rovers on PCP's with iPhone13s and a Louis Vuitton handbag, bought on their maxed out credit cards, so that they have some food in the house on the rare occasion that they don't use Just East or Deliveroo.

As @Starmill states anyone can have a sudden situation where no funds. However IF there really are a lot of people using foodbanks who have expensive items and are simply living beyond their means they should not get repeat issues. They should be required to cut their spending to the level of their ongoing income e.g. hand back the Range Rover for something affordable. If needed support to do this quickly should be available. Maybe all of this is in place ....

 

[py_megapixel]

One fundamental problem we do have but there is no easy solution to is discriminating between those who for whatever reason can not work, those who are working but need state support to balance the books for a basic standard of living and those who are perfectly capable of working but know how to manipulate the system not to work. If the latter category were working 35-40 hours at minimum wage they may well still need state support but at least a lower level.

In a country as developed as the UK, if there are a substantial number of people working "normal" working weeks at minimum wage who, assuming their circumstances do not necessitate a level of expenditure beyond what would usually be expected, cannot achieve a reasonable standard of living, then the only solution (short of universal basic income) is to raise the minimum wage. Routinely "topping up" insufficient wages with benefits is a pointless endeavour - it effectively removes the incentive for employers to pay their staff enough to live on to begin with.

 

[Spamcan81]

I work in catering and get regular market reports from suppliers.
Recieved the meat report this morning and the predicted cost increase of meat is scary.
Usually these market reports contain info about what's in abundance and therefore cheaper. They no longer have that section

I too am in catering. Fish prices are rising on an almost weekly basis and cooking oil isn't far behind.

 

[ainsworth74]

As @Starmill states anyone can have a sudden situation where no funds. However IF there really are a lot of people using foodbanks who have expensive items and are simply living beyond their means they should not get repeat issues. They should be required to cut their spending to the level of their ongoing income e.g. hand back the Range Rover for something affordable. If needed support to do this quickly should be available. Maybe all of this is in place ....

Certainly the largest network of food banks (Trussell Trust) are by referral only. If you rock up to Trussell Trust food bank without a voucher then you'll probably get something hot to eat (soup and roll are quite common, but some are more substantial), a willing ear to listen (the staff are generally lovely) but you won't get more than a direction to a referral organisation beyond that.

The whole point is that food banks are there to help with a crisis so in order to help avoid reliance on food banks they want people to be engaging with services which can help them try and get things onto an even keel. That might be getting help with benefits issues, could be getting debt advice or accessing support with substance misuse. But in order to get a food bank voucher you're going to have to have satisfied a third party that you're in some sort of crisis where the provision of three days of food is necessary and that steps are being taken to address the crisis which caused you to need to access a food bank. Whilst it can vary locally the two Trussell Trust food banks I know locally also put limits on the number of vouchers that can be issued to someone in a rolling twelve month period (usually three). System obviously isn't perfect (as all sorts of people refer so you can go from organisation to organisation) but they will send out lists of people who are using the food bank excessively and therefore should not have further vouchers issued until x date.

In a country as developed as the UK, if there are a substantial number of people working "normal" working weeks at minimum wage who, assuming their circumstances do not necessitate a level of expenditure beyond what would usually be expected, cannot achieve a reasonable standard of living, then the only solution (short of universal basic income) is to raise the minimum wage. Routinely "topping up" insufficient wages with benefits is a pointless endeavour - it effectively removes the incentive for employers to pay their staff enough to live on to begin with.

I do find it odd that there hasn't been more discussion about the reality that in many respects our welfare state is an indirect subsidy to companies. Companies can get away with paying wages which aren't liveable because the State comes swoops in and provides individuals with a top up to make things liveable. But I guess that might be, in part, because the popular image of benefit claimants is that they're layabouts who are living it large at the tax payer expense. Rather than the reality that a great many of them are actually in work and are themselves tax payers (though of course we're all tax payers unless we don't actually buy anything ever).

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Certainly the largest network of food banks (Trussell Trust) are by referral only. If you rock up to Trussell Trust food bank without a voucher then you'll probably get something hot to eat (soup and roll are quite common, but some are more substantial), a willing ear to listen (the staff are generally lovely) but you won't get more than a direction to a referral organisation beyond that.

The whole point is that food banks are there to help with a crisis so in order to help avoid reliance on food banks they want people to be engaging with services which can help them try and get things onto an even keel. That might be getting help with benefits issues, could be getting debt advice or accessing support with substance misuse. But in order to get a food bank voucher you're going to have to have satisfied a third party that you're in some sort of crisis where the provision of three days of food is necessary and that steps are being taken to address the crisis which caused you to need to access a food bank. Whilst it can vary locally the two Trussell Trust food banks I know locally also put limits on the number of vouchers that can be issued to someone in a rolling twelve month period (usually three). System obviously isn't perfect (as all sorts of people refer so you can go from organisation to organisation) but they will send out lists of people who are using the food bank excessively and therefore should not have further vouchers issued until x date.

I do find it odd that there hasn't been more discussion about the reality that in many respects our welfare state is an indirect subsidy to companies. Companies can get away with paying wages which aren't liveable because the State comes swoops in and provides individuals with a top up to make things liveable. But I guess that might be, in part, because the popular image of benefit claimants is that they're layabouts who are living it large at the tax payer expense. Rather than the reality that a great many of them are actually in work and are themselves tax payers (though of course we're all tax payers unless we don't actually buy anything ever).

Thanks for that detailed explanation.

I didn't know that access was limited to a certain number of visits. I assumed people who had access to a foodbank (by voucher or receipt of means tested benefits) had that access week in week out, because benefits aren't really enough to exist/survive on, never mind live on. That is, the food bank bag was essentially a benefits top-up.

I often wonder about things like 'working families tax credits'. Wouldn't it be better if working families actually earned enough in the first place? An excellent scheme to keep civil servants in jobs though, processing all the applications and regular changes in a claimants status.

 

[seagull]

Things will deteriorate rather rapidly soon on the current trajectory of all costs increasing while wages remain stagnant - especially when those who were able to donate to those who needed it, lose that ability themselves.
That being said, I think as a nation many of us have never really had to learn to live frugally and make every bit of food count, so it might just be that something good ultimately comes out of this current costs crisis.

 

[WelshBluebird]

One fundamental problem we do have but there is no easy solution to is discriminating between those who for whatever reason can not work, those who are working but need state support to balance the books for a basic standard of living and those who are perfectly capable of working but know how to manipulate the system not to work. If the latter category were working 35-40 hours at minimum wage they may well still need state support but at least a lower level.

Does it really matter if that is a "problem"? Personally, and I hope I speak for a lot of people here, I'd rather EVERYONE who genuinely needs help is able to get it, regardless of if that may mean some other people who don't need the help take advantage of that too. The other option of trying to discriminate just means those people who do need help are also caught up in it and punished too.

Personally, as someone who works his backside off and pays a huge amount of tax because of that, I couldn't give a damn if some people game the system. Those aren't the people I care about. The people I give a damn about are those who are having to choose between feeding themselves or their children, or between food and heating, or those who have to appeal DWP's decisions time and time again because the system is so stacked against them.

 

[DarloRich]

Certainly the largest network of food banks (Trussell Trust) are by referral only. If you rock up to Trussell Trust food bank without a voucher then you'll probably get something hot to eat (soup and roll are quite common, but some are more substantial), a willing ear to listen (the staff are generally lovely) but you won't get more than a direction to a referral organisation beyond that.

The whole point is that food banks are there to help with a crisis so in order to help avoid reliance on food banks they want people to be engaging with services which can help them try and get things onto an even keel. That might be getting help with benefits issues, could be getting debt advice or accessing support with substance misuse. But in order to get a food bank voucher you're going to have to have satisfied a third party that you're in some sort of crisis where the provision of three days of food is necessary and that steps are being taken to address the crisis which caused you to need to access a food bank. Whilst it can vary locally the two Trussell Trust food banks I know locally also put limits on the number of vouchers that can be issued to someone in a rolling twelve month period (usually three). System obviously isn't perfect (as all sorts of people refer so you can go from organisation to organisation) but they will send out lists of people who are using the food bank excessively and therefore should not have further vouchers issued until x date.

I didn't know that access was limited to a certain number of visits. I assumed people who had access to a foodbank (by voucher or receipt of means tested benefits) had that access week in week out, because benefits aren't really enough to exist/survive on, never mind live on. That is, the food bank bag was essentially a benefits top-up.

The ones I have been involved with aren't Trussell trust so it is interesting to see how they operate by comparison. I suspect approaches are broadly similar across the piece. The ones I have experiance of have actually become a source of community advice and support for a wide range of issues, mainly because local government cant provide it due to cuts.

In a previous life ( nearly 15 yrs ago!) I helped with a modern church based foodbank. They would see no one go hungry and would never turn anyone away but in those days was very much focussed on the homeless/addicted rather than the (often working) poor as they are today.

 

[RT4038]

One fundamental problem we do have but there is no easy solution to is discriminating between those who for whatever reason can not work, those who are working but need state support to balance the books for a basic standard of living and those who are perfectly capable of working but know how to manipulate the system not to work. If the latter category were working 35-40 hours at minimum wage they may well still need state support but at least a lower level.

Indeed. Without very intrusive Govt. control / judgment of lives there will always be cases where welfare rules create hardship or give a free ride. For the fairness of everyone else, the rules need to be such that keeps those making welfare as a lifestyle choice to a minimum. This will inevitably result in 'dehumanising' actions (depending on your point of view). The less 'dehumanising' then the more making that choice. Where the line is drawn will always be subject to controversy.

In a country as developed as the UK, if there are a substantial number of people working "normal" working weeks at minimum wage who, assuming their circumstances do not necessitate a level of expenditure beyond what would usually be expected, cannot achieve a reasonable standard of living, then the only solution (short of universal basic income) is to raise the minimum wage. Routinely "topping up" insufficient wages with benefits is a pointless endeavour - it effectively removes the incentive for employers to pay their staff enough to live on to begin with.

But this is not a black and white issue either. Raising the minimum wage so a person with non-working spouse and four children can live without recourse to any welfare will allow a single person living with parents to live in luxury. (It would also destroy lots of jobs too!) Surely the welfare system acts as a safety net and should incentivise those on minimum wage to better themselves? Again, where the line is drawn will always be subject to controversy, as some people will be unable to better themselves for one reason or another, but without intrusive Govt. control and judgment of peoples lives what better system can there be?

Does it really matter if that is a "problem"? Personally, and I hope I speak for a lot of people here, I'd rather EVERYONE who genuinely needs help is able to get it, regardless of if that may mean some other people who don't need the help take advantage of that too. The other option of trying to discriminate just means those people who do need help are also caught up in it and punished too.

Personally, as someone who works his backside off and pays a huge amount of tax because of that, I couldn't give a damn if some people game the system. Those aren't the people I care about. The people I give a damn about are those who are having to choose between feeding themselves or their children, or between food and heating, or those who have to appeal DWP's decisions time and time again because the system is so stacked against them.

I would suggest that you are in a minority of those who pay a huge amount of tax. There will be many to whom this does matter - this was pretty much the thinking in the years prior to 1980 - especially as they would not want their tax bills to further rise to pay for it.

I also want EVERYONE who genuinely needs help to get it, but only those who are genuine, and there will no doubt be controversy over what is genuine and what is not. I certainly do want the number of some other people taking advantage to be kept to a minimum. I also realise that I would need the wisdom of Solomon to decide where the line is and am glad not to be making those decisions.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Indeed. Without very intrusive Govt. control / judgment of lives there will always be cases where welfare rules create hardship or give a free ride.

I'm glad you agree that government policy to force many on the poverty line into extreme hardship is actually a political choice. Many who support such a policy try to downplay that and claim it is necessary. The reality is it is not, it is a simple choice. Would you prefer some people die and suffer because they cannot afford food / heating etc, or would you prefer a small number of people to game the system.

But this is not a black and white issue either. Raising the minimum wage so a person with non-working spouse and four children can live without recourse to any welfare will allow a single person living with parents to live in luxury. (It would also destroy lots of jobs too!) Surely the welfare system acts as a safety net and should incentivise those on minimum wage to better themselves? Again, where the line is drawn will always be subject to controversy, as some people will be unable to better themselves for one reason or another, but without intrusive Govt. control and judgment of peoples lives what better system can there be?

the point of the minimum wage isn't to "incentivise people to better themselves" though. Its to make sure people are paid an amount for their work that allows them to actually live and to make sure employers aren't exploiting staff by paying them a pittance.

I would suggest that you are in a minority of those who pay a huge amount of tax. There will be many to whom this does matter - this was pretty much the thinking in the years prior to 1980 - especially as they would not want their tax bills to further rise to pay for it.

If anyone makes the choice to prefer someone to suffer over someone else gaming the system, then I call them selfish.

I also want EVERYONE who genuinely needs help to get it, but only those who are genuine, and there will no doubt be controversy over what is genuine and what is not. I certainly do want the number of some other people taking advantage to be kept to a minimum. I also realise that I would need the wisdom of Solomon to decide where the line is and am glad not to be making those decisions.

But if cutting back (like the Tories have done for the last 12 years) leads genuine needs to not be met, then surely that has gone way too far? Maybe spend a few hours looking into the cases of disabled people who get denied benefits despite it being obvious they cannot work (or if they can, it being obvious that employers will not make adjustments for them to be able to work) and the like.

 

[RT4038]

I'm glad you agree that government policy to force many on the poverty line into extreme hardship is actually a political choice. Many who support such a policy try to downplay that and claim it is necessary. The reality is it is not, it is a simple choice. Would you prefer some people die and suffer because they cannot afford food / heating etc, or would you prefer a small number of people to game the system.

Of course it is a political choice. I don't want to see anyone die (not sure anybody really genuinely does), nor do I want to see people gaming the system, nor do I want intrusive Govt. control and judgment of peoples lives, nor do I want to pay high taxes. Only a small number of people game the system now, probably because of the way it is set up. The more generous it is, the more that will.

the point of the minimum wage isn't to "incentivise people to better themselves" though. Its to make sure people are paid an amount for their work that allows them to actually live and to make sure employers aren't exploiting staff by paying them a pittance.

I never said that was 'the point' of the minimum wage - a by-product is surely to incentivise people to better themselves. There seems to be no answer to the principle of what the minimum wage is set at.

If anyone makes the choice to prefer someone to suffer over someone else gaming the system, then I call them selfish.

There are a lot of selfish people around then!

But if cutting back (like the Tories have done for the last 12 years) leads genuine needs to not be met, then surely that has gone way too far? Maybe spend a few hours looking into the cases of disabled people who get denied benefits despite it being obvious they cannot work (or if they can, it being obvious that employers will not make adjustments for them to be able to work) and the like.

I have never said that the system may not need tweaking, nothing is perfect, but this is no doubt going to require more Govt. control and judgment over peoples lives. As I said, I support genuine needs being met.

 

[Mojo]

2 pint milk at Sainsbury's was 80p when I started buying it in September 2020. (A complete rip of compared to a 6 pint bottle for ~£1.65 or so - I'm not sure exactly as it doesn't affect me!) That price was maintained for some time, but over the last few months it's crept up and is now 95p per bottle. A 20% increase. Yes, I know inflation is quite high at the moment, but I don't think it's quite 20%*! (Well, not yet... )

I’ve been having a look at some of my old expenses claims. It’s worth pointing out that the cost to the consumer of bottled milk in supermarkets has decreased throughout the 2010s so as Starmill says, this product may not be the best to compare.

In late 2010 a “4 pint” (2272ml) bottle of milk was £1.53 in the major supermarkets, and in February 2011 it decreased to £1.25. At some point later in the decade it fell again to £1.00 before more recently increasing to £1.10. Similarly the “2 pint” (1136ml) bottle you’re referring to, I bought a number of these in Spring & Summer 2011 and they were 89p, so if you were only paying 80p in Sept 2020, this would have been a decrease over the decade.

 

[ainsworth74]

I never said that was 'the point' of the minimum wage - a by-product is surely to incentivise people to better themselves. There seems to be no answer to the principle of what the minimum wage is set at.

Well the Minimum Wage (varying rates paid to those under-23 but currently £8.36ph for those aged 21 or 22) is set by a settlement between Government, employers and Trade Unions whilst the National Living Wage (paid to those 23 and older currently £8.91ph) is being increased so that it eventually reaches 66% of median wages by 2024. There is of course the Real Living Wage (£9.90ph outside of London, £11.05ph inside London) which is set by the Living Wage Foundation and they base it on what the price of various goods and services costs (i.e. tied to the cost of living).

I always thought it was quite a deft slight of hand for the Government to introduce a National Living Wage which wasn't actually anything to do with the Real Living Wage and was a) set lower and b) still not directly tied to the cost of living.

 

[al78]

Yes food prices are going up, but not really a supply problem like there was during Second World War.

Although there are those with financial hardship, haven’t seen any evidence of people rushing to dig allotments so they can plant seeds and have free healthy vegetables in summer and autumn.

Well that is not a viable solution. There are way fewer allotments than there are families who might benefit from them. Growing food on an allotment is not free of charge and requires a lot of time and effort to get a good crop, time that could be better spent earning money through working. It is not possible to meet your entire annual food demand through an allotment, you can't live off just vegetables, and vegetables in the shops are not expensive save the very limited seasonal ones, it is meat that tends to be expensive. Finally, growing your own food puts you in the position of a subsistence farmer, vulnerable to pests and extreme weather.

For example good luck with your allotment after this:

or this:

or this:

or this:

.

 

[birchesgreen]

Yes food prices are going up, but not really a supply problem like there was during Second World War.

Although there are those with financial hardship, haven’t seen any evidence of people rushing to dig allotments so they can plant seeds and have free healthy vegetables in summer and autumn.

Well allotments arn't free. In Brum for example its at least 50 quid rent plus other costs

Rent and other costs | Allotments information | Birmingham City Council

Birmingham has 113 allotment sites and nearly 7,000 plots, more than any other Local Authority in the UK.

www.birmingham.gov.uk

You might not think 50 pounds is much but if you are already relying on foodbanks then it is. Then there are the costs of seeds, tools, transport. And your time. And after all that you might not end up with much anyway...

 

[Mojo]

Well allotments arn't free. In Brum for example its at least 50 quid rent plus other costs

Rent and other costs | Allotments information | Birmingham City Council

Birmingham has 113 allotment sites and nearly 7,000 plots, more than any other Local Authority in the UK.

www.birmingham.gov.uk

You might not think 50 pounds is much but if you are already relying on foodbanks then it is. Then there are the costs of seeds, tools, transport. And your time. And after all that you might not end up with much anyway...

And that’s even if you’re lucky enough to get one in the first place. We have an allotment but it’s at a site in the borough that is less popular. We’re on a waiting list for a site closer to home and have barely moved up it in the ~3 years we’ve been on the list.

So I’d think I’d challenge the assertion that there’s no rush of people wishing to dig, most councils’ allotments are all fully let.

 

[Yew]

The problem is that it's the cheapest foods that will rise the most - e.g. pasta, rice, dairy, cheap meals, etc.

Before the pandemic, a bag of penne pasta in my local shop was 45p. Now its 80p. That's almost a 100% rise.

Surely everyone is still using their stocks from March 2020?

 

[seagull]

I haven't got to the pasta yet, still munching my way through the toilet rolls.

 

[david1212]

In Aldi today numerous recent price increases.
Items under £1 mostly 5p - 10p but some more e.g. 500g pasta now 59p from 45p.
Items £1 - £2 mostly 10p - 20p.

 

[Paul Jones 88]

I predict riots by the summer, I detect a lot of anger among people these days, I am angry because despite working long hours, I never have any spare cash.
I was brought up to work for a LIVING, not an existence.

 

[mac]

I predict riots by the summer, I detect a lot of anger among people these days, I am angry because despite working long hours, I never have any spare cash.
I was brought up to work for a LIVING, not an existence.

I'm the same although I have a good job on the railway we've not had a pay rise since January 2019 and with the lack of overtime my income last week was £1900 down on the same week last year. I'm 60 single but divorced 5 years so got a mortgage until I'm 70 I can't afford the heating but have got a stove that I bought coal for last year but it's gone up £100 a ton in 4 months

 

[DarloRich]

I predict riots by the summer, I detect a lot of anger among people these days, I am angry because despite working long hours, I never have any spare cash.
I was brought up to work for a LIVING, not an existence.

Next time you get a chance to vote have a think about who has been in charge for 12 years and whether they are on your side.

 

[DannyMich2018]

I'd really encourage people to shop around. Asda used to be cheapest of the big four but not so much now. I would defo recommend Home Bargains for great value food bits and drinks. Readybrek 3 quid plus in Asda, less than 2 quid here for one not much smaller. Cakes etc all great and good date life too. Also try Morrisons for your cakes and bakery items much nicer than the overpriced rubbish from Greggs.

 

[Gloster]

Morrison’s small tins of new potatoes in the supermarket have, I think, just gone up from 70p. to 75p. A nearby Sainsburys Local had yesterday a similar tin for 55p.

 

[py_megapixel]

I'd really encourage people to shop around. Asda used to be cheapest of the big four but not so much now. I would defo recommend Home Bargains for great value food bits and drinks. Readybrek 3 quid plus in Asda, less than 2 quid here for one not much smaller. Cakes etc all great and good date life too. Also try Morrisons for your cakes and bakery items much nicer than the overpriced rubbish from Greggs.

Someone really squeezed for cash is probably not buying branded breakfast cereals. The supermarket own brands will be cheaper than the branded stuff, even from Home Bargains and B&M, and often not much lower quality. (Supermarket own brand "Wheat Biscuits" are basically indistinguishable from Weetabix these days)

 

[DannyMich2018]

Someone really squeezed for cash is probably not buying branded breakfast cereals. The supermarket own brands will be cheaper than the branded stuff, even from Home Bargains and B&M, and often not much lower quality. (Supermarket own brand "Wheat Biscuits" are basically indistinguishable from Weetabix these days)

Yes sure. The Sainsbury's own brand Ready Brek equilivent is just as nice. I did have one of the tastiest frozen pizzas from Aldi the other day. Recommended!! Less than 2 quid and big too.

 

[py_megapixel]

Yes sure. The Sainsbury's own brand Ready Brek equilivent is just as nice. I did have one of the tastiest frozen pizzas from Aldi the other day. Recommended!! Less than 2 quid and big too.

I have to agree about the Aldi pizzas. Aldi on the whole is generally good value as they are very good at keeping their overhead costs low. It's also an easier shopping experience as the shops are physically much smaller than the more conventional supermarkets, though you have to be careful as there's a lot of opportunities for impulse-buys, particularly if you go round the whole thing (of course, some are better than others at making themselves a list and sticking to it no matter what).

I personally don't eat Ready Brek, but for most other cereals I find the supermarket equivalents to be fine. I'd avoid own-brand rice crispies, and in some supermarkets, the absolute bottom of the range corn flakes taste of cardboard, but there are usually plenty of other own-brand options, such as bran flakes, weetabix and Cheerio equivalents.

 

[david1212]

I'd really encourage people to shop around. Asda used to be cheapest of the big four but not so much now. I would defo recommend Home Bargains for great value food bits and drinks. Readybrek 3 quid plus in Asda, less than 2 quid here for one not much smaller. Cakes etc all great and good date life too. Also try Morrisons for your cakes and bakery items much nicer than the overpriced rubbish from Greggs.

Someone really squeezed for cash is probably not buying branded breakfast cereals. The supermarket own brands will be cheaper than the branded stuff, even from Home Bargains and B&M, and often not much lower quality. (Supermarket own brand "Wheat Biscuits" are basically indistinguishable from Weetabix these days)

Yes sure. The Sainsbury's own brand Ready Brek equilivent is just as nice. I did have one of the tastiest frozen pizzas from Aldi the other day. Recommended!! Less than 2 quid and big too.

If you have a local store and want branded items Home Bargains and B&M can be cheaper but need to watch pack sizes. Poundland even more so.

I buy very little that is branded and only then on an offer / loyalty card price. I mostly avoid the very cheapest own brand items though.

Overall I'm happy with Aldi's products. I had a pizza last night which was fine, much better than an Iceland one a while ago. The one Aldi range I mostly avoid having tried a few different ones are biscuits so buy ASDA or Tesco own brand. To me no different from McVities etc.