The audience member warned that the new campaign was ‘scaremongering’ (Image: BBC)
Wes Streeting was put on the spot by a Question Time audience member over a “scaremongering” warning for Britons to stockpile essentials. The Government has launched a “Be Ready” campaign telling households to stock up on supplies including tinned food and bottled water in case of emergencies.
But on tonight’s BBC Question Time, an audience member challenged the Defence Secretary that it could lead to panic buying. She said: “Don’t you think that’s just scaremongering? Because people then go and panic buy which then affects us again.
“Why put out something like that? People are just going to go to the shops, buy everything up, there’s going to be nothing in the shops, prices will rise.”
Another audience member called out about how people panic-bought loo rolls, sparking major shortages when the Covid pandemic broke out.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Earlier in the show, Mr Streeting said: “Today the Government’s launched a ‘Be Ready’ campaign and actually what we had in mind when the campaign was being prepared was about some of the everyday threats we face.
“We’ve seen the wildfires this summer, we’ll be thinking ahead worried about flooding this winter, and what happens if the water pipes burst in the freezing cold.
“It’s about saving to households but you can be ready by have three litres of bottled water per person per day to last you three days.
Wes Streeting was put on the spot over the new campaign (Image: BBC)
“Have some tinned goods that will last you a few days that might not require the microwave or the stove to heat up.
“Have you got first aid kits, do you have a battery-powered torch, do you have a portable charging pack for your mobile phone?
“Just really practical things that all of us could do with and then we are better prepared.”
The emergency preparedness campaign aims to make households feel better prepared for disruptive events, such as severe weather.
‘Everyone Will Panic Buy!’ Wes Streeting Blasted for ‘Scaremongering’ Over Major UK Alert
Wes Streeting has faced criticism after defending a new government campaign urging British households to prepare for emergencies by keeping several days’ worth of essential supplies at home. The initiative, called “Be Ready”, is intended to help families cope with disruptions to everyday services, but critics have questioned whether the warning could create unnecessary anxiety and encourage panic buying.
The controversy erupted during an appearance on BBC Question Time, where an audience member challenged the government’s approach and warned that people might rush to supermarkets, clear shelves and drive prices higher. The exchange has opened a wider debate about how ministers should communicate potential risks without frightening the public or creating shortages of the very products they are encouraging people to keep at home.
Streeting defended the campaign by arguing that the intention was to make people better prepared, not to suggest that a major emergency was imminent. He said the government wanted the public to be “alert but not alarmed” and pointed to the experience of other European countries, where emergency preparedness has received greater attention. <Cite refs={[“turn901111search0″,”turn901111search1”]}/>
The disagreement has become a test of the government’s communication strategy at a time when households are already dealing with financial pressures and uncertainty about the future.
Why has the government issued the warning?
The Be Ready campaign encourages households to prepare for temporary interruptions to essential services. These could include severe weather, flooding, power cuts, water-supply problems, cyberattacks or disruption to supermarket payment systems and supply chains.
The government is not telling people that one specific disaster is about to happen. Instead, the guidance is based on the possibility that unexpected events can temporarily prevent people from accessing products and services they normally take for granted.
A power cut, for example, can affect lighting, heating, cooking and communications. If water supplies are interrupted, families may struggle to maintain normal hygiene routines. If payment systems fail, shoppers could find that bank cards are temporarily unusable even when shops remain open.
Cyberattacks present another concern. Modern businesses rely heavily on digital systems to manage deliveries, payments, stock and communications. A serious disruption could affect several services simultaneously, even if the incident initially appears limited to one organisation.
Ministers argue that households with a modest reserve of essentials would be better placed to cope with such circumstances. They also suggest that preparedness could reduce pressure on emergency services, allowing them to concentrate on people who require immediate assistance.
The central message is that preparation should be a normal household habit rather than a response to a dramatic breaking-news announcement.
The Question Time confrontation
The campaign came under scrutiny when an audience member on Question Time challenged Streeting over the risk of panic buying.
She argued that telling millions of people to stockpile supplies could lead to shoppers buying excessive quantities of bottled water, tinned food and other essentials. If enough people reacted in the same way, she warned, supermarkets could face temporary shortages and prices could come under pressure.
The concern was familiar to many viewers. During the Covid-19 pandemic, demand for certain products surged as shoppers bought far more than they normally needed. Toilet paper became a particularly visible example of how fear and uncertainty could produce shortages even when the underlying problem was not necessarily a permanent lack of supply.
Streeting acknowledged the concern but defended the government’s decision to promote emergency preparation. He said the campaign was designed around practical situations that households might realistically encounter, including wildfires, winter flooding and burst water pipes during freezing conditions.
His argument was that a small amount of preparation could make a difficult situation easier to manage. Rather than buying large quantities at once, households could gradually put aside essential products as part of their normal shopping routines.
The distinction is important. Advising people to maintain a sensible emergency reserve is different from telling them to rush to the shops because a crisis is imminent.
Nevertheless, the audience member’s concern highlights a communication challenge for ministers: advice that is intended to reassure can sometimes have the opposite effect if people interpret it as evidence that danger is immediate.
What are households being asked to keep?
The government recommends preparing enough essential supplies to manage for approximately three days if normal services are disrupted.
The checklist includes bottled drinking water, long-life food, a torch, spare batteries, a battery-powered or wind-up radio, a portable phone charger, first-aid supplies and some cash. Households should also consider medicines and other products that family members need regularly.
The guidance recommends around three litres of drinking water per person per day for three days, with additional water potentially required for cooking and washing. Food should ideally be suitable for storage and, where possible, consumption without electricity or gas.
These recommendations are intended to help people cope temporarily rather than encourage them to build large emergency stores.
Families can often assemble a basic reserve from products they already have at home. Tinned vegetables, beans, soup and other long-life foods may already be part of an ordinary weekly shop. A torch, power bank and basic first-aid kit can be purchased when household finances allow.
The government’s message is therefore not that every household must spend a large sum immediately. It is that people should consider what they would need if normal services were unavailable for a short period.
That distinction matters for households living on tight budgets, for whom an unexpected shopping bill could create additional financial stress.
Could the warning cause panic buying?
Critics argue that the language surrounding emergency preparedness must be carefully chosen. If people believe that ministers possess information about an imminent threat that has not been fully disclosed, some may respond by buying more supplies than they need.
This can create a feedback loop. Reports of empty shelves may encourage other shoppers to buy additional products, while photographs and social media posts can amplify the impression that shortages are spreading.
Retailers could then face temporary gaps in availability, particularly for products that are easy to store and widely used. Customers who cannot afford to buy in bulk may be left with fewer options, even though they may be among those most in need of affordable essentials.
However, the existence of this risk does not mean that emergency guidance inevitably causes panic buying. Clear communication can help distinguish between long-term preparedness and an urgent response to an immediate threat.
Ministers can reduce confusion by explaining that there is no instruction to purchase everything at once, that households should build reserves gradually and that people should avoid buying more than they need.
Retailers also have a role to play by monitoring stock levels, communicating accurately about availability and taking proportionate steps if demand rises sharply.
The most effective approach is one that helps people prepare without creating a sense of competition for limited supplies.
Political opponents question the government’s priorities
The campaign has also attracted criticism from opposition politicians who argue that ministers should concentrate on strengthening national resilience rather than placing additional responsibilities on individual households.
Shadow national security minister Alicia Kearns criticised the initiative as an example of the government lecturing the public. She argued that authorities must demonstrate that they are doing enough to fund defence, protect critical infrastructure and ensure reliable energy supplies.
Reform UK MP Danny Kruger also questioned whether the government should focus more directly on national security and the protection of essential infrastructure.
Other politicians have supported the principle of household preparedness while disagreeing with aspects of the government’s approach. Conservative shadow foreign secretary Tom Tugendhat described keeping essential provisions for several days as a reasonable request. <Cite refs={[“turn901111search0″,”turn901111search11”]}/>
The disagreement reflects two related but distinct questions. The first is whether households should prepare for temporary disruptions. The second is whether the government is doing enough to prevent those disruptions and respond effectively when they occur.
These responsibilities do not have to conflict. Households can take sensible precautions while governments invest in infrastructure, improve emergency planning and strengthen protection against cyberattacks and other threats.
However, ministers must avoid giving the impression that individual families are expected to compensate for failures in public planning or the security of essential services.
The cost-of-living problem
For some households, the advice is relatively easy to follow. They may already have cupboards containing long-life food, spare batteries and other useful products.
For others, even a small additional purchase can be difficult. Families facing high rents, energy bills, debt repayments and food costs may have little money left at the end of the month.
Buying three days’ worth of supplies could therefore feel like another financial demand, especially if the guidance is interpreted as requiring new purchases rather than making use of existing household items.
A sensible preparedness campaign must recognise these differences. It should encourage people to use what they already have, add items gradually and prioritise essentials according to their circumstances.
It should also avoid suggesting that people who cannot afford to build an emergency reserve are irresponsible. Household resilience depends partly on personal preparation, but it is also shaped by income, housing conditions, access to transport and the reliability of public services.
Community organisations can help by sharing information and supporting neighbours who may struggle to prepare independently. Local authorities and emergency services can also provide advice tailored to the risks in their areas.
Why cyberattacks have become part of the debate
Streeting’s defence of the campaign included concerns about increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks and the possibility that essential services could be disrupted.
Digital systems now support many activities that once depended on face-to-face transactions or paper records. Supermarkets rely on electronic payments, warehouses use computer systems to manage stock, and utilities depend on digital networks to monitor and operate infrastructure.
A serious cyber incident could therefore have consequences beyond the organisation directly targeted. Payment problems could make it difficult for customers to buy food, while disruptions to logistics systems could delay deliveries.
That does not mean every cyberattack would cause widespread shortages. The consequences would depend on the systems affected, the effectiveness of backup arrangements and how quickly organisations could restore normal operations.
Nevertheless, maintaining basic supplies and keeping a charged phone available are relatively simple precautions that may help households manage short interruptions.
The government has also urged organisations to strengthen their cyber defences. Personal preparedness is only one part of a broader effort that includes protecting critical systems, sharing information about threats and ensuring that essential services can recover quickly.
Will the campaign reassure or alarm the public?
The reaction to Streeting’s comments shows that emergency communication can be politically sensitive. Some people welcome practical advice that helps them feel prepared, while others worry that public warnings may create fear without explaining the scale or likelihood of the risks involved.
Both concerns deserve consideration. Governments should communicate genuine risks honestly, but they should also make clear when advice is precautionary rather than a response to a specific imminent event.
The campaign’s success will depend partly on whether people understand its purpose. If households gradually prepare and continue their normal shopping habits, the initiative could improve resilience without causing significant disruption.
If the message is misunderstood as an instruction to stockpile urgently, it could create unnecessary pressure on retailers and households.
Streeting’s insistence that people should be alert rather than alarmed is therefore central to the government’s case. The challenge is ensuring that the rest of the campaign communicates the same message consistently.
A practical message amid political controversy
The row over the Be Ready campaign has highlighted a wider issue facing Britain: how to prepare for unexpected emergencies while maintaining public confidence.
The government wants households to be able to cope for several days if essential services are disrupted. Critics are concerned that the warning could encourage panic buying or distract attention from the government’s responsibility to protect infrastructure and improve emergency planning.
The two positions are not necessarily incompatible. Sensible household preparation can complement strong public services, provided that the guidance is proportionate, affordable and clearly explained.
For most families, the practical response does not need to be dramatic. Checking existing supplies, keeping a torch and power bank ready, maintaining necessary medicines and gradually setting aside some long-life food can provide a useful starting point.
There is no need to empty supermarket shelves, spend money that a household cannot afford or assume that a major crisis is about to occur.
Ultimately, the measure of success will be whether the campaign leaves people better prepared without making them unnecessarily fearful. Streeting has defended the initiative as a sensible step towards national resilience, while the criticism surrounding it serves as a reminder that public warnings must be delivered with clarity and care.
Britain’s emergency planning will require action from government, businesses and communities alike. The immediate task is to ensure that preparedness becomes a practical habit rather than a source of panic, helping households manage unexpected disruption while allowing essential services to recover as quickly as possible.