There’s a horrendous hypocrisy at the heart of our government. Of course you knew that. But this piece is less well known. You’ll know that governments across Europe and beyond are telling citizens to keep cash at home in case of an emergency. Even ours. And very recently Wes Streeting, the Defence Secretary, recommended that we all keep some cash at home – along with provisions in case our power goes down.
In the event of a major outage we’d all be snookered when shops can’t accept our cards and the cash machines have no power. So the government line on this is sensible. But Andy Burnham’s approach to cash is far from sensible. Unlike other countries we’re sleepwalking into a cashless society. Way too many shops, cafes and all kinds of places now refuse to accept cash from customers. We need to follow the lead of other places and put this right.
If in doubt, do what Switzerland does. It’s a place that gets nearly everything right. It’s clean, wealthy and conservative. It’s also very security conscious. The government there is making sure that Swiss franc notes remain a common feature of everyday life – following overwhelming support from the public, they’ve written into their constitution protections for the country’s currency and cash supply.
The Swiss central bank is required to keep the notes and coins moving through the economy. In Geneva, cafes, restaurants and hotels are legally obliged to accept cash. And Sweden has gone further. Since July, its food shops and chemists with staffed checkouts have been legally required to accept cash, with some exceptions. Why on earth can’t we do the same?
And in the US, New York State has passed laws making sure that its 20 million citizens can spend notes and coins in shops, whether the shop prefers cards or not. Good.
I do use my cards and phone to pay for things. But I also know the value of keeping notes and coins. I dropped my youngest boy off at university last month, and just before I gave him an over-emotional bear hug, I handed him two crisp tenners to keep in his phone case, for emergencies.
It’s obvious that the more we let shops and others say “cards only”, the less we’ll be inclined to even try to use it. Tolerating this is hastening the demise of notes and coins, the only money we can ever touch and hand to another human.
The avoidance of real money makes things more difficult for those who already get a bad deal. People who struggle with technology, or who find it hard to manage their budgets unless they can see the money in their hand, are losing out.
We are hurtling towards the end of actual money and a riskier world. Did you see what happened in Spain and Portugal when they had national power cuts last year? Shops were unable to take card payments and people couldn’t get cash from machines. Think about that happening when you need food, medicine or petrol.
So why isn’t our government taking action to save our notes and coins? I don’t know. But it looks like they don’t care. And it’s startlingly hypocritical of them to lecture us on keeping cash at home for emergencies while refusing to follow the lead set by the cleverest countries like Switzerland, Sweden and others.
Our decision makers are shockingly laid back, even uninterested.
Just weeks ago, a Treasury minister confirmed that there is “no current plan for legislation” to make anyone accept cash. Taking our money is “voluntary”, he said, “whether it is a car park, a retailer or the rest of it”.
Some of the worst offenders are council car parks and leisure centres and many councils are now completely cashless – refusing to accept the nation’s own notes and coins. You couldn’t make it up!
Andy Burnham and his mates must urgently pass a law on this. Food retailers, chemists and petrol stations must be obliged to take cash. And so must every council office and every car park run with public money. Mr Burnham, you can’t tell us to stash cash for a crisis while letting it vanish everywhere else. Put a cash
Andy Burnham Wants Us All to Stockpile for WW3 – But There’s One Huge Problem
Andy Burnham has urged British households to prepare for emergencies by keeping essential supplies at home, but his government’s warning has raised an uncomfortable question: is telling ordinary families to stockpile food and water enough when the country itself may not be adequately prepared for a major crisis?
The Prime Minister’s new preparedness campaign, known as ‘Be Ready’, encourages people to keep enough essential supplies to survive for at least three days if normal services are disrupted.
The advice comes amid growing concerns about Russian aggression, cyberattacks, international instability and the vulnerability of Britain’s critical infrastructure.
However, the announcement has attracted criticism from opposition politicians, who argue that the government should explain what it is doing to protect the country rather than simply transferring more responsibility to ordinary households.
For millions of families already struggling with household bills, the prospect of spending additional money on emergency supplies is another concern.
And this is where Burnham faces his biggest problem: people can prepare their cupboards for an emergency, but they cannot personally repair Britain’s vulnerable infrastructure or guarantee national security.
Britain Is Being Told to Prepare for Three Days Without Essential Services
The government’s guidance recommends that households maintain enough food, water and basic equipment to cope with a serious disruption lasting up to 72 hours.
The advice is designed to cover several possible emergencies, including extreme weather, cyberattacks, power cuts and attacks on essential infrastructure.
The recommended supplies include:
- Nine litres of drinking water per person, sufficient for three days
- Tinned food and other non-perishable meals
- A battery-powered or wind-up radio
- A torch and spare batteries
- A first-aid kit and essential medication
- Hand sanitiser, wet wipes and basic toiletries
- A charged power bank for mobile phones
- Some cash in case electronic payment systems stop working
- Essential supplies for babies and pets
The government says the campaign is about sensible preparation rather than encouraging panic buying.
Burnham has personally defended the recommendations, explaining that unexpected events are becoming more common and that households should have enough supplies to manage temporary disruption.
He even revealed that his own emergency cupboard contained baked beans, soup and Twiglets.
However, the announcement has raised questions about whether the government has adequately explained the risks facing Britain.
The Biggest Problem: Ordinary Families Cannot Fix Britain’s National Security
The most significant criticism concerns the apparent gap between household preparedness and the government’s wider responsibilities.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has questioned whether ministers are doing enough to protect the country against cyberattacks, hybrid warfare and other national security threats.
Her argument is that telling families to buy bottled water and tinned food does not address the underlying vulnerabilities.
Britain depends on highly interconnected systems covering electricity, telecommunications, transport, banking, water supplies and food distribution.
A serious disruption to one of these systems could affect millions of people.
For example, a major cyberattack against payment infrastructure could prevent customers from using bank cards in supermarkets. A disruption to electricity supplies could affect communications, transport and other essential services.
Similarly, damage to important energy infrastructure could create difficulties for businesses and households.
These are problems that individual families cannot solve by keeping additional food in their kitchens.
The government must therefore demonstrate that it has credible plans to protect critical infrastructure, coordinate emergency services and maintain essential supplies during a national emergency.
The Russian Threat Cannot Be Ignored
One of the reasons behind the campaign is growing concern about hostile state activity.
British security officials have repeatedly warned about cyber operations, espionage, sabotage and attempts to disrupt essential services.
Russia has been a particular focus of concern because of its confrontation with Western countries following the invasion of Ukraine.
Defence Secretary Wes Streeting has warned that state-sponsored terrorism and increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks could affect everyday British life.
The threat is not necessarily a conventional military invasion.
Modern conflicts can involve attacks on computer networks, communications systems, energy infrastructure and supply chains.
Such operations can create serious disruption without a country formally declaring war.
This is why the government wants households to become more resilient.
However, ministers must also explain what measures are being taken to identify and prevent attacks before they cause widespread damage.
Britain Still Faces Serious Questions About Defence Spending
Another major issue is whether the country has sufficient military resources to respond to a deteriorating international security situation.
Badenoch has argued that the government should concentrate on ensuring that British forces have the equipment, personnel and funding required to defend the country.
The wider debate concerns Britain’s ability to maintain effective armed forces while also investing in infrastructure and civil defence.
Modern national security requires more than military equipment.
It involves protecting digital systems, securing energy supplies, maintaining transport networks and ensuring that emergency services can operate during major disruptions.
The government has also been working on updating its traditional emergency planning arrangements, known as the War Book.
According to the House of Commons Library, these plans are intended to establish how government departments would respond to serious national emergencies and potential conflict affecting the UK.
A major national preparedness exercise is also planned for 2027.
These developments suggest that the government recognises the importance of preparing institutions as well as households.
Nevertheless, questions remain about whether sufficient resources are being allocated to these responsibilities.
The Cost-of-Living Crisis Makes Stockpiling Difficult
There is another problem that ministers cannot overlook: not every household can afford to prepare in the same way.
For wealthier families, purchasing bottled water, canned food, batteries and emergency equipment may be relatively straightforward.
For households struggling with rent, mortgages, energy bills and food prices, spending additional money on supplies can be much more difficult.
A family already managing a tight weekly budget may find it challenging to purchase several days of additional food.
This creates an uncomfortable situation in which the people most vulnerable to financial hardship may also have the fewest resources available to prepare for emergencies.
The government should therefore ensure that its advice is realistic and affordable.
Emergency preparedness should not become another financial burden that disproportionately affects lower-income families.
There is also no need for people to purchase everything immediately. Supplies can be accumulated gradually through ordinary shopping, reducing unnecessary pressure on household budgets.
Could Stockpiling Create Panic Buying?
Another concern is whether public warnings could unintentionally encourage panic buying.
Britain experienced this problem during the COVID-19 pandemic, when supermarket shelves were emptied as consumers rushed to purchase essential products.
The government has repeatedly stressed that its new campaign is not intended to encourage this behaviour.
Burnham has said that people should take sensible measures rather than buy excessive quantities of supplies.
This distinction is important.
The purpose of keeping emergency provisions is to reduce pressure on shops and emergency services during a disruption, not to create shortages before an emergency even occurs.
Households should therefore prepare gradually and avoid purchasing more than they realistically need.
What Should the Government Do Next?
If Burnham wants the public to take emergency preparedness seriously, the government must demonstrate that it is equally prepared.
There are several important priorities.
First, ministers should explain clearly which threats the campaign is designed to address and how likely different forms of disruption are.
Second, the government must strengthen the resilience of critical infrastructure, particularly electricity, water, telecommunications and banking systems.
Third, emergency services need sufficient resources, training and equipment to respond to major incidents.
Fourth, the government should provide clear public information about where people can obtain assistance if essential services are disrupted.
Finally, ministers must explain how Britain’s defence capabilities will be strengthened in response to changing international security threats.
Public preparedness and government preparedness must work together.
Neither can replace the other.
Conclusion: Families Can Prepare, But the Government Must Protect
Andy Burnham’s emergency preparedness campaign reflects genuine concerns about the risks facing modern Britain.
Cyberattacks, extreme weather, international conflict and disruptions to essential infrastructure are all possibilities that governments must take seriously.
Encouraging households to maintain three days of basic supplies is a reasonable precaution, provided the advice is communicated responsibly and remains affordable.
But there is one enormous problem with relying too heavily on this approach.
Ordinary families cannot be expected to compensate for weaknesses in national defence, vulnerable infrastructure or inadequate emergency planning.
People can keep bottled water, tinned food, torches and batteries at home. They cannot independently protect Britain’s electricity networks, secure international supply chains or defend the country against hostile state operations.
That responsibility belongs to the government.
Burnham must therefore demonstrate that his administration is doing much more than telling people to prepare their cupboards.
The public deserves reassurance that Britain’s essential services are protected, the armed forces have the necessary resources and emergency plans are capable of dealing with a serious crisis.
Being prepared is sensible. Creating unnecessary fear is not.
Ultimately, national resilience must begin with a government that is ready to protect its citizens, not simply citizens being told to protect themselves.