Let me get back to this stockpiling question. To be honest, I now think it more likely we will get a deal, and so the question of stockpiling is perhaps less important. But it would arise if we have a no deal.

So, Iain's, you think everyone sensible should stockpile rather than rely on the government. I agree to some extent: I would certainly have doubts about the ability of this government to organise it adequately.

But the function of a stockpile is really to allow for fluctuations in the supply without needing to alter demand. So that immediately raises the question how long does the stockpiling (supplement) have to last? Is it days, weeks, months or years? And what should it cover? At the low end of stockpiling we have a few more tins. When to get to the wildly-over-the-top (I hope). You are in full survivalist mode with stockpiles of water, fuel, alternative cooking arrangements and whatever.

What are you considering stockpiling and to cover how long a period?


By its nature, stockpiling, whether by individuals or governments, is limited: to actually address a long term problem you may have to address the demand side. That is rationing. Now, I doubt if any government could be elected for many decades if it introduced rationing in peace time, so the chances are exceedingly low. Nevertheless, it is the logical consequence of long term supply problems if they occur.


Even if the government does make stockpiling work effectively, it is likely that it will only cover a subset of goods. Fuel will presumably be a priority and staple foods, but not the less essential ones. We could easily find the range of goods on offer reduced significantly.

As far as we can tell so far, the government plan is not to stockpile to to persuade businesses to do the stockpiling of their own goods. I think that very problematic, but perhaps that's for another post.