At the end of rationing (which was incredibly unpopular, let’s not forget – nobody enjoys being told how much bacon they’re allowed) not only was there much less obesity, but other indicators of a nation’s health – birth weight, infant mortality – also improved. At a recent Women’s Institute history night, I saw for the first time a full list of what the rations actually were.

I concluded ruefully that they were so meagre (one egg a week, 50g of butter) that I don’t think I’d bother eating, I’d just live on protein powder and alcohol. But that’s not the point; when one discusses rationing, it’s in the context of national circumstances so straitened that everybody simply had to eat less, because there wasn’t enough. But the next stage of that logical process is never discussed – which is that it was a fear, really, for the poor not having enough that led to a policy for everyone. Circumstances weren’t so dire that rich people would have starved, or even people in the middle: the concern was a) that scarcity would falsely inflate prices, so people who could previously afford to eat would be priced out; and b) that people would hoard. The hoarding point is interesting as it gives the lie to a narrative often tacitly peddled, that human nature during the war was better than it is now, more self-sacrificing, less demanding, more generous.

But more important is that point about prices – all markets favour the rich.