Meal for two for 50p. Suggestions?

bulchy

LJM wrote:

beans on toast doesnt sound much of a meal but i find it quite filling

I love beans on toast, so does the rest of my family, thankfully, and we sometimes stretch to poached eggs with it too, delicious.
Sue

Glad

cordial wrote:

Words like 'splitting' and 'hairs' come to mind!

I'm happy with the title of the site - moneysavingexpert.com - even if you aren't.

To the best of my knowledge, Martin has no plans for its re-naming as 'makethemostofwhatevermoneyyouhavebeitsmallorlargeamountsandbeasavvyconsumer.com'...

written by Martin on the main site home page

"MoneySaving is about cutting bills not cutting back. It's about being a sassy consumer. Companies try to screw us for profits. MoneySaving shows you how to screw them back."

Sassers

RACHIE77 wrote:

Sassers, the chapatti recipe sounds lovely - do you know any others like this and is it really easy to make?
LIST]

Rachie77 - I've Pm'd you and will be in touch again.....
love Sassers :beer:

daphne_descends

cordial wrote:

Correct, it doesn't. Rainbows was a bit unfair and generalising.

However, I think she has a point - you only have to look at the news today with the business about obesity etc.

You obviously like to spend more money on food and that's fine - but remember these forums ARE supposed to be about saving money!

Regarding the news - this week the Times reported that the 'average' unhealthy basket of food comes to a total of £71.18.

They also said that the 'average' healthy basket of food comes to a total of £71.18.

If you were a Times read in the 'unhealthy' camp, it's hardly inspiring is it. I did wonder what on earth was in BOTH these baskets though!

Which reminds me about an article recently, again in the Times, where they gave six of their writers about £60 or so to live on for the week - most of them were used to spending about £400 a week - I was amazed at how hard they all found it, and what they considered 'essential'.

But people - and I'm not referring to any particular posts or posters, just a general feel from the thread - can begin to sound a bit righteous - instead of pleased with themselves for doing well, it is an opportunity to pick at others. It can almost sound competetive, 'keeping up with the Joneses'.

cupid_s

RainbowsInTheSpray wrote:

Sorry but I just DON'T agree that 'all the rest' adds up to over £50 a week. If people are so daft as to be taken in by supermarket 'offers' on branded products then that's their look-out. Just have slightly larger main meals and do away with all the dubious 'in-beteens' which lead to unhealthy diet.

I'll tell you what leads to over £50/wk for a family of 4: it's all the 'let's just stop off at the chip shop' and 'how about a ready meal in front of the telly'-itis.

Pathetic. People with little willpower, less common sense and total, uncaring gormlessness about what saving £10 a week can add up to. Presumably, these types simply care more about putting their feet up than they do about their children's health or saving to invest in their family's future. I can see no other explanation.

Until very recently me and my husband used to spend over £50 every week on food for the two of us (we're now being very good imo and are on about £40 pw). We have had takeaway 3 times in the past year. And I have eaten a ready meal once in my entire life (and that was because I was working late at Uni and needed something at the last minute that could be microwaved). We make our own lunches for Uni every day, have 3 proper meals and very few snacks in between.

We cook everything from scratch and always have done. We both love cooking. We have no qualms about buying value stuff and buy reduced items or BOGOF (buy only if it's cheaper than altermatives) wherever possible.

Also I limit the amount of meat for our main meal to 150g as an absolute maximum, and we too buy a chicken which will do us three meals and a massive saucepan full of yummy soup.

I know people do it but I don't think I could feed a family of 4 for £50. And we are not lacking in willpower or common sense and certainly aren't lazy.

RainbowsInTheSpray

£400 A WEEK!!!! Some people are definitely living on a different planet! I don't care how 'righteous' it makes me sound if I say so. Sorry fac!

Ok here's one for 70p and to hell with the 20p difference:

Cheapo Quick Curry -

- enough plain rice for 2 - 15p?

- some left over meat bits from Sunday, bolstered by some veg (also left over?) - c.25p?

- quarter jar/tin of any own brand supermarket curry sauce - 30p?

Voila - instant curry. Should be enough for two. Very cheap. Very quick.

RainbowsInTheSpray

cupid_stunt wrote:

Until very recently me and my husband used to spend over £50 every week on food for the two of us (we're now being very good imo and are on about £40 pw). We have had takeaway 3 times in the past year. And I have eaten a ready meal once in my entire life (and that was because I was working late at Uni and needed something at the last minute that could be microwaved). We make our own lunches for Uni every day, have 3 proper meals and very few snacks in between.

We cook everything from scratch and always have done. We both love cooking. We have no qualms about buying value stuff and buy reduced items or BOGOF (buy only if it's cheaper than altermatives) wherever possible.

Also I limit the amount of meat for our main meal to 150g as an absolute maximum, and we too buy a chicken which will do us three meals and a massive saucepan full of yummy soup.

I know people do it but I don't think I could feed a family of 4 for £50. And we are not lacking in willpower or common sense and certainly aren't lazy.

Ok, let's work this out.

The posts on this thread prove pretty well that you can have your dinners for two for £3.50 a week - but let's call it, say, £7. Therefore, for 4 people, it should amount to no more than £15.

Shall we say the same again for lunches?

Shall we be ridiculous and say the same again for breakfasts?

3 x £15 = £45

That would still leave a fiver over from your £50 to buy some nice fruit to keep up the vitamins... and I think I've been pretty generous in doubling the necessary figures.

Rocket science, it ain't...

daphne_descends

RainbowsInTheSpray wrote:

£400 A WEEK!!!! Some people are definitely living on a different planet! I don't care how 'righteous' it makes me sound if I say so. Sorry fac!

Ok here's one for 70p and to hell with the 20p difference:

Cheapo Quick Curry -

- enough plain rice for 2 - 15p?

- some left over meat bits from Sunday, bolstered by some veg (also left over?) - c.25p?

- quarter jar/tin of any own brand supermarket curry sauce - 30p?

Voila - instant curry. Should be enough for two. Very cheap. Very quick.

Perhaps you misunderstood. Big difference from £50 a week to £400 a week. Righteousness not involved, and I hoped I made it clear that I was not referring to anyone in particular, if at all, as I said it was more the tone of the thread.

Might have curry tonight now

goonlord

Heth wrote:

I hate the idea that alot of people on here have, that if you spend £50 on food a week then you are buying ready meals/takeaways/having unhealthy food and generally not cooking from scratch. My husband and I spend alot of money on food (£200 pounds a month usually) but do cook everything ourselves, have healthy, well balanced meals with lots of fresh fruit and veg, make pack lunches, never have takeaways etc... Yes, we do buy expensive ingredients and cook more extravagant food than the cheaper 50p for 2 type meals on here, but if we can afford to do so why not? Spending alot on food doesn't mean being lazy and eating ready meals and takeaways at the expense of ones health!

Thanks for this Heth, I agree wholeheartedly! I know these boards are about moneysaving and I've learnt so much stuff from them but I really think that food is one thing you should not compromise on because you shouldn't compromise on your health.

For example, I wouldn't touch value meat with a bargepole (this is just my opinion so please don't berate me - I know a lot of you are happy to buy it and that's great!) because it is full of antibiotics and hormones that I don't want in my body unless medically necessary so I pay more for organic or additive free meat but eat it very infrequently. The rest of the time I supplement my diet with organic pulses etc.

We all have choice and assumptions shouldn't be made about anybody.

Some of these recipes look great though so thanks for the inspiration!

RainbowsInTheSpray

goonlord wrote:

Thanks for this Heth, I agree wholeheartedly! I know these boards are about moneysaving and I've learnt so much stuff from them but I really think that food is one thing you should not compromise on because you shouldn't compromise on your health.

For example, I wouldn't touch value meat with a bargepole (this is just my opinion so please don't berate me - I know a lot of you are happy to buy it and that's great!) because it is full of antibiotics and hormones that I don't want in my body unless medically necessary so I pay more for organic or additive free meat but eat it very infrequently. The rest of the time I supplement my diet with organic pulses etc.

We all have choice and assumptions shouldn't be made about anybody.

Some of these recipes look great though so thanks for the inspiration!

That's fine... there are ALWAYS honourable exceptions ... but let's not close our eyes to the 'unhealthy' revolution that's going on out there. SOMEBODY is buying all those frozen ready meals which the supermarkets are piling high on the shelves. Those queues outside the takeaways aren't tricks of the light.

The health statistics are in the news constantly and the medics aren't inventing them. People are managing the fantastic trick of paying more and eating less healthily - for the sake of cooking less. That's their choice and also their punishment.

The facts are undeniable. Because a particular individual here or there bucks the trend does not change this.

It always amuses me when somebody rings up one of the phone-in radio programmes to say that their grandad smoked like a chimney all his life and still lived till he was 100 - as if that proved that smoking was healthy!