The Price of Eggs Matters
A case for grocery-price politics
For months, I’ve argued, almost ad nauseam, that Lula’s government’s failure to address cost-of-living pressures could steer it toward a political iceberg in 2026. That iceberg looms ever closer, but maybe—just maybe—a course correction is on the horizon.
This week, Lula decided to address the hungry elephant in the room, calling on ministers to "guarantee that food makes it to the working peoples’ tables in ‘compatible conditions’ with their salaries”. In Bidenese, that’s, “Listen here, Jack. Get the God-darn chip-choc ice cream down to three pennies a scoop.” Of course, this is only a one-liner from a presser. But if the government follows through on putting food prices at the forefront of their messaging, it’s a significant strategic pivot.
Lately, it’s felt as if the government’s PR strategy has been run by Stewart from The Thick of It. The implementation matrix (dissected at the midpoint to create four diametrically opposed quadrants) has been rolled out at every sign of public dissatisfaction. “Knowledge is porridge,” as Stewart’s mantra goes. When economic management meets opposition, the government’s solution has been to drown voters in a deluge of data about why the said bad thing is either untrue, or actually good. “Entenda por quê isso é bom,” for the Portuguese-speaking audience.
Biden, and then Harris, made the exact same mistake. While Trump touted his tiny Tic Tacs, Harris presented the American people with a series of complex frameworks through which she would construct an ‘opportunity economy’ for the middle class. I wonder which message resonated more with voters. Also, did I mention it was for the middle class?
Governments have little to no direct power over food prices; and nor should they. But pretending a near 40% increase on the price of coffee is totally fine because your GDP grew one-point-five percentage points higher than expected is just bad politics.
To be fair, these comms failures are present in almost every modern centre-left government. As my co-host, Jack, has pointed out on Podgecaste, centre-left parties spent the better part of thirty years trying to catch up to the right’s obsession with economic data points; only to wake up one day and realize no one cares anymore. Like Zarathustra descended from the mountain, Trump descended the escalator and proclaimed to the people, “Economic conservatism is BORING!”. Unlike Zarathustra, the people heeded his words.
In 2022, Lula won the election on the back of a simple slogan: “paz e amor (peace and love)”. In 2024, Kamala lost the election on the back of a simple slogan: “hope and joy”. In 2026, Lula would be wise to go back to “cerveja e picanha” (beer and please Google your own translation. Cuts of meat aren’t my wheelhouse.) This time, however, cerveja e picanha should return to its literal meaning.
The intelligentsia types will often point out that cerveja e picanha is much less a direct reference to beers and BBQ than it is a nod to economic aspirations and social mobility. At its core, it tells the working class they can aspire to regularly enjoy culinary goods that aren’t the humble daily staple of beans and rice. Perhaps, however, it’s time to get back to basics. That is, make the thing you’re talking about the thing you’re actually talking about.
To hear and read more hot takes like this, subscribe below: