We’ve had Tanya Gold gracing our screens about how she managed to live without modern technology (read: managed to live without mobile phone or computer, whilst seemingly lamenting both permanently…) and today Stuart Jeffries told us how it was to live on a tenner for one week. Or rather, he was supposed to try living on a tenner, but only did it half-heartedly.

Have a look at the comments on the blog here, if you can stomach them.

These so-called attempts to live frugally might seem great fun for The Guardian’s journalists (indeed, apparently Stuart didn’t suggest the idea - that’s his get-out clause), yet I’m not convinced. Something about them seems incredibly insincere. Given the current economic situation, and how many people are losing jobs, homes, any sense of economic security which they used to feel, I find such articles in more than bad taste.

So what exactly was wrong with Stuart Jeffries’ experiment?

Living out of your cupboards, on food you’ve already bought (knowing fine well he’d be duly doing this ‘experiment’), and off your office’s sandwiches… well, that isn’t what I know as living on a tenner. Perhaps he’s got a new definition for us. Or perhaps he never really wanted to try doing this properly and only really wanted to take the piss out of cheap wine and not having perfect choice each day? (Properly and really coming into usage… you can tell this one has pissed me off good and proper.)

Let’s have a closer look at some of the comments about Stuart Jeffries’ trial of a tenner for a week:

‘I find the article a bit frustrating, actually, as living in the arse-end of nowhere I struggle to find free events or interesting exhibitions, but in central London you pretty much can’t move for them.’ Filthy Knitter, I’m sure there are lots who agree with you…

‘Hmm; I bet I could do this if I worked closer to home. In fact, I have done in the past. You just, like, don’t buy M&S ready meals or white wine.’

‘It’s a bit annoying middle-class this article.’ Annoying! Again! Gracious, who’d ever think we’d get a teeny weeny bit pissed off with such articles? Think we’re nodding along here. Or maybe we’ve chucked the remainder of The Guardian in the bin already?

‘You could have talked about how people with very little money end up buying cheap calorific but unhealthy food and shown some healthier alternatives.

I did like that you descended into crime to survive on the first day though.’ Not the best example, was he?

‘Using the food at the back of the cupboard counts as free. Hmm.‘ He could’ve considered it more, that’s for sure.

Some of the other comments on the blog are more to the point…

‘The experiment was a failure before it began because Stuart did a supermarket shop before day one.’ Quite.

*Thanks for the line, PickmansModel (full comment can be found on the blog here.)