The Fuel Fiasco
Whatever the inherent rights and wrongs of the fuel-rationing controversy, the Government have gained nothing in reputation by their handling of it. The Government spokesman in the House of Lords on Tuesday stated, with much reason, that a decision on the question must be taken without delay. The Government spokesman in the House of Commons on Wednesday announced that there would be no decision and no debate till after the Whitsun recess. It is not, clearly, that the Government questioned the general merits of the Beveridge scheme, but that the revolt of the Conservative 1922 Committee had the effect of dissolving resolution into vacillation. That domestic fuel-consumption must be cut in order that the needs of the increasingly numerous new munition-factories may be fully supplied is common ground. What is required of any rationing- scheme is that it be both effective and equitable ; a flat percents cut would penalise the very people who have been economic already. The Beveridge scheme would be as equitable as any p' could be, for its basis is that coal should go to every consumer acc ing to his need. There is every reason to believe it would also effective. But it would, of course, mean more coupons, which one likes. So did clothes-rationing. So will the new chocolate rationing. Fuel-rationing will be more complex, but a nation that 14 face blitzes can face fuel-coupons. If the Government can devise better scheme than Sir William Beveridge's, let it adopt that, p it to the House, with the Whips on, explain it lucidly to the counte in wireless talks and newspaper announcements, and rid Use as soon as may be of the discredit of falling down over fuel. B it now proposes to tackle at the same time the organisation of th coal industry. What that means is not disclosed.
Previous page
