site banner

Small-Scale Question Sunday for February 23, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The key point is that it wasn't actually necessary, but the labor party thought that the war economy was a path to socialism, so they kept it going in peacetime. Rationing was just another tool, not an emergency measure.

Churchill and the Tories were re-elected in 1951, long before the end of rationing. It’s true that there were plenty of actual socialists in Atlee’s party, even some communists, but he was only one of them to a limited extent. Many bold actual commie plans, like bank nationalization, never really happened. Others, like bus and haulage nationalization, were quickly reversed when the Tories came back to power.

The problem with repealing rationing, which they did want to do, was that the situation was pretty dire. Food produced had been steady or in decline since the 1870s despite a doubling of the population, while the livestock sector relied on feed from devastated areas or those now in the Soviet bloc. Imports were expensive as Britain paid its war debts. The truth is the country was just much poorer than it had been.

I mean, they ended rationing over the course of 3 years after getting into power. Tea in '52, and finally meat in '54. That's pretty good for disassembling an entrenched government program!