Nothing so drastic needed, just award people according to merit !

For those who are ignorant of wartime rationing, everyone had to have a ration book to buy anything. Once you used up your ration, that was that: no more. That's what this birdbrain from Leeds University is rabbiting on about. It is not 'rationing in the here on now' as was suggested - shortages of electricity etc caused by government incompetence. The goods and services would be there - even abundant - but the government would be controlling how much of it you could have. And, governments being what they are, some people's rations would be more than others. Certain people would be doing much better than the hoi poloi, as is always the with socialist/communistic regimes.

Rationing is rationing, irrespective of the means by which these aims are achieved.

Why is it not rationing in the strict term if for example, a thousand Ethiopians are given rationed social housing north of Brisbane as a Government preference.
Ideological rationing.

Housing is rationed towards the requirements of the wealthy over and above the poor, who will not qualify for loans. When housing is in short supply, the market will dictate who has housing.
The housing market is skewed by Government policy, towards affordability as a priority.
That is rationing where it does most social damage.

Capitalism thrives in times of shortages, especially contrived shortages designed to advantage which will always plunder the poor, who are a necessary evil in the component of profit.
Christ was aware of it when he made the quip “ The poor you’ll always have with you” Matthew 26:11. An essential component of power play and profit; a driving force of Capitalism.

Communism in its pure form is preferable to the plunder of the wealthy Capitalists!

TTBN nothing like holding an uniformed opinion. The argument for rationing runs as follows. For nations to achieve the objectives they have signed up for under the Paris Agreement it will mean that there will be fewer goods and services to be distributed. (All goods and services require energy a zero carbon future means that goods and services will become more expensive.) Without rationing that would mean that the poorer you are the less likely that you would be able to afford some of the things you need. By introducing rationing along the lines they propose it will mean that everyone will have access to what they need. Of course if you do not agree that there is a climate crisis then there would be no argument in favour of rationing. But if you agree that we need to address the climate crisis then clearly any system that ensures that the burdens and benefits arising out of taking action are fairly distributed.

Not at all Paul. We should give them the same conditions & pay rates as those currently employed at the task. It would be a very new experience for them to actually be paid what they were worth. Of course we should not stop them finding other employment in the private sector, if anyone would have them.

In the same way we should limit any government employment to a maximum of 4 years. To be reemployed after that an ex bureaucrats should produce proof of a year of farm labor to qualify, exempted if their employment was in regional Oz. At least we would know something about life not in Canberra or some other capital city. This would much improve their attitude when looking at the world.

Of course again we should not stop them finding other employment in the private sector, if anyone would have them.

I should have added a rider. There are those who argue that we will be able to switch to 100% renewables and so there will be no need for rationing, we can just go on as we always have. I am afraid that they will be cruelly disappointed. The maths does not stack up. But this too becomes an argument for rationing. We will need fossil fuels for quite some time to be able to transition to a low carbon economy. Oil, Gas and coal still provide a solid energy return and we will need those resources to jump start the renewable infrastructure. This in turn means that we need to think strategically about how we use those fossil fuels. For example why use precious hydrocarbons to manufacture plastic toys, drink bottles and the like?