A Gassy Gaffe in England

By Paul Keithley, Global Paradigm Fellow in England

English Prime Minister David Cameron and his administration have come under fire after a cabinet minister’s remarks led to consumer anxiety over gasoline. Francis Maude, a member of Cameron’s cabinet, off-handedly advised people to fill “jerry cans,” or gas canisters, in the case of a strike by the petrol tankers union before the Easter Holiday. The ensuing panic among consumers led to a short-lived depletion of petrol as tankers were unable supply stations fast enough to meet the overwhelming demand. Criticism of Maude was sharpened when a woman from Yorkshire suffered severe burns as she decanted oil into cans in her kitchen. Yet the panic was just that – a panic. The feared-for petrol tanker strike was never called, and as talks between company officials and the union progress a future strike seems increasingly unlikely.

With limited lasting effects, this short-lived event will not be remembered for long. However, this occurrence does provide an opportunity to examine discrepancies between how governmental actions are interpreted by other political opponents and by constituents.

Politically, Labour Party members of parliament are using this as an opportunity to call for the resignation of Maude, a member of the competing Conservative Party. As reported on March 30th, Labour officials claimed that the recommendation was blatantly political, accusing Maude of diverting attention away from budget talks with “schoolboy political games.” Citing legislation which requires a seven day notice before the implementation of a strike, Cameron’s opponents deride this action as a political attack.

There may well have been a political motive behind the remarks that led to the panic. If they did exist, however, these schemes were far from the minds of the voters with whom I have discussed the topic. Though most felt that keeping civilians ignorant would have been more suitable, some people saw the value in advising the public to take precautions. Here, the method, not the actual delivered message, was point of debate. From the vantage point of the ordinary citizen, far removed from the politics of budgetary arguments, the government’s aim was to help; it was simply poorly executed.

While we may try to interpret occurrences involving government players as being political in nature, we need to discern whether an agenda actually existed or if we are simply chasing ghosts. It is worthwhile to look at this panic through the lens of “Hanlon’s razor,” an adage which recommends to never attribute to malice or conspiracy that which can be reasonably explained through stupidity. If a government is to provide services to its constituents as its mission, we must not automatically assume that actions within this institution are always used as a form of combat.