JANUS
Page 78
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WRITES
. . . the Conservatives have understated the case against the Socialists
IF the next general election could be fought on the single issue of transport, the result would not be in doubt. Not everyone may be in agreement with the statement of policy recently issued from the Conservative Party's central office, but at least it is clear and coherent. In complete contrast, the Labour Party is unable to come to terms with the subject. The Party's spokesmen frequently contradict each other, use ambiguous terms in order to disguise disagreements, and try to cover up the poverty of their own ideas by vague threats against.various
sections of the public. .
The Conservative booklet inevitably sets out the numerous and increasing transport problems, and does not pretend that the Government has found the solution to all of them. The final paragraph states that the problems can best be tackled if they are removed completely from the "narrow sphere of party politics ". They demand clear thought, the booklet adds, candid debate and vigorous action backed by a readiness to allocate that proportion of our national resources which will be best used for the purpose. The implication that these virtues are alien to party politics is a little surprising in a party document, but it will have the agreement of a majority of the electorate.
THE CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES
Except for a single outburst against the Socialist plans for transport, the booklet steers clear of openly political arguments. The Conservative principles which are set out for approval are said to be based on a clear recognition of the complementary and competitive role of different forms of transport. Freedom of choice is the first principle. "It is not for governments to dictate how the public should travel or send their goods ", says the pamphlet. The second principle is freedom to develop. The individual and often unique characteristics of each form of transport should be given full rein, so that it can carry the " passengers or the freight for which it is best fitted technically ".
Co-ordination is the last Conservative transport principle. If it is effective, the " reasonable " needs of the consumer —" cost, service, speed and so on "—will be met satisfactorily "without extravagant use of national resources ". The principles are worked out in separate sections of the booklet dealing with railways, roads and ports, and attempts to draw the various strands together are made both in the conclusion and in the introduction by the Minister of Transport. "You will see ", he says, "we are shaping a comprehensive and co-ordinated policy suitable for modern life."
What does the Labour Party offer in reply to this? The one reference in the Conservative booklet criticizes the Socialist plait for an integrated transport system because it is based on rigid State control which opposes private competition, is incompatible with free choice for the consumer, and would lead to higher transport costs. It" unjustifiably limits personal freedom and also penalizes the efficient, while subsidizing and perpetuating the inefficient " B44 These are indeed the inevitable consequences of ti Labour Party policy as the booklet describes it. The Par is said to be "firmly committed to the renationalization
road haulage ". It would impose ,on Aand B-licen holders distance limits which "on past experience wou be crippling ", and would "cause the licence holders -wither away and so save the cost of buying them outright Somewhat unexpectedly, the booklet makes no referen to the suggestion frequently made that the Labour Par would also impose restrictions on the C-licence, hold' with consequences as disastrous to the-national economy the limitations on hauliers.
LABOUR COMMITTED?
To this extent, the Conservatives have understated t case against the Socialists. They have also given t Socialist policy a much greater precision than perhaps deserves. There are many members of the Labour Par who would welcome joyfully the policy ascribed to tht by the Conservatives, and would have no hesitation casting their vote on a straight transport issue. A mc careful examination of recent Labour Party statemet leaves more than a doubt that they are not committed the extent suggested in the Conservative booklet.
A month ago, Mr. George Brown, deputy Leader the Labour Party, said in a speech at Bury, Lancashi that the only three candidates for public ownership in 1 next Labour Government were steel, an extension of road haulage industry, and the establishment of a natio] domestic water supply. On the second of these items was echoing what his Leader, Mr. Harold Wilson, said the House of Commons in April. It was esSential to expa the public sector of road haulage, said Mr. Wilson, taking the artificial ceiling off the expansion of Brit Road Services wherever it was economic and profitable B.R.S. to expand. .
Whether this means renationalization only Mr. Wilt knows. It was on the same occasion that he made reference to "distance limits" quoted in the Conservat booklet. Another essential part of the Socialist plan, said, would be to make "whatever changes are needed Aand 13-licensing regulations ", including distance lim He went on to suggest strongly that a.halt must be cal to the expansion in the number of vehicles on C licence.
He was also critical of the Government for setting committees of inquiry instead of taking practical steps deal with the transport situation. At the Party conferei at Scarborough in September, however, the best that Socialists could do was to ask the Government to de action, at any rate on the Beeching Plan, until a survey I been held into all forms of inland transport, and a natio plan had been drawn up. Such a plan is presented the Conservative booklet. It would not have the appro of the Labour Party, but Labour has no reasona alternative to offer, a point which will no doubt be dra to the Party's attention many times before the gem election.