Ever Since Eve
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
INVITED by the Advertising Association to say a few words at their annual conference, Mr. Aneurin Bevan—thoroughly enjoying himself, one suspects— enunciated the following dictum: "1 regard modern advertising as one of the most evil consequences of modern society, which is itself intrinsically evil." In elaborating his theme, he attacked the conception of " consumer choice." " You use your arts," he said, " to push a product down our throats which we would not think of taking if you left us alone."
This is strange doctrine, that it is evil to stimulate a desire that had not hitherto made itself felt, The condemnation would be well-nigh universal, beginning ' with Eve and ending with chlorophyll; and the suckers would stretch in unbroken succession from the followers of Moses to the constituents of Ebbw Vale.
We may expect to have more of these diatribes against success. Unable to make a very impressive showing with the results of nationalization, its adherents have shifted their ground. Their attack now stresses that private enterprise is evil, and its replacement by State ownership is a question of salvation through faith.
The shift of emphasis is a subtle one. Spasmodic attempts are still made to praise the efficiency of the Road Haulage Executive. The champions are uncertain about the warmth of their reception. They talk of integration as a cosy ideal that the Government has wantonly crushed. They produce a smokescreen of misleading figures to show that the rates of operators under free enterprise are higher than those of the R.H.E.
Two-edged Weapon
But they realize that this sort of propaganda is a two-edged weapon. Aggrieved members of the public may come back with evidence that State ownership is not so cheap and efficient after all. There is a danger that, even while the mourners are still extolling the virtues of the defunct R.H.E„ everybody else will be agreeing that private enterprise has restored a higher standard of service.
By far the safer plan is to switch the controversy on to an altogether higher moral plane. In such a context the violation of the Ivory Tower is a deed of shame comparable to the sacking of Rome by the Goths and Vandals. Whatever faults the R.H.E. may have had pale into insignificance beside the deep damnation of its taking off.
Having wrapped the Ivory Tower in a protective and sanctimonious covering of cotton wool, its supporters can devote their whole energies to trading blows with free enterprise. Any misguided attempt on its part to be either free or enterprising they can expose as scandalous, vicious and the nature of the beast. The campaign began with the recent marathon debates in the House of Commons, which abounded with highly coloured descriptions of hauliers and their financial familiars as parasites, vultures, leeches and other equally unattractive fauna.
This kind of attack will become commonplace as time goes on. The Disposals Board have come in for some rough treatment even before they set about their task. and they provide a particularly tempting target as the trade unions held aloof and refused to allow the appointment of one of their representatives. When the larger units begin to operate, they will be attacked as quasi-monopolies. The smaller units will be cited as evidence of disintegration.
Far from the transport problem being settled, the passing of the new Act has released a further flock of arguments. The transport adviser to Unilever, Ltd., describes it as a short-term contribution towards a longrange issue, and suggests that at the end of four or five years there should be a Royal Commission to make an objective survey of the whole position. Committees and proposed committees abound. An inquiry into the licensing system is thought probable, and the chambers of commerce have even begun to collect evidence for such an inquiry. On the passenger side, the Runciman Committee on taxicabs has already reported; we may be hearing from the Thesiger Committee fairly soon; and the Minister of Transport has launched another committee to inquire into the work of the London Transport Executive,
Sound Counter-stroke
This latest move 'is a sound counter-stroke by the Government. London Transport has been one of the paragons of State control. It may advertise a little too wisely and too well to suit Mr. Bevan's taste, but its prestige has been high and would possibly have. remained so but for the recent rapid increases in fares. Because statutory machinery already exists to deal with charges, they are excluded from the new inquiry, but are undoubtedly one of the main reasons why it was set on foot, The unpopularity of London Transport may be said to date from the time when it became part of the British Transport Commission. Its finances became involved in those of the Railway and other Executives, and nobody seemed certain any longer what he was paying for when he bought a bus ticket. The Conservative Party sub-committee which largely prompted the new inquiry suggest that, among other things; there should be an investigation into the financial relationship between London Transport and the Commission, "with a view to London receiving similar advantages from the carriage of freight as the rest of the country."
The sub-committee may envisage an ultimate separation from the Commission. They maintain that London Transport presents a special problem quite different from the rest of the country. They would like two inquiries. One, made up of technical experts, would be concerned with the way in which the London Transport Executive conduct their business. The other inquiry, for which more time would be needed, would deal with wider aspects of the problem.
For once, the tactics of the Socialists are being used against them. They prefer to attack private enterprise on a wide front, so that their opponents are prevented from concentrating because they do not know where the blow will fall. The Government, after dealing with road haulage and the railways by means of the new Transport Act, has turned public attention on to another target. Compelled as they will be to defend London Transport on a strictly utilitarian basis, the Socialists will find it less easy to march into battle against the newly created hauliers with a fanfare of moral precepts and with Mr. Bevan as standard-bearer.