AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Election Postscript

24th February 1950
Page 56
Page 56, 24th February 1950 — Election Postscript
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

MUCH has been made during recent weeks of =contradictory statements by prominent politicians. The leader of the Conservative Party was the bitterest opponent of this practice some 40 years

ago. A well-chosen quotation from his past invective is guaranteed to raise a laugh among the right audience, hut it is odd that a similar situation affecting the leader of the Labour Party would not be thought, nearly so funny, even by the other side.

The Conservatives have not found it necessary to go back more than a couple of years or so. The brave pronouncements by Socialist leaders that have had to be unsaid within a few months would fill a book, and, in fact, have been used for this purpose. The game of political Jekyll-and-Hyde has its moments of innocent merriment,, but there is sometimes more instruction to be had from points on which the leaders of a party all agree.

Interesting Arguments

With the possible exception of iron and steel, the industry the nationalization of which has been most unpopular is road transport. The Conservative and Liberal promise to restore it to free enterprise was not only wise, it was in accordance with the wishes of the public. Several prominent members of the Labour Party made a point of attacking this part Of their opponents' programme, and it is interesting to note what arguments were put forward.

During a period of less than a week, statements were made on the subject by, amongst others, Mr. Alfred Barnes, Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. Aneufin Bevan and Mr. Richard Crossman. Here we have a range of opinion from theextreme right wing to the extreme left of the party. What differences were to be found?

Mr Morrison: "What the Conservatives are proposing is to let private enterprise exploit the profitable road passenger and goods undertakings and leave the railways to get on as best they can, or be subsidized by the Exchequer."

Mr. Bevan: "The Conservatives would hand back the most profitable part of the transport system, road haulage, to private enterprise, and keep the railways under public ownership."

Mr. Barnes: "Are we going to allow the Tories to hand back to private enterprise any part of these industries which is profitable and leave the taxpayer to carry the burden of the unprofitable parts?" Mr. Crossman: "The Tory solution . . . is to leave the highly unprofitable railways in the hands of the State and to give the highly profitable road haulage industry back to free enterprise!"

Obedient Hammering Agreement among the four could not be closer if the same person had written the speech for all of them. The repetition, throughout the election campaign period, of the same argument in similar terms, stamps it beyond doubt as the official party line. It shows how much the Socialists were apprehensive of the popularity of their opponents' proposal in respect of transport, and how trivial were the genuine arguments against that proposal: The -point so obediently hammered home by one Socialist speaker after another is completely irrelevant. R22

Whether an industry has been running at a profit or a loss has nothing to do with its alleged ripeness for nationalization; otherwise, road and rail transport would not both have been taken over. The same argument must apply to denationalization.

There are certain reasons—which do not affect road transport in the same way—why the railways should remain nationalized once the step has' been .taken, In the present state of the world the Government must have regard to the military needs of the country. Until adequate roads have been constructed, the railways have an indispensable strategical function, apart from their use of home-produced fuel.

Additional Obstacles •

The closing down of lines, and economies in other directions, must be dependent upon the permission of the State. Difficulties are bound to arise, therefore, in any attempt to interest the public in the' purchase of anundertaking running at an enormous loss if additional obstacles are placed in the way of running it on a sound commercial footing.

In other countries where control of the railways has been transferred from the State to private enterprise, the circumstances are not the same as in Great Britain_ Railways in the U.S.A. were taken over in 1918, but the losses were so appalling that the Government was only too pleased to. return the companies to the original owners two years later. Belgian railways were denationalized in 1926 as part of the plan to meet a financial crisis. Holders of Treasury bonds were forced to take up railway preference shares.

According to a recent booklet, "Denationalization in Practice," by G. William Neville, the Belgian story had a happy ending. Within three years "losses had been turned into profits, and renewal funds and general. reserves created which stood the company in good stead when the great slump descended on trade and industry throughout the world. . . . It did not take long for the former Treasury bondholders, who had been forcibly given an interest in the railways, to congratulate themselves on their good fortune."

Ideological Considerations Control of the railways by the State in other countries, such as the Netherlands and Switzerland, has little in common with nationalization as practised here. Commercial-vehicle users in this country will note with most interest the examples of Belgium and the U.S.A., particularly as in those two countries road operators are loud in their complaints of unfair and stifling restrictions. In America, at the present time, the railways are conducting a publicity barrage, in comparison With which the "Square Deal" campaign of 1938 was a serenade on a tin whistle.

The railway problem we have always with us, whatever Government is in power. It cannot be solved merely by nationalization or denationalization; by returning the industry to the original owners, or forcing it into the reluctant hands of Government stockholders. Some -time soon the problem will, have to be faced. One can only, hope that ideological considerations will

have-no part in. the decision finally reached. .


comments powered by Disqus