Foggy Patches
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE impression left by most political manifestos is that they have been composed by some remote cave-dweller who is periodically dragged blinking and trembling into the light, forced to produce his customary stint of words and then allowed to sink -back into the gloom that is his natural environment. The latest statement prepared for consideration at the annual
conference of the Labour Party is no exception. . An introductory section claims to present some basic beliefs which are" simple and self-evident ": "We believe in human fellowship.
" We believe in social equality.
"We believe in democratic freedom.
"We believe in economic democracy."
Few political broadsides are free from foggy patches of this kind. The favourite words of the compilers have been so often used and abused in the past that all the meaning has been squeezed out, and a language has been evolved capable of existing quite independently of thought. Further economy of mental effort is achieved in the above passage by the fact that all four. nouns and all four adjectives are interchangeable. The myopic author has merely to make some slightly different combination and he has a statement of faith all ready for the next manifesto. , His method of stirring up the reader's political passions is equally mechanical. In Socialist manifestos it resolves itself into a contest between the forces of good and evil, represented by code words. An entity known variously as the public, the community, the country, the people and the nation—apparently all symbols of the same thing if one could only grasp what it is—struggles against another sinister entity known as private enterprise.
Rhetorical Flourishes The point is pressed home by a subtle double use of the first person plural. For example, the declaration of Socialist faith is prefaced by a number of rhetorical flourishes of which the following is typical: "We believe that in that faith are to be found the principles upon which our society should be moulded." Now, " we " refers to the Labour Party, but "our society" means, presumably, the society belonging to the public, the community, and so on. After a few paragraphs in which identities are confused in this way, the reader is in danger of being hypnotized into the belief that the public and the Labour Party are identical.
The writer of the manifesto is at his best in the two sections labelled" Public Ownership" and" The Private Sector." Even the titles help by suggesting that the contrast is between something complete and something partial, and the illusion is helped by the marked difference in the tone of the two passages. Public ownership is given an affectionate embrace plus a few stern words of encouragement. "The nationalized industries are serving the nation well." It is their duty "to lead the battle for the nation's recovery."
To the private sector goes the frigid, if not openly hostile; welcome appropriate to the mother-in-law, who under the present execrable biological laws appears to be essential, but who would not be greatly missed if the laws could be altered. Private enterprise must do as it is told with a good grace. "We want private enterprise to
accept willingly policies designed for the public good." The assumption is that private enterprise is something distinct from and outside the public, the community and so on. "Labour's policy will be to harness private enterprise to the nation's cause." "Those who administer private enterprise do so as trustees for the people." Such statements are no doubt as deliberately bewildering as they are meaningless.
Nationalization, according to the Labour Party statement, "involved the transfer of the sources of economic power from private to public hands." The haulier whose undertaking was acquired may or may not be impressed at learning that, whenever his vehicles went for a journey of more than 40 miles, he was tapping one of the mysterious "sources of economic power," whereas on shorter journeys he was merely being a trustee for the people. He should be encouraged to read a little later that "some mistakes were inevitably made," and that the Labour Party is prepared to make changes.
Characteristic Reference
The reference to the public interest is characteristic, but what changes might be made are not stated. The phrase could mean anything from denationalization to the suppression of the C-licence holder, and its vagueness should satisfy all the factions within the Labour Party. Later on the document makes it plain that the changes at least are not those shortly to be shepherded through Parliament by the Tories. In due course, if it be given the chance, the Labour Party Will restore road haulage and iron and steel to public ownership "wherever the public interest requires." Naturally, the Labour Party alone knows what is in the public interest, for it alone represents the public, the community and so on, whereas the Tories represent nobody.
The Labour Party will go further. It will "seek a mandate from the people to extend public ownership wherever the nation's overriding needs demand it". The offer is generous, even superfluous. As the people and the nation are the same thing, there seems no point in asking permission to do what is demanded. There seems even less point when it is remembered that the Labour Party represents both the nation and the people, and what it does must by definition be what they desire. .
It is true that, according to a Gallup Poll on behalf of the "News Chronicle," answers to a question on the Government's plan for road haulage showed 43 per cent. in favour and 32 per cent. against, the remaining 25 per cent. expressing no opinion. The explanation must be that only 32 per cent. of the answers came from people. Or it may be that the Gallup Poll was cornered by Transport Man. Poor, perverse fellow, to insist on setting up his private judgment against that of the public, the community and so on!
Transport Man is not altogether overlooked by the
Labour Party. Significantly, he appears under the. "private sector" heading, with the slightly derogatory title of "consumer." However, even a grasshopper has rights. "The consumer matters. He must be protected -from anti-social monopolies.' He must not be overcharged." It may be, of course, that it is his own misguided determination to bring about just these results which explains the results of the Gallup Poll.