Mark s the Sp ot
Page 76
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Says Arthur R. Wilson, M.I.R.T.E. VARIED opinions may be expressed about the value and result of the Road Haulage Association's publicity campaign against renationalization, which is part and parcel of Socialist policy. At its worst, publicity will do no harm; at its best, the impact on the general body of voters will not be great. The affected part of road haulage is too sectional—and too small a section at that—ever to become a major issue during a general election.
Some 20,000 vehicles—the object of political strife— out of more than Um. goods vehicles may not, in many minds, even be considered representative of goods road transport. Kindred bodies and those on the fringe, who might have given active support to the R.H.A., are sitting on the fence, waiting to see on which side the scale is weighted. That may or may not be sound policy, but if the scales tip in the wrong direction the future will hold a big question mark. And experience of 1945 proved that it is impossible to fight after a fait accompli.
The Socialist Party have stated that they will take over that part of road haulage returned to private enterprise by the Conservatives in 1953. What of it, the uninterested voter might ask, recalling that half the British Transport Commission's vehicles could find no buyers in the break-up of State transport. What personal difference does it make to me if traffic passes by private enterprise, British Road Services or rail? Many private motorists would be glad to see much of the traffic passing by road transferred to rail, cutting down the number of trunk vehicles on the roads.
A Fool's Paradise
A selfish attitude, perhaps, but one that still carries a vote. Apart from those directly interested and whose. livelihood is at stake, the issue will be considered too trivial on which to record a vote in a general election, even if apathy is overcome. If this diagnosis has any degree of accuracy, the remainder of the motor industry is living in a fool's paradise.
A significant pointer of the shape of things to come, of which surprisingly little notice has been taken, was a recent statement by Mr. George Brown, Socialist M.P. for Belper, a constituency not exactly in the heart of motor manufacturing. He was reported in The Commercial Motor of February 27 as saying he thought a Labour Government could take sufficient powers to exercise close supervision of the motor industry. He believed there are enough public-spirited manufacturers who would co-operate with a Socialist Government without nationalization.
This could have been an " off-the-cuff " remark by an individual to suit the mood of a particular audience. On the other hand, it could have been a carefully prepared missile fired on a fact-finding orbit of reaction. Either way, the words have a literal meaning which have devastating implications for the entire motor industry. I use the term "motor industry" in its widest possible sense, from the ships bringing ertade oil and iron ore to the ports, D28
through all its phases down to the forecourt and mechanic's bench of the smallest two-pump service station.
The miners' unions, perhaps apprehensive about the future, have been pressing for preference to be given to coal over oil, regardless of scientific progress. What better way to implement that policy than by control of oil imports and direction in the necessary places to use coal and not oil?
It could end the transfer to diesel power on the railways, stop further expansion of oil-firing and power generation from it in general industry, and cause a reversion from oil to coal in many instances. I do not quite enter the realms of fantasy in imagining direction to motor manufacturers to develop a modern version of the steamer, obsolete since about 1928, for heavy goods road haulage, using coal as fuel.
C-licensees, strong in numbers, may relax just now; sure in the knowledge that any scheme of control would be too unwieldy and impracticable in administration. But control at the source is a different matter and release of goods vehicles to the home market could be geared to replacement only. It would mean merely filling in a fussy little form giving good reasons why a specific vehicle should be replaced. On the other hand, a potential new operator would have to complete more than one form. and he would have no certainty that " yes would be the answer.
. • •
Drastic Measures
We hear a good deal about cars choking city streets by standing at the kerb all day. Very well, halve the release of cars to the home market, and if time does not effect an improvement, cut the quantity again. After all, there are communal buses for passenger transport, and walking helps to keep one's weight down. If there are objections, control of fuel supplies will sort them out.
I may be accused of spreading alarm and despondency. but I am not alone in believing that a future Labour Government may be induced to take drastic action to curb road transport in the interests of the railways and to place the welfare of miners before wider considerations: Space forbids exhaustion of all the interesting possibilities arising from such a Socialist policy. It might be said with truth that any Government attempting to interfere with the motor industry to the extent that I have mentioned would have a short life. Quite so, but why put them into office in the first place through sheer negligence?
The motor industry, together with its tentacles, is widespread and powerful enough to make its aims and objects a major issue, alongside current problems, in a general election.
The time for action—perhaps short--is before that happens, and not after the day is lost, when a fight back has to start from behind scratch. The Road Haulage Association are lighting the torch: let it be stoked up. X will mark the spot at the ballot box in more ways than one.