Sheep in Wolf's Clothing
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
0 NE interesting aspect of the clamour following the Budget proposals is the demure presence of the British Transport Commission among the organizations baying for the Chancellor's blood. While the users and providers of transport were proclaiming their expected losses, it was announced from the ivory tower that the nationalized undertaking would also have to pay £6,000,000 more for liquid fuel. Of this total, the Road Haulage Executive, with modest pride, claimed one third.
This spectacle of a sheep in wolf's clothing added the last touch of fantasy to a Budget speech in the course of which Sir Stafford Cripps appeared to have wandered absent-mindedly from one side of the House of Commons to the other. If, during the course of his survey of the economic situation, he remained an orthodox Socialist, it is noteworthy that his main proposals closely resemble what the Socialists habitually accuse the Tories of wanting to do.
Before the election, Mr. Winston Churchill went so far as to suggest the possibility of increasing the basic petrol ration. At the time, this brought down on him a rebuke from the Prime Minister. "It is easy to see," said Mr. Attlee, " that he has not given one minute's thought to the subject." The leader Of the Government has been sileneon the amount of thought expended by the Chancellor before deciding to take Mr. Churchill's advice.
The idea of rationing petrol by cost was Sir Stafford's own. It embodies, one can imagine the Socialists saying, the typical Conservative device of one law for the rich and another for the poor. The plutocrat does not worry about the price so-long as he can get the petrol. The car owners in the lower income groups alone will be penalized by the new taxation.
The Chancellor expects to get an extra 03,000,000 yearly from the increase on liquid fuels, and an extra £13,000,000 from the purchase tax on goods vehicles. The real cost to trade and industry will be much greater. The increasing scarcity and the new price-level for lorries will be certain to boost prices in the used-vehicle market. Lack of an adequate supply of vehicles will mean more maintenance costs, more delays, more breakdowns, more and more increases in the cost of commodities of every kind.
It may also mean a little more traffic on the railways than they would otherwise get. For so uncertain a result, the outlay is extravagant. Sir Stafford, in his diehard mood, has ignored the disadvantages to the general public. He is only concerned to bolster up the musty old Conservative railways.
On this point, the reactionary element in the Commons is at one with the Chancellor. Mr. George Benson, M.P. for Chesterfield, brought Sir Stafford's argument to a conclusion. "Railways are available," he Said:" and we cannot afford to duplicate in the present circumstances." That this did not arouse a howl of protest from the Socialist back-benchers must be because Mr. Benson happens to sit there himself.
To turn things completely topsy-turvy, it needed only the declaration, made by British Railways, that the extra 9d. a gallon would lose them nearly another £448,000 annually. British Railways are better able than most of us to talk about losses and, although these are borne with remarkable fortitude and commendable stoicism, any addition to them must be a matter for regret, not least to the public, who will have to meet them in the end.
There is ground for uneasiness in the fact that, apart from giving the necessary statistics, neither the B.T.C. nor its Executives have commented on the extra cost. Their economy of words gives the impression that they know more than they care to tell. Pronouncements from the ivory tower (I still like this expression although Sir Cyril Hurcomb has denied 'that the B.T.C. dwells in splendid isolation) often have this faculty. One remembers how, on occasions, the mere enumeration of C-licence holders and their vehicles has sent a chill down the spine, causing traders to cower like rabbits under the spell of a stoat.
Sir Stafford has been even more oblique in his approach. He has contrived a shrewd blow against the C4icence holders without once referring to them as such. The 9d. on petrol discourages every vehicle user. The 33iper cent, purchase tax is on commercial vehicles. As an afterthought, passenger vehicles are exempt; which reminds one of Lewis Carrol's remark that he was very fond of little children—" except boys."
The Railways' Main Rival
The exemption may not be unconnected with the fact, recently brought to light, that the private car, rather than the coach and bus, is the main rival to the railways on the passenger side. The private car, and even the vigorous free-enterprise passenger industry, the Government has power to control. It has just as much control over the haulier, but another kick or two at his prostrate body can do little more harm and, in any case, it is his own fault for blocking the way to the C-licence holder. The Chancellor cannot be bothered to discriminate between restricted A and B, -and unrestricted C. To incur his wrath, it is sufficient that they all operate lorries.
However he may have hoped to disguise it, Sir Stafford's real aim is clear. The trader is entitled to have complete freedom of choice, so long as he chooses the railways. If he prefers to run his own transport, he is free to do so, provided he does not put vehicles on the road. There are too many there already,-and what would George Stephenson say if he knew how his wonderful invention was being ignored?
Therefore, there is little cause for satisfaction in the assurance given last week by Lord Lucas of Chilworth, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, that the Government's policy on the question of the C licence remains unchanged.