Pill-coated Sugar
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SEEN in retrospect, there is a wistful naiveté gilding the confidence with which, in the early stages of its campaign to free road transport, the Government obviously expected no great objection by trade and industry to a levy combined with the benefits to accrue from the Transport Bill. The process of disillusion was rapid. Not even the disgust of • the Socialists at the Government's obeisance to the vested interests of the hauliers has exceeded the shocked horror with which one trade association after another has repudiated any scheme involving payment of a new tax.
. Little persuasion appears to be needed to make trade and industry join the Labour Party and the trade unions in actively opposing the Transpurt Bill. The proposed levy has affected its victims even more profoundly than the recent successive increases in the tax on liquid fuel, although the effect of these is many times greater. Unsuspected depths have been stirred up. Resistance to the levy is as strong, as instinctive, and perhaps as unreasoning, as the refusal by starving fanatics to eat the meal that would save their lives but that has been prepared from ingredients regarded as unclean.
Not that the levy is a good thing. It represents a scarcely disguised subsidy to the railways. It adds to the huge burden of taxation already imposed upon road users. It can become much greater, and may, like the notorious Road Fund, ultiniately be diverted to other purposes. Even when these defects are taken into account, however, it is still surprising that trade and industry should seriously consider opposing the denationalization of road transport, whatever the price they may be called upon to pay.
We may even ignore the supposition, supported by the Government, that road transport in private hands is cheaper and more efficient than a State monopoly. Apart from the merits of the case, trade and industry are bound to foster the principle of free enterprise, from their own selfish point of view, to put it at the lowest level. A victory for free enterprise in one industry is a victory for free enterprise in general.
Threatened Industries I have not merely in mind the so-called threatened industries, such as cement, sugar and insurance, which were singled out for State ownership in the optimistic Labour Party manifesto for the election in 1950. At the present time all industries are equally threatened. The latest Labour pronouncement states that the Party "will seek a mandate from the people to extend public ownership wherever file nation's overriding needs demand it." This may mean very little or a great deal, but it certainly means that no industry can feel entirely safe, for the "nation's overriding needs" is merely a euphemism for Labour Party policy.
The future of every industry, and the prospect of its continuance under free enterprise, depend upon which Government is in power. If an industry helps to defeat the Transport Bill, it helps to defeat the present Government and possibly bring in a Socialist administration emboldened to try further experiments in nationalization. Even if the Tories survive the shelving of their Bill, the return of the Socialists to power sooner or later is almost inevitable.
However far ahead it may be, let us move forward in imaginary time to the next Socialist Government with "a mandate from the people to extend public ownership." Let .us assume that the Transport Bill has in fact been passed and that the denationalization of road transport—and of iron and steel—has been put into effect. It is likely that, before tackling other industries, the Socialists will wish to recapture the ground they have lost. This will take time and energy. Other industries that may feel themselves threatened will still have room to manceuvre.
There is a chance that freed road transport may have acquitted itself so well that the Socialists will be pleased to take advantage of the escape clause in their recent statement, and to leave well alone. In such circumstances it is unlikely that any attempt will be made to
interfere with other industries. Some Socialists are already beginning to realize that nationalization does not bring an automatic Utopia, and that other methods of controlling trade and industry are preferable.
Over-optimistic View This is taking what most people' would consider an over-optimistic point of view. There can be nothing but pessimism for the future of trade and industry if the Transport Bill be defeated. Once this has happened, nothing can halt the progress towards complete state ownership of trade and industry. The moderates among the Socialists will be brushed aside, and in fact may well change their opinions. The process will be unalterably in one direction. No industry will ever shake itself free from the grasp of the State, and the Tories will certainly know better than to initiate any further proposals for denationalization. And I am safe in saying that the compensation will become more and more meagre for successive industries.
The Socialists understand well enough how vital the Transport Bill is. They are sparing no pains in their campaign against it, and their leading personalities are speaking at meetings all over the country. It would be ironical if the extra support they probably require for success were given by the interests that stand to lose most. The Socialists believe, some of them passionately, in their cause, and to bring it to pass would refuse help from no quarter.
The exponents of free enterprise believe equally in their cause and can support their belief from practical experience. They also must be ruthless, even selfish, in their tactics. Whatever they do, they will get no credit for being anything else. Trade and industry have rejected nationalization as the solution of the transport problem, and would prefer to have the independent road carrier once again at their beck and call. They need to have powerful reasons to withdraw from this standpoint.
"Ransom money," the striking phrase adopted by the Liberals to describe the levy, fits the case very well. Trade and industry, including the hauliers, are not being presented with a measure that they can welcome unreservedly. Instead of the usual arrangement, the pill appears to coat the sugar. Assuming that the Government remains adamant, they must make up their minds either to pay the ransom or to face, without protection, the next wave of nationalization.