AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Study of History

13th March 1953, Page 47
13th March 1953
Page 47
Page 47, 13th March 1953 — Study of History
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?

Political Commentary By JANUS

Think now History has many cunning passages, contrived corridors And issues, deceives with whispering ambitions, Guides us by vanities. '

ACORRESPONDENT chides me for maligning the Conservatives by the suggestion that they would not have introduced their present Bill had nationalization of transport taken place 20 years ago. He also questions the usefulness of an inquiry into the historical "might-have-been."

Now I have nothing but respect for any man who leaps to the defence of his party when he fancies it is attacked. But in this case the zeal is misplaced. My main purpose was to illustrate the curious and almost fanatical tenacity with which the Socialists cling to their plans, and to point the moral that timing is as important in politics as in other spheres of activity.

The cynic puts principles into the category of luxuries. His point of view is not hard to understand. It pleases us and is sometimes convenient to think of politics as a war between two sets of fixed principles, but we know that in practice it is not so. Politics is the art of the possible and depends for success upon a majority vote. Institutions and opinions change continually, and a . political party ignores the fact at its peril.

People outside politics understand readily enough the force of institutions and opinions. The opposition by trade and industry to the transport levy seldom suggests that it will ruin the owners of vehicles or even increase costs to any great extent. The main fear is that, in spite of protestations to the contrary, once the levy has come into existence it will remain a permanent part of the country's fiscal machinery. The danger that it may become an institution Is the real reason for the continuing attempt to mobilize public opinion against it.

Tax Well Rooted

The fuel tax provides a good example of another institution, originally established with many apologies and in the face of strong opposition, but now so well rooted that Chancellors of the Exchequer since the war have not thought it necessary to give more than perfunctory excuses for one increase after the other. Public opinion can be stirred no further than to support agitation for a slight reduction. Who now imagines that the fuel tax will ever be abolished?

It is not unreasonable to suppose that State ownership of road transport, had it been established sufficiently early, would have blended successfully into the economic landscape and would have remained undisturbed. The growth of a strong and efficient industry in private hands made the nationalization of road haulage unnecessary, to put it no worse. The Ivory Tower was built too late to be a home and only just in time to be a mausoleum.

One would like to be able to say that the Socialists have now learned their lesson. There is no indication that this is so. The first aftermath of the honeymoon period when several industries were nationalized one after another was a somewhat absurd extension of the party principles to allow for partial public ownership, apparently to meet the shortcomings of any industry selected for the experiment. Earl Jowitt developed this theme during the third reading of the Transport Bill in the House of Lords. He was willing to agree that competition between nationalized and private enterprise undertakings was "healthy for both." It was therefore a profound pity" that the Government did not first of all abolish the 25-mile limit instead of disrupting the existing services. It would no doubt be unwise to .construe this as a promise that the Socialists, if and when they renationalize, will not again impose the 25-mile limit, but Earl Jowitt's statement shows what I can only call the blindness of the Socialists towards any institutions but their own. He assumes that long-distance road haulage under free enterprise is something that can be turned on or off at will like a tap.

He is much more understanding towards the favoured institutions. "Whenever one starts any new system," he continues, "whether a nationalized system or a private enterprise one, there is bound to be an element of disturbance. To justify the course which they arc taking the Government must show, not only that the present service is inadequate or has its defects but that the present service is so bad, so inefficient and so inadequate that it cannot be remedied by any less drastic measure."

Kept to Himself

Whether a nationalized system or a private enterprise one! Why did Earl Jowitt keep his sentiments to himself while the Transport Act of 1947 was passing through Parliament? The Socialists did not altogether condemn the existing service. Mr. Barnes was at times generous in his praise of it. Nobody suggested it was in the parlous state that, in the opinion of Earl Jowitt, alone would justify an upheaval. The Conservatives err in the oppositedirection. It is not party prejudice to say that their deviation is less than that of the Socialists. The Government's first plan for transport had far too little regard for the British Transport Commission, the institution which, whether the Conservatives liked it or not, the Socialists had brought into being, and which must remain as a force to be reckoned with in all future consideration of the transport problem. Protests came from both sides of the House of Commons. Pressure from its own supporters has compelled the Government to make important alterations, nearly all of them to the advantage of the 13.T.C.

Behind the scene there has been a series of battles, and each time the Government has been pushed a little further from its original position. It would be misleading to describe the process as a sacrifice of principles. According to the Minister of Transport "it is the people who are using transport who need the most consideration."

There has been bitter conflict also within the Socialist Party, although apparently not on the subject of transport. It may be that in due course a new party philosophy will be evolved which recognizes the power of institutions of the right as well as the left. Whatever one may think about nationalization, one must deprecate any future attempt to restore the Transport Act in its entirety. A study of history shows how real is the danger that the attempt will be made.


comments powered by Disqus