JANUS
Page 72
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WRITES
WORDS are the stock-in-trade of the politician, and like. many another huckster he too easily comes to
. forget the proper function of the goods he peddles. The shopkeeper aims to have on hand the articles his customers say they need, and the politician also is inclined to say what is expected of him without examining too closely the precise meaning. He is disconcerted, and therefore pretends to be indignant, when one of his statements is taken seriously and literally, and its consequences are spread out and picked over on the dissecting table.
On the first day that he appeared in the House of Commons as Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Harold Wilson interrupted another speaker in order to make it clear that the Labour party was solidly behind clause 4 of its constitution. Now nearly 50 years old, this clause proclaims as one of the aims of the party " the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange ". On this basis, the Conservative party was justified in claiming that Mr. Wilson had endorsed practically every threat that had been made at various times to nationalize an industry or an undertaking.
The most notorious of these threats were assembled in a Conservative party pamphlet, which began with a quotation from a speech by Mr. James Callaghan, shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Labour party conference last October. "The British people," said Mr. Callaghan, "are -entitled to know before a Labour party becomes the government what industries we intend to take into public ownership." The pamphlet was described by party leaders as childish, meaningless and poppycock, and Mr. Callaghan contented himself with the statement that Labour would renationalize steel and " reintegrate " road transport. At least a new word has been introduced with which to ring the changes when the future of transport is under discussion. Apart from this, the exchange of verbal artillery between the two parties does not help in discovering what the Socialists really have in mind. The politicians on both sides have made what they regard as satisfactory noises, and may imagine they can count the result in votes at the next general election. Whether the noises are meaningful is a secondary consideration.
EXASPERATION AND FRUSTRATION Those hauliers and C licence holders who feel themselves to be threatened must also feel exasperation and frustration that the threat still remains so vague, but none the less ominous for that. Conditions were scarcely better when Mr. Hugh Gaitskell was Labour party leader, but there was a possible explanation. Mr. Gaitskell had no sentimental attachment to clause 4. A frontal attack on it might well have split the party, and he preferred to promote statements of policy indicating that each sector of the economy in turn would come under scrutiny before any attempt was made to interfere or nationalize.
It was reasonable to suppose that transport would be treated like any other industry. At the very least, this implied that the decision on ownership would be left until after an inquiry, which might not take place for some considerable time and might even establish that no usef purpose would be served by renationalization. Admitted] the hope that thinking along these lines may have given road operators was slender. It has been frayed alma to breaking point by what seems the determination of M Wilson to go back to first party principles.
For more than 10 years, as each general electic approaches, the question to which operators have ma wished to know the answer has been whether or not tht would undergo renationalization should a Labour gover ment be returned. Each time the answer seems to ha, been less definite, although the threat has remained the party's election programme. What has been significa is that the reasons given.for taking such a step have becon progi=essively vague and perfunctory.
PROBLEMS WOULD REMAIN
This is understandable. Merely to take over perhai 30,000 lorries out of a total of I lin. must seem even the Socialists not to offer a complete policy for transpo Many other problems would remain, including the futu shape and scope of the railways and other public transpc services, the increase in urban congestion, the increase the number of private cars, the road system and tl inadequacy of the approaches to ports and docks. EVI these considerations, great as they are, fall within ti larger framework provided by such things as the locati( of industry, town and country planning, vehicle producti( and the export trade.
All these weighty matters are the proper preoccupatii of governments, and they are all inter-related. What done at one point of the economy has its effects everywhe else. No one individual can see the whole picture, ai no one formula can be applied successfully throughoi Nor is it possible to deal with everything simultaneous However revolutionary their intention, governments mt for the most part be guided by expediency. They cot across enough problems in the natural course of ever without provoking new ones.
The present Minister of Transport has no lack of owl but even Mr. Marples does not find it necessary to lo for trouble. No doubt he tries at times to take a detach view of the transport scene, but the subjects he tack are specifically those that need attention. He has had great deal to do with the railways, with road acciden with street parking and with new roads, and on ma points has considerable achievements to his credit. has not interfered, for example, with the work of haulie whether nationalized or independent, presumably becat it runs smoothly and efficiently.
Unless they choose to pretend that this is not the ca will the Socialists do anything very much different if a when it comes to the point? A definite answer would a 'kindness to road operators. They are unlikely to get Politicians, especially shortly before an election, prom the performance that they think their supporters exp( regardless of whether it is practicable or even sensil They speak in order to impress or to persuade, not be understood.