Through a Glass Darkly
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
REPORTS of a recent speech by Mr. Aneurin Bevan credit him with spurning the suggestion that denationalization is the reward for road haulage contributions to Tory coffers. It is possible that he was speaking ironically. If not, he must be almost alone among Socialist orators in discarding an innuendo that has been good for a laugh or a cheer at countless meetings all oyer the country.
During the past few months the simple pros and cons of denationalization have been more and more obscured by layers of rhetoric and party shibboleth. One has to peetas through a glass darkly to find out the original point Of the argument. The accusation that the hauliers are being given their due pound of the British Transport Commission's flesh is found, on closer scrutiny, to mean that, the hauliers and the Conservatives believe in free enterprise. : No enthusiasm would be aroused by a statement to this effect. It is necessary to dramatize the pointi by suggesting that the hauliers have some secret hold over the Conservatives. '
All parties indulge in this myth-making when the occasion serves. Not so. long ago the Prime Minister made a great deal of capital out of his discovery that the Road Haulage Executive required a non-operational staff of 12,000 to administer a fleet Of 40,000 vehicles. hi a somewhat laboured reply, Mr. Herbert Morrison tried to prove that , the 4,000 acquired undertakings employed a far greater number of clerks than did the R.H.E. Following the general principle of thinking of a number and doubling it, he reached the obviously fictitious estimate of 20,000.
Tiresome Task
On the whole, Mr. Morrison made the best of a tiresome task. He must presumably have realized that the Prime Minister was not so much concerned with figures as with painting a picture of a once enterprising industry given over into the hands of 12,000 bureaucrats, each wearing a black coat and striped trousers, and complete with umbrella and attaché case. Following his lead, some commentators have even made use of the term "civil servants."
Mr. Morrison can do little to mar the effect. However hard he may try, the public can never be persuaded to regard the independent hauliers and their clerical staff as bure=4-rats, much less civil servants. It would not even have served his purpose to point out that a fair proportion of the 12,000 came over with their undertakings. What he cannot deny is that nationalization has meant the completion of far more and far larger forms. This is, no doubt, what the Prime Minister was suggesting, and his excursion into statistics certainly conveyed the right impression.
Equally adept at the dramatic interlude is Mr. Attlee. In the course of a demonstration against the Transport Bill, he conjured up a picture of a Cabinet meeting rather like a scene from "Green Pastures," with the Prime Minister miraculously solving the transport problem, creating the levy to overcome certain of the difficulties and, no doubt, in a hurry to "get on wid de fish fry." On the same occasion, Mr, Attlee himself provided the best definition so far of the Labour Party's case against the levy. It was, he said, "a differential tax on a section of the population to' make up for the loss quite gratuitously incurred by the Government, apparently for the benefit of quite a small body of speculators, and for the Tory fad and prejudice for private enterprise."
He had found no enthusiasm for the scheme, he added, among hauliers or among chambers of commerce. This paradox of the discontented heir was elaborated a few days later by Mr. Hugh Dalton. Hauliers, he said, would have to pay the levy to enable the "act of robbery" to be carried through. This seems a bold and ingenious argument when one remembers that the levy is, in fact, designed to counter any accusation of robbery.
Rational Interpretation
A strictly rational interpretation of Government policy was not, of course, any part of Mr. Dalton's intention. He was speaking almost deliberately in contradictions. The 25-mile limit, he said a little later, was to be maintained to give further assistance to those who were going to buy transport units at "disgracefully low prices." It is scarcely worth comment that the sole reason for retaining the 25-mile limit is to make those prices as high as possible. For good measure, Mr. Dalton threw in a threat to renationalize, thus helping to depress the price more than ever.
If denationalization is to be introduced by the present Government, the Socialists, one would have thought, would have approved the levy rather than a general rise in taxation. On the political platform this does not matter. The Opposition must attack the Bill in all its aspects, more particularly those disliked by what. are assumed to be some of the Government's own supporters.
Once again, provided one digs far enough down for it, there is some substance in the criticisms of Mr. Attlee and Mr. Dalton. The levy cannot be regarded as anything much higher than an expedient. It involves taking money from one class of the community instead of the whole, and by this device the Government hopes to avoid general unpopularity. The delay in getting rid of the 25-mile limit means to some extent sacrificing the interests of hauliers now in business in order to bait transport units for intending purchasers.
In neither, case can the Government claim to be acting from the highest of motives, but, then, it would be difficult to find any Government, or any individual, that consistently did so. The Socialists would scarcely suggest in so many words that their opponents should deliberately court unpopularity. The levy is designed to meet the accusation that public money is being spent on denationalization. If the Socialists were plainly to admit that the accusation had been met, they would be debarred from making it. As for the 25-mile limit, who are they to suggest that the interests of freeenterprise hauliers are of any importance?
For the most part, political speakers have no interest in presenting issues simply and clearly. They are given something to attack and have to invent the reasons afterwards. In such an atmosphere, the appeal by Mr. Lennox-Boyd that transport should be taken out of politics has a singular poignancy.