A DRIVER'S VIEWS ON NATIONALIZATION
Page 52
Page 55
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
1HE "People's Parliament" at Westminster is really
determined to take over transport, despite the thousands of signatures to the petition against it, and all the pleas of the owners for a public inquiry into the matter. I would be very interested in an inquiry, as I am a little vague as to what extent, if any, Great Britain will benefit from such nationalization.
It seems to me that the threatened industries are doing all that is necessary in catering for the public in goods and passenger transport. 1 am, however, rather disappointed at the docile way in which the road and rail organizations have conducted their campaign against the Transport Bill; it has lacked virility. Petitions and posters are of no use in dealing with the Labour Party; it just ignores them.
Why don these road and rail owners get tough? Has nobody ever thought about using the very popular and effective weapon of a strike? It is not too late now; Ict the owners get together, fix the day and strike. Let not one train, latis or lorry move until an assurance be given by the Government that it will permit a public inquiry to be held.
The resulting chaos would bring home to the general public (half of which is still ignorant of the real issues involved) what a grand job these services have been doing. ROBERT WHITELEY Oswaldtwistle. (Lorry Driver 17 Years).
WHERE IS THAT LAST DITCH?
NAY Council wishes to congratulate you on printing, on April 18 last, a blunt but true statement, headed as above, from Mr. J. A. Dunnage, whose factual knowledge and opinions we have always found reliable. In the 10 weeks since that letter appeared it has been further and abundantly justified.
The statesmanship of some of the "big boys" in road haulage has indeed reached a low ebb. Absurdity reached a climax when, on June 25, the Lords were invited to pass an amendment that had already been rightly rejected by the Commons. Even the Lords could not stomach it. We refer to the renewed effort to secure from the Nation, by taking advantage of a Bill which the small haulier so strongly dislikes, State pensions for official; of two of the many road transport associations.
To have campaigned against the Transport Bill and then to have gone three times to the Government and made a cap-in-hand retreat in the direction of the public purse while the battle was still in progress is an unworthy proceeding. The motion's logic was shoddy, as the Government found it easy to show in the Commons.' The Opposition leader in the Lords would not defend the proposal, or divide on it. Here was an open admission of defeat miles from that "last ditch."
Many hauliers are expressing concern at the bankruptcy of real leadership such significant incidents disclose. From a body of independent associations, not individuals, this letter is not a canvassing effort. It is, however, an invitation to officers of local associations to think out, urgently, where they stand, how they are being led, who are their friends, in the short time remaining before the Transport Bill begins to take effect. A national conference of independent local associations will in future have even more to commend it than in the past. It should at least prevent local groups from sacrificing their initiative.
Our national council is ready to consider suggestions for enlarging its scope by ,way of free association with bodies or groups that may feel the need for a more suitable set-up in the road transport world. Inquiries might be made to me at 155, Cheetham Hill Road,
Manchester, 8. J. S. HOWARTH, Hon. Secretary, (For National Conference of Road
Manchester. Transport Associations).
CAN NATIONALIZATION BE BOYCOTTED?
\/VOUR correspondent "Frustrated," of Leeds, in your OUR dated May 30, opened up a subject which, for the past few weeks, has constantly cropped up in my own mind. May I, therefore, encroach on the pages of " our " journal to give my reasons for taking such drastic action as he advocates?
Whilst it must be admitted that everything humanly possible has been done in the fight against nationalization, I am inclined to be rather pessimistic as to its ultimate outcome. Why? Certainly not because of lack of incentive by all concerned, but simply that we-are not dealing with hard-headed, intelligent, far-seeing and sensible business men, but with a set of wooden-headed, stubborn and ignorant fanatics. They, of course, can see only one side of the picture, the putting into effect of their own party ideologies, with utter -disregard of the consequences. In support of this contention, did not Mr. Barnes himself say: "At least you will have the pleasure of fighting to the last ditch "? We were, in fact, invited to a fight, the result of which was a foregone conclusion conclusion long before the gong had announced the start of the first round. What kind of a policy is this?
It is really amazing the way in which the general public is allowing the Government to lead it like lambs to the slaughter and without even a feeble " Baa " in protest. The whole country was up in arms against bread rationing, now it is an accepted fact and hardly ever mentioned. That star performer, Mr. Shinwell, plunged the conntry into chaos and was allowed to get away with it. Mr. Dalton then gave a few more turns to the screw with his tobacco bombshell. Still we decided to grin and bear it.
If the Transport Bill should become law, are we then to sit quietly back in our armchairs and let a lifetime's "sweat, blood, toil and tears" be thrown to the four winds simply to conform to the crazy ideas of a handful of people? We cannot afford to be apathetic about it and console ourselves with the thought that if the Conservatives be returned next time then all our trouble will be over.. • Prevention is always better than cure.
Now as to the most important reason From September, 1939, until August,: 1945, every one of us Britons went through hell, fire and water, whilst countless thousands of the Armed Forces. and Merchant Navy gave up their precious lives in the most terrible war in
history. Why did we go to war? Why did we not throw up the sponge in 1940? Simply because, apart from being pledged to 'other countries, we wanted to preserve our own independence, to crush German domination and dictators, to remain a land of the free, to preserve our tradition that every Englishman's home is his castle.
Did we succeed? Have we crushed German dictatorship in favour of a Reichstag in London? Are we to submit to this home-made .dictatorship or demand the freedom so gloriously fought for? Can we, with any real feeling at all, sing "Land of Hope and Glory '"? Like your Leeds correspondent, I consider that We have the right as a free people and in view of the shameless guillotine treatment in the Commons, to refuse to accept the Transport Bill in any shape or form whatever.
I propose that we should continue the fight on other lines. We have tried the orthodox, let us boycott and refuse to accept this intolerable legislation and carry on as usual. Let us, for once in a lifetime, if the situation demands, stage a gigantic, nation-wide transport stoppage, everything on wheels, rivers and canals, even if only as a protest measure.
Already I can hear my critics saying: "But we can't do that. It's un-British, it's mutiny, it's rebellion, the man must be crazy to suggest it." I quite agree, but if we are to win this fight, then we must do it with action not words, for this, Pam sure, is the only way in which we can hope to knock any sense into the sponsors of nationalization—it is the only 'kind of language they understand. Give them a taste.of their own medicine. Furthermore, a single day's stoppage on the lines suggested would, I am convinced, be instrumental in the .demand for a Dissolution of Parliament, and we should therefore be rendering a great service to the community, and not as it might appear at first, a great injustice.
Am I rather over-optimistic, or dare I hope that this challenge will be taken up by the leaders bf the industries concerned, and that Mr. Barnes (and a few others) will fall headlong into that "last ditch "? I await the result in confidence. F. PARION. Eccles, Manchester.
A TRIBUTE TO OUR OPERATING COST TABLES
JWISH to pay a belated tribute to the excellent value contained in your publication on operating costs (" The Commercial Motor Tables of Operating Costs," price 2s. 6d. net).
As a consultant on the licensing and use of commercial motor vehicles, I have found it of considerable assistance and I have recommended it to many.
There is an increasing tendency, I find, in dealing with applications for carriers' licences at public inquiries, to discuss costs, rates and gross turnover, and there is no doubt that this angle will become more acute as time goes on.
A better "half-dollar's worth" of information to the operator would be difficult to discover, and this is my unsolicited opinion. E. H. B. PALMER, London, S.W.11. Transport Consultant.
BRITISH TRADE WITH DENMARK IN MOTOR VEHICLES VIJE see on page 373 of "The Commercial Motor" " dated May 30 that you announce that, under the Danish Government's import scheme, Denmark will pay Britain about £1,300,000 for commercial vehicles. We should indeed be happy if your announcement were a true picture of the situation here, but this is tar from being the case. Actually, the Danish Government does. plan to import comniercial vehicles to the value of £1,300,000 during 1947, but the quota for U.K. commercial vehicles is only £300,000. The balance is made up by £550,000 for vehicles from the U.S.A. and £450,000 for vehicles from countries where Denmark has special trade agreements, in particular France and Czechoslovakia. Whilst the British commercial vehicle industry enjoyed a good year during 1946, the results in 1947 will, obviously, be far from good, and the future is very uncertain. The Board of Trade would be well advised to consider the question of adopting a similar policy to that of certain other foreign countries, viz., stipulating special amounts for the importation of motor vehicles when concluding trade agreements with Denmark.
With regard to the comparatively large import quota for American-built motor vehicles, this is not due to any pressure from the American authorities, but rather that the Danish import licensing authorities feel that, although dollars are very hard to come by, the prices of American commercial vehicles are so attractive that they cannot be ignored. REPRESENTATIVES. Denmark.
WHY NOT SEM1-TRAILER BUSES IN BRITAIN?
WE read with very great interest your issue of May. 9 which has just reached us, and were particularly intrigued by an article on page 301, dealing with the Eastbourne Conference of the Public Transport Association, where, on page 302, a Mr. Sinclair said that he would gladly see the end of the double-decker bus.
We notice that little or no reference was made to the semi-trailer type of bus, the use of which has developed quite a little in this country, particularly on interstate runs where, in some cases, they carry wireless and hostesses, and seem to have proved themselves..
The Melbourne Tramways Board, however, was, apparently, not happy about them, and considered they were unsatisfactory for use in city streets, although these are as wide as most Melbourne main streets. However, to prove otherwise, a semi-trailer bus was submitted for trial, with leading transport authorities, Members of Parliament and so on in attendance, and this proved its ability to turn in a street even less wide than our main streets. Nothing further has developed, however, and double-decker buses are still apparently accepted.
It would be interesting to know whether there is any development of such semi-trailer types in substantial use in the Old Country. They were, of course, " pioneered " in the Arabian desert by two New Zealand brothers, and since then their use has expanded in many parts of the world. The factor of handiness in traffic, comparative silence in service, and improved roadability seems to have been established very definitely.
P. ROGERS, General 'Manager Melbourne. (For Devon Motors Pty., Ltd.). [The semi-trailer type of vehicle has progressed well in Britain so far as goods-carrying is concerned. With regard to buses of this type, however, despite periodical representations to the Government, so far permission to employ such vehicles for passenger-carrying has not been accorded. In any case, all such vehicles are limited to 20 m.p.h., whereas public passenger vehicles art allowed a maximum of 30 m.p.h. We have followed with considerable interest successes obtained with semi-trailer buses in the Empire and elsewhere. Sweden runs some large-capacity vehicles of this type on long-distance bus work between Stockholm and Switzerland. Some drivers find. them a little more tricky to operate than rigid types, although they quickly become accustomed to the somewhat different procedure required when running them in reverse, and, actually,they are exceedingly manceuvrable even in comparatively narrow roads.—Eti.1