AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Political Commentary By JANUS

18th October 1957
Page 66
Page 66, 18th October 1957 — Political Commentary By JANUS
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?

The Third Man

AFIER all the fine speeches at their party conference, the Socialists still have to coax their plans for further nationalization past a reluctant electorate. The way of escape from their coming predicament is thus apparent to hauliers, whether or not they will be able to use it. They must enlist the support of the public, but they should not deceive themselves• into thinking that this will be easy.

Hauliers may be feeling a little better, now that the conference of their own association has given them the chance to let off steam. But if they have followed the discussions at the Labour Party Conference, and the subsequent comments, the long-distance operators may• be pinching themselves to make sure they are real. The constant Socialist barrage has worn them away to a shadow, or at least that is how they appear to a large section of the public.

A Political Pawn Whatever else they may have quarrelled about, the Socialists at Brighton were unanimous in their determination to renationalize long-distance road haulage. This they agreed upon two or three years ago, and their reaction is now purely automatic. They no longer think of the industry as being composed of a number of individuals. It is merely a pawn in the political game. To the Labour Party, there are no longer such people as hauliers. They must be labelled like figures in an exhibition. Thus, Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, in his summingup at the party conferenee, described denationalization as "damaging to the country, and done purely to enrich a few private speCulators." • • The impersonality of the description should alarm hauliers more than the particular term of abuse chosen by Mr. Gaitskell. They should also take warning from the tone of Press comment upon the Socialist programme for future State ownership. Most newspapers, except those of the extreme Left, praise the moderation of the party leaders in terms that suggest that long-distance road haulage and steel are well lost to free enterprise if in return the Socialists are content with the vague threats and promises making up the remainder of their newly agreed policy.

Hauliers must face the danger that public opinion will follow the lead given by the Press. The Labour Party conference itself provided an example of what might happen. One of the few accepted resolutions referring to the nationalization of specified industries was from Bromsgrove. It asked for public ownership of all water supplies, and was adopted on a show of hands.

The resolution is now incorporated into the party policy. Whether or not it is a good idea, the important thing for,„ hauliers is that the decision to accept it provoked little comment of any kind, and no criticism whatever. Very likely, the public could not care less.

•• But not so many years ago there would have been vigorous protests. Hauliers must not allow public apathy to smother their own good case for survival.

Silence on the part of hauliers would suit the Socialists admirably. The party leaders know that their chance of winning the next election is good, not because of their own merits, but because of a breakdown, that may be no more than temporary, in Conservative Party policy. At the Brighton conference it was not possible to do B32 much in the way of building up a positive and popular Socialist programme, but at least some of the old lumber could be cleared away.

First on the party leaders' list for demolition were the schemes for nationalization that had been such a handicap at every election since 1945. They could not be abandoned at once. Too many of the party diehards believed in nationalization, and would be loud in its defence.

The leaders have therefore moved very cautiously. Some time ago, they stopped talking about nationalization, preferring some such euphemism as State ownership. More recently, the party's national executive produced a plan for taking control, perhaps by the purchase of shares, of any industry, or concern, or group of concerns, that a public inquiry had shown to be operating inefficiently. Such a plan would worry the public a good deal less than publication of a specific list of condemned industries.,

The party's left wing were hardly deceived. They saw the plan as one—and perhaps the longest—of a number of steps away from the Socialist ideal. Outright acquisition, they argued, had been good enough for the industries taken over just after the war. It should be good enough for the next round. Mr. Frank Cousins, secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, said that his union would clearly and emphaticallyreject share-baying in transport as a substitute for nationalization. His Union, however, supported the national

executive.

In reply, Mr. Gaitskell insisted that the document from the executive was in full accord with Socialist principles. He did not think it necessary to argue the reasons for renationalization of steel and road haulage. The case was amply made at the time of nationalization, he said, and the record of the two industries under nationalization confirmed the arguments.

The Voter's Part

Nobody throughout the debate mentioned the voter, but it was obvious that he was the third man round whom the whole controversy revolved. If the Labour Party could please themselves they would no doubt take over every industry in sight, and stock its management with their own nominees. Before they can do this, they must convince the public that it is worth doing. The leaders of the party at least are well aware that this is an impossible task. The plan from the national executive that has now been accepted is, therefore, a compromise.

It contains one sop to Cerberus—the specific proposals on steel, road haulage and water. Presumably, these three industries must be given a place in the next election manifesto. It will not be a conspicuous place, for the proposals are more likely to lose votes than to win them. The less talk there is about the industries before the election, the better will the Labour Party be pleased.

Hauliers must realize that, although they can hardly hope to sway the result of the election on their own, they have a strong nuisance value. In the last resort, everything depends upon the third man, They must make sure that he does not forget about them, or accept the label put upon them by their opponents.


comments powered by Disqus