Mosaic
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SUCCESS in compiling a party manifesto depends largely upon the skill with which all the essential items are worked in. • Originality is not required; it may even be frowned upon. But each element in the party has its own pet idea, which must somehow be given its appropriate niche and comment. If the resulting mosaic presents a coherent and consistent picture, the compiler has done all
that can reasonably be asked of him. . , "Plan for Progress," the Labour party's statement of policy prepared for discussion at the Scarborough conference in October, will win few converts to the cause, but it's calculated to keep the majority of the present supporters happy. It does this by talking generalities. The party's approach to Britain's economic problems is said to be one of "planned expansion!' It will be achieved through a high level of investment, Budget measures, full employment, increased exports and a curb on monopolies and price-fixing. The document stresses that, in all their .planning measures, the next Labour government will take the people fully into their confidence, and will seek the co-operation of both sides of industry.
For the time being, the confidences must wait. At the moment, the party are prepared only to go at some length into the hoW and the why, and to say very little about the what. There is one curious exception, where exactly the reverse applies. The policy statement is quite clear on the future of the steel and road• haulage industries under a Labour government. Both are to be renationalized, or— to -quote the more up-to:date party jargon —" public oWnership will be reintroduced." Nothing is said about the method, and not a word about the reasons.
An Afterthought No Labour party statement would be complete without this particular threat. It is the least well assimilated of all the points in the document, almost as if, by an 'Oversight, it had been left out of the first draft, and the compilers, rather than have it on their hands, had poked it in at random, like a sixpence into a cooked pudding. The wording is almost the same asthat used in the party's previous pamphlet on future public ownership, "Industry and Society," published just a year ago, and endorsed later. . It must be admitted that the reference in the new publication to steel and road haulage is in the right chapter, headed "Industry and Efficiency," but it does not tone in well with its surroundings. The chapter contains a good deal with which there would be general agreement, and even has a patronizing word or two in favour of competition.
Several answers are given to the question: what makes industry efficient? Individual effort, says the document, will always play an important part. Equipment, plant and tools increase productivity, so that a high level of industrial investment is needed. The organization of an industry, will vary according to circumstances; what matters in each case is that it should be suited to the needs of modern technology and sufficiently flexible to adapt itself to change.
An efficient industry will foster research and science. It will have good personal relationships, which involve satisfactory environment, management attitudes, training opportunities, and opportunities of promotion, wage increases and participation in the making of decisions. There must also be good relationships with other industries. Output should be adjusted to the requirements, and artificial. protective devices are to be avoided.
To achieve the ideal in every industry, the document proposes to make use of a wide range of techniques. The underlying belief is that no industry can be trusted to look after its own affairs, and that the gentleman in Whitehall (or in Transport House) knows best. In contrast to this austere creed, the document depicts as a kind of rake's progress the "Tory view that the businessman's search for profits can be relied upon to maximize wealth or bring about the most efficient use of resources."
The chapter on industry in "Plan for Progress," therefore, continues the argument under the sub-headings of restrictive trade practices, resale price maintenance and monopolies. There is a grudging admission that the Conservatives have made some progress on each of these points, and the promise that the next Labour government will
proceed a little faster. The chapter 'concludes with a general indication that the party hope to encourage joint consultation and welfare; will investigate practices they dislike and formulate a' code of conduct for industry; and have plans for increasing the -application of research and science.
On Sufferance Somewhere in this unpromising environnazin, the author of the booklet had to set down what was to be done to steel and road haulage. The first part was easy. It would be wrong to leave any industry whatever with a hope .of survival under a Labour government, except on sufferance. To achieve the desired effect, all that was necessary was to quote from last year's pamphlet the "wide range of techniques available to settle the hash of an industry that is "falling down on its job."
The difficult part is still to come. There is no evidence that road haulage, or steel for that matter, is falling down on its job. It might almost be an ideal industry even by Labour party, standards, as set out in "Plan for Progress."
Individual effort is certainly not lacking. Hauliers are quick to take advantage a improvements in equipment and of the results of research. The relationship within the industry is excellent, and that with customers outstanding.
In spite of this, the road haulage industry has to be marked down for destruction, or the Labour party officials will never hear the last of it at Scarborough. It would be idle to pretend that "Plan for Progress" finds the ideal solution of this particular problem. A paragraph is inserted to the effect that certain unsPecified industries do not come up to standard. Some, it is said, lack the vitality to respond to the stimulus of competition. Others lack either the will or the resources to expand. In others, competition is more of a hindrance than a help.
Then comes a passage that deserves to be quoted in full,"We do not approach such problems in any doctrinaire spirit. In the steel and road haulage industries, public ownership will be reintroduced because the case for national ownership is, on its merits, overwhelming."
The sheer incongruity of this aught to provide hauliers with some comfort. It appears to mean that the Labour party have a doctrinaire approach to most other problems; but perhaps one should give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they are trying to bluster away an uneasy feeling that at this point in "Plan for Progress " the doctrinaire spirit is most clearly evident. The " overwhelm ing " case will have to be stated one day, if the Socialists get to the point of carrying out their threat. If they are tongue-tied the case may well go by default.