Political Commentary
Page 65
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Compose a Public Face
By JANUS
SINCE the last general election, the diviners who diligently study the surface of the political field • looking for signs of what is happening below have reported a significant change in the attitude of the Labour Party towards nationalization, Instead of naming a short list of intended victims, the Socialists are either threatening in general terms to pick and choose the industries they want, or putting forward enough candidates to provide work for 20 years of legislation.
Like starving men they conjure up the gargantuan meals they will consume when they have the opportunity. A typical menu was drawn up not so long ago by Mr. Harold Wilson. It began with nationalization of the land, and went on to the heavy chemical and fertilizer industries, with Unilevers as a side-dish. Heavy engineering and shipbuilding came next, followed by the arms industry and aircraft. Presumably the list stopped at this point because the speaker fell short either of breath or invention.
To meet the challenge, Lord Lyle, it is understood, has suggested to a number of commercial and industrial organizations that a general campaign should be launched on behalf of free enterprise. He can be proud of the successful fight his own industry put up against nationalization, and he is right to stress the importance of a united front. But it cannot do the whole job. The ideal momeht for it would have been in 1945, when the Labour Government was framing its first nationalization measures. The taking over of coal and of transport cracked the free-enterprise front permanently.
From now on each industry in the last resort stands alone. Only road transport and steel have been chosen for handing back, and the Government has accepted the rest of the Socialist legislation. Lord Lyle is wise to stress that his proposed campaign is non-political, for even the Conservatives, much as they dislike State ownership, would be almost forced to impose it in. circumstances where private operation was palpably neither free nor enterprising.
"More Advanced Policy" Mr. Herbert Morrison has recently epitomized the new Labour strategy. "I would prefer the more advanced policy," he has said, "of giving a broad definition of the reasons that would render industries or services open to consideration for public ownership, and seeking a more general mandate without a specific list." The attack is on a general front, but paradoxically defence on the same basis may not be altogether wise.
It would suit Mr. Morrison very well. He knows there are large sections of the public to whom the words private enterprise" have only a pejorative sense. On the other hand, many people who feel this way in general are not so easily aroused against a specific interest. They returned the 1945 Government with a mandate to nationalize, but would not have voted the same way on the single issue of nationalizing road transport.
To their way of thinking, private enterprise means profits, dividends, shareholders and the Stock Exchange. All these things are, in fact, essential to the efficiency of private enterprise, but an explanation of the reasons is somehow much more easily understood by the shareholders themselves than by the world outside. There is a long-term need for a public relations campaign to justify in the public mind the financial structure of a free-enterprise economy. This, no doubt, is partly what Lord Lyle has in mind, but it will not tell the whole story. For this, each individual industry must build up and put across to the public the record of its own achievement.
Road transport must certainly work hard to avoid losing what it stands to gain from the Transport Bill. The Socialists have industriously spread the impression that the hauliers are the lackeys of the Government— or is it the other way round?—and will plunge the transport industry back into the " chaos " of 1930. The first part of the indictment does not matter, but the second point is important. The Road Haulage Executive has painted an idealized picture of a uniform national organization with higher standards and a more comprehensive service than free enterprise can offer. When the R.H.E. is no more, the picture must not be allowed to acquire the force of a legend. Subtle propaganda could prevent this.
Returning in Triumph Hauliers oppressed by the Transport Act have been able to rely on a good deal of public sympathy. Some of them were deprived of part or all of their businesses; the rest were hampered by the 25-mile limit. The injustice was plain and the indignation genuine. From the point of view of the public, the situation is now reversed. The general belief is that the exiled hauliers are returning in triumph and getting their businesses back at reduced rates. What other construction than this can the man-in-the-street place upon the proposed
levy? As for the -25-mile limit, it is surprising how many members of the public believe that it has already been abolished.
One would like to see the hauliers taking steps to keep the public in touch with what is happening, particularly during the months when the transfer from public ownership is taking place. The task is not easy, for the Transport Bill sets in motion a number of forces which will not necessarily all pull in one direction. The operator confined to 25 miles for almost another two years may still nurse his grievance and refuse to support the rare owner of a comprehensive permit or the less rare purchaser of a transport unit who wishes to proclaim from the housetops that at long last the goods can now be carried anywhere by road under free enterprise. The established haulier may not relish the thought that entry to the industry is being made easier.
In spite of the difficulties, the road haulage industry should try its best to Compose a suitable public face and to make sure that it is recognized as widely as possible. Whatever one may say about the R.H.E., it certainly penetrated the public imagination. The name and symbol of British Road Services, even the colour of the vans, became so familiar that they could safely' be used
as subject-matter for cartoons in the Press and as models for toy manufacturers. There was even growing up a schoolboy generation of lorry-spotters. Oblitera
tion of the R.H.E. will leave a vacuum in the national consciousness. Free-enterprise operators would be
wise to do everything in their power to fill the gap, so that for nationalized road transport there will be not even sentimental regrets.