Down to Cases
Page 65
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LEAFLET raids over the field of State ownership are now being carried out by both the major political parties, and with each onslaught the general line of battle becomes clearer. The Conservatives emphasize the dangers of the spread of nationalization. The Socialists point out what the nationalized industries have achieved.
Their latest pamphlet on the subject is entitled "Success Story." Although they put the achievements of the last few years in the best possible light, success is not really the obvious word, unless it is merely used in the negative sense to indicate that the nationalized industries have not been complete failures. By a somewhat violent distortion of the facts, the pamphlet does its best to live up to its title. It clairris, for example, that British Road Services have been more efficient than the hauliers who had to hand over their businesses, but the figures that are supposed to prove this point are merely ludicrous.
More in line with the usual idea of a success story is the growth of J. and H.' Transport (Peckham), Ltd. In less than 10 years, the annual turnover of the company has increased from £20,000 to £750,000. The managing director, Mr. W. A. Heymann, has said that, following the opening of their new London depot, the figure should soon reach the £1m. mark.
Unless the Socialists believe that there is something morally wrong in making too much money—and, of course, some of them do believe this—it would b.e hard for them to find fault with the record of J. and H. Transport. At its official opening, the new building was thronged with satisfied customers, including the transport managers of some of the largest manufacturing concerns in Britain. Mr. J. W. Ban nard, inland transport Manager of Unilever, said that the reason for the success of his hosts was their personal and attentive service at rates that were fair both to the customer and to J. and H. Transport, and the general agreement with this statement was not due solely to politeness. The depot houses a fine, well maintained fleet. The administrative staff and the drivers are contented, and see no reason to want a change of employer.
Destroy Good and Bad The Labour Party might agree with all this. They have admitted in the past that there are good hauliers, and would no doubt be willing to include J. and H. Transport under this heading. All the same, the Socialist plan would destroy the good hauliers with the bad. Deprived of the excuse of inefficiency, they would say, as Mr. Alfred Robens, Labour M.P. for Blythe recently said of the iron and steel industry, that nationalization is somehow necessary in the national interest.
It is hard to see what more a transport undertaking can do in the national interest than provide a service of the highest possible efficiency. Legislation passed in general terms Must ultimately get down to cases, and the case of Mr. Heymann is as good as any other for consideration. The Socialists, when they come to carry out their threat, will almost certainly call upon him to hand his business over, lock, stock and barrel, regardless of the extent to which it has grown since he bought some vehicles from B.R.S.
If precedent is anything to go by, he may be offered the job of managing his business until it is assimilated, with the possibility for the future of some more permanent, hut subordinate, post. He seems not the sort of person that this kind of offer is likely to attract. It puts him back very near to where he Was at the beginning. In any case, he will receive compensation—how much is anybody's guess— and, if he wishes to remain his own master, he will have to choose between continuing as a clearing house and starting again in a different trade.
There seems no point whatever in the Socialists' going to all this trouble. B.R.S. are the only possible beneficiaries. They may hope to increase their own annual turnover by Elm., and the figure could be made to look impressive when suitably groomed for the next issue of "Success Story," although it would not show up clearly among the astronomical figures in the British Transport Commission's report. It is more than likely that B.R.S. will find the ultimate reward a good deal less than their hopes. They will still have vehicles and staff to look after, and the burden of interest on the transport stock handed over as compensation.
, Working Surplus Payment of this interest has for a long time been one of the grievances of the Labour Party. "Success Story complains that the interest charges turn into a deficit what would. be a working surplus for the B.T.C., and ask what private concerns would declare a dividend if it put them in the red. The Labour Party,nevertheless, have no hesitation in pursuing a policy that must mean the inescapable payment of still more interest.
If B.R.S. alone stand to gain from renationalization, there are few signs that they are really 'anxious to have Mr. Heymann's business back. Certainly, nobody else wants the tranfer, not even the 'voting public. The Labour Party should take heed of this. Their blinddesire for revenge has betrayed them into an unjustifiable policy.
If they had been content, as is their plan for some other industries, with a warning that inefficient or unscrupulous hauliers would be harshly treated, and might lose their businesses, at least the policy would make sense, although many people would still be found to disagree with it. There would not be much difference from the way in which the Conservatives treated B.R.S. It seems to be asking very little that, if a man does a good job and keeps within the law, he should not be deprived of his business.
Even the mere threat of expropriation is a bad thing. Operators needing to expand their activities, and to renew their equipment, are reluctant to spend money on which they may not see the return. Apparently, this problem sits lightly on the shoulders of J. and 1-1-. Transport, who are not hesitating to improve their premises and buy new vehicles. but Mr. Heymann has drawn attention to another difficulty. Already, he says, some transport managers. and their directors, as a kind of insurance against renationalization, are giving B.R.S. more traffic than they would under strictly competitive conditions. When Mr. Heymann's case is used as an illustration of the Labour Party's plan, the comparisons that are sometimes made with Communism seem more immediately relevant than they do as part of a general statement, or when they are used to describe what ha 's happened with the railways, gas, electricity, coal, arid so on. Nationalization of these industries has meant little change in their. structure and management, except perhaps at the very top. Generally speaking, it did not involve dispossession of an individual actively engaged in running his business