AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

First Line of Defence

21st November 1958
Page 63
Page 63, 21st November 1958 — First Line of Defence
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?

/POINTED out last week how unnecessarily punctilious the Association of British Chambers of Commerce were in their attempt to prove that their booklet on nationalization bore not the slightest taint of politics. Now the Federation of British Industries have followed with a publication on the same subject. Their views run largely parallel with• those of the Chambers of Commerce, and there is the same emphasis on political impartiality. Little advantage is gained from these ceremonial disclaimers. They merely underline the unfortunate coincidence that both statements have come out conveniently a few months in advance of the probable date-of the next election.

A body such as the F.B.I. do not often go into print, so that the publication of their views on nationalization is something of an event. They have spoiled some of the effect by deciding •that they must reply seriously and at length to the latest arguments coming from the Labour Party. Obviously, the F.B.I. are not fooled Completely. They point out almost apologetically that the Labour Party have in stock any number of reasons for nationalization, and have only to make the appropriate selection to fit any threatened industry. The necessary consequence of this is not seen so clearly. The F.B.I. ought to know by now that it is a waste of time to debate rationally with the Socialists, who intended to extend State ownership its far as possible.

The F.B.I. almost come to understand this, They quote one of the chief objectives in the Labour Party's constitution: "To secure for the workers by -hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production." If this were taken literally, say the F.B.I., it would mean the eventual nationalization of all industries. There is no reason given why the objective should not be taken absolutely literally. If the Socialists still adhere to their constitution, they would act exactly as they have done recently, and issue a series of pamphlets dressing up nationalization in a number of ways, until they find the style that goes down best with the electorate.

As Far As They Dare On present indications there is no chance of a wide programme of nationalization after the next election, 'even if the Labour Party win. They will merely go as far as they dare. The first step must be to recover iron and steel, and road haulage, the industries that the Conservatives freed. There must be no doubt about this. Even at the risk of losing some votes they continue to make plain their intention to renationalize.

The F.B.I. are not alone in being puzzled about this attitude. They review the two latest policy statements by the Labour Party on public ownership. "Industry and Society," produced in 1957, says that the lost industries will be taken back, but, as the F.B.I. note, "does not argue the case for renationalization." "Plan for Progress," published last July, repeats the threat, "and once again without supporting argument," say the F.B.I.

They-are baffled, and fall for the trap. On the assumption presumably that it takes two to make an argument, they say hardly anything about the only two industries that the Socialists have marked down for capture. Recognizing that renationalization is one of the three major proposals in the Labour Party booklets, the F.B.I. dismiss the matter in a few words.

With commendable moderation that does not disguise a certain bewilderment, they set out the up-to-date arguments for nationalization. Then follows an account of the sorry record of the nationalized undertakings, supported by some of the most convincing figures that have so far been assembled on the subject. A chapter contrasting free and nationalized industry concludes with a reference to

specific industries. It is inherent in what we have said," say the F.B.I.. "that we can see no justification for the proposal to renationalize the steel industry or long-distance road haulage."

The F.B.I. hardly needed to publish a booklet to say this. What they have omitted is a point summed up by the A.B.C.C. in the words " free enterprise finds it difficult to live with State-owner business." The Chambers of Commerce realize from experience the danger of legislation to prevent competition with a public service. The F.B.I. must also be aware of it, but they say nothing about it in any part of • their document. As a consequence they ignore the threat to the freedom of the C-licence holder, whichis at least as serious as the danger to the haulier, and one would have thought affected the F.B.I. closely.

A Bridgehead For Exploitation It is as well to remember that the F.B.I. represent all industries and may therefore. be reluctant to get down to cases in a pamphlet designed to present a general picture. But the circumstances are peculiar. If the F.B.I. were not so determinedly unpolitical, they would recognize and give proper value to the cardinal importance of iron and steel, and of road haulage, in the coming struggle_ The F.B.I. might have asked themselves more seriously why, when the public were so much in agreement with their own verdict on renationalization, the Labour Party persisted in advocating it, without giving.reasons. Until they have dealt with the recidivist industries, the Labour Party feel they can make no further progress. Road haulage and iron and steel are, therefore, in the first line of defence for free enterprise. If the Socialists, the next time they are in power, can be held at this point, they may ultimately come to ignore completely, or to delete from their constitution, the reference to "common ownership."

Throwing logic to the winds, if necessary, the Federation might have had the courage of their .political convictions, and devoted more space in their pamphlet to the directly threatened industries. They might have brought themselves to congratulate the Conservatives on their denationalization measures_ Certainly it is surprising that, merely because the Labour Party publications do not mention the C-licence holder, the F.B.I. should also ignore him.

Transport is a key industry, and the railways, so predominant a section of the British Transport Commission that they are often thought to be synonymous, are in serious trouble, with worse to come. The more money they are lent, the more their appetite seems to grow. Sooner or later the Government must acknowledge that the loans will never be repaid. and that the railways must be reduced to the state in which it is possible for them to live within their means. If at the time the Government happen to be Socialist, they will make the occasion the excuse, not merely for renationalizing long-distance road haulage, but for taking virtually the whole of transport under public ownership. It is this sort of pcissibility that the sober reasoning of the F.B.I. does not take into account.


comments powered by Disqus