The hurrah! factor
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
,OLITICIANS and economists have brought us to a state vhere, on financial questions, we are prepared to believe rnything or to disbelieve everything. Contradictory solutions o the current situation are put forward with equal
:onfidence by people we are conditioned to regard as !xperts.
As bewildered as the rest of us, but careful not to show it, ovemments understandably try to get the best of both worlds, yen it this involves them in the contradictions.
People outside politics can fish successfully in these troubled vaters, provided they use suitable bait and tackle. Peter Parker, hairman of British Rail, has managed to give the right and avourable impression with his announcement of a £67 million Ilan to expand the network of wagon-load trains, under the brand iame of Speedlink.
orry-size loads
The main purpose is said to be to attract more freight from road rail. The traffic is further particularised as "lorry-size loads". lith this phrase, BR introduce the Hurrah! factor which saves 'ern from further questions.
In the opinion of the media, the entire British public, except for hew hauliers and drivers, is united in an inveterate hate of the aavy goods vehicle, and shares an equally obstinate love for the iilways, at any rate as carriers of freight. If Mr Parker is promising gratify both of these passions simulataneously, he automatically Jalifies as the popular hero who can do no wrong.
Other nationalised industries are not so fortunate in their iversaries. In similar circumstances, they would be asked first of I where the £67 million was coming from. As the railways, to the iinstructed or perhaps unprejudiced eye, still seem to be losing a It of money, the question would have been particularly pertinent. No doubt Mr Parker would have had his answer ready. It might ave been based on the principle of the need to speculate in order accumulate. There is plenty of evidence in the recent White aper, and elsewhere, that the Government is prepared to support lans for railway investment, especially where it is designed to ike traffic off the roads.
Ln illusion
The White Paper also insists that "the Government is atermined to remove subsidies, direct or indirect, to the rovement of freight whether it goes by rail or lorry".
So that it has to be an illusion to think that the £67 million can, any way, direct or indirect, be described as a subsidy. It would a, worse still, discourteous to inquire — on the reasonable ;sumption that the Speedlink programme may not be a financial iccess — who, in the end, picks up the tab,
That eternal victim, the taxpayer, might prefer the plan to icceed if this means 8 reduction in his tax burden. The losers vuld then be the hauliers whose traffic has been diverted. Unlike BR, they receive no subsidy, and when they no longer make a profit they go out of business.
To counter the risk that these considerations introduce a note pathos on the wrong side of the track, Mr Parker was careful to point out that the hauliers enjoy a hidden subsidy — unlike the railways, one supposes. The heavy lorry has a financial advantagi over rail for lorry loads at the moment, he said, but friends in higl places would soon put a stop to that.
"I would expect our carryings to increase significantly once fai terms of competition have been set by the Government as promised in the White Paper," said Mr Parker.
Secret wish
Public euphoria may falter momentarily at this. To paraphrase Mr Parker, Speedlink is more expensive than road haulage, but once the competition has been taxed out of the market the railways can charge the higher rates they need. It is the secret wish of all monopolists.
Trade and industry would prefer the lorry tax to remain at its present level. The general public also might ultimately see the point. An increase in the tax is a direct increase in the cost of transport, and therefore, in the cost of all goods.
Not everything in the White Paper has to be accepted at its fac value, although BR cannot be blamed for making the most of it. I the owners of heavy lorries are not paying their proper share of road costs, what they ultimately pay ought to depend on the tote cost at the time.
Government policy is to reduce expenditure on road development and even on road maintenance. If taxation is to be related more closely to road costs, then it should fluctuate with them (and if the number of lorries is drastically thinned by excessive taxation, other road users will have to make up for the drop in revenue).
Contrary opinions
Logic of this kind is not an attribute of governments. It would probably be more of a handicap. They possess, in large Measure, the ability to hold contrary opinions at the same time without feeling in the least bothered. William Rodgers can declare in his White Paper that "the Government does not intend to provide further support to rail freight after this year," and, three paragraphs later, promise to extend the period during which grants will be made for private sidings. Most people would be prepared to raise a cheer for both pronouncements. No doubt this is the reason for making them.
. by Janu E.