Inferiority Complex
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Whilst Lord Hurcomb's Determination may be Admired, his Subordinates have Displayed Poorer Qualities in Demanding the Repression of Competition
Political Commentary By JANUS
' OWEVER much one may disagree with the policy of transport nationalization and the . practice of the British Transport Commission, it till possible to admire the confidence and determinan of its leader. Less is known of the fighting qualities his subordinates. At the annual conference of the insport Salaried Staffs' Association, Lord Hurcomb id members the compliment of a stirring address, iich should have inspired them to great deeds and ble sentiments, if anything had the power to do so.
'Transport should be taken out of politics" provided ) text for much of what Lord Hurcomb had to say.
looked forward to the day when the principles of : Transport Act no longer were a matter of acute litical controversy. If the policy of integration were
prevail, and there were to be no reversion "in an enser form to the competition which led to so much ficulty before the war," every individual and every )4 within the organization must show faith in the I mmission's aim and •do everything possible to )mote it.
In another context, even the bitterest opponents of tionalization would find little in this at which to cavil. ley might prefer to reverse the slogan and suggest it "politics should be taken out of transport" rapping the resttictions of the Transport Act and 5toring road haulage to free enterprise would enable better integration to prevail. Where road and rail und it helpful and economical to work together, they mid do so. In other circumstances, competition )uld force the best results out of each method of insport.
Lord Hurcomb, under his present terms of reference, mild never be able to go so far as this. He is tied the provisions and assumptions of the Transport Act the same way as the haulier is tethered by the 25-mile lit. Again, very much like the haulier, Lord Hurcomb Aces the best of the conditions imposed upon him.
Groundswell of Triumph The statement that "three years is much too short time for the full results to show themselves" might und to many people like the first note of doom. In e mouth of Lord Hurcomb, it is the groundswell of e approaching triumph. He claims remarkable and ogressive improvements. The Commission, he avers, s to conduct its affairs in the full blaze of publicity, it the detractors—and he allows himself to be a little tter about them for a moment—will be confounded the end, if the Commission's staff retain their 'angelical faith.
It would be pleasing to record that the conference ■ ntinued at the high level established by Lord Hurcomb. te salaried staff, treated to this display of confidence , their chairman, might have been pardoned a few ash resolutions. If the Commission be doing so well, ly fear the competition of a few thousand backward .uliers, most of whom have probably never even heard
integration? Why restrict-them to 25 miles? Why it let them go up to 60 miles, or 600 miles, if it
comes to that? They are a dying generation at best. Why not make their declining years as comfortable as possible?
It would, as I have said, be pleasing to record that Lord Hurcomb succeeded in imbuing his subordinates with his own spirit. Unfortunately, it would also be untrue. The salaried staff of the Commission chose to show that they knew better than their chairman what was wanted Show faith in ourselves and in the superiority of the Commission over all corners? Not likely, even as a gesture!
"Free road hauliers" declared Mr. F. J. Podmore, of Stoke-on-Trent, "are not tied down enough at present." They were actually offering to carry traffic from Stoke to places as much as 50 miles away. Mr. Podmore was very concerned that they could have permits to carry pottery 60 miles. " We in Stoke are very interested in pottery."
Mr. Podmore's Concern Mr. Podmore was moving a resolution expressing deep concern that, under the provisions of the Transport Act, there was nothing to prevent private road hauliers conveying long-distance traffic by staging it from pointto-point, so long as they did not go outside the 25-mile limit. Other speakers might have said: "So what? We can carry the traffic without staging it from point-topoint. If nationalization be so efficient (and we have Lord Hurcomb's word for it) why should we be afraid of what other people can do? " Other speakers, in fact, refrained from saying anything of the sort, and the resolution was carried unanimously.
Having whetted their appetites, the salaried staff next turned their attention to other relics from the unhappy days of free enterprise. They demanded restrictions on the operating radius of C-licence vehicles and on the goods carried. They urged the Government to speed up the nationalization of road transport. They called for reductions in the interest paid by the Commission. No doubt a good time was had by all.
It may be that the conference took Lord Hurcomb too literally. The Commission's chances of success might be promoted by crippling the hauliers, wiping out the C-licence holders, taking over all the bus companies and defaulting on the interest payable to holders of British Transport stock. It might be possible to go even farther, to abolish the private car, tax the bicycle and license prams. I cannot think this was the spirit in which Lord Hurcomb intended his courageous words to be taken.
The conference might have followed his lead and pointed manfully to the ultimate goal where all providers of transport would be able to play their allotted part with the minimum of hindrance. Instead, the delegates wallowed in the infantile daydream which consists in imagining all your opponents lined up against the wall facing the firing squad. The futile demand for wholesale repression is the sign of an inferiority complex. The courage of Lord Hurcomb's convictions is more deserving of respect.