Leaning Towards Melodrama
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HOW simple life would be if it conformed to the unsophisticated ideas of Mr. G. R. Strauss! He sees the political struggle as a melodrama in which all the Socialists are angels and all the Conservatives villains. The deepest-dyed of all is the haulier, who has a hold upon the Government and is able to blackmail it into carrying out his evil plans. Any moment now we shall be treated to the heart-rending spectacle of Lord Hurcomb, the innocent victim of black-hearted scoundrels and their sordid accomplices, tied to his own railway lines and left to his fate.
Possibly Mr. Strauss has a leaning towards melodrama of this type because it invariably has a happy ending. The villain (Sssss!) may know what he wants "and is determined to get it, uninhibited by any sense of shame or public decency" (he wants "swag," in case you had any other ideas). But we know a little more than he does. We can be sure that in the nick of time the hero will appear (Hurrah!) and everybody will live happily ever after---except the haulier, and serve him jolly well right!
While we sit breathlessly in the theatre watching the play, we are ready to believe almost anything, and it may be that the eloquence of Mr. Strauss for the moment convinced at least some of the Members on his own side. On the stage set by Mr. Strauss, the haulier is as wicked as Iago. He proclaims his intentions for everybody to hear, thus behaving as all villains do—in the theatre! He bribes other 'people to do his dirty work. At least, Mr. Strauss is certain he has detected some money passing, and are not all financial transactions sordid—in melodrama? Finally, the haulier "considers the Conservative Party his friend," and what could be more unforgivable than that, -ori the stage or off?
Scarcely Shameful In real life, it is not so easy to distinguisn the good from the bad. Mr. Strauss would find it hard to prove to an impartial jury that the crimes of which he accuses the haulier are really crimes at all. If the haulier considers the Conservative Party his friend, the reason is perfectly natural. The Conservatives have done what they can to help the haulier; the Socialists have gone a long way towards destroying him. It may be a weakness to like people who do things for us better than people who work against us, but it is scarcely shameful.
Mr. Strauss may be right in suggesting that hauliers from time to time make contributions to the funds of the Conservative Party. Many hauliers are staunch Conservatives. A good many more are staunch Liberals. It may surprise Mr. Strauss to know that some are Socialists. For all I know, every one of them may pay something, large or small, to the party he supports. It is difficult to understand why this should be held against him.
Later during the debate in which Mr. Strauss so distinguished himself, Mr. James Callaghan put the accusation plainly. The proposed legislation to restore freedom to hauliers, he said, "has to do with the fact that the hauliers have been invited to subscribe to the Conservative Central •Office funds." Mr. Frank McLeavy was a little less definite but equally vehement. The hauliers' plans, he said, "are wicked and objectionable from every standard of public decency; and suggest a type of matpractice which I trust no British Government will sink so low as to apply."
The suggestionin fact, comes from Mr. McLeavy and not from the plans. It is fantastic that anyone can imagine the hauliers being in a position to dictate Government policy. The spectacle of the Prime Minister making a deferential pilgrimage to Bond Street to receive his instructions from the chairman of the Road Haulage Association is charming, not to say awe-inspiring; but is it likelr, that the picture has any resemblance to the truth?
Publication of the hauliers' plan, which Mr. Strauss regards as brazen exhibitionism, is the best possible proof that the Government is not in the hauliers pocket. If acceptance of the plan were a foregone conclusion, there would be no point in publishing it. The Conservatives, as is well-known, are by no means prepared at wesent to go as far as the hauliers within the direction iaf de-nationalization. Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, in the recent debate, referred to the " alteration " of the 25-mile limit and not to its abolition. He promised consultation with all the interests affected, including the British Transport Commission, before legislation is introduced to amend-the Transport Act.
First in the Field
The hauliers must expect criticism of their proposals. They deserve credit for being first in the field with a plan. If there had been anything underhand or shameful about it, they could very well have kept it a secret. It would not suit Mr. Strauss's book. to admit this. He gives no proof that he has read the plan with any great care. His strategy is not to discuss it but to cast doubts upon its antecedents. Inflexible in his resolve not to accept denationalization at any price, his safest course is to protest at the top of his voice at the price suggested by the Road Haulage Association.
To judge from his remarks about road haulage, Mr. Strauss is an idealist. In his view, individuals should have regard not to personal gain, but only to the public interest. One cannot but agree that in such circumstances the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, private gain, however small a place it may hold in the mind of NIr. Stratiss, is deplorably strong in the majority of people, whatever, their politics. It may still be the case that the plan put forward by the hauliers, although it is to their advantage, also serves the wider interests of the Nation.
Mr. Strauss is still not far enough away from the glamour of the footlights. To him, events and people are completely good or completely bad, according to whether or not he approves of them. He must learn to be more tolerant. If certain hauliers subscribe to the Conservative Party funds, the reason may be that Conservative policy appears more to their liking.
There is no warrant for turning the picture upside down and insisting that contributions from hauliers have had an effect on Conservative policy. Does Mr. Strauss imagine that a more generous contribution from the Road Haulage Executive would have turned the Conservative Party into fervent supporters of national
ization? If occasionally a haulier becomes a little arrogant and adopts a tone which plainly says: "We are the masters now," will Mr. Strauss bear in mind who first used that expression?