Monopoly Defence Raises Hornet's Nest
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IN his criticism (published on I June 11) of my recent article emphasizing that monopolies are a prey to strikes, " M.C." contends that the unwillingness on the part of existing proprietors to accept in exchange for their undertakings a transport stock as little guaranteed as the London Transport " C' is a far greater barrier to the formation of similar undertakings in the provinces -than is the public's fear of strikes.
I, for one, cannot visualize how this can be considered a serious deterrent to semi-socialization on similar lines to London Transport. After all, there are nttore ways of killing a cat than drowning it (or, should I say, starving it?). Public opinion is a far greater factor than "MC." appears to realize. However, as• he seems to favour transport dictatorship in one form or another, this is understandable.
Influence of Public Opinion.
When public opinion is opposed to a scheme affecting transport or any other industry, that plan must inevitably "go by the board." Matters of finance, the internal workings of an undertaking, or, for that matter, its form, are of no interest to the man in the street, but when strike action deprives him of facilities which he has uninterruptedly enjoyed for years, he wants to know the reason why. His views are public opinion and the fact that a statutory monopoly has deprived him of even a small measure of alternative bus facilities is damaging.
The searchlight of public opinion has been turned on London Transport in consequence of the strike and Press comments could not by any means be termed favourable towards the formation of similar bodies in the future.
One of the reasons why the matter was given such publicity was that London has never before been without buses, except for a few days during the General Strike of 1926. Monopoly conditions were so complete that it was necessary for London Coastal Coaches, Ltd., to bring in from the provinces 300 buses to transport the police to various parts of London on Coronation Day.
It is useless for " M.C." to ask
such a ridiculous question as : "Would the strike have been avoided if London Transport had never been established?" We can only refer to the past regime of the old London General Omnibus Co., ..Ltd., and, at the same time, note the frequent spasmodic strikes which have occurred since the formation a the Board, eventually culminating in
• a complete stoppage of the buses.
If he be serious in his contention that the form of structure of an undertaking plays no part in deciding the workers for or against strikes, I would advise him, in future, to take particular note of the concerns which are affected by such action. Profit sharing schemes, bonus benefits, etc., are and will continue to be adopted by large companies, partly to minimize strike dangers, especially where monopolies are in evidence.
However, there is one point on which I am in agreement with M.C." That is when he states : "The truth of the matter is that labour unrest is inseparable from times like the present." It is extremely likely that further trouble will be experienced in the transport industry in the near future, and it will serve only to illustrate more forcibly that monopolies are a prey to strikes.
Opinion Will Support Freedom.
One important advantage that will accrue from the present trend of events is that opinion will grow in favour of more freedom for operators, and it is to be hoped that the tendency of present regulations to favour monopolies will be .checked.
At this juncture, I would like to mention that the primary object of my article was to point out how monopolies lend themselves to strikes and to show the effect that recent stoppages in London and -the provinces were having on public opinion.
The efficiency of the large unit in transport cannot be denied, but the question arises as to what limits should such undertakings be confined. Is there a point at which efficiency is sacrificed to continued expansion, in order that complete control may be achieved?
This brings me to the remarks" of "MC." regarding Mr. John F. Heaton, who was reported as saying : " There is no doubt that they (the Board) are serving the public well, but this is being done, if I may say so, somewhat regardless of cost." No doubt Mr. Heaton would also state that the former L.G.O.C. served the public well, and, at the same time, with due regard to cost. In economics, highest efficiency is generally taken as being that point at which the best service is given at the lowest cost.
Is the Comparison Fair?
My critic also indulges in a cornpariscin of the bus services of two towns, Stoke-on-Trent and Keighley. Incidentally, the former is six times the size of the latter. " M.C." makes statements which he cannot substantiate, presumably on the ground that a large amount of public time and money was spent on promoting a Bill designed to glorify Stoke-on-Trent Corporation. Jealous of the power wielded by the Traffic • Commissioners, the local authority desired, irrespective of cost or public convenience, to set itself up as transport dictator of the Potteries.
Perhaps " M.C." has never visited Stoke-on-Trent or the Potteries. As a native, I can truthfully say that, in my opinion, the bus services in that district compare favourably with those in other areas, irrespective of the large number of owners.
It is comparatively easy for a bus company, whether combine or otherwise, to provide efficient services for a town of Keighley's size, especially when the former municipal undertaking was abandoned. In fact, it is impossible to draw a comparison between the two towns, because they are so totally different in nature.
In conclusion, I must, perforce, remark on " M.C.'s " indignation at my indiscretion in terming London Transport the " brain-child " of Mr. Herbert Morrison. Can it be that the original ideas of the L.P.T.B., the Common Fund of the former Underground group and the Co-ordination Bills of 1929, were all conceived by my friend? If so, I offer my apologies. TRANSEX.