Political Commentary

2nd October 1959, Page 66

2nd October 1959

Page 66

Page 66, 2nd October 1959 — Political Commentary

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Flesh and Blood

By JANUS

NO surprise can have been felt that the Labour Party's election manifesto reiterates the pledge that "commercial long-distance road haulage will be renationalized and built into an integrated transport system." Almost the same form of words has been used 'regularly for many years in the party's general statements of policy. The inclusion of the threat in an election programme marks a new step, however, and a depressing one for hauliers. They would prefer to have been given shelter from the light of day in the general and shadowy clause that reserves the right to take into public ownership any industry or undertaking that "is shown, after thorough inquiry, to be failing the nation." If the Socialists win the election, they may do what they like about this clause, and may even forget it. They cannot overlook what would be almost an obligation to introduce another Transport Bill. Because the threat in the manifesto was expected, and possibly because of the unknown dangers lurking in the Representation of the People Act, 1949, hauliers have not done as much as they might to make the distinction between what is said in a pamphlet and a declaration that will be put into effect if, after a matter of days, the voters give their verdict in a certain way. At the individual level, it is the difference between merely saying that a person is too wicked to live and actually planning his death. And it is at the individual level that this threat against road haulage must be considered. The proposal to renationalize steel, deplorable though it may be, is directed against an industry of large businesses. There are probably a few thousand long-distance roadhaulage concerns, and almost all of them are small private businesses, owned by one person or a partnership. The Socialists are wrestling, not against principalities and powers, but against flesh and blood.

Law-abiding Crime Nothing that the haulier can do, or could have done over the last six years, can turn aside his fate (always assuming that the Socialists win). His crime has been to act in accordance with the law: to buy transport units from British Road Services and to operate long-distance services. The efficiency, cheapness, security, personal service and other qualities, about which he is thoroughly entitled to boast, will be of no help to him. In fact, the more vigorously he displays them, the more likely is he to be marked down for slaughter. He is the human sacrifice that the Socialists demand for the abstraction of integration. The Labour Party are under no illusion about what the public think of nationalization. Even the party's own supporters' are not keen on it. Inevitably, only a small number of Socialists have any direct say in what the election manifesto shall include, and enough of them favour nationalization to ensure that it will not be quietly dropped. Whatever votes it may lose are considered worth the sacrifice if as a result party unity is maintained. In the event, the loss in votes is not likely to be great. It would be grossly optimistic for the anti-Socialists to reckon it in millions. What induces people to vote for one party rather than another is still obscure, but when it comes to an election, nationalization is not one of the main issues. Strangely enough, it is one of the few issues B32 on which there is a genuine and unmistakable cleavage of opinion between the Socialists and the Conservatives and Liberals. Most of the other election promises could be switched from one manifesto to another and nobody would notice what had happened. Nevertheless, when it comes to the point at the polling booth, the electorate will have nationalization very much at the back of their minds, if it is there at all. There is every human excuse for the haulier on October 8, when his whole future is being decided, doing everything he can to shake the indifference of the voting millions who are making the decision. There are all kinds of promises for the taxpayers, the old age pensioners, widows, doctors, youth, sportsmen, art lovers, Welshmen, Irishmen, Scotsmen and Africans. If any of these groups were told that things would be made much harsher, if not impossible, for them if a certain party won the election, there would be pickets outside every polling booth carrying placards and shouting abusive slogans, and the Representation of the People Act, 1949, would be more honoured in the breach than the observance.

Contempt Out of Familiarity The haulier is not likely to go as far as this. His protest may lack edge because it has been made so often. He may have grown up with the threat of nationalization always there, sometimes in the distance, sometimes in the forefront. He may not see his own case with the sharpness and intensity that it would have for other people, who may deplore the effect of some Acts of Parliament, but had not envisaged that such an Act could be deliberately designed to bring about a tragedy. " My welfare is in your hands," the haulier might say to them. "Your vote can mean my ruin." He may even be able to produce witnesses. Nationalization of road haulage was tried before. Compensation was paid for the vehicles, and to a limited extent for the businesses. The dispossessed hauliers were scattered in all directions. There were the big and Ole men who took big and little jobs with B.R.S.; the men who retreated into the short-distance field; the men who went into some other industry or went abroad; and the men who came back when the Conservatives gave them the opportunity. Among these and other categories there must have been many failures. There were many hauliers, experts in their particular line, who had no aptitude for settling into a new way of living. These men and others could testify that for them nationalization was a disaster, brought about not by accident but as a consequence of the deliberate policy of the Government. What adds the final touch of perversity is that the policy appeared to do no good to balance the undoubted harm. The railways were protected by the elimination of all competition in the long-distance field. B.R.S. were set up to take over where the dispossessed hauliers left off. Things did not work out as planned. Into the vacuum thus created there poured a flood of new C-licence vehicles. The railways were no better off, and the sacrifice of 3,000 hauliers had been in vain. There is every reason, therefore, why the haulier who is now threatened with a similar fate should protest as much as possible even in the few days now remaining before the election.