AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

For Whose Benefit?

30th January 1959
Page 53
Page 53, 30th January 1959 — For Whose Benefit?
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Political Commentary By JANUS

11ZUSSIAN diplomacy seems often to consist in making an extreme demand, thus forcing other countries to set down their own policy by way of a counter-efer, from which the Russians may be able to pick up some advantage eveu if they do not get everything for which they ask. The Labour party's statement of their plans, for the future of long-distance road haulage may not be exactly similar to a political demarche from behind the Iron Curtain, but it has a similar effect in loosening the tongues of •hauliers. There is almost a compulsion upon them to make some positive statement, both to justify their continued existence and to satisfy themselves that they arc still alive.

Just as is the case with diplomacy, there is a correct jargon for declarations of policy on behalf of an industry.

e The proposals must be proved "in the national interest "; otherwise there is no point in putting them forward. Whether the public accept them at their face value is a different matter. It is natural to identify one's own interest with that of the nation, but it is not so easy to persuade other people to agree with the identification. Passenger operators find their difficulties increased by the tendency to make peak hours shorter and shorter; they, therefore, demand the staggering of working hours. Hauliers complain of injustice as a result of agreements to transfer Government traffic or nationalized traffic to the British Transport Commission.

There may be something in the case for.staggering hours or for preventing State-owned monopolies from taking in each other's washing. The case is damaged rather than advanced which begins with the assumption that the "world owes the transport operator a living. All the same, that is bound to be the idea judiciously hidden behind any statement of policy from or on behalf of any industry. The public expect an enlightened self-interest. If they failed to find it, they would be inclined to dismiss the statement as absurd or pointless. They ask only that the proper courtesies should be observed; the policy should be at least plausibly explained as something to their advantage; and there must be a reasonable excuse for producing it and inviting their consideration_

Sympathetic Hearing

The threat of nationalization is an ample excuse and assures hauliers of a sympathetic hearing. They would be losing an opportunity if they did not make a statement that went beyond the bounds of the case against State ownership. Nobody would be in doubt as to their real aim. Like everybody else, they want more business. They will not say so in anything like those words, nor will they argue that more traffic for them automatically means greater national prosperity. .

Rather they will call in evidence the demands of trade and industry for the services of hauliers under free enterprise. The licensing system must be shown as the factor that has prevented the demand from being satisfied in the past. .

At this early stage the hauliers will come up against one of the chief stumbling blocks in framing a policy. It would be too• simple to call for the abolition of the licensing system. For a brief time existing hauliers might reap the benefit, but there Would soon be a great influx of newcomers followed by a fierce. fate-cutting. -war.

Fortunately for hauliers, trade and industry have no desire to see this sort of development, and public opinion still favours the preservation of the railways that was the main reason for licensing hauliers in the first place. Operators May, therefore, safely propose amendments to the system without the risk that it will come crashing about their ears. , Sensible amendments would permit established businesses to expand more rapidly than is now possible without taking other businesses over; would create a more clear-cut distinction between the general A and the limited B licence; "and would give more security of tenure, especially at " renewal" time. From all these things the haulier would gain, and could plausibly argue that they were in the general interest. • It is natural to have a policy that would work to one's advantage; it is sensible to see that it is also to the advantage of other people. The remarkable thing about the policy of the Labour party on transport nationalization is that it has neither of these attributes. So far from helping the party, nationalization is probably their greatest electoral liability.

Glorious Chapter

Ten years ago there was at any rate the illusion that nationalization was writing a new and glorious chapter in the history of transport. The workers were told that they would become the owners of the business in which they were employed. For the management there was the promise of greater power and an appeal to their better nature; they would be serving the nation as well as their own ambitions. Trade and industry and the general public remained sceptical at the prospect of a cheaper and better transport service to be provided by a single gigantic and integrated organization; but it could still be argued that the experiment was worth a trial.

History has been unkind to the Labour party's dream. The workers exchanged a personal for an impersonal boss. They are no better off, and do not hesitate to accept a job in the free-enterprise sector, if it is offered to them. A few of the managerial staff have climbed or were hoisted into high office. Many of the remainder feel frustrated and look with envy at the people who are building up independent businesses, often with the help of techniques and methods they learned within British Road Services, but always mainly by using their own initiative and ideas. Transport users and the public have seen no cause to change their original opinion.

If they have not already done so, the public must soon fall to wondering what makes the nationalizers tick. What do they get out of it? There is no gain either for the Labour party or for their supporters. The B.T.C., who may be considered as the chief beneficiaries, have shown no enthusiasm for extended ownership. By a stroke of irony, their enthusiasm would he boundless were they running the railways under free enterprise; they would welcome the .handing over to them of a nationalized road transport industry bound hand and foot. The effect of the policy of the Labour party when they were in power iS that even the B.T.C. are lukewarm for nationalization. They are, to all intents and purposes, a subsidized service.. They have no wish to inflame public resentment by adding.. to their crimes the deliberate suppression of their main competitor.


comments powered by Disqus