Dare to be Political!
Page 48
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
—Challenges Our Contributor, Who Indicts Those Afraid to Admit Political Bias in Attacking Nationalization; He Denounces the Unctuousness of some C-licensees; Calls for Denationalization Proposals and " Debunks " the "Fair Trial" Attitude to State Control
PoIitical Commentary By JANUS SINCE the beginning of history, it has been the custom to have a ready-made phrase designed to keep off the demons. The Romans said "absit ontea " in an attempt to avoid bad luck. A modern equivalent is " touch wood."
There is another expression: "Of course, this isn't being political," much used in transport circles of late, particularly when the conversation has turned to the future of the industry, or to nationalization. Any sentiment likely to gladden the heart of one or other of the political leaders is hastily followed by a deceptively frank avowal of political disinterestedness. It is as much a ritual as throwing spilt salt over the left shoulder.
The expression first became noticeable at the time of the battle against the Transport Act, when every reason except the political one was advanced against nationalization. It is easy to see why this should be so. The Socialists favoured nationalization on political grounds, and did not mind who knew it, and a frontal attack against a huge Parliamentary majority was doomed to fail.
Why No Admissions ?
It is less easy to understand why the opponents of the Transport Act were so nervous even of admitting a political bias. It must have been obvious that most of them voted for one or other of the parties of the Right, and would do so again. As the Conservative and Liberal Parties both reject, nationalization, one may expect their supporters to be of like mind.
The other side made good use of their opponents' reluctance to show any political colour. The cry of " political" at once Put the free-enterprise faction on the defensive. The game is still being played. Mr. Callaghan has accused the haulage interests of the dreadful crime of contributing to Lord Woolton's fund.
Whether his statement be true or not, it is scarcely a serious reproach. Even Mr. Callaghan cannot think it wrong for hauliers to dislike nationalization and pray for denationalization. The Conservative Party promises to be the answer to a haulier's prayer. Any financial contribution he makes towatds its success may be partly selfish, but is wholly natural. Mr. Callaghan does not object to individuals or organizations paying into the coffers of the Socialist Party.
The haulier, therefore, if he considers the point rationally, should not fear or res.ent being dubbed " political." The trader, in particular the C-licensee, is in a more equivocal position. He was a strong opponent of road transport nationalization up to the time when the C-licence clauses were dropped from the Transport Bill, after which his voice was much more subdued.
It must have been a relief to him when the Act became law. He was then able at least to make a positive statement. He could say, a little unctuously,-that the will of the people, or at any rate the will of Parliament, had manifested itself; every citizen's duty was to give nationalization a fair trial to see whether it worked..
04
This approach to the problem was a carry-over from normal commercial or industrial practice. In the business world, when a choice has to be made between two articles or methods, the prototypes are subjected to exhaustive tests. Even if this precaution does not pre\vent a wrongdecision, it is still possible to make a change later on, Mistakes are not welcomed; if the item be, let us say, a new air-liner, they are expensive; but in time mistakes can be rectified.
Unfortunately, the choice between free enterprise and nationalization cannot be tackled successfuHy in this way. The problem is not primarily irithistrial or commercial. It is, even if we hate to admit it, political. A smug "gentleman's agreement" to "give the thing a trial," is like throwing somebody overboard to see if he will swim. If he does not, it is just too bad.
Giving the thing a trial" means going back to free enterprise if the trial is not a success. But suppose by some dreadful chance free enterprise were no longer tile re? One or two people are beginning to see this danger, although they have not yet drawn the logical conclusion. Two years ago they asked for a fair trial; now they shake their heads over denationalization, and declare it to be almost impossible. If the second statement be true, then the first is nonsense. The traders should determine to do everything in their power to keep free enterprise going, and to support any proposal for denationalization.
These two aims should be clearly in the minds of every traders' transport organization, group or committee. It would . be interesting to know how many have, in fact, dared to be political, and tackled the problem froiwthis standpoint.
Ostriches and Politics
An examination of the protests from some of the other industries threatened with nationalization is not reassuring. They, too, bury their heads in the sand like ostriches whenever the subject of politics is broached. Admittedly, they are in a quandary. If they express their views too forcibly•iniavour of free enterprise, they attract to themselves the attention of the State planners. If they sit tight and say nothing, they still cannot hope entirely to escape notice.
The dilemma is usually resolved in a not too happy
compromise. The threatened industry can scarcely refrain from a protest; it has to let off steam in some way or another. On the other hand, it wishes at all costs to pose as non-political. The result is a propaganda campaign to show that, whatever the arguments may be for or against nationalization in the abstract, this particular industry has reached a pitch of perfection under private enterprise such as could not be attained in any other way.
ThisApproach Succeeds no more than any other in softening the 'Socialists' hearts; it probably merely whets their appetites. A document issued by the cement
industry has a plaintive observation on this point:—
" Hitherto the Government has alleged, of -a basic industry listed for nationalization, that it was restrictive or inefficient and unorganized. For the cement industry it changes its tune. The cement industry is threatened with nationalization for the very reason that it is supremely efficient, expansive and well integrated. It is marked down for nationalization because it seems a nice plum, easy for picking: an orchard-robber's joy."
This urge to be thought different, a class apart, is human. No doubt, on the occasion of the rape of the Sabines, some indignant Latin lady of unimpeachable virtue must have protested at being treated on a par with other women who were no better than they should
be, but she was probably carried away just the same. One defends oneself against a robber, without wasting valuable breath to say: "Why pick on me?"
Possibly other threatened interests, including the C-licensees, will come round in the end to realizing and declaring that what is wrong is the principle of nationalization, not merely the proposal to nationalize their particular industry.
The war ought to have taught us that life is full of ,hazards. One cannot sit back and watch the show, placing bets in the comfortable assurance that, whatever the result of one race, it is always followed by another. We are caught up in the stream of events, not spectators of it. Our decision for or against nationalization is not to be made in the future. It has to be made now, and all the time.