The Old Routine
Page 67
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Every boy and every gal That's born into the world alive Is either a little Liberal, Or else a little Conservative. Or else a little Conservative.
UNLESS the speakers take care to define the terms they use, they may lose the opportunity provided by a resolution to be discussed at the Bournemouth conference of the Road Haulage Association. The proposal is "that, as a non-political Association, we should seek all opportunities of putting our views before all political parties, irrespective of what Government is
in power." , If Clarity. LS important, the resolution makes a bad Start by begging the question in the first six words. To say that an organization is non-political does not make it so. any more than it is possible to abolish war by expressing a preference for peace. If the R.H.A. were already non-political, there would be no need for the resolution.
An association, like an individual, can be political in more ways than one. It can actively support a political party; it can take sides in a political controversy; it can enlist the help of M.P.s in furthering its own policy; and it can use its strength and influence in a number of ways to secure changes in legislation. Of these activities, the sponsors of the Bournemouth resolution would presumably object only to the first and perhaps the second. By " non-political " they really mean "non-party-political." They do not want the R.H.A, to ignore politics, but rather to seek help with equal readiness from Conservatives, Socialists, Liberals, and possibly arty other brand of politician. including Communists.
Unanimous on Roads
All parties recognize the need for better roads. For this reason, and not necessarily from any deliberate choice on their part, the British Road Federation can claim to be completely impartial. They know that the progress, or lack of progress, of the road campaign would be much the same whichever party were in power. The Government, whether Conservative or Labour, boast about how much they are doing, and the opposition, whether Labour or Conservative, complain that it is too tittle.
Controlling factors may include the personality of the Minister of Transport and his ability to influence the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury. The present Minister has considerable drive and energy, but would not claim them as exclusive Conservative characteristics. The road programme depends primarily upon the amount of money devoted to it. Real control lies outside Parliament in the hands of civil servants, especially at the Treasury, and would remain outside Parliament even if a separate road board or road authority were set up.
The B.R.F. may .or may not be fortunate in having a neutral theme. They are spared the epithets usually attached to the name of the R.H.A. by Socialist speakers. References to the B.R.F. in Hansard are almost
invariably cordial and complimentary. The hauliers may comfort themselves by reflecting that at least they have the Transport Act. 1953, whereas the B.R.F. regrettably have little to show for their unremitting and excellent campaigns. There is no reason to suppose they would be worse off if one of the main political parties improbably changed their policy and decided that no more roads were needed. What would almost certainly happen is that the B.R.F. and the Roads Campaign Council would at once shed their impartiality, and become as political as the Transport and General Workers' Union.
The provisions at the Road Traffic Acts and Regulations, like the roads, are political subjects, but are usually not party-coloured. The political status of licensing is not so definite. fhis applies particularly to the C-licence holder. Organizations that represent his interests took part. some of them a little reluctantly, in the anti-nationalization controversy, and to that extent lined themselves _up against the Socialists. They have subsequently done their best to -preserve an armed neutrality, in the hope that they will not be noticed.
Qualified Hope The C-licence holder may hope that the continuance of his freedom has no connection With any change of Government, but he is aware of the danger. For the independent road hauliers the problem is grave. They .cannot afford another upheaval, but have no guarantee that it will not be inflicted upon them by the next Socialist administration.
In spite of this or because of this, hauliers cannot contract out of politics merely by expressing their desire to do so. The resolution they will discuss at Bournemouth is a variation on the old platitude about separating transport from politics. The relief of hauliers would be great if they could persuade the Socialists to accept the present division between State ownership and free enterprise.
The task of persuasion is not impossible. The latest Transport Ad had the-ge-neral approval of-the Socialists as far as it went. They see the benefits of a system whereby free enterprise competes on equal terths With a nationalized organization. They have no real -excuse for insisting on any further change.
But Many of the influential organizations supporting the Labour Party continue to hanker after State ownership or control. Politicians do not commit themselves completely, or far ahead. On the subject of nationalization, there can never be the same confidence between hauliers and the Labour Party as there is between hauliers and the Conservative and Liberal Parties_ The best the hauliers can do is to seek a provisional agreement with the Socialists on ownership and then turn to other matters where dispute is less likely to be along party lines.
This may not be as easy as it seems. The agenda for the R.H.A. conference contains one or two other resolutions with a political flavour. One calls for the stabilization of rates and wages. Another would compel nationalized industries to seek their capital in the open market. Both resolutions could conceivably be the subject of Parliamentary discussions in which the main parties would be in opposition to each other.
If the R.H.A. supported one side, then to that extent they would be entangled in party politics. In the same way, if the Socialists returned to power and at once set about renationalization and re-restriction, the R.H.A. could not help clashing with them, and would soon find themselves back in the old political routine.