Death's-head
Page 75
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LIKE a death's-head to many hauliers is the thought of the next general election, certain to come within the next three years. The Labour Party have no doubt of the result, and their confidence takes its impetus partly from the swing of the pendulum that is an inevitable, if somewhat erratic, accompaniment to a parliamentary system. Sooner or later, even if not next time, there will be another Labour government.
When disposal began, as a result of the Transport Act, 1953, it seemed reasonable that, provided there was no change of government for perhaps five years, the controversy over transport nationalization would die down. There are no signs that this is happening. The cries of rage and the threat of reprisals from the Labour side have continued, encouraged rather than appeased by the decision last year to cut short disposal while British Road Services still had a considerable fleet.
Article of Faith
The return to free enterprise of steel and road transport is regarded as a humiliation that must be neutralized whatever happens. For the Socialists, nationalization is an article of faith rather than an expedient. They cannot abandon it completely. They may give it a new' name, or dress it up in a new fashion. They may pretend that they are attacking monopolies, and talk about taking over large firms instead of whole industries. The basic policy remains the same.
For this reason, Labour M.P.s, particularly those who have been in Parliament since 1945, close their minds to the arguments for free enterprise. In their hearts, they cannot forgive the electorate for making obvious a growing dislike of State ownership. Politicians, however, can hardly thrive if they hate the electors who put them where they are. They project their hatred on to the industries where they have failed. Mr. Aneurin Bevan, therefore, declares that, at the next opportunity, steel will be taken over again, and Mr. Ernest Davies and others threaten a like fate to road haulage.
Fair Compromise
The wishes of the electorate, it may be observed, count for nothing on this issue. So far as is possible to judge, they approved the de-nationalization of road haulage, and the present situation, fortuitously or not, is as near as possible to a reasonable compromise between the opposing $oints of View. The electorate would certainly prefer road transport to be left as it is. If the Labour Party make re-nationalization one of the planks in their platform at the next election, they will consciously be making themselves unpopular, on this count at least. If they stick to the point in spite of everything, and run the risk of losing a certain number of votes, the reason must be a blind determination to revenge themselves, coupled with the calculation that the swing . of the pendulum will still give them a comfortable majority.
Not all the Socialists think alike on this matter. Sir Hartley Shaweross, the former Attorney-General, never one to disguise his opinions, has said that the nationalization of great firms, such as I.C.I. and Unilever, would lead Britain to disaster. Where an industry was doing really well, he said, it was best for the State to leave well alone Moderate Socialists who agree with Sir Hartley might be prepared to concede that the road haulage industry is doing all that is required of it, and might be trusted to continue.
History is full of surprises, and the next Labour government will not follow exactly the same path as the last. If they insist on interfering with the haulier, they will probably also reduce the freedom of the C licence holder, whom they regard as the main competitor of the British Transport Commission. They would like to see every private enterprise vehicle owner firmly restricted, leaving the State organization completely free.
A few hauliers, particularly those in the short-distance field, might imagine that such a system would work to their advantage. They have watched the C licensed fleet grow until it is now over a million, while the total number of their own vehicles has hardly changed. They may reasonably suppose the licensing system responsible. They may argue that, if the C licence holder be restricted, they must prosper, let the B.T.C. do what they wilt.
Dangerous Ground
Any haulier who might feel disposed to join the Socialists in an assault on the freedom of the C licence is treading on dangerous ground. Such restrictions as the Socialists seriously contemplate imposing are on long-distance work. They would, so far as possible, debar all vehicles from this work except those of the B.T.C. Whatever happens, the haulier stands to gain nothing. It would be far more serious for him to earn the enmity of the C licence holder. If trade and industry made an unholy alliance with the Socialists against the haulier, then indeed his fate would be sealed. .
At all costs, operators should stand together. The issue is plain. There is a 'risk that another Labour government would begin to tamper once again with the structure and ownership 'of road transport. Such a move would be opposed, not only by hauliers, but by every trader and industrialist whose goods travelled by road—in effect, by the whole of British industry, with general public support.
Agree on Policy
Well in advance of a general election, all the interests concerned should agree on their policy, and on the steps they would be willing to take to put it into effect. A general approach might have to be made to the politicians, of all parties if need be. Subsequently, a propaganda campaign would not be out of the question.
Road users have, in recent years, shown their willingness to combine, and even to contribute funds, for a cause. they feel of sufficient importance. The work of the Roads Campaign Council provides evidence of this, and the raising of the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles proves that, however long it may take, results can sometimes be achieved.
Higher speeds and better roads are of little use to operators who are not allowed to reap the benefit of them. They present current and continuing problems that therefore demand attention. Overshadowing them is the political threat that has not yet taken shape. The policy should be to dispel it white it remains nebulous.