1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
No hiding place
Page 75
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HARDLY a word about transport can be found in the manifestoes of either the Conservative or the Liberal party. In contrast with this absence of comment, the inclusion of a separate section on the subject in the Labour party manifesto amounts almost to an obsession, It is in line with tradition. The two most important, or at any rate comprehensive, items of legislation on transport since the war were the Transport Acts of 1947 and 1968, both of them introduced during the two periods of Labour control.
With a minority government and only a few months in office, there was hardly time to do more. The manifesto conjures up an image of a party eager to remedy the omission, and to flush out those interests apparently regarded as anti-social.
Not everybody will agree with what is proposed. Unintentionally perhaps, the wording indicates a fundamental point of contention. One of the objectives, says the manifesto, is "to move as much traffic as possible from road to rail and to water". This must be taken to mean that the right to move belongs to the Government and not to the person who owns the traffic and who -not unreasonably would prefer it to move at the least cost and with the least trouble to the person who is waiting to take delivery.
Whatever the poor trader and his customer may think, the Labour party is evidently confident of support from the public as a whole. The manifesto goes on to take credit for the Railway Act 1974, which will make the taxpayer contribute a general subsidy to passenger services and "grants" no doubt also subsidies but perhaps they sound better by some other name — for the provision of new private sidings and "other freight facilities".
As a counter-balance there is a reference to the review of expenditure on new roads and to the priority given to the "creation" of a comprehensive heavy lorry network. The impression is that the Labour Government takes credit for this also, although the principal legislation, the Dykes Act, was passed under a Conservative administration.
Road operators cannot but regard the manifesto as a depressing document. It brings out the phrases and slogans which have served in many past general elections, and shuffles them once again, like the bits and pieces in a kaleidoscope, perhaps in the hope that at last a convincing pattern will emerge.
Some of the points hardly seem worth making. For example, it is promised that steps will be taken to improve road safety. No political party would offer less. There is no need to seek a mandate on the issue. It could conceivably be the case that drastic measures are envisaged, such as banning the motorcycle or raising the minimum driving age to 21. In any such event the manifesto would have to be much more specific before it could be regarded as binding.
Scope for misunderstanding
Another proposal is to "coordinate and integrate our transport services". There is little meaning in so hackneyed a phrase where the scope for misunderstanding is so wide. If ever there was a practical difference between coordination and integration, it has become obscured.
It was at one time part of the great Socialist transport dream to bring all forms of transport within the control of a single body. The process would almost inevitably involve nationalization. Herein perhaps was the lure. The need for integration, if it could be established, was the compelling excuse, if one were needed, for taking over transport businesses.
Unfortunately, the experiment along these lines ended in so conspicuous a disaster that even 2 years later the Labour party would hesitate to revive it. The brie reference to integration, however, conveniently introduces the repeated pledge to extend public ownership of road haulage.
In face of this threat no haulier can feel completely safe. Elsewhere in the manifesto is a recapitulation of the proposals in Mr Wedgwood Benn's recent White Paper. Over the whole field of industry a Labour government would take over loss-making and subsidized industries this might be expected — but would also take over individual firms in profitable industries. Once a company has become the target for nationalization there will apparently be no escape.
by Janus