00:00 John Stewart: [Thank you very] much indeed. Now, I know probably most people in the room here, that we've all got real concerns about the transport system in this country. But for a few minutes I just want us to pretend we're not ourselves. I want [you] to pretend we are a top banker — I know it's going to be hard, I know, just for a few minutes — or a chief executive of a multinational company. You've got your choice. Because I think that if we were a banker or a chief executive of [a]
00:32 multinational company, we might be quite happy with the way the transport policy is actually moving in the UK, and indeed across the world. I think the argument I'm going to make is that the transport system is increasingly being framed around the needs and aspirations of multinational companies. So for a few minutes change your
01:03 identities completely and be a chief exec. You can choose your company, but keep your secret to yourself. Let's think about aviation from the point of view of who we are right now, a chief executive. I think we'd be quite happy, because aircraft, like ships, are the workhorse of the globalised economy. We really couldn't have a globalised economy working
01:34 effectively without cheap flying and without cheap shipping. So as chief executives we'd be quite happy that aviation fuel is tax-free. We'd be very happy that there's no VAT paid on tickets or on the purchase of new planes, because it keeps our prices low. Now, we sell this to the masses as cheap
02:06 flights. We defend tax-free fuel on the basis that what's always called hard-working families — and we're British, so it's hard-working British families — can have a holiday or two in the sun. But that's not, I would suggest, the real reason why we're wanting to maintain tax-free fuel. The real reason we want to do so is to enable aviation and flying to be subsidised and cheap, because it is the
02:39 workhorse of our globalised world, and that's the way things have gone. Now, we as chief executives, we will throw a few crumbs to residents under flight paths concerned about noise. In fact what we will do is we will tell them that planes are getting quieter and cleaner, and progress will see them right. Now, planes are getting quieter and cleaner; whether they'll see residents right or not, I don't know. I'd be pleased too that
03:10 I've successfully watered down the European aviation emissions trading scheme, so it's kind of meaningless. Aviation is going my way, I'm pleased. Shipping too: ships are, like aviation, hugely important to the globalised economy, yet they alongside
03:41 planes are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. Ships are the biggest cause of noise in our oceans. We can fix that through technology, I'm sure, as chief executives, but at the moment, don't worry about the downsides — shipping is going our way, the ships are sailing in exactly the sort of directions we want them to do. And we'd be really pleased, I think, that the Chinese and the Indians have taken to cars in
04:13 the way that they have. I mean, we were worried, were we not, 20, 30 years ago, when the Chinese insisted on going to work by bicycle? I mean, what profits were there there for us then? But now we've got millions of Chinese buying cars. Now, cars do — there's no question about it — give freedom to individuals, but from my perspective as a chief executive of a globalised company, what they do above all — it's
04:45 forget about freedom for individuals, that's the way to sell them — they actually help my profits. Yes, the Chinese cities, like the British cities and the Indian cities, are getting a bit congested. We can introduce congestion charging, because it really won't hit the business vehicles too much. That'll get the plebs off the roads and it will be easier for business to move through those cities. I would suggest that the car-based economies of the emerging countries, following the car-based economies of places like Britain and
05:17 America, actually suit us very well, if we're still in chief executive mode. And it's great that the railways are now in private hands, we can make profits [from them]. Thirty years ago, before our hero Margaret Thatcher came along, it was all about public ownership — it even talked about railways serving communities. But now Britain leads the
05:48 way: it's a privatised rail system [?]. Oh, buses are privatised as well, but as chief executives we don't worry about buses too much; there's a little bit of a bonus of a few private ones around, but essentially they're not part of our world. And the other great thing is the high fares on London's transport. Now, this is wonderful news. No longer do our taxes have to pay to subsidise passengers in the way that they did; passengers are now paying the high fares they ought
06:20 to. I would suggest you can take your hats off now, you can cease to be chief executives — I hope [you weren't] liking it too much. Don't admit it, don't admit it, but listen, take your hats off. When I was kind of thinking of this little talk today, it struck me that actually the system that we're living with now has been more and more framed over the last 20 to 30 years as a transport system which works for,
06:54 and in many senses has been created by, the captains of the globalised economy. And leading on from that, I would suggest that as activists, as trade unionists, as NGOs, it's no longer enough to try and play around at the edges. Now, I understand why some NGOs do
07:24 that: they feel that's a realistic way in order to get things moving forward, to get an odd cycle lane here, a pedestrian crossing there. I don't want to criticise that too much, but what I'm going to suggest is, I think that unless we challenge the fundamentals of the way the transport system is going, we're always going to be playing around at the edges. And [in] the last few minutes, what I would suggest is that we can challenge
07:57 those fundamentals, and that we can challenge those fundamentals positively. I don't think in transport that we need to have a negative message. For example, if we are talking about less cars on the road, we're not saying to people "thou shalt not have a car", because people feel very possessive
08:27 of their cars. But what we can be saying is — on London roads, if you go down any of London's main roads and say to people: fewer cars will mean less pollution, less noise, more scope for your children to play outside, actually a greater ability to get around London — then we're beginning to have a positive
08:57 message, which I think can win public support, which is challenging this system which, as I say, right now in my view is increasingly created for the chief executives of multinational companies. The cycling message can be very positive as well. I think groups like the London Cycling Campaign have done a great job in showing how cycling can work in somewhere like
09:27 London. Safe routes to school, for children to walk again: it's positive, it relates to people's experiences. We can put forward these alternatives in a positive way, and we can challenge the privatisation of the buses and the railways. You'll all know the polls, right across the board, [where] the public say they want to see a renationalisation of the railways,
09:59 and I think the last poll showed that even a majority of Conservative voters are saying that. We have a message which resonates with people. Those of you who come from outside London will be madly jealous of the bus services we have in London, because in London, although they're privatised, they're not deregulated. And in parts of the country outside London you're very lucky [if] you get a bus after 9 o'clock at night — if you do see one, it's probably taken the wrong
10:33 route. A positive message. I spoke in Manchester recently to transport activists, and the one big thing the people in the North West were looking for from transport was a London-type bus service — in other words, a re-regulation of bus services. It's a positive, attractive note. And almost finally, on fares: fare levels in London and elsewhere are a source of constant
11:05 criticism. If we were to talk about a nationalised bus and rail service, sensibly subsidised so that fares become much cheaper, we have got a winning message. So I would suggest that, just to sum up, we are faced with, as I said, an overall transport system which has been increasingly created in the image of and for the benefit of the globalised
11:36 elite. To challenge that, it's not enough simply to tinker at the edges — we need to fundamentally challenge that. But if we do it in a positive way, I believe we can produce a winning coalition. Thanks very much.
## Corrections
- The speaker is given only as "John Stewart" by the upload. John McDonnell, speaking later at the same conference, refers to "what John and HACAN have been doing for years"; HACAN — the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, so spelled in the Socialist Resistance archive — is the group John Stewart chaired. The talk's aviation emphasis fits. The identification is recorded here rather than asserted in the text. - "be a **GP ex**" → "be a **chief exec**"; "the **chap** Executives of multinational companies" → "the **chief** executives". - "**ples**" and "**Plaines**" → "**planes**". - "Residents under flight **pass**" → "residents under flight **paths**". - "progress will see them right ... whether they'll see residents **rise** or not" → "whether they'll see residents **right** or not" — he is turning the industry's own phrase back on it, and "rise" loses the joke. - "don't worry about the **down Ides**" → "the **downsides**". - "it's a privatized **realism**" → "a privatised **rail system**" [?]; "**OB bu** is a privatized as well" → "Oh, **buses** are privatised as well". - "the high **fears**" / "the high **fairs**" / "**fairs** become much cheaper" / "the low **fairs** policy" → "**fares**" throughout. - "you can **see to become G Executives** I hope not to be **Laing** too much" → "you can **cease to be chief executives** — I hope [you weren't] **liking** it too much". - "has been more and more **frighted**" → "more and more **framed**" — the word he uses earlier in the same talk, "the transport system is increasingly being framed around the needs of multinational companies". - "as **NGS**" → "as **NGOs**". - "a **OD cyle Lane** here" → "an **odd cycle lane** here". - "if **your cars** will mean less pollution" → "**fewer cars** will mean less pollution" — the sentence is the positive case he is arguing for, and the captions make it meaningless. - "safe **roots SCH** for children to walk" → "safe **routes to school** for children to walk". - "a **rationalization** of the railways" → "a **renationalisation** of the railways". - "I **Spoken Man** recently to transport activists" → "I **spoke in Manchester** recently" — confirmed by the next clause, "the people in the North West". - "a London type **Ser** bus service" → "a London-type bus service". - "the captains of the **globalization** economy" → "the **globalised** economy". - "**marget** Thatcher" → "**Margaret** Thatcher"; "no **vat**" → "**VAT**".