IF ONLY . . .
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Political Commentary By JANUS
HISTORIANS have a favourite game of imagining what might have been the consequences if this or that worthy had lost a decisive battle instead of winning it, or if some epoch-marking event had never happened. Since the Industrial Revolution, a new field of speculation has developed. It has become the particular province of the increasing number of pessimists in these latter days, who are prepared to argue with relish on the subject of the invention that humanity can best do without.
Lord Boothby has made his own choice clear. "I firmly believe." he says, "that the invention of the •internalcombustion engine was the greatest single disaster that has befallen humanity." This has been said before, especially by motorists who run out of petrol 200 miles from the nearest habitation, but it appears to be Lord Boothby's considered and permanent opinion. He may even be prepared to get rid of his own car in order to be consistent.
Many people took a similarly gloomy view of the development of the railways in their early days. The public attitude changed as time went on. Trains have become objects of affection and even of worship. Their threatened decline is deplored, and will be commemorated much in the same way as the Victorian novelists wrote nostalgically of the stagecoach. Lord Boothby may not be one of the railway fans, but he will have their support. Just as people once sighed for the days when there were no railways, so their descendants have complained how simple the transport problem would be if there were no cars or lorries.
As long as this public attitude of mind persisted there has been a lingering hope that the railways would regain their old position of pre-eminence. They must have dreaded the inevitable moment when the theme changed and people began to mutter that things would be better if they were not bothered with the railways. Gratitude counts for nothing in public opinion. Once a service has outlived its usefulness it merely becomes a nuisance. "
The still small voice of doom for the railways has spoken unmistakably during the past few weeks. In an attempt to muffle it the railways have put up a barrage of publicity. Circumstances have been against them. The narrowly averted strike, the interim wages settlement and finally the Guillebaud report have combined to convince the public that something drastic must be done.
Point of No Return
The precise point of no return was probably the short statement by the Prime Minister in the House.of Commons on March 10. Before then there was still the possibility that the British Transport Commission might ride the storm comparatively unscathed. The railways might flatter themselves that they were going to get V.I.P. treatment such as they have received previously at the hands of the Conservatives.
Now they can think so no longer, although it not easy to pinpoint exactly why their optimism has been quenched. Mr. Harold Macmillan is_a formidable figure by any standards. He has an almost uncanny gift—most strikingly shown hitherto in the international field—for contriving to be in the right place and to say just the right thing when it is most needed. There need be nothing very original in what he says. Indeed, it would lose half its effect if he went beyond certain limits. The importance and the value lie mainly in the man and in the moment.
What is interesting in one way is to note what Mr. Macmillan refrained from saying. There was not a word about restricting or penalizing road transport, nor was there any reference to traffic that the railways ought to have because it was suitable" for them. The Prime Minister merely recorded that the expansion of the economy had not led to a recovery in railway earnings, and that there had been an increasing use of road transport. "The life and trade of the nation require a railway system," said Mr. Macmillan, "but it must not be •allowed to become an intolerable burden on the national economy."
Several things would have to be done. The size and pattern of the railways must be changed to suit them to modern conditions. The public would have to accept the changes, even when reduced services and increased fares and rates were involved. The B.T.C. should be relieved of the restrictions and obligations that limit their earnings and hamper their activities. There would be decentralization of management so that each railway region could become self-accounting and responsible for its own affairs.
All Lead One Way
All the proposals from the Prime Minister are likely to lead in one way or another to a diminution in the importance of the railways, although the positive purpose is an increase in efficiency. From now on the place of the railways in the national economy has been defined afresh at a lower level than before. There may still be attempts to revert to something more like the old pattern of thought. The special planning board that the Government are appointing may have suggestions involving a retreat from the position Mr. Macmillan has reached. But it is hardly likely that, there can be any permanent going back.
In appearing to be in control of circumstances, the Prime Minister is actually and sensibly bowing to them. He is in his proper place, perhaps just slightly ahead of public opinion. The Guillebaud report was the last in a long line of shocks. It was written to order, and the members of the committee of inquiry were practically bound to make their findings in the form chosen; so that they present ever so slightly the illusion of having their tongue in the cheek. Like Hitler in the Berlin bunker disposing of invisible armies, they make proposals for substantial rises and wide differentials that would add several more millions to the railway deficits, estimated by Mr. Macmillan to be running at about £95m. a year.
He might almost have been timing his announcement by a graph, the modern equivalent of the fortune-teller's horoscope. The relevant graph was one prepared by Mr. K. F. Glover, of the Ministry of Transport, in a paper that he read in January to the Royal Statistical Society. It shows the ton-miles carried annually by road and rail in the past 10 years and in 1938, when the road figure was much the lower. The gap narrowed until about 1957 when the lines crossed. Since then the road figure has risen and the rail figure fallen. The hour has obviously struck for incorporating the new situation into Government policy.
One or two spokesmen on the road transport side have noted that the pnblicity campaign on behalf of the railways, in so far as it has tried to develop into an attack on their competitors, has been largely ineffective for lack of anything sensible to say. Hauliers and C-licence holders may have been wise not to take too much notice of the attacks made upon them at this time.