Documentary Evidence D ISCREET propaganda, as may have been expected, conditions
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
the atmosphere of the first four films produced or sponsored by the British Transport Commission. They are competently made; the photography is first class, the presentation skilful. The impression left with an average audience must be that the Commission is the culminating point, the heir to all the transport ages.
How this is done is shown most plainly in the film entitled "Transport," intended for the widest general distribution. The theme is that this country has had too many providers of transport in the past and that the process of evolution has been from the many to the few, and finally from the few to the one. There were at one time over 100 railways. Thirty years ago, the number was reduced to four. The Commission has welded them into one.
The " all " is implied, if not expressly stated: The film gives no hint of the continued existence of independent hauliers and passenger criberators; it makes no reference to C-licence holders (a welcome innovation); and it appears to have been made before the invention of the aeroplane. In fact, as a documentary purporting to give a survey of transport in Great Britain, it is seriously incomplete.
The four films are not intended, in the normal way, to be shown together. Each is admirably designed to put across its message to the people most likely to see it. Seen in juxtaposition, the films partly cancel each other out. The picture, given in "Transport," of canals as little more than a decorative survival from the past, contrasts sharply with the other side of the picture, in the instructional film, "Inland Waterways," which shows canal transport as a flourishing undertaking, apparently well able to keep its place in the sun The sins of the past may aptly be illustrated by shots of derelict and silted-up waterways. The zeal of the present-day users is better stimulated by showing them examples of the engineering skill that went into the making of aqueducts over a century ago.
Illogical Affection In all the films one finds evidence of the guiding hand of the Commission's chief publicity and public relations officer, Mr. J. H. Brebner. He is no doubt planning to do for the Commission what he was largely instrumental in achieving for the London Passenger Transport Board. In the days of the old L.P.T.B., Mr. Brebner's aims and methods became a model for publicists of all kinds. Taking advantage of the almost unanimous affection of Londoners for their home town, he persuaded them to include the activities of the Board within the bounds of that quite illogical affection. There was, of course, a good deal of criticism of the Board. Londoners, like other people, take pleasure in grumbling at the things they love, and as transport plays so important a part in their lives, they are always ready to complain at the quality of the service.
The affection for London Transport survives all the complaints, genuine or otherwise. Mr. Brebner has done his work well. The people of London love their red buses, their gliding trolleys, their clanking trams, their reeking tubes, They defend them against any outsider rash enough to criticize They would not have any part of the system changed.
att The opposition to the proposed variations in fares is an equivocal tribute to Mr. Brebner's skill. Under his guidance, the Londoner has learned to love the queer anomalies that undoubtedly exist. He likes to know how it is possible to save 2d. on a journey by making a series of complicated changes. Although he may never trouble to go through the necessary manoeuvres, the knowledge that he can do so gives him a feeling of superiority over the visitor who is aware of only one method of travelling between the two points.
London Transport is dear to the Londoner's heart, but he certainly does not wish it to be any dearer. This is shown clearly by the extent and variety of the opposition to the new charges scheme, ranging from trade unions to trade associations, and from Conservatives to Communists.
Laudable Principle " Schemes are made for people," said the commentator at one point in the film "Transport," "not people for schemes." This dictum is particularly relevant to the London Transport dispute. In due course, it may be interesting to inquire how far the spokesmen for the Commission have proved that their scheme is governed by this laudable principle.
The argument at the moment seems to depend mainly on the doctrine of equal shares. Anomalies, which certainly exist in plenty in the London Transport system, are to be removed or modified. Fares on all the services will be brought nearer to a uniform level. Some will go up and some come down. The Executive will take the kitty, about £3,700,000 in the course of a year.
Equalization has its pitfalls, and the less it is accepted as a principle, the better. The inhabitants of London's suburbs, and its satellites, as for example, Southend, choose to live where they do for many reasons, not least being the comparative cost of travelling to work. An increase in fares for them, and not for others, must be felt as a hardship, and the argument that it levels things up carries little weight.
On this point, the most curious line of approach so far is that taken by Mr. Lionel Heald, K.C., who reasons on behalf of the Commission that the residents of Southend must be presumed to have agreed to the passing of the Transport Act and should co-operate in carrying out its provisions. Certain changes in the political representation of Southend may in themselves provide an answer to Mr. Heald. Apart from that, it is going too far to contend that any citizen of Southend who voted Socialist in 1945 was aware that he was voting for higher fares. If one must accept the increase willy-nilly, there is no point in holding an inquiry.
The problem of London's fares is complicated, even fascinating. Prolonged study of the almost infinite permutations and interactions may have made Mr. Heald an existentialist. He cannot expect the entire population of Southend to embrace the same philosophy.
Mr. Brebner also is faced with an interesting problem. In the past he has succeeded in selling London Transport to the Londoners as part of their home-town complex. Now the transport unit is no smaller than the Nation. The affairs of the L.T.E., including its finances, are part of the activities of the Commission. Can Mr. Brebner also succeed in transplanting London pride?