The long-awaited command paper containing the government’s response to
the McNulty report has been released. But, apart from stating the obvious and re-emphasising previous announcements, is there anything new? Robert Wright takes a closer look
When words are not enough
t’s a worthwhile test of a phrase that sounds suspiciously fatuous to imagine for a moment it is stating the opposite, then check if it’s still worth saying. Statements so obvious one would never say the obverse are generally a waste of ink. Vast tracts of the Department for Transport’s rail command paper, published on 8 March (see page 5), fit very
neatly into this category. Examples include: ‘Only by making sure everyone in the industry has clear
objectives and aligned incentives will we be able to secure our objectives.’
‘A one-size-fits-all model is not likely to be appropriate.’ ‘We will strike a better deal on behalf of farepayers and
taxpayers.’ They’re phrases that ring because they’re hollow. They make one
nostalgic for the days of New Labour English. Yet, as with much leaden phrasemaking, the writing’s
dreadfulness is a mere symptom of a more serious problem. The command paper totters on foundations of the flimsiest thinking and, at points, on outright contradiction. It purports to be addressing both the railways’ over-reliance on taxpayer subsidy and
Engineers operating automated track repair machinery. At the moment, Tocs have little incentive to spend money making their trains more track friendly, but the new alliances could change that
PAGE 18 APRIL 2012
Network Rail
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40