Are our forelock-tugging days over? Not according to some current and ex-politicians

In 1954, in a small rural part of southern England, the railway line between East Grinstead and Lewes was proposed for closure by the nationalised British Railways. Despite strong local protest, closure was approved, and the line was abandoned the following year.  Research by a local resident and councillor, a Miss Marjory Bessemer, revealed that the original 1877 and 1878 Acts that provided for the acquisition, completion and running of the line, stipulated that 4 passenger trains each way should run every day and that there should be a connection from East Grinstead to London. Being mentioned in the Acts effectively meant that trains were to run in perpetuity unless repealed by another Act of Parliament.  To local rejoicing, the line was reopened in 1956 after BR’s mistake was pointed out. A public inquiry followed in 1957 in which British Railways were strongly criticised. Nevertheless, the body in charge of BR, the Transport Commission, persuaded Parliament to pass the necessary legislation and the line duly closed in 1958.

However, the story had a happy ending. The delay in closure allowed enthusiasts to reopen the line as the first privately preserved standard gauge railway in the country. Today, the Bluebell Railway, as it’s now called, is an important and successful tourist destination, as are many preserved lines that followed. Interestingly, Miss Bessemer was a relative of the man who invented the process to make high quality steel in industrial quantities. This was essential to the growth of the industrial revolution, including the railways. Miss Bessemer is commemorated by having the Bluebell Railway’s pub named “The Bessemer Arms” in her honour. Cheers!

A compelling story to be sure, but there’s a generally forgotten darker aspect within a context not perhaps realised today. Having been criticised in a public inquiry, it could have been expected that BR would have approached the reopening and subsequent closure with a certain amount of contrition towards the public. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Out of spite, BR sought to close any station that wasn’t mentioned in the original act, stuck to just the 4 return journeys and ran them at times that ensured passengers had to wait as long as possible for a connection from East Grinstead to London. In fact it was termed the “sulky service”.

It seemed that the people had defied the will of a major government organisation and had to be punished. Today, for those who find such a petty, spiteful and even vengeful reaction by a government-controlled body unthinkable, the context is important to remember. It was a more deferential age. Society doffed its cap to those it thought were its betters, and its betters generally believed they were indeed better.

In an echo of the Bluebell Railway story, the people have defied the vast majority of the establishment by voting to leave the EU. Ex- Commons politicians, for example Michael Heseltine and Tony Blair, made speeches urging the House of Lords to frustrate the withdrawal process. The aim, certainly in the case of Tony Blair, is to ultimately defy the will of the people and remain in the EU. Happily, despite such defiance, the will of the people has prevailed and Article 50 will be triggered. Notwithstanding, there are many current and ex-politicians who have expressed dire warnings of life outside of the EU, particularly those in the Liberal Democratic Party. Ex-Conservative PM John Major has been even more brazen about his views and indeed his contempt for the electorate, describing the decision to leave the EU as a “historic mistake”. Strong stuff, because as far as I’m aware, he never accused the electorate of making a “historic mistake” even when replacing him as PM by Tony Blair in 1997. Perhaps John Major didn’t think it was a historic mistake. Ironically, with Tony Blair’s culpability in precipitating the interminable problems in the Middle East, it may well have been.

There are many, including myself, whose main concern about the EU was its undemocratic slide towards a United States of Europe and the inexorable erosion of British sovereignty by EU treaty rather than the electorate’s consent. It’s hardly surprising therefore that even those who are – or were – part of the democratic governance of the UK and who wanted to remain in the EU, should show scant regard for democracy. John Major seems to have forgotten that democracy is about the will of the people rather than some notion of right or wrong judged by his extremely unsound view of the future. Perhaps the EU referendum has shown that there are some politicians and ex-politicians who still think that the electorate should defer to their views, even when it expresses the opposite. Power not only corrupts but seems to mightily overinflate the ego.