A rail pay settlement should be judged by what it secures and who pays for it. Turning the argument into resentment of the person driving the train avoids both questions.
There is a serious case for reaching an agreement. Disruption affects people travelling to work, attending appointments and seeing family. A government may reasonably decide that settling a dispute is better than letting passengers bear the cost of a long confrontation which ends with much the same deal.
Workers are entitled to bargain too. Skilled work carries responsibility, and wanting a dependable railway means being willing to pay the people needed to run it.
Passengers have interests as well
Where the public has few alternatives, a group able to withdraw a service has considerable leverage. That doesn't make the group wicked. It makes the terms of the bargain a matter of public concern.
Passengers and taxpayers aren't less important because their interests are less organised. Some can't work from home, switch routes or recover the wages lost when a journey fails.
A government should therefore explain what higher pay buys. Does the agreement improve reliability, resolve restrictive practices or help retain staff? What other changes were sought? Which commitments can the public check afterwards?
Make responsibility clear
Rail arrangements can make those questions hard to follow. Operators, ministers and unions each point to a different part of the system. The person waiting on the platform still needs someone to answer for the service as a whole.
The funding needs the same clarity. Higher fares, public subsidy, borrowing and savings elsewhere have different consequences. A commitment doesn't become separate from the rest of the budget because it was made under pressure.
Britain wants reliable services, restrained fares, fair pay and manageable taxes. There are choices between those aims, alongside opportunities to improve productivity and investment. I would rather hear the choices explained than be invited either to applaud a settlement without seeing its cost or resent workers without asking what the deal actually achieved.