SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK
J. W. M. THOMPSON
The case for public participation in town plan- ning decisions has been urged very strongly from many quarters recently, and certainly there is something deeply offensive about major changes in the environment which are conceived and forced upon the public by anonymous committees or officials. Neverthe- less, the long tragi-comedy of Piccadilly Circus illustrates the difficulties inherent in a more democratic approach. I've lost count of how many years it is since the first attempt to replan this battered bit of the West End was made (although I very well remember the hideous lump of a building which the late Jack Cotton proposed to deposit there), but there seems to have been a whole epoch of plans and revisions of plans since then. And I'm afraid my first reaction, on visiting this week the beautifully mounted exhibition of the London planners' latest ideas for Piccadilly, was simply one of scepticism: after so many other designs have been blown away by time, why should this fare any better?
A look at the models and drawings, more- over, was hardly encouraging. The proposal bristles with those flights of fancy one expects to see in the colour supplements rather than in real life—a roofed-over Regent Street, a piazza for pedestrians high in the air, and so on; at the end I wanted to see another model, showing what the scene would be like when the estimates had been pruned to remove (or perhaps ostensibly to postpone) all 'unneces- sary frills.' In any case I wouldn't expect to like this new Piccadilly Circus. The existing place at least has the point that it is a focus: with everything dispersed and relocated it would be (as an American was complain- ing while I was there) a slice of 'Nowheres- ville.'
Family banning
The fuss over Mr Douglas Houghton's remarks on the population explosion has been revealing. Of course he was right in supposing that the colossal increase in the number of human beings is the greatest problem facing the world in the future. It is, however, a problem involv- ing so many unpleasant consequences that as a rule people prefer not to think about it, any more than most people choose to dwell on the chances of nuclear war. Mr Houghton's hints at some sort of Orwellian state control of families were repugnant and instantly recognised as such. But we might as well admit, while dismissing such odious notions, that the results of the human race's tendency towards an ever-accelerating increase in num- bers are likely to be repugnant also. It took 200,000 years for man to reach his first thou- sand million, but only a hundred years to reach his second; the signs are that the world's present population is likely to be doubled again before the end of the century, and probably quadrupled before' today's children are dead. No one can foresee all the implications of this, but there is small reason to think they will be anything but menacing to the species.
Even in this rich country we are already paying a high price to cope with our over- crowding, and of course this is only the begin- ning. When many more millions have entered the competition for limited resources the price will soar. No one actually wishes to see most of the country developed into one huge built- up area divided by overloaded motorways, but that is the appalling future which present trends indicate. It doesn't seem unreasonable to predict that one day large families could come to be widely regarded as 'a form of social delin- quency,' however unhappy the prospect. After all, various activities which were once thought respectable are now so regarded. Perhaps Mr Houghton really got into hot water not only because his views were unacceptable, but also because he uttered any views at all on so un- comfortable a subject.
That miracle
Mr Wilson publicly denied last week that he had been banned from television by his Cabinet colleagues: the oddest denial by a Prime Minister, I should think, since Sir Anthony Eden issued a statement from Down- ing Street denying that he intended to resign. Hence, I suppose, the subsequent muffled uproar over the failure of Independent Tele- vision News to make any reference whatever on Saturday to Mr Wilson's aggressive speech in Wales that day—a lapse which, I'm told, caused anguish both at Downing Street and (later) at rrN.
However, since both the BBC and the Sunday papers reported it prominently, Mr Wilson's speech may have served as a salutary reminder to complacent Tories of the formidable elec- tioneering guns the Prime Minister Still carries. Nevertheless, he made one blunder. His use of the words 'economic miracle' is probably something which he already profoundly regrets. I know he was careful to attribute the forecast to others, and didn't actually promise any miraculous developments himself; but these platform flourishes tend to live on unhampered by cautious qualifications. There is a long cata- logue of politicians' phrases which have re- turned to haunt their authors. The pounds in our pocket will not be devalued, we've never had it so good, exporting is fun; and now an economic miracle is on the way. Well, we must hope so. As Mr George Brown remarked in another phrase which he subsequently regret- ted, this Government has been running the economy in a way it has never been run before.
• Locked out
This is (to me) a new manifestation of the national health service's difficulties. A friend called on his doctor during the advertised sur- gery hours, seeking treatment for some for- tunately not grave ailment. He found the surgery door locked, although he could se. through the window that a number of patie. were sitting in the waiting room. Eventu. he discovered that the doctor, regarding 111: self no doubt as overworked, was 'not accept ing' more than a certain number of patieni-. I dare say anyone who collapsed on the pave- ment outside would have been allowed in, but the rest (although, of course, on the doctor's .were turned away. So much for the utopian visitors which accompanied the launching of the health service just twenty years ago.
Previous page
