SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK

W. M. THOMPSON

This year's Reith Lectures don't seem to have attracted much attention. Perhaps in this rather austere formula one has to talk provocative tosh, as Dr Edmund Leach chose to do a couple of years ago, to capture the headlines. This is a pity. For five weeks now, Dr Fraser Darling has been exploring what he calls, without qualification, the world's biggest problems—population in- crease and environmental pollution; and since he is as well equipped as anyone in the world to speak on these themes, his survey has been most impressive.

What has also impressed me, I fear, has been the underlying pessimism which has become apparent as his series has proceeded. Dr Darling is obviously not pessimistic by nature. He is an active and inquiring sort of man who has clearly enjoyed life in all the odd corners of the world to which his scien- tific work has taken him. Yet he con- templates the doubling of the world's population in his lifetime so far; he foresees the horrors of famine on a large scale; he ponders the enormous violence being done, both visibly and invisibly, to the natural world; and plainly he finds it hard to escape the sense of 'impending tragedy' of which he has spoken.

Dr Darling's work as a conservationist has led to such efforts as making 1970 'Euro- pean Conservation Year'. But the contrast between the magnitude of the problems and the puny attempts to solve them must seem overwhelming. Who has even heard of `European Conservation Year'? We all try not to think about the almost unthinkable, even with such current events as the poison- ing of the sea off our coast to act as a spur. That is why Dr Darling's admirable lectures have fallen a bit flat.

The LSE's guests

After Sir William Armstrong had been forcibly prevented from delivering the an- nual Oration at the London School of Economics the other day, this triumph for disruption was discussed by the Students' Union council. That body, I am fascinated to note, condemned the incident as 'a clear con- travention of free speech'—but only by a majority vote. The voting was seven to two. I find it in some ways stimulating to reflect that, as a taxpayer, I am helping to support two thinkers with the intellectual originality to hold that the silencing of a guest speaker is not a contravention of free speech.

In future years, however, the LSE may find it hard to persuade distinguished men to take on this onerous speaking engagement. Last year Professor Trevor-Roper did so and was subjected to various discourtesies. This year Sir William, as head of the home civil service, had prepared a lengthy address but wasn't allowed to utter a word. With such loutish treatment in prospect, why should people accept the LSE'S invitations? The Oration, by the way, is done for love, not for money.

Elusive recovery

In view of the latest by-elections, it is clear that Labour is still a long way from making the recovery necessary to win the next elec- tion. However, there are still seventeen months left before the last possible date for

the election. Perhaps, in judging Labo prospects, it will be helpful to consider the Government has fared over the seventeen months.

During that time there have been eight elections in Labour-held seats in Eng (In Scotland the nationalists distort the ture.) Of these eight, four were held and lost—but one of the latter, Ladywood, the Liberals won, was obviously unrepr tative. Of the remaining seven, where main issue lay between Labour and servatives, the percentage swings to Tories (calculated in terms of the total party poll) have been as follows : October 1968 Bassetlaw March 1969 Walthamstow E. 16 October 1969 Islington N. 10 Newcastle 10 Paddington N. 17 Swindon 13 December 1969 Wellingborough 10.

It is difficult to see here any dramatic covery. The pattern over the next seve Months will have to be startlingly differe Labour is to have any chance of winnir,

Decimal point

Incidentally, those results rather supper idea that the spring is not the best time f government to go to the country; in s‘ case Labour effectively has much less seventeen months in which to stage .recovery.

But the most popular Labour argu against spring '71 is, of course, that the c try will then be in the throes of changin decimal money, which is widely expect be hideously unpopular for a time at leas was even suggested in the Observer this that decimalisation may be delayed for .1 months if it looks like coinciding with election. Well, maybe: but it's not as si as it looks. It is true that the 1967 decim. tion Act merely fixed 'a day in 1971 to be pointed by the Treasury', later named i order as 15 February 1971. But since there has been a second Act, to fill in fur details, and this firmly embodied February 1971 in the law. To change it would require not merely a new order In would be easy) but fresh legislation (Nk -would certainly not). It seems that Wilson, that well known believer in kcc his options open, has to thank Mr 1c for securely closing this one.

Down Memory Lane "We are living in the • jet age but Ile governed by an Edwardian establish mentality . . . They • freeze initiative petrify imagination . . . They are ineJ of mobilising Britain to take full ach-o of the scientific breakthrough. Their proach and methods are fifty years 0 date . . . We shall build a new Bri (Harold Wilson, 19 January 1964.) `Britain today is a Luddite's paradise society dedicated to the prevention 01 gress and the preservation of the status There are always a hundred and 0 dividuals, obstacles, pressure groups. interest groups, ancient customs and reasons" to stand in the way of pro,s'-' We shall bring a new style to goner': (Edward Heath, 5 December 1969.)

10