SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK

J. W. M. THOMPSON

I don't believe there has ever been a major planning decision so thoroughly unpopular as the plan to build London's third airport at Stansted. This is not, I think, because of any sentimental objection to airports or modernisa- tion. It is due rather to a greatly increased sense in recent years of the ruthless and empty-headed way in which our environment is being despoiled. The decision to transform the last surviving stretch of rural landscape near London into a noisy subtopia is an appalling example of a general trend.

It is also, of course, a devastating blow at the much-vaunted 'democratic' planning system of local objection, public inquiry, and the rest of it. The long history of the Stansted affair, culmina- ting in a public inquiry at which the inspector stubbornly refused to give his support to the proposal, suggests that there was a powerful lobby determined all along to get its way for reasons of administrative convenience and ex- pediency. The victory, presumably, is now theirs. But as a piece of planning it stinks : and at least the chorus of condemnation has made plain the weight of opinion to that effect.

Judging by the complacent terms in which Mr Douglas Jay announced the decision, this blast of contempt for a botched opportunity will have come as something of a surprise to him. The Government were no doubt expecting bitter opposition from the doomed area; pre- sumably they had not grasped how general the disapproval would be. But I don't suppose there is much hope that the plan will be reconsidered as a result of this widespread outrage. After all, Mr Jay has earned for himself a secure if un- enviable place in history as the author of the dictum that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best what is good for us. Those who take a less reverent view of the gentlemen in White- hall ought at least to read the White Paper on Stansted. It is a classic piece of argument for the short-term, the expedient, and the second-best.

Battle of the Bill

It's odd, and even in a way rather reassuring, that in spite of all that is happening politically at the moment there is no more intense political tussle currently in progress than that over the well-intentioned attempt at reform embodied in jhe Abortion Bill. „Eecent reports that Mr Wilson has agreed to provide government time in order to save the Bill from parliamentary extinction next month seem to be premature, and have evidently caused the Prime Minister some annoyance. It's true that he is under pressure to take this course, notably from Mr Crossman and Mr Jenkins. But opposing this pressure are the doubts of Mr Robinson, the Minister of Health, who is per- turbed by opposition from a section of the medical profession; and also the doubts of Mr Wilson himself, who cannot ignore the feelings of the substantial Roman Catholic electorate, which happens to be particularly numerous in his own political base around Liverpool. Labour's sharp setbacks there in the local elec- tions are no doubt a factor. After all, the Government doesn't have to take any action to kill the Bill. It has only to stand aside to allow it to be talked out of existence by its opponents.

But the battle is by no means over. Mr David Steel and his colleagues are pondering a new stroke in the form of a fresh amendment de- signed to defuse a great deal of the doctors' opposition to reform, which in turn would presumably remove Mr Robinson's hesitations. The question then will be whether our pragmatic premier decides to be strong for reform or resolute for inactivity. I wouldn't care to predict which it will be.

Unfair to pollsters

Since the famous Orpington by-election, at least, I have taken the view that opinion polls can influence voting. At that by-election, the NOt' at the eleventh hour predicted a narrow Liberal victory; in the event the Liberals had a massive majority and the Labour candidate forfeited his deposit, thereby confounding numerous prophets including myself. The result clearly suggested, so it seemed to me, that a number of people who had meant to vote Labour switched to Liberal when they saw their first choice run- ning third in the opinion poll, thus ensuring a resounding Tory defeat.

Even so, I. have never quite seen why people shouldn't take account of the polls when de- ciding how to vote. This week the Speaker's conference on electoral law has recommended that publication of opinion polls should be banned for three days before any parliamentary election. I'm afraid I remain unconvinced that they represent any threat to democracy. An

election is not, and cannot be, a scientifically pure exercise in opinion-testing in controlled laboratory conditions. Its result is the conse- quence of innumerable major and minor in- fluences upon the electorate's attitudes, including the weather and what's on the telly. It seems quite pointless -to eliminate one of these influences, and that a tolerably scientific one, and then only for three days before polling- day. The gain, if there is a gain, can't be worth the meddling involved.

Will it be illegal for canvassers to refer to previous opinion polls—or speakers at election meetings, for that matter? That ought to rank as 'publication.' And what is a poll? If a reporter asks twenty people how they mean to vote, will he be breaking the law? I fear this proposal is simply nonsense.

Jam tomorrow

It's a remarkable fact that no one seemed to think it worth mentioning, when the idea of appointing a Traffic Commissioner was being argued about during the Greater London Coun- cil election campaign, that in fact London already has a Traffic Commissioner. Not even Mr D. I. R. Muir, OBE, the current holder of that office, appears to have remonstrated with those who were proposing to appropriate his title. Since this week the victorious Tories have announced that they intend to proceed with their plan `to create a new post of Traffic Commis- sioner,' London will soon have the singular good fortune of possessing two officials bearing this title. I hope relations between them prove cor- dial: there seems initial ground for coolness in that the existing holder of the title (whose prin- cipal statutory concern is licensing public service vehicles) is listed as receiving a salary of £4,685, whereas the new man (whose work will be to improve the flow of traffic) is promised £7,250. However, a grateful populace will doubtless be happy to double or quadruple their rewards if any major improvement in London traffic con- ditions ensues.

The new job is a daunting one for anyone to take on, and from the point of view of the Tory new brooms at County Hall, a positively alarming amount of public goodwill will be in the commissioner's keeping. A large part of London's population lives through a daily horror story of congestion and delay. (My own worst this week was spending three hours driving thirty miles from central London : my American guest remained calm but plainly didn't believe that ten miles an hour was an acceptable motor- ing speed.) Hence the political hazard in raising public hope of improvements—and, of course, the huge rewards if by some miracle improve- ments are actually achieved.

Laurel

Professor Trevor-Roper, in his erudite article opposite, has his own suggestion as to who should become our next poet laureate. He would perhaps agree, however, that other candidates are conceivable. My belief is that if the office is to be preserved at all (and it would seem a little dreary to abolish it) then the nominee should meet certain exacting requirements. He should be able to communicate with a somewhat larger public than most poets can reach. He should have an unusually developed sense of occasion and sense of place. He should represent some- thing distinctively English. He should also (unlike many of his predecessors) be indispu- tably a poet. In short, he should be Mr Betjeman.