Notebook

It is poignant and ironic that Alexander olzhenitsyn's powerful warning of a sudden and imminent fall' of the West should have led so instantly and directly to the collapse of Lord George-Brown. The newspaper photographs of our former Foreign Secretary sprawled across the Pavement outside the Palace of Westminster looked, for a moment, like the evidence of Mr Solzhenitsyn's worst fears. Here was a

an of ideals who, after watching Solzhenitsyn on television, felt an urgent n. eed 'to stand up and do something about

, displaying for all the world his own Inability to do anything. Maybe we all appear like this to Mr Solzhenitsyn, even if, ts Bernard Levin says, he should not yet despair. However, if we are to acquire the u'Ill to stand up for our freedoms and avert the threat of creeping totalitarianism, stronger men than George Brown will need le stand up and be counted.

It is a little difficult to understand what cause the British Medical Association was intending to serve by commissioning a Study of the relative earnings of doctors throughout the Common Market. In case there are any doctors in this country still Unaware of how much better paid their Colleagues are on the continent, the BMA as spelt it out for them with what amounts to an encouragement to emigrate. 'In an International profession like medicine, one the many factors which influence the (Ilistribution of medical manpower is the the of reward in different countries. For `Ile British doctor, Europe now provides a cuinParison which cannot be ignored,' it

Ys. And mysteriously it concludes that 'Ile report is intended 'as a contribution to rnutual understanding within the Cornnunity.' The report shows clearly that the ritish doctor is much the worst paid in the

c'Irlmunity. His average .net income is 'tween £5,500 and £5,900 a year, compared with an average of between £12,500 utLild £16,100 in West Germany, which tops league. How does this knowledge "tribute to mutual understanding ? As it s clearly not practical to close the earnings tl,P between doctors here and those suroad, presumably the only result of this :tUdY will be to stir up further discontent :11 the medical profession and persuade "lOre British doctors to pack their bags 4nd go.

lf resident Ford intends to drop the word tiuetente' from his vocabulary (which will s0 doubt be taken by the French as some of slight), he really should offer a more tactical substitute than 'seek to relax

tensions so that we can continue a policy of peace through strength.' Apart from the fact that the word 'détente' has been dirtied beyond repair by the President's conservative critics, like Senator Jackson and Mr Reagan, it has never been popular with Anglo-Saxon journalists, mainly because of its Frenchness, and the President's decision to drop it provides an opportunity to find another word—preferably an English one— to describe his policy. First, one must discover what that policy is. If in fact it is to be 'cold war', we would do well to revive that useful expression. But if it is something a little more constructive, another singleword description must be found. Readers are invited to make their suggestions. The winner will be rewarded with a bottle of vodka.

It is greatly to be regretted that last weekend's conciliatory speech on the trade unions by Mrs Thatcher was followed, last Tuesday, by a very substantial number of Conservative abstentions in the House of Lords debate on Lord Goodman's amendment to Mr Michael Foot's legislation on closed shops. Hitherto the Tories, though they had allowed Lord Goodman to take the lead in the Lords' fight on the Bill, were staunch in their opposition to the Government. Tory supporters were undoubtedly perturbed by what Mrs Thatcher and Mr Prior had to say: they will be even more so by the inactivity of their representatives in the Upper House, And Lord Goodman, who appeared confident that his troops would follow him into the last battle, has every reason to feel badly let down.

Literary taste comes and invariably goes, but it is odd how fashions in publishing spring unawares on the public and on reviewers—how, by some unexpected osmosis, a number of books will appear on the same subject from different publishers. In the middle of last year, there was a spate of 'cloomwatch' books; no reputable

publisher was without one.

Towards the end of 1975, sexual politics became the dominant theme—books generally written by liberated American women or by liberated American psychiatrists with titles like Sex and the Family, and Sex and the Single Swinger. This year, there have been two definite trends: books on China, appearing in greater and greater numbers, and books to do with the American revolution. These perhaps for obvious reasons, but now a new market-leader has been creeping forward : books on homosexuality. Two books are soon to be published—Lesbian images, by Jane Rule, and A Lasting Relationship, by Jeremy Seabrook. Both of these flopped on the literary desk on the same day ; judging by previous experience, it is only a taste of things to come.

Dame Margot Fonteyn seems to be unusually keen on a special system of workerparticipation in the world of show business, in which artists tend, on the whole, to hold themselves aloof from the commercial concerns of management. Dame Margot evidently regards it as within her province to approve the prices that are charged when she is appearing. It was always her policy to prevent the Royal Opera House from increasing its prices when she was dancing with the Royal Ballet, but the Opera House is heavily subsidised and would not regard itself as a commercial enterprise (although it has been the custom there to minimise the burden for the taxpayer by putting seat prices up when high-priced performers are on the bill). Now it is reported that Dame Margot, who was due to dance at the 330seat Adeline Genee Theatre at East Grinstead on 8 March, cancelled her appearance on learning that the prices being charged were over £10 a seat. Since this little theatre was to be charged a fee of £3000 for Dame Margot's show (and obviously has other expenses and overheads to meet as well), the proposed price range seems not to have been exorbitant. One very practical way of reducing the prices so that the show could go on would have been to reduce the fee being charged for it—but that, conceivably, might have upset the ballerina even more.

Princess Anne received the Freedom of the City last Friday—a happy tribute, a happy occasion. But it was marred, as similar ceremonies invariably are, by the resultant chaos and congestion in much of central London. Traffic was brought to a standstill, thousands were put to avoidable inconvenience, expense, annoyance and anger. This need not be repeated for evermore.

Instead of the traditional journey by road (horse-drawn or otherwise), why not make use of the river? The honoured guest could be taken to the City by barge, sailing from Millbank, say, or Chelsea. Other considerations apart, this would be much more romantic.

During the Heath administration, when Mr Whitelaw was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, at least one minister was always present in the province. That was the invariable rule. He was there himself more often than not, accompanied by some of his junior ministers, who took it in turns to remain at Stormont if he was away.

Mr Wilson and Mr Merlyn Rees would do well to introduce a similar system. The absence of all five Ulster ministers for much of the other weekend (a weekend of violence) is not to be defended. Ulster MPs are understandably angry.

The customary arguments for and against the regime in Iran under the rule of the Shahanshah have been paraded once again in the pages of the Times. An article by two English lawyers condemning the number of political prisoners and the widespread use of torture in Iran was answered—not by the Iranian ambassador in London who remained significantly silent, but by Mr Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster and married to a niece of a former Iranian prime minister.

The point made in his letter, and with greater vigour by Lord Chalfont in a report from Teheran, was that to judge the internal political system of Iran by the standards of British democracy was quite wrong. If the 'vilification of Iran by the Marxists of the West and their hangers-on among the extreme left and the devotees of radical chic' continued, Chalfont wrote, we risked losing the support of one of the richest and most important allies of the West.

What Chalfont ignores is that many Iranians, who have nothing to do with `the left', who accept the need for some form of censorship and even for the Savak (the Iranian secret police), are now very concerned at the increased level of repression in their country in recent months.

The fact that the Conservative leader is 'the second' Mrs Thatcher, first disclosed in the Daily Mail, is hardly a remarkable revelation in itself. What is more remarkable is that Mrs Thatcher's three biographers failed, even in passing, to record that Denis Thatcher had previously been married to someone else. Poor work, Russell Lewis, George Gardiner and Ernie Money.

Two German psychologists have been watching pedestrians walking along the street in Prague, Brooklyn, Jerusalem, and twelve other towns and cities in Europe, Asia, and South America. Using stop watches and perseverance, they have reached a remarkable conclusion: the bigger the local population, the faster people walk. Having taken care to observe (unobtrusively) their quarry perambulating along a measured fifty feet on similar dry, sunny days, Marc and Helen Bornstein discovered a clear and striking relationship between population size and what they call the rate of pedestrian locomotion. It has,

they claim, to do with the `pace of life'.

Clearly, this is a research lode to be exploited. A comparison of the dawdle along commuter platforms in the morning with the headlong dash in the opposite direction nine hours later, for example, might yield insights into our attitudes towards work. And how does inflation affect pedestrian locomotion? Do housewives shopping around, at the behest of Mrs Williams, move more ferociously than those who patronise the friendly grocer?

Last Saturday's conference of Tory trade unionists was not improved in its likely electoral effects by Mr James Prior's extraordinary statement that nobody 'need expect the next Conservative government to come into office in any vengeful spirit'. Who ever heard of a politician, with aspirations to office, promising the electorate, or any section of it, that his party would avoid vengeance? The phrase was ludicrous, like the thinking behind it—if any. Mr Prior will live to regret his words; and so will his colleagues. While he can be spared, his party cannot afford such ineptitude.

Any good that might have been accomplished by the Tories' new-found protestations of regard for the trade unions has been reduced by Mr Prior, if not killed off. If there was scepticism already (and there was) he has succeeded in creating still more. Quite an achievement for the Shadow Employment Secretary and Mrs Thatcher's principal 'adviser' on industrial relations.

With few exceptions, London streets are dirtier than ever before. Who can fail to notice the increasingly disgusting condition of the pavements? The deterioration is not due solely, or even mainly, to a lack of roadsweepers (though that is a factor). The culprits are the swelling army of litter louts in our midst, for ever strewing the streets

with discarded cartons, wrappings, scraps of food.

One ghastly habit, more and more prevalent, is the dumping of household rubbish at the kerb. It is often put out In substantial quantities and left open to wind and rain in some flimsy paper bag or leaking box. Some people are no longer bothering with dustbins. What has brought about such a deplorable decline in national standards of public and private cleanliness?

It will surprise nobody that the Russians are careless about the observance of their own as well as anyone else's laws. Rather more surprising is the apparent willingness of that great democratic institution, the British Post Office, to accept this state of affairs.

The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, in pursuit of its general objectives, has been writing letters to various Russian citizens, among them a number of so called 'dissidents'. Prudently, the Foundation has registered the letters and paid an additional fee for advice of delivery. According to the conventions of the Universal Postal Union (to which Britain and Russia are signatories) if such a letter is not delivered the sender Is entitled to compensation at the rate of £5.50. Until recently the Post Office rather grudgingly paid out. But now they are refusing on the grounds that the Russians will not reimburse the British Post Office because 'the letters are using the postal service for activity incompatible with domestic legislation of the USSR'. Unfortunately for the Russians and the British Post Office, Article 128 of the Soviet Constitution says that `secrecy of correspondence is guaranteed by law'. Article 135 of the criminal code makes it a punishable offence for individuals and state depart; ments to interfere with the secrecy 01 correspondence. The British Post Office, are uninterested in these splendid liberal provisions of the Russian constitution; They have not sought, nor do they intene to seek, legal advice on the question. What the Russians say is good enough for than,: Interestingly enough, the latest set ' letters sent from the Russell Foundation.' of articles from the French Communi51 daily paper L' Humanite and John Gollati„ (chairman of the Communist party Great Britain) which condemn the teea,,t; ment of Russian dissidents. Some wee'r have passed and there are no indicatio0s.°,1 delivery. Messrs Gollan and Marchais will' no doubt, be surprised to learn that the are 'incompatible with domestic legislatio of the USSR'.n The egregious Mr Cyril Smith has been calling the House of Commons 'the longest-running farce' in the West End, .1.°bC the extent that any such impression maY created in the public mind, it is due to the presence at Westminster of a few clowns like Mr Smith. His own foolish language directly contributes to mistrust and denigra ti° f haH.ouse, which would be bette(

without of im