Notebook
T do not envy the Northern Ireland
Information Service. The task of presen- ting this unhappy province to the world as a cheerful, fun-loving place cannot be an easy one. Indeed, it might be better not to at- tempt it. The Office recently produced a glossy brochure in four languages entitled, alternatively, 'Real story', `ca c'est vrai', `Es la verdad', or — in a daringly free piece of translation — 'Alles gut!' Even the Nor- thern Ireland Information Office must have had some difficulty in persuading itself that `alles' was 'gut' in Ulster. From the brochure we learn that 'Ulster people are a distinct type — independent, sturdy and above all determined'; that 'massive new in- vestment is changing the face of Belfast'; that 'Northern Ireland is now rated as Bri- tain!s best served area for leisure'; and that `an estimated 30,000-40,000 people enjoy themselves in theatres, cinemas, pubs and clubs in Northern Ireland most evenings'. So what is wrong with the place? Not much, apparently. 'Despite the efforts of a small number of terrorists to impose their will on the community, there is a growing degree of normality about life in Northern Ireland.' And even terrorism is not all bad in its effects. 'Belfast has turned to advan- tage one aspect of the "troubles" which were at their peak in the early 1970s. Traffic free security zones were introduced then in the city centre areas to protect people and property. Many of these were developed in- to attractive and permanent pedestrianised areas, voted a great success by shopper and shopkeeper alike'. There is good in everything if you only know where to find it.
The television film from the Falklands was of high quality and brought home for the first time the full horror of the war and the gallantry of those involved. But in- stead of leading the news bulletins long after the war was over, at a time when the events depicted could no longer be regarded as 'news', these pictures should have been shown while the war was going on. It would have enabled people to understand and Judge the war far better than they did. Perhaps the Ministry of Defence did not want them to understand it, which is the on- ly reason I can think of for its wanton Obstructionism. But the result was that we had to live through the war twice, on two different levels. One war was quite enough.
There has been mucli speculation about the motive for Princess Anne's public display of bitterness over the birth of the Princess of Wales's baby. Only the Sun has volunteered an explanation. It reported on Wednesday: 'The Queen believes Anne's display of jealousy could become a long- term embarrassment'. So jealousy was the motive, was it? How interesting. I wonder what Princess Anne is supposed to be jealous of — of her sister-in-law's looks? of the fact that she is going to be Queen? or just of her popularity? Perhaps everybody is a little jealous of Diana's evident charm and good nature. Certainly Cliff Richard and Sue Barker seem to be afflicted by this unworthy emotion. According to the Sun again, they announced last week: 'We're the new Charles and Di.' There had to be someone to take over once they got mar- ried,' Cliff explained. There didn't have to be, and there wasn't.
During the tube and rail strikes cars were .1-1 parked higgledly-piggledly all over the pavements of London. It was a very re- freshing sight, reminding one of happier, freer cities. I have long suspected that park- ing wardens are really members of a secret army preparing to take over the country in a coup d'etat. They are certainly the fiercest disciplinarians in the land. The strikes sud- denly deprived them of their power, and the sense of freedom which this gave to Lon- doners almost compensated for the horrific traffic jams. If the Government believes in freedom for the entrepreneur, why doesn't it believe in freedom for the motorist? Motorists are sensible people. If they drive to work one day and can find nowhere to park, they will not drive to work the next day. They will use public transport — if there is any. I have argued about this before with economic purists, but it seems to me obvious that public transport is one of those few areas which merit massive public support. Everybody, practically without ex-
ception, would like cheap, fast and efficient tubes and trains. The quality of public transport not only determines the feelings people have about going to work and doing their jobs; it is important in determining their feelings about their country. There is practically no country in the world which people do not look back with nostalgia to some imaginary period when the trains used to run on time. As far as London Transport is concerned, Mr Ken Livingstone had the right idea. If he had been a little bit less im- petuous and had carefully thought through his plan to cut fares, so that it could have been made to work, he would now be a hero. Unfortunately he was responsible for a disaster. What we need therefore, is a good public transport system, at practically whatever cost, and the abolition of parking wardens. You cannot have one without the other. But if we had both, then people would feel freer and more contented, and the traffic in London would be no worse than it normally is. And it must surely be the purpose of any respectable government to try to give the people what they want.
Ican understand Sir Peter Parker's des- peration, but was it really wise of him to describe the Aslef executive as 'pigheaded, anarchic, brutal, savage, suicidal, selfish, stupid, foolish and muddled', as the Stan- dard reported on Wednesday? These are the sort of comments you might expect to read in the Spectator or in some other responsi- ble organ, but Sir Peter is supposed to be running British Rail. Does he feel that such comments will help him to end the strike? There must surely be subtler ways of under- mining the train drivers' support for their leader, Ray Buckton.
In a recent review of The Love for Three Oranges at Glyndebourne, Rodney Milnes wrote that 'the wit lacking on stage coursed through Haitink's conducting and the excellent playing of the London Philharmonic Orchestra'. When I saw the opera later, I also thought the orchestra played beautifully, but I wasn't particularly aware of the wit. That was no doubt my fault, for I have never really understood about wit or humour in music. At school we used to have our attention drawn to things called musical jokes. This was useful because it enabled one to smile knowingly at certain moments when listening to music. But I have subsequently come to the conclu- sion that 'musical jokes' are never in fact at all funny. For one thing, the opportunities for making jokes in music are extremely restricted. The composer can put in a wrong note, or he can make instruments imitate animal noises, or he can parody other com- posers. Those are pretty heavy sorts of jokes in any case, and they depend for any success they may have on the element of surprise. This means you should really only hear them once, but they are enshrined in music which is repeated in the same form over and over again.
Alexander Chancellor
Previous page
