Outer London

First I must declare an interest.  I am a fanatical Londoner, convinced that there is no more exciting, civilised, beautiful spot on earth; there is nowhere I would rather live.  But I hope that I would feel the same if I were a Cornishman, Scouser, Scot or Lancastrian.  The fact that the rest of Britain seems increasingly to be as besotted with London as Londoners is a disturbing trend.

In part it is understandable. Government is becoming more and more centralised; attempts to spread cultural facilities more evenly throughout the country have been wishful thinking at best, and window-dressing at worst.  As all the remaining bright young things move to the capital, drawn by the seductive charms of a high-tech, highly-paid, high society, London is turning into a total Yuppiopolis, which feeds the process yet more.  London is where the action is.  Which is good for us, bad for the rest of the country, and ultimately bad for everybody.

Compare the situation in the U.S.  There, everyone is proud to be American, but even more proud of their local city. Hence we see a tremendous number of centres of economic, social and cultural activity.  This richness provides much of the motive power which fuels American society.  Some cities like New York, Washington and Los Angeles may have particular pulling power, and represent especial concentrations of activity and facilities.  But this is in addition to the countless Clevelands, Denvers, Seattles and Austins, all of which are busy pulling themselves up by their bootstraps to national, and in some cases, international eminence.

The effect is multiplicative.  Just as London’s cuckoo-like growth is sapping the will and energy of regional centres, so the pullulation of such concentrations in the U.S. promotes a healthy spirit of competition, engendering more of the same.  The cumulative richness also goes some way to explain the dominance of American television, language and culture in the Western world.

Consider television.  The most popular and populist TV series are almost invariably rooted in a particular location – Dallas, Miami Vice, Hawaii-Five-O and so on.  Although given the shallowness of such series the backdrop is vestigial, and rarely plays an important role, it does nonetheless promote a sense of civic differentiation.  Compare the situation in the U.K.  Both Crossroads and Coronation Street are dinosaurs; most other series, either of soaps or action, are set in London, or at best deracinated.  If attempts are made to use specific non-London locations, the results are either half-hearted or failures.

The same goes for language.  In the U.S. there is a constant competition to enrich the general language with local words and phrases.  In the U.K., it is mainly London media who determine what new words will become current.  It is an uneven contest, fifty or a hundred against one.  As a result, American English, especially in its more colourful and flamboyant forms, is pouring into world English, together with its culture. Despite this, I maintain that London is best; but I wish others disagreed.

(28.12.86)

Index