The Glass Box for Monday.
Welcome to the Glass Box - the place where you can comment on what you heard on PM, interact with other listeners and get responses from the people who make the programme. We hope this will be a useful tool for you and for us.
Just click on the "comment" link. If you've never commented on the Blog before - don't worry. There's a simple registration process you only have to go through once.
Don't worry either if you didn't catch the whole programme, or were busy doing other things and not giving us your full attention. If there was something that "caught your ear" we want to hear about it.
The Glass Box is named after the booth outside the PM studio where we all discuss the programme at 18.00 every weeknight. We try to be honest and constructive. Sometimes there is criticism, and the criticised get a chance to explain themselves.
And so it should be here. The people who make PM will read the comments posted, and will sometimes respond. Please feel free to post your thoughts. There is a link to previous Glass Boxes on the right.
Also on the right, you'll find lots of other links you might like. The Furrowed Brow for example is the venue where you can start talking about anything serious: The Beach is a fun place, and there are links to Blog entries with photos, audio and links.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Excellent Any Questions Eddie. Just the right amount of imput from the chair, kept it flowing nicely without impeding the contributions from the panel. New career move for you?
So it was Boris Yeltsin who dismantled the Soviet Union; and we all thought it was Ronald Reagan (before whom it was Gorby). I wonder who’s next to get the credit? Mrs Thatcher?
Is there any danger of less coverage of the French elections? It seems that about half of the output of the news programmes on R4 at the moment consists mainly of the words "Nicholas Sarkozy" and "Segolene Royale"....
Enough already!
Well,that piece on Yeltsin was pretty biased in his favour,presumably because he was pro-Western.
Nothing on his devastation of the Russian economy,the sudden economic inequality,the vast numbers economically wiped out,nor his abysmal 'popularity ratings in Russia subsequently.
Oh dear.
Instead reporting that alcoholic Boris why not look in the wall being built by the American like some thieves in the night
Why not grill some American general about this collective punishment imposed by the neo-cons who want to Balkanise Iraq?
It is patently obvious that ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ website is deliberately showing pictures of the construction of the concrete structure by way of fuzzy pictures taken with night vision cameras and ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ is censoring pictures by not showing the same pictures taken a full day light
This is despicable censorship and ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ and is under pressure from the US forces not to show the actual construction works or report from it directly.
Why on earth don't ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ listeners rise up and say enough of this Panorama adverts. I am sure it is great fun having a go at GMTV but is it NEWS?
No.
God has just informed me that there is a shortage of Vodka in heaven. So unfortunately Yeltsin might not be able to afford too get drunk there....well there is a direct correlation between heaven and market forces... so the 'upper classes' inform us, don't they?
Brian V Peck
Published Author, Political Dissident and Satirist..
What was the point of the polemic concerning war scarred Palestianian children (though I do not doubt there are some).
I imagine they see quite enough fighting amongst their own kind without having to blame Israel exclusively.
Perhaps your reasoning is "If we broadcast enough anti Israeli stories the will give us our reporter back"
What about a report on where the Trillons of dollars of aid have gone to.
Bigger and better bombs and bullets perhaps ?
I rather agree with Anil @5 (though without the heat) that I would have liked to know more about this wall in Iraq, and why we hadn't been told about it before.
Yesterday I heard that the Americans had been "told" to stop building it by the Iraqi president.
Today the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ website has two pieces about it: in one he is reported as having "asked" the Americans to stop; in the other he is said to have "ordered" them to stop.
There's quite a difference between asking, telling and ordering someone not to do something, and I would really have liked to find out which it was, but nothing got mentioned about it at all.
I was pleasedto hear that the Ipswich police are targetting the men rather than the prostitutes- afterall the women couldn't work without their
" clients". Take the fellas away & the trade stops doesn't it?
I'm pleased that at last someone is trying to tackle the reason why these women do what they do. Hopefully it will have some success - if only a few can be rescued from their current degradation it will be a great thing & a few is all we can expect as has been shown from other iniatives to get people off drugs. It shouldn't stop the efforts being made if the results are minor not major.
Regarding the sex trade: The famous prohibition of alcohol in the USA last century only served to drive those who wanted drink to go "underground", with all the criminality involved in that. The only way to even attempt to combat "street-walkers" is to shine a bright light on those who demand such sex! In other words, the focus should be on the "johns" and not the prostitutes. It is the internet age, after all. Why not put the police photo of every "john" convicted of soliciting sex-for-money on the web for all to see? As we all learned in school, the most powerful pressure is that exerted by one's peers!
CAnt think of any WALL that has worked. Berlin Wall came down, Wall to divide Belfast failed. Israels wall still there but does it work?
Whether there is censorship of the building or not a wall is not the solution to the problem.
Sorry: for "Iraqi president" in my last please read "Iraqi Prime Minister". Slip of the mind.
Peter Bolt -
I was thinking the same thing meself. "Why THIS story, NOW?"
The oft-repeated schtick about the kids drawing nowt but violence and horror is surely deserving of closer examination.
R
I would be interested what others think of Peter (3) on the French Election. We are planning a lot between now and the run off. Lots of people say we should do more European Politics generally (and less US) and it is a story with great characters and issues.
Chris/Anil re the wall in Iraq. We are chasing a US military for an interview. Watch this space. It may happen tonight!
Well Yeltsin was an obvious lead item. As to his place in history it's too recent to get a true perspective on it. A decent but flawed man, who tried hard to do the right thing but made many mistakes? That could describe half the adult male population. I thought that the item got most of the significant facts in which the public would have remembered about him.
You might have tried to get a little more illumination on some aspect(s) of the man which were little known to the public. Although John Major said that what you saw was what he was, there was nothing hidden.
And using his own words, as you have done with other obits recently, was a non-starter for a man who never spoke English publicly.
Overall as good as it could have been, given relatively short time to prepare.
The Palestinian child thing left me unmoved. We all hear and see the desperate circumstances of their lives. We all know about the grievances on both sides. The fact that a young Palestinian boy grows up hating the Israelis wasn't news. And it didn't add a jot to the sum of human understanding.
Alan Little did a very insightful piece about the French elections on Newsnight last night, how the outcome may be as simple as a referendum on the voters opinions about Sarkozy. I found it very informative. It might be worth watching if you get a chance.
Si.
A few items on the programme seemed a little like filler last night, so it surprises me even more than you dropped the Firth of Forth story (badger, badger). Saying that, it was nice to get an update on the Iceni project in Ipswich - you interviewed them during the serial-murders story if I remember correctly, so it was interesting to see how things had progressed.
I'm glad that the Yeltsin story didn't progress past the quarter-past headlines - and the people you had on talking about him were mostly interesting.
The french election is somewhat interesting to me, but only on a low-level. I still think a few stories highlighting certain battles in the UK elections coming up would have been interesting, but that's just me.
Hello Peter Rippon (15)
If you want to do more on "European Politics". Why don't you start with more investigative reports about the corruption in the European Parliament? Try and find out where all the money is going, ask...why they can't balance the accounts and haven't done so for a dozen years or so. I think we should be told.
Peter Rippon: Speaking for myself, I think that the current elections deserve close coverage. Given the polemical discussions that appear to be taking place across France and how these are reflecting in the candidates' manifestos, there appears to be a major shift ahead in the way the French approach national issues, which may, in its turn, also impact heavily upon its actions on the international front.
As we know, France has been keen throughout recent history to maintain its independence of view, and this has impacted upon its role at the UN and within the EU. How this election roles will definitely affect matters beyond the French borders.
Peter (15),
Yes, you should include updates on the progress and implications of the French elections.
News, I guess, fits into one of four categories:
- Important/popular (e.g., terrorist attacks)
- Important/not popular (foreign politics)
- Unimportant/popular (celebrity 'news')
- Unimportant/not popular (local newspaper fodder)
In my view, you have a responsibility ("to inform, educate and entertain") to include a high level of important news, whether popular or not.
The French elections are important, they'll have a bearing on the French economy, hence the Euro, and hence our economy.
Just my view.
So have we all had our porridge for breakfast - strangely enough on one of the packets we buy it's spelt 'porage'- so I wonder which is correct.
I'm referring to the gentleman who had a bet with William Hills for £25000 that he'd make the ripe old age of a hundred. On being asked for a few tips - a healthy bowl of porridge was first on the list.
Peter -
I have to agree, more than enough about the French election! Quite we had to have so much about the preliminary rounds is beyond me. And if we are going to have so much covergae make it more applicable to your target audience, which I'm guessing (despite satellite/internet etc) is still mainly based in the UK. Will a new Prseident in France make any difference to us, to Europe? Coverage is rightly concerned with French points of view and concerns, rightly so, my point being why do we need to know??
PM picks up the small stories so well, the ones that give us insight into 'real' people so so well; it picks up and delves behind the big stories bringing depth to our understanding and making listeners question and debate.
I feel theres more likely to be engagement with other issues than this.
Peter R (15);
France is of critical importance to Europe as a whole.
The country may well be at a turning point in its long history. Its politics are not as we think of them in the U.K. 'Right'-wing contains shades of 'all in it together', whilst 'Left'-wing never neglects the strong feeling of French national pride. French politicians have traditionally agreed on a broad spread of policies, what has differed is which aspects they have chosen to emphasise. Whichever is elected will be sure to assert France's primacy in all fields of politics. French politicians will ALWAYS pursue a course with solely French interests at heart, irrespective of any other regional and international considerations.
Sarkozy is quite possibly unique in French history. Here is a man who continues to assert the importance of France and to play upon their national chauvinism and pride. And yet he is willing to point out that they can no longer sustain the unitarian social model which they are so proud of and to which French politicians of all shades have always subscribed.
The state employs a very high proportion of the workforce, yet still there is 9% unemployment. Retirement ages are very low in a nation where the age of the populace is increasing. Pensions are rated as a high percentage of final salary, despite early retirement. Business is stifled by the high social costs of employment. Worker protection has stifled flexibility in the workforce.
All these factors (and many others) mean that France cannot afford its prized social model any longer. The cost of employment, welfare and state pensions is progressively crippling the economy. The people know this, but have traditionally turned their backs on any thoughts of dealing with the problem.
Sarkozy is the first politician to stand up and spell out the economic facts to the French people. Historically this would have resulted in his rejection by the voters, yet he acheived a high first-round return.
Royal, by contrast, is 'more of the same'. If she recognises these inherent problems she shows no sign of it. Consequently she proposes no answers. She seems to be campaigning simply on a ticket of Sarkozy's ideas being dangerous for France. That anyone who dares tackle the increasing problems will bring about the collapse of social cohesion.
This should not be underestimated in French politics. They have a history since 1789 of dealing with political impasse by revolution. If one version of a republic doesn't work, tear it up and try another. The USA has managed with one version of a republican democracy since 1776. France has had five different versions in that time, plus an Empire and a semi-constitutional monarchy.
1968 and the Paris riots were a strong manifestation of this tendency to solve problems by revolt. Every subsequent major labour dispute (air traffic controllers, farmers, HGV drivers, etc.) has to be seen in that context of threatening the stability of the state through revolt. This is why French Presidents and cabinets have almost always caved in to that kind of pressure. Maintaining a broken and bent consensus has always been preferable to attempting change which might bring about a wave of strikes and national unrest.
Royal represents a continuation of historical policy, ruled by a desire not to give offence which might bring about instability.
Sarkozy represents a breach in the old compact, which will quite probably incite unrest amongst the more strident unions and certain sectors of society.
It remains to be seen whether the French people are ready to take a step into the unknown which may well lead to unrest on the way to fixing the problems which the state has. Or whether they back away from change and revert to type.
A fascinating choice. It will be interesting to follow the twists and turns of the next twelve days. I know that you've Caroline Wyatt over there, you've also dispatched Yvonne Murray recently, who did some excellent work from the regions. Can I put in a plea for you to get some perspectives from Allan Little? As I noted in a post just a short while ago (before I saw your (15)) his piece on Newsnight last night was very good indeed.
Si.
Re: The French election. I think the balance is about right, however I'd like to see you following it from personal perspectives.
Perhaps a day to day short diary from two different perspectives as well as a quick political overview from Caroline Wyatt.
However I thought yesterdays piece was colourful and informative. Caroline is brilliant.
Well done Eddie (3") - much better - could do better though.
Given that quite a lot of people apparently don't see the point of covering elections in other European countries, perhaps it would help if the coverage sometimes included some analysis showing why we should care about it.
For example would a shift to the left/right in France be a predictor of this happening elsewhere, here perhaps? Would the adoption of Thatcherite policies in France have an impact on the European economy as a whole?
Would it be interesting to do a piece on just how much EU money has been spent in the UK and on what?
Simon (16) I saw the piece about the Palestinian children not just as sad in itself in showing yet again how dreadfully children are affected by war and violence wherever it is, but the sting was in the tail with the comment about the demographics of the Palestinian population. If a country consists largely of adults whose view of the world has been entirely shaped by such events in their childhood, what kind of country will they build, what kind of leaders will they make/choose?
On Yeltsin I'm inclined to agree with BigSis on another thread that the role of Gorbachev has been underestimated and that we might all have been better if he had been able to remain in charge and bring about more measured change. But at short notice the coverage was fine - scope for more analysis at a later date perhaps.
Missed a lot of the prog, I'm afraid, but welcomed the extracts from the Vigil for Alan Johnston - very moving. I do hope he will return safely soon.
Anne P (24)
On the Palestinian children, some
;-(
ed
Si (16),
"The Palestinian child thing left me unmoved. We all hear and see the desperate circumstances of their lives."
And "pass by on the other side". When are we going to do something to change their desperrate situation?
ed
24/04/2007 at 11:00:08 GMT
Sara -
I was about to post the very same thing. I thought it was sensitively done. It would be so easy to get maudlin and overly sentimental but it was effective and strong.
Thoughts still with Alan and his family, colleague and friends.
All,
Is there a legitimate reason why including a link to B'Tsalem, The Israeli center for human rights in the occupied territories, ensures non-appearance of any comment?
If so, what is that reason?
Grrr!
ed
Ed;
I'm not going to comment on the Israel-Palestine thing any more. Nothing ever changes. I'm sick to death of it and frankly could care less. I've also said to you before that fundamentally they are as bad as each other. Shooting kids thwrowing rocks is as barbaric as suicide bombing a Tel Aviv restaurant. A plague on both their houses.
Wake me up when one side or the other finally wins. Because there will never be peace, so long as hatred and the memory of hatred persist on both sides.
Si.
Well done Eddie (3")
I'm not sure Eddie will want that personal statistic passed around the Frog, Jonnie.
Belinda (31) ROFL!
No! No! Belinda :-(
(") is seconds in this case
-- though through the grapevine :-(
Peter - I personally am enjoying the French election coverage and find it interesting and informative. However perhaps my opinion is slightly biased as we are hoping to move there so I find it relevant. That said I would be interested in similar coverage of other elections in other EU countries. And I think the point that Anne P raised was very valid - there perhaps should be more of a "what will it mean for us" angle.
And Anne P - also agree wholeheartedly with your comments to Si re the Palestinian piece. As a mother I find any feature such as this extremely difficult to listen to.
Jonnie - Naughty Corner immediately please, you are not allowed to cast nasturtiums at Eddie!
Simon (30) I think I understand your weariness with a conflict that seems to have gone on for ever (back to the Romans and before?), but "A plague on both their houses" won't do. We have to care.
I would say we have to care for humanitarian reasons, but if not for that then because this conflict has the potential to escalate and affect us all. Water wars, wars of religion, wars over oil and territory will all only ever be solved through talking. It's too early to be certain that the conflict in Ireland will never erupt again, but the signs are good. And the change there came when intermediaries were able to persuade both sides to talk to them, long before they would consider talking to each other.
Jonnie and Belinda - The Naughty Corner beckons for you both!
Then 1000 lines each, please:
"I must not get personal about the Lord Mair"
There was no cricket on Long Wave yesterday! (Bravo!) thus I was able to listen to PM.
I found the report on the French election very poor. About 15 minutes of saying nothing in particular.
If Mme Royal (no letter 'e' at the end of her name) is elected then nothing will change. Economic growth will remain low and unemployment will remain high.
If M. Sarkozy is elected there will be mass demonstrations on the streets when he attempts to ease the things that control growth, unemployment and inflation. Will he have enough 'guts' to remain resolute? Certainly he is a more 'interesting' prospect, but......
Welcome back Jacques;
I wrote a piece at about 10 a.m. which seems to have been modded off. I said basically the same things as yourself but was nowhere near as concise.
Will the French public back the no-change option and continue blindly down the road to national bankruptcy because they are a nation which fears the truth?
Or will they be daring, pick the candidate who speaks the unpalatable truth, will shatter the consensus of the post-WW2 years and will try to fix the things which are broken in the French state?
That's the essential choice they face. It could be very close indeed.
Interestingly both candidates are immigrants, from a certain point of view. Sarko's roots lie in Hungary, whence his father came. Sego was born in Dakar, Senegal.
Si.
Jonnie and Belinda - The Naughty Corner beckons for you both!
Don't worry Jonnie, I've made sandwiches.
Back to the Glass Box - The Alan Johnston snippets were really moving, as before, and it really bought across the wide-range of people that his kidnapping has affected.
Si (30),
"Shooting kids thwrowing rocks is as barbaric as suicide bombing a Tel Aviv restaurant."
Aye, but the Israelis lead the game by seven to one for minors and four to one overall and half of the dead weren't involved in any hostilities, just 'collateral damage'.
:-(
ed
Um, yes, it's no good damning a whole country/community because of the actions of part of it. What about those caught up in hostiliites who have nothing to do with those at all? We can't just ignore them and leave them to suffer. If nothing else, then what about when it impacts upon you but there is no-one left to speak up for you? (With apologies for the rupturing of fine phrases.)
I happen to know that what I just posted reads like I've had a few shandies. As does this. But I know what I mean!
Ed;
What is the relevance of keeping score or proportions? This is not a sport where the highest score wins. The USA kept a body count in Vietnam, which didn't help them win the war. The numbers are an irrelevance, they are all just as dead as each other. Every mother, father, husband, wife, child of a dead Israeli or Palestinian hurts the same. There are no winners, just losers.
For the record though; records of major Palestinian attacks on Israelis 2000 - 2006 show 203 dead, marginally under 1000 injured. Only 28 of them Israeli soldiers. That's around 97.5% civilian casualties. Only barbarians explicitly target the civilian population.
And, although I personally think it's a lousy move, since the Israelis built the wall there have been virtually no suicide bomb attacks inside Israel. It DID make the difference they were hoping for.
Enough.
Si.