ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

The Furrowed Brow

Comments

1. At 12:00 PM on 07 May 2007, wrote:

   (continued from last week's Brow?)
   My round. What's yours?
   xx
   ed

2. At 06:09 PM on 07 May 2007, Steve Richards wrote:

   What with the mess made in the Scottish elections and the revelation that Neil Kinnock is a director of the firm that supplied suspect software used in the election count, is it not time to embrace 'open-source' software for voting?

   Its a shame that big bucks would not be made by suppliers, but at least, we the voters would be able to assure ourselves that the systems a) work and b) are fair.

   I found it to be quite a shock that a senior labour figure was the director of a firm supplying voting software.

   Lets go open source today

3. At 06:18 PM on 07 May 2007, wrote:

   Choice in education. By necesity, if you have chioce you must have wastage, or those at the end of the line have no chioce. Remember the school lunch queue? You were OK if you were at the front but not so lucky at the end? At least with the school lunch queue you might be at the front the following day. The only way to sastify the reqirement for choice is to over-provide or someone is left with the leftovers. What a nonsense! Why not aim to help every school to be good?

4. At 08:25 PM on 07 May 2007, Mark wrote:

   Love the paintings@3

   
   Remember these days of May
   And the beating of a butterfly's wings.
   Whatever the talking-heads may say,
   While the Emperor still fiddles and sings.

   Remember these days of May,
   Wash the dirt from upon the street.
   That cold Athenian rock is so grey
   Old Jack's demise so near complete.

   Remember these days of May,
   For the beating of a butterfly's wings,
   Herald the start of the grey-day,
   Of the storm that the Atlantic brings.

   Remember these days of May,
   Call the children in from upon the street,
   While half the people gather and say,
   That the other half must admit defeat.

   Ed, have a day off XX
   

5. At 11:11 PM on 07 May 2007, John H. wrote:

   Belated happy bank holiday everybody. In response to CQ's comment, I don't have an "automatic right" but have an entitlement that I am able to exercise because of my "duties". Or lack of.

   That aside, I have been furrowing my brow about elections and democracy. No doubt this is in part due to our own "various" elections and also the one in France. The thing that has had the "furrowing" effect is this: what happens if there is an election in which every single voter (who chooses to exercise their vote) votes in their own best interest? What is the result?

   The "key question" is "their own best interest" and it is something of an imponderable because it acts as a cover-all for all sorts of "causes" and "effects". But I guess the gist is whether the "aspirations" and the, er, I don't know what the word is - but what I'm getting at is the belief that some people who are getting bugger all out of society the way it is currently constructed still vote for the continuance of the status quo thinking it is somehow Right and Good - negatively affects the result with respect to many of the individuals.

   Some of the conspiracy theorists might note that this is a "social-psychology theory".

   This is a sort of: "I know I'm 'zilch', but if my boss earns a billion then maybe my job is safe and I might get an extra 10p/hr on my minimum wage" combined with a "I might be the boss and I don't want to succumb to the plebs". Rather than "is society constructed so that it serves the needs of all (including me) rather than the few".

   I'm not sure there is a simple answer because of the "best interest" issue, but it does tend to pose the question.

6. At 11:53 AM on 08 May 2007, wrote:

   John H,
   This is pure Adam Smith. How many volumes have been filled by him and his critics? It's the family trying to be a tribe. This blog is not the place, poor Ed has a job to do. Or not.
   Matt XX

7. At 12:01 PM on 08 May 2007, Fearless Fred wrote:

   Following on from John H., I'd like to hear what ways other froggers can think of for improving the participation of UK voters in elections. France has just held an election where over 84% of the electorate have turned out. In our last general election, the UK managed a paltry 61.4%. For local council elections, the turnout regularly stays below 50% What can be done to improve this? How can voters be drawn back into the process? I'm genuinely interested to hear what people think...

8. At 12:27 PM on 08 May 2007, Big Sister wrote:

   Well, Fred, I guess we could charge double council tax for non voters. That would bring them out, if only to vote against it ......

   You can see I'm in silly mode today.

9. At 02:09 PM on 08 May 2007, Simon From Edinburgh wrote:

   My Brow is heavy with furrows...

   Each evening I tune in to the news (almost always pm, sometimes I get time to see tv) and I wonder - do journalists ever consider the emotional balance of programmes?

   Our next door neighbour is 93 and she recently leaned over the wall and in great earnest started telling me just how violent the world is getting (the previous few days headlines had been a litany of war and murder)

   It is my belief that the emotional state of the country is linked to the "emotional environment" that exudes from the media - if you tell us life is terrible, many of us too tired to think it through will just believe you (especially 93 yr old grannies!). So if the country is depressed, you guys must realise your part in it!!

   When you choose to report the latest gory murder or crime, what motivates you to tell us about it? If it were me, I would only mention court cases if they set a legal precedent, or overturned an ealier conviction - that were unusual in legal circles so to speak. To broadcast the name of a criminal is to make them famous - criminals do not deserve such oxygen - and I dont want to think about the horror that they did (especially over tea!)

   I bet if you were to do this for a month, radio 4 listeners would feel the difference - and want more of it!

10. At 03:32 PM on 08 May 2007, Anne P. wrote:

    Simon (9), I do agree and I think that the elderly are particularly vulnerable to being made to feel that the world has gone to pot and become full of dangers as never before.

    In fact I doubt that this is so, just that we do hear a lot more about things that were once only known about locally if at all. Partly the result of too many media outlets trying to grab our attention in a noisy world.

    I'd love to think your experiment could a). be tried and b). succeed. Sadly I'm doubtful of both.

11. At 05:26 PM on 08 May 2007, wrote:

    Mark,

    I have had a holiday (of sorts) today. Enjoying May weather, but you probably mean Eddie.
    ;-)
    ed

12. At 05:42 PM on 08 May 2007, Paula Adams wrote:

    Good to hear you, Ed. Sounds like Eddie needs time-out.

    Fred and Sis,
    Non-participation in elections is in fact a vote. And they win nearly every time, but no one takes any notice. Do people have to physically turn up and through out the candidates?

    Paula XX

13. At 07:21 PM on 08 May 2007, JPA wrote:

    Testing...

    John H,
    You did answer your own 'poser', and think you put it out for some affirmation. Or bait for likes of myself.
    How far have you gone down this path?

    If private property is sacred to you, then I'm afraid we're stuck with what we have now. A 'State' is just this very conflict you have described, and a Government is the overseer of this conflict.

    Respect from your peers is the greatest aspiration, and if that respect is within a society of peace and equality is that worth more to one and all than surplus-wealth in a fractured and warring society?

    Am I being Utopian, or does this sound like common sense?

    Dear all
    non-participation in elections is a vote to be taken seriously.
    JP XX

14. At 10:53 AM on 09 May 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Paula: But that's a case for having a 'neither of the above' box when voting. Sadly, however, I think the current system makes it impossible to know how many non-votes are due to apathy, and how many to a true dislike of the alternatives.

15. At 11:09 AM on 09 May 2007, wrote:

    Regarding property
    
    (if the moderation system allows the link)
    xx
    ed

16. At 12:45 PM on 09 May 2007, David Harrington wrote:

    The Miracle in Belfast?
    
    Quite a lot of newspapers are today covering and event that few people ever thought they would see. Sinn FΓ©in and Ian Paisley sharing a platform, laughing convivially like old mates, and about to enter into a power sharing administration in Northern Ireland. Whilst this is an event to celebrate as it is a tangible manifestation of the recent peace process we should not get too carried away with the supposed magnanimity of either side. Politics has truly come of age in Ulster and this event demonstrates that better than any event in the past 70 odd years.
    
    So why did they do it? Why did they bury the hatchet (well cover it with dry leaves anyway)? The answer is simple. The greatest desire of any and all politicians is to exercise power. That is why they become politicians in the first place. From the lowliest parent who wants to be a school governor to councillors and MPs. What is the point of holding a popular mandate if you cannot exercise the power that this mandate bestows upon you?
    
    Looking at the possible motives of either side.
    
    Ian Paisley, now 80 years of age, has an eye on his legacy and how he will be viewed by history. A man whose nickname was β€œThe Abominable No Man” would not have been viewed favourable by the history book writers had this legacy been based on his antics over the past 40 years. Ian Paisley’s motives are twofold; he wants to leave behind a positive legacy when he finally leaves this mortal coil and he has come to the same realisation as David Trimble did. Namely that the demographic shifts currently happening in Ulster will lead to an effective Catholic, and ergo Republican majority with 20 years. Holding out longer was simply not an option as he requires a seat at the table to ensure that the needs of his broad constituency are served. Realistically he has nowhere else to go
    
    But what of Sinn FΓ©in? Well they are very canny political operators and Adams and McGuiness wield absolute power within that organisation. They are mindful of the demographic shifts also and if there is one thing that Sinn FΓ©in are famous for it is playing the long game. They too want to exercise power, not the brute force power they wielded in the past where a word from either of them and you would lose your kneecaps or worse, but proper respectable political power. One thing is for certain this development demonstrates, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that political violence can buy you a place at the negotiating table. Does anyone have any doubts at all that this agreement would have ever happened had the IRA not turned to an armed struggle in the late 1960’s?
    
    So who will eventually prevail? Well I personally have no doubt that you will see a consensual United Ireland within the next 20 – 25 years. The Unionist people will happily agree to this union because they will see that it is in their best economic interest and political advantage to do so. Sinn FΓ©in’s task in the intervening period is to lay to rest the ghosts of past acts and build a genuine trust between the communities in Northern Ireland and they will do this, not out of any sense of altruism, but because they must if they are to achieve the long stated aims of their organisation. That, more than any other reason, is why the current process will work. The dynamics are now in place for true and lasting peace and for that I am very grateful but let’s not get carried away with talks of β€œMiracles”. It’s politics pure and simple and thank God for that.

17. At 01:43 PM on 09 May 2007, John H. wrote:

    David Harrington (16ish), I enjoyed that. I think I accept much of what you're saying, and I think I understand the argument you are making. I for one am more than happy to see the word "miracle" used in this context. Indeed, instead of your contrast, I would want to say that "the miracle is that it is politics, pure and simple" - and as you say, thank God for that. Whether the lesson we should take from this is that armed struggle is a winning formula for eventual peace, though, is something else altogether. Do you not feel that there are lessons that could be learned from the decisions made in the past that could have helped to avoid the worst of the violence, if not avoid violence altogether? It would be terribly pessimistic if you didn't.

18. At 02:07 PM on 09 May 2007, John H. wrote:

    Ta to those people who commented on my earlier question about "best interests". Matt's comment re Adam Smith made me realise that I had probably couched it in the wrong terms. I wasn't really meaning it from a Thatcherite-type perspective. I also wasn't asking from JPA's Utopian angle either - I meant something much more prosaic. A question of whether it is possible to have, and if it is, what would the consequence be, of a government that represented the interests of the its people. All of them in "proportion" to their number rather than their economic might.

    And the related question, I suppose, is why we don't have one - is this because society as we currently have it requires that a big chunk of us just fulfil the role of numbers in a big economic formula, or because some people vote, for want a better word, "oddly". You see, I can imagine a wealthy philanthropist voting for the "left", being willing to pay more in taxes, believing this is beneficial to society and, thus, in a way beneficial to that person's life. It's a little harder to imagine somebody who earns a pittance or struggling on means-tested benefits voting for tax breaks for those who pay for private medical insurance and private school fees. Clearly I need to think about this some more. Please, nobody hold their breath!

19. At 07:02 PM on 09 May 2007, Jacques wrote:

    In France we have what is effectively a 'None of the above', a blank vote.

    Here the voting is different. One has to write the name of the candidate on the voting form, (or write nothing). These blanks are counted and declared.

    Take last Sunday's vote. I had the opportunity to vote for Mme. Royal - and no change, except my taxes may rise. But since I am retired and receive a small pension, it would not affect me financialy. France would continue its slow decline.

    Or I could have voted for M. Sarkozy. He sees that there is need for change, but can he achieve it? Already the trade unions and students are planning manifestations. Do I want to experience strikes, etc. Is it the right time for such changes, or do things have to become worse?

    Or do I vote blank? If sufficient people voted blank, this would (might!) give the politicians something to think about.

    Alternately I could take the coward's way and avoid voting. I would then have to accept what ever the result would be.
    

20. At 10:52 PM on 09 May 2007, Alain Biro-Verde wrote:

    What a fruitful 24 hours. Ed, my shout, you should slot in pay-pal, too.

    John H
    - perhaps your final piece of advice could be reversed. Maybe you are missing something here? But, JP is also right about the long path and both are correct in way people turn at the cross-roads of "best interests". I think the wallet hurts more than the heart, and so does Jacques, but all progress has come from a former generations struggle, and certain people will realize how little of Utopia is in me.

    David Harrington
    - Bravo, and also well said. I don't think it would be this week's news if it had not been for Adams/McGuiness and the struggle. If freedom-fighters can become leaders of peace is to be revealed. Good Reading!!

    Cheers to all and "all but apathy".

    Alain.

    ps, To swap "coward" where plain "lack of faith and information-I mean they've lied before haven't they?" would suffice.

21. At 09:44 AM on 10 May 2007, Carl wrote:

    Listening to the reports from Congo on Today about the horrid situation there, and about the disappearance of little Madeline, I cannot hold back from saying sod Tony Blair's departure. I don't want to know. This world is full of appalling horrendous crimes and events. For all our sakes lets get a grip and sort them out.

22. At 01:21 AM on 11 May 2007, wrote:

    
    "sod Tony Blair's departure."
    Aye to that Carl!

23. At 02:14 PM on 13 May 2007, Fully Conscious wrote:

    Should U.S. Citizens be prosecuted for seeking better health care available to them in Cuba?

    What does this say about the respective rights of the Citizens in both countries?

    When does wealth stop being a factor in an individuals happiness?