What a state of affairs?

Okay so the big news of the week is that Facebook floated on the stock exchange yesterday, and that David Cameron and his fellow coalition colleagues announced a new way to waste tax payer’s money and molly coddle the population.

It seems that Facebook is watching, and the nanny state has arrived. It’s George Orwell’s worst nightmare! It is 1984 meets Animal Farm.

I wonder how it is though that we have all become so dependent on Facebook. I was going to say that I might be the exception to that statement, but that would be a blatant lie! I advertise on Facebook, have a Facebook account, and will – as soon as I have finished writing this, put a link to my blog on Facebook! Ooops, perhaps I am more dependent on the giant of a social media site than I had first realised.

It’s strange – now, to think that a decade ago Facebook was only a sparkle in Zuckerberg’s eye. Especially given that yesterday the floatation of the company made him a billionaire (reports putting his estimated wealth at $20.9 billion).

I blogged only a few weeks ago about the ever growing reliance on emoticons, and my notion that we were as a 21^st century society moving away from the written word and back to hieroglyphics. In relation to that thought, I can’t help pondering whether or not our reliance on social media sites (the likes of Facebook) have assisted with this.

Life now seems to be represented in two ways on social media sites; photos and status updates. A life in pictures is definitely a step away from the written word, and I’m not sure how to categorise status updates.

All I know is that we have all become obsessed with them. In fact I know a number of people that update what they are doing almost hourly. I’ve never personally found the need to do this and I can’t decide if that’s because I’m too lazy (yes I appreciate there is little effort involved – especially given that most people have facebook on their phones these days), or that I simply don’t want anyone to get a sense of how average my average day is!

Anyway, while Facebook and our growing reliance on social media and status updating on those sites and BBM etc is will continue to defy me. I am sure that anyone who profited nicely from the flotation of Facebook yesterday, or who has already acquired shares in the company, won’t care. So now to the nanny state!

I cannot believe the proposals that were announced yesterday. The government has decided to invest time, thought (although I’m not sure how much thought), resources, and oodles (no doubt) of tax payer money into a scheme to help parents become better parents.

The government are going to offer £100 parenting vouchers so that you can train how to become a parent!

This has to, without doubt, be one of the stupidest proposals ever! I’m not against it because I don’t have children so will get no benefit from it, but I’m against it because I think there are a hundred different ways to help parents parent without teaching them to suck eggs!

 The biggest problem a number of parent’s face (whether they are single mothers, single fathers, or both working parents) is childcare. The cost of childcare is crippling to most parents. It’s so expensive in fact, that a number of couples that I know have had to decide whether there is any benefit in “mum” (occasionally “dad”) returning to work.

On top of this there are a number of other ways in which parents need help with their children, and the majority of them are financial. Yet it seems that the government wants to show that its caring and understanding by saying that it won’t throw money at the problem, (which if it had done would probably have a greater and more positive impact on a number of children’s lives), but that it will stick its oar in and instead teach.

I don’t believe that it’s the government’s job, or role in society, to teach or meddle or anything else in its citizen’s lives. David Cameron and his cronies should stick to looking at tax credits, benefits, childcare maintenance payments etc, and things that directly concern the government as they apportion the funds that pay these various things.

Government should in my opinion govern and nothing more and it certainly shouldn’t try to act like an omnipotent social worker. It could be though that after the terrible results in the local elections two weeks ago, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are looking for new careers!

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

Elections equal Apathy, but not so much if you’re French!

On Sunday the second round of the French Presidential elections will take place, and if the voter turnout is anywhere near as high as in the first round, or of that in the Presidential elections of 2007 – it won’t be a surprise to hear that the percentage of voters that turnout to cast a vote will be up in the 80s.

80%! This is absolutely extraordinary. You have only got to take a quick look at other European countries to see that the turnout in France is really quite special. Alternatively you could even just take a quick look at the UK elections in 2010, where you will see that voter turnout was at 66%. If you look at the breakdown of that figure, you can see that it would have been a lot lower had the over 50s and 60s not been out in force. 

I often feel that I am quite apathetic towards politics, but it is not that I do not care about what is happening in the country. I do! It’s just that I often feel apathetic because I consider that no matter who I vote for nothing really will change!

Britain seems to be entrenched in a system of party politics, so in certain areas of the country it doesn't really matter who you want to vote for, as the MP from one particular party is sure to dominate. This hardly incentivises people to make the effort! Well if it does, it certainly doesn’t incentivise me! Yet I do not believe that I am alone in this thinking, as Britain is also not the only country that struggles when it comes to getting its younger generation to the ballot boxes.

In November in the States, the Presidential candidates will be begging the country to come out and vote. In 2008 their voter turnout was just shy of 58% - even lower than ours, but what does this really tell you? It tells you that almost half of the country didn’t vote, and you have to wonder why? Is it apathy or is there a deeper cause?

I wonder if we have taken the ability to vote for granted! As a woman I often feel guilty that over a century ago I wouldn’t even been allowed to vote, and these days I sometimes choose not to. I don’t think the Pankhurst’s would be particularly appreciative about my apathy! Yet in my own defence I do always vote in general elections, but I can honestly say that I did not vote in yesterday’s mayoral election in London!

In my opinion having the choice to pick between either Ken Livingston or Boris Johnson (the only two candidates with a chance of winning), was like been told to choose between the lesser of two (unnecessary to my mind) evils. Given their campaign methods, shambles on the radio – where they acted like children, and general nay saying of one another, I simply could not be bothered to vote.

It also seemed to me that both candidates during the election campaign were far more 

interested in their own egos, and in getting one over on the other, than really helping out the city. So I honestly couldn't find a compelling reason to bother voting? I’m also not entirely sure I know what the mayor does, or does for me – so perhaps I'm less apathetic and more uneducated as to mayoral responsibilities. Yet I wonder if I am alone?

In the last mayoral election only 45% of people voted. In this year’s mayoral election 38% voted. So what does this tell us? It tells us that in both elections less than half of the city gave a damn as to who our mayor was going to be or was! Given that this year is an Olympic year, an Olympic year in which the Olympics are in London, I find myself wondering how mayoral candidates are ever going to make the voters care enough to vote? If they can’t motivate us enough to take an interest this year, I highly doubt that there is a year in which they can!

Over the weekend and at the start of next week, a lot will be made of the elections and the fact that a number of councils have swung in favour of labour. Yet I wonder how much attention will be paid to the voter turnout!

Swings are important – well for politicians, and obviously if you discount genuine concerns like starvation, genocide, and a multitude of other worldwide problems. Yet they hardly focus on the bigger issue which is more and more people are becoming apathetic towards politics in this country!

Now back to France, the French obviously do not share the same level of apathy as us and I don’t think that it can be put down purely to the fact that theirs is a presidential race. I say this having already alluded to the fact that the American Presidential race in November is highly unlikely to see a voter turnout up in the 80s. So could it, I wonder, have something to do with their culture or the fact that they hold the elections on a Sunday? Or that they have two rounds of elections, which allows them to narrow the field for the future President?

It is hard to say, and I know that there has been much debate over his subject. Yet perhaps there needs to be even more. If Britain and other countries are already reliant on the older generations to vote, in my opinion this leads to two worrying concerns.

One; Politician’s policies are going to try and be vote wining (this is clearly stating the obvious), but if it is only the older generations that bother to vote, then the policy promises will be directed at them. This is not only going to be detrimental to the younger generations, but  I also feel that it is sure to make them more apathetic – if possible!

Two, the younger generation are (whether apathetic or not) the future! If they don’t vote now and are given no incentives (i.e. policy promises), or reason to vote, then one day you have to wonder how low voter turnout might be. So, perhaps we should consider more closely why the French manage to appeal to nearly 80% of their population who are eligible to vote and we managed only 38%! 

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk