Today October 15th is Blog Action Day. Bloggers everywhere will unite (from sports blogs and tech blogs, to entertainment and cooking blogs) and publish posts that discuss poverty in some way. So I’ve chosen to raise awareness about an emerging type of poverty - digital exclusion.
Can you imagine life without your computer, blackberry, or iphone? And I’m not talking about just a day or a week, but what if you had never owned a computer, had internet access on your phone or even in your home? However, could you possibly live without this technology now in 2008?
For many of us it’s hard to imagine and life without Facebook, Myspace or even ASOS…however the internet has many more important uses that we take for granted. The internet has become an indispensible tool in looking for jobs online; searching for housing and assisting children in their studies, however 39% are still not online. That’s more than 1,000,000 households with children without the use of the internet.
Some of these people do not use the net out of choice, but the majority are e-marginalised due to poverty.
Digital exclusion is a socio-economic problem and there is a clear link between digital and social exclusion – 75% of people that are socially excluded are also digitally excluded and 64% people living in social housing don’t use the internet. Research has proven that the internet significantly changes the quality of lives. In a project conducted by UK Online Centres shows 97%of families in poverty who were given computers said that their lives had improved after six months.
Connecting people to the internet can connect them to new or better jobs, new forms of social interaction, government services, education, information, consumer power….and much more.
Thankfully, the government has woken up to this as in April we saw Paul Murphy MP, Wales Minister appointed the first ever minister for Digital Inclusion and at Labour Party Conference, Gordon Brown revealed that Ed Balls would announce plans to fund over a million extra families to get online. The Government will publish their first Digital Inclusion Action Plan later this month – hopefully this will be part of the answer to an emerging 21st century problem.
By Danielle Thomas
Wednesday 15 October 2008
Thursday 9 October 2008
Down and dirty state side
We are always being told how closely linked we are to the USA. ‘The special relationship’ is interpreted by some as evidence of all the things we have in common with Uncle Sam. First and foremost we have our history – two World Wars to be precise. And then of course we are speaking the same language - literally. We love sports (albeit different ones), they love our TV and we love theirs and we are both partial to a helping of burger and fries.
At first glance our political systems also appear closely linked. Both are two-party states, one party sitting just to the left and one on the right. However, once politicians either side of the Atlantic hit the campaign trail we tend to go our separate ways. Labour and the Conservatives entire general election budget would be hard pushed to fund two or three weeks of ‘Obama for President’. And in the States when the chips are down the gloves will come off and both candidates will clamber down into the gutter and slug it out. And that is exactly where we find ourselves now as the US Presidential campaign turns for home and heads down the final straight.
McCain being the one who is slipping behind in the polls has now given up all pretence of wanting to talk about the issues. He has worked out that the American people do not trust him with the economy and are increasingly questioning his judgement. Plan B for team McCain/Palin is to label Obama a friend of terrorists, an aid to paedophiles and a liar. And they are just getting warmed up.
However let us not get too ‘holier then thou’ about Obama. A number of blows have been levelled against McCain that would be hard pushed to be stood up in a school debate, let alone in a national political campaign in the UK. And if Obama was to suddenly find himself behind with a week to go he would come under intense pressure to get down and dirty as well. Whether you like this approach or not is down to the individual. What cannot be disputed is that if you like your politics to be more personal than political, head West. Because thankfully, unlike most things American, we have proved resistant to ‘gutter politics’. And long may that continue.
By Harry Watkinson
At first glance our political systems also appear closely linked. Both are two-party states, one party sitting just to the left and one on the right. However, once politicians either side of the Atlantic hit the campaign trail we tend to go our separate ways. Labour and the Conservatives entire general election budget would be hard pushed to fund two or three weeks of ‘Obama for President’. And in the States when the chips are down the gloves will come off and both candidates will clamber down into the gutter and slug it out. And that is exactly where we find ourselves now as the US Presidential campaign turns for home and heads down the final straight.
McCain being the one who is slipping behind in the polls has now given up all pretence of wanting to talk about the issues. He has worked out that the American people do not trust him with the economy and are increasingly questioning his judgement. Plan B for team McCain/Palin is to label Obama a friend of terrorists, an aid to paedophiles and a liar. And they are just getting warmed up.
However let us not get too ‘holier then thou’ about Obama. A number of blows have been levelled against McCain that would be hard pushed to be stood up in a school debate, let alone in a national political campaign in the UK. And if Obama was to suddenly find himself behind with a week to go he would come under intense pressure to get down and dirty as well. Whether you like this approach or not is down to the individual. What cannot be disputed is that if you like your politics to be more personal than political, head West. Because thankfully, unlike most things American, we have proved resistant to ‘gutter politics’. And long may that continue.
By Harry Watkinson
London 2012 - The 'cosy' games
This week I attended the first Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee after the Summer recess. As part of the committee’s ongoing inquiry into the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympics Games, they called upon Boris Johnson, Mayor of London and Lord Moynihan, Chairman of The British Olympic Association to give oral evidence. The session focused on preparations for the 2012 Games, lessons from the Beijing 2008 and elite sporting performance.
As I predicted, the cost of the London 2012 Olympic Games was a pertinent issue for the committee, especially in light of the current economic climate. In his manifesto, Boris Johnson highlighted the importance of cost control in the planning of the Games; in return the committee asked him if he still believed the cost of the Games could be contained. Boris was adamant that no further money was needed from the taxpayer and he was reluctant to see early spending of the contingency funds. Mr Johnson stressed that 25% of the budget had been spent, while only 2% of the contingency had been used.
The budget for the London 2012 Games is almost half of that of this year’s Olympics in Beijing, so Philip Davies MP rightly asked Boris how we avoid the London Games being considered as a ‘poor man’s Beijing’ and how we compete on a lower budget. Boris answered that we should not expect a carbon copy of the Beijing Games, according to him the London Games would be a more “cosier” affair with a greater sense of intimacy.
As the athletic stadium in Stratford is set to hold 80,000 people only 11,000 less than the Bird’s Nest Stadium in Beijing, I’m not yet convinced how intimate the London 2012 Olympics Games can really be.
By Danielle Thomas
As I predicted, the cost of the London 2012 Olympic Games was a pertinent issue for the committee, especially in light of the current economic climate. In his manifesto, Boris Johnson highlighted the importance of cost control in the planning of the Games; in return the committee asked him if he still believed the cost of the Games could be contained. Boris was adamant that no further money was needed from the taxpayer and he was reluctant to see early spending of the contingency funds. Mr Johnson stressed that 25% of the budget had been spent, while only 2% of the contingency had been used.
The budget for the London 2012 Games is almost half of that of this year’s Olympics in Beijing, so Philip Davies MP rightly asked Boris how we avoid the London Games being considered as a ‘poor man’s Beijing’ and how we compete on a lower budget. Boris answered that we should not expect a carbon copy of the Beijing Games, according to him the London Games would be a more “cosier” affair with a greater sense of intimacy.
As the athletic stadium in Stratford is set to hold 80,000 people only 11,000 less than the Bird’s Nest Stadium in Beijing, I’m not yet convinced how intimate the London 2012 Olympics Games can really be.
By Danielle Thomas
Friday 3 October 2008
New Energy and Climate Change Department
So the reshuffle has happened, and there is a new Energy and Climate Change Department, with Ed Miliband as the new Secretary of State, illustrating the importance of climate change now within the Cabinet. The new department has been set up due to power struggles between BERR and DEFRA – hopefully the new department will allow remove the difficulties of conflicting priorities, and allow change to happen.
The new department is going down well with the key green NGOs, and they seem to have high hopes of what is can achieve.
Greenpeace Executive Director John Sauven said: ‘For the last ten years this government has dithered on climate change, offering us inspiring rhetoric but little in the way of real action. Bringing energy and climate together at last reflects the urgency of the threat we face from climate change.’
Director of Campaigns at WWF-UK David Norman, said: 'It shows a clear recognition that the UK's chances of hitting its climate targets are inextricably linked to its energy policies.'
Friends of the Earth Executive Director Andy Atkins said: "The creation of a single department to oversee climate and energy policy is a big step forward. This is a golden opportunity to integrate the UK’s climate and energy policies – something which has been so obviously lacking in the past. We hope to see this new department, with a dynamic Secretary of State at the helm, lift our energy policy out of the dark ages to meet the challenges of the twenty first century.
So it looks like Brown may have increased his popularity with the green voters, but we will wait and see what policy changes happen as this new department progresses.
The new department is going down well with the key green NGOs, and they seem to have high hopes of what is can achieve.
Greenpeace Executive Director John Sauven said: ‘For the last ten years this government has dithered on climate change, offering us inspiring rhetoric but little in the way of real action. Bringing energy and climate together at last reflects the urgency of the threat we face from climate change.’
Director of Campaigns at WWF-UK David Norman, said: 'It shows a clear recognition that the UK's chances of hitting its climate targets are inextricably linked to its energy policies.'
Friends of the Earth Executive Director Andy Atkins said: "The creation of a single department to oversee climate and energy policy is a big step forward. This is a golden opportunity to integrate the UK’s climate and energy policies – something which has been so obviously lacking in the past. We hope to see this new department, with a dynamic Secretary of State at the helm, lift our energy policy out of the dark ages to meet the challenges of the twenty first century.
So it looks like Brown may have increased his popularity with the green voters, but we will wait and see what policy changes happen as this new department progresses.
Cam the man with the plan
“I am man with a plan” appears most quoted line from David Cameron’s address to the Conservative Party at their conference on Wednesday.
Cameron has made it no secret that he plans to ‘Fix Britain’s broken society’ should he become PM, but yesterday he promised to be as radical in social reform as Thatcher was in economical reform.
In fact this was only one in a series of comments he made which evoked a Thatcherite spirit at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham.
Although I went to school in the generation of ‘Thatcher the milk snatcher’, I can still see how the comparison he has made between himself and the former first lady might entice voters. In his attempt to tackle Labour’s claim that he was a “novice” Cameron told his party that “Experience was the excuse of the incumbent down the ages”.
He spoke of James Callaghan, PM in 1979 who like our own PM had gained plenty of experience in various cabinet positions as home secretary, foreign secretary and chancellor, however was ‘swapped’ by Margaret Thatcher to the delight of many.
So is Cameron right? Does experience suggest you are implicated in the system that failed? If so, is a change of leadership is what we really need?
By Danielle Thomas
Cameron has made it no secret that he plans to ‘Fix Britain’s broken society’ should he become PM, but yesterday he promised to be as radical in social reform as Thatcher was in economical reform.
In fact this was only one in a series of comments he made which evoked a Thatcherite spirit at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham.
Although I went to school in the generation of ‘Thatcher the milk snatcher’, I can still see how the comparison he has made between himself and the former first lady might entice voters. In his attempt to tackle Labour’s claim that he was a “novice” Cameron told his party that “Experience was the excuse of the incumbent down the ages”.
He spoke of James Callaghan, PM in 1979 who like our own PM had gained plenty of experience in various cabinet positions as home secretary, foreign secretary and chancellor, however was ‘swapped’ by Margaret Thatcher to the delight of many.
So is Cameron right? Does experience suggest you are implicated in the system that failed? If so, is a change of leadership is what we really need?
By Danielle Thomas
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)