BallotBoxUK | No comment yet

International Women's Day/ Fight for Your Rights to Party (as a woman)

This is a topic that got a lot of people talking on my own personal Facebook, and notably both people commenting were men. Is feminism now a topic that has become taboo amongst young women? I for one have often feared outing my 'feminist' views for fear of further discrimination.

It is wrong within society when a woman does not discuss here own views for fear of being perceived by her peers as being 'bossy' or 'opinionated', or even worse being viewed as 'ball breaker'. There is nothing wrong with having views on  your own gender, and the issues that effect you. It is important that women stand up for themselves in times where there is still a gender pay gap of 14%. It seems even after the Equal Pay Act 1970, women are still not valued as much in the work place.

Things are changing however.

My own interest is extremely vested, as a female footballer, I have experienced, at times, discrimination and bullying that is extremely unnecessary. As time has worn on, people have become used the idea that yes unbelievably a woman can play football at an alright standard, I am not saying I am the next Kelly Smith, but I have seen boys who frankly do not know the next thing about the offside rule.

Judging by what I have seen on Social Media in the last few days following International Women's Day, is a lot of skepticism towards the celebration of women, as to my own knowledge there is no celebrated day that honours men. I see that this causes conflict as men are not celebrated per se. However I do think that International Women's Day isn't just a day of saying 'you go girl, right on sister', it runs much deeper than that. It celebrates how far the representation of women has come, and how respect for women has become paramount, not just in society but within government legislation too.

To use the analogy of sport again however, things have changed for the better, but we are still not done. Women should be represented within sport, it is not fair to say that just because women of working age or otherwise do not participate in sport as regularly as men, that they do not deserve a voice. Preconceived perceptions of women are a huge barrier to women in sport, anything that goes against societies views on femininity are deemed as wrong and you are tarnished as masculine.

I do not particularly believe that I am a feminist but I believe that both men and women should be treated as equal. So you could say that pro-equality should become a thing as feminism has been tarnished over the years with extreme feminism. I don't particularly believe men as a whole have done anything wrong, they are just following a model of society that has worked for hundreds if not thousands of years. It is once change is administrated that fractions and conflicts occur between the genders.

Change has been long overdue, especially in sport, and it is something that I feel should be celebrated not stopped.
Unknown | No comment yet

Why is the axing of BBC3 political?

We all watch BBC3 for its mix of documentaries and comedies for a good old laugh. Ballot Box UK explains why the axing of BBC is political and what it means to you and the future of your television experience...

As the BBC is funded by taxpayers money, it is of course in the public interest if a publicly funded organisation decides to axe one of it's channels. Much like the government cuts, the axing of the BBC3 is to help the BBC save money. It does not make sense however to axe one of the organisations most popular channels- the channel last year was more popular than Channel Four for the 16-24 age group.

Many classic programs have been aired on BB3, it has managed to shake off in part it's bad reputation for producing cheap, trashy TV.  It has in essence grown with it's viewers, of whom would be extremely sad to see it go. The TV market is constantly being flooded with cheap and easy TV, it would make more sense to support a channel that makes good quality independent TV.

A further reason why we should not axe BBC3 is because young people will lose a platform where they can access programs of interest. Even though many teenagers do have access to the internet (the BBC propose that the channel will be an online only platform) not only that, BBC3 fills a gap within TV schedules across the nation. This is especially true in the life of a student, it is one of the channels that fills the gap when there is nothing on TV, everybody loves an episode of Don't Tell the Bride, or even better Snog, Marry, Avoid.

Everybody needs to be able to enjoy watching TV, comedy is central to the programming on BBC3, if it is axed, risk-taking comedy is lost. It is lost to a load of grey men in grey suits. Its time that the people spoke up to the old men in grey suits. You have to give people the opportunity to prove themselves and that is what the BBC gives to up and coming writers and presenters. If there is less opportunity for people within the entertainment industry to experiment, then what platform will they use in the future? The BBC3 gave a young James Corden a chance with hit TV show Gavin and Stacey who is to say that, that could be repeated in the future.

The axing of BBC is to me a symbol of the Coalition governments view on our generation, "ah well it doesn't matter we don't have the money fund you anymore" half arsed monologue of an apology. The channel was set up to engage younger views, and now they've engaged younger viewers, they don't see the need to carry on because of funding. They're going against their commitment to young people.

I'm personally fed-up of half arsed apologies from the coalition...

Sign the petition here: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/to-the-bbc-trust-savebbc3
Follow my Blog on Bloglovin here
BallotBoxUK | No comment yet

White Dee and the Department for Work and Pensions

Benefits Street has sparked the biggest national debate that the UK has seen in the past decade. The program has been widely criticised as a vehicle for us to all look down on the poor, Ballot Box UK investigates whether the program makers gave an accurate description of James Turner Street.

Many believe that Benefits Street has given the wrong impression about life on benefits, giving the impression from the first episode that a life on benefits leads to heavy drug and alcohol abuse. The problem with many programs that try and reflect the state of the Welfare system is that it is hard to reflect the whole of the problems that are involved.

Furthermore, the problem with benefits is that the reasons behind why people find themselves on them are often personal and are not simply a lifestyle choice as many of the newspapers make out. Media commentary on the subject has been detrimental to benefit recipients and has only caused conflict between those that work and those who are on benefits. There are over 13 million people surviving on less than 60% of the average wage in the UK, these people are from working households. There is also a stigma with many people that claim benefits are bad people for claiming money that they are entitled to. As 'White Dee' exclaimed it is not the benefit claimant's fault for claiming the amount that the government says that they are entitled to.

Ballot Box UK agrees with the debate seen on Channel Four  last night that work should pay, and that the benefits bill should be brought down in a responsible way, rather than discriminating and alienating people that find themselves on hard times any further.

One of the ways that journalist and author Owen Jones suggested that the benefits bill can be  reduced is to increase the amount of affordable housing to reduce the need for housing benefits, as housing benefits continue to line the pockets of landlords.

£74.22 billion is spent each on state pensions, many forget when discussing benefits that 47% of the benefits budget is spent on looking after the elderly, many people also forget that the UK currently has more elderly people aged over 65, than young people aged 16-24.

People that claim benefits aren't the people that the media portray, they are normal everyday people who also hold aspirations.

Check out the organisation living wage here: http://www.livingwage.org.uk/
BallotBoxUK | No comment yet

Much Ado About Nothing

In light of the recent programmes on the BBC and a Channel Four, surrounding the benefits culture within the UK, Ballot Box UK investigates.

Skint highlighted a culture where many of the people featured were long term unemployed, many struggling to get by and survive on the handouts provided by the state. It showed a community struggling to come to terms with a loss of an industry. Many turned to the local drug addicts to "shoplift to order" goods that their benefits couldn't stretch to. However I do not deny that any of this isn't true, but it is a very extreme example of life on benefits. I do not think that Skint was a fair reflection of the majority of most people that are just trying to genuinely get a job and don't believe that the state owes them anything. It also showed a big family making the audience presume that the majority of people on benefits only have big families for the benefits they can reap, however there are only 1,080 families are out of work claim benefits, however the majority of people that are out of work (624,800) only have one child.  

In the main, the system worked against people that find themselves in a position where they have low skills, so struggle to find a job that makes work pay.

Even though it was painful at times to watch, Nick and Margaret: We Pay Your Benefits did show a different side to the benefits culture.  

Especially showing one of the most genuine families where the father applied for nearly 20 jobs a day, but he didn't want to take a job that didn't put his family worse off when in work. I do agree to a point that the benefits cap is a good thing to a point, how are families meant to feel when they work hard for maybe in some cases a lot less than £26000 a year. But what I do feel that the government should do for people that have poor or little qualifications is support them into gaining qualifications to enable them to make work pay. Then use gaining of qualification as an incentive for people to get benefits, maybe if people receive qualifications and a sense of pride with their benefits the system would not have such a bad reputation. 
  
BallotBoxUK | No comment yet

Bananas for the EU?

Are you bananas for the EU? Or even if you could not care less about the straightness of your banana, Ballot Box UK gives you a guide to the European Union...

The EU was formed in 1948 as a way of peacekeeping in Europe. So basically it was to prevent further world wars from happening. The starting point of the treaties in the EU was the Brussels treaty, this treaty was signed by Belgium, France, Luxembourg, UK and the Netherlands. However the UK did not enter into the EU until 1973.

The European Union has many insitutions, (places where decisions, laws and often mistakes are made) 

European Council 
The European Council sets the agenda of the European Union, so basically it is the body responsible for making sometimes ridiculous proposals such as how straight or bendy bananas should be. Heads of countries sit on the European Council, however it can't really do much as it does not pass laws.

European Parliament 
The Parliament is where the people that we vote for sit, it does not have much power but it does have influence as it is the only representative arm of the EU.

Council of the European Union
This institution makes decisions with the European Parliament, helping to develop common foreign and security policy. So this means that its job is to decide on what they think should be the EU's stance on other countries outside the EU.

European Commission 
This arm of the EU proposes laws, so is therefore one of the most powerful parts of the EU. It is completely neutral from the states that it represents. Does not have that much power over foreign policy.

Court of Justice 
This institution is the Supreme Court in the EU, this means that any decisions that it makes are final, no arguing. 




BallotBoxUK | No comment yet

Leave those kids alone...

Nick Clegg famously promised that he would not allow tuition fees to rise, in fact he signed a pledge that said he would "fight" for the abolition of tuition fees, so what changed? Ballot Box UK explains...

At the time of the last General Election in 2010, a pandemic dubbed "Cleggmania" had swept the nation. Nick Clegg had managed to trick the nation into thinking that he was a safe pair of hands to lead the country, little did they know that Clegg had other ideas. Anyway, back to Cleggmania, for the first time in years, Clegg offered an alternative to the two other main parties. His manifesto looked strong, he was saying the right things. He eventually gained power, but under the undesirable at best tory leader David Cameron. To the Clegg supporters and liberals anywhere this is the point that Clegg lost his appeal, he sold his soul. But hey, he'd managed something that no Liberal Democrat had managed before him, infiltrated Downing Street, and not just for dinner, he could stay for breakfast and a cabinet meeting too. 

In short Nick Clegg walks where no Liberal Democrat has walked before...


Tuition fees was one of the main policy ideas that made Clegg incredibly popular in the lead up to the general election, this is because his constituency is in Sheffield Hallam, a defiant and proud student area. With this in mind Clegg did something that was extremely devious or incredibly naive. He gave the promise that he would work towards: "Scrapping university tuition fees during first degrees" Would this have ever been possible? I'm not convinced. I would love to think that the government could afford  free tuition fees. It is also a massive kick in the teeth for todays students that the people whom are given the power to decide our future did not have to pay to study towards a degree. 

Long-legged Cleggy-Weggy buckled under the pressure from the other part of the coalition. The Liberal Democrats gave into the promise of something they had never had before, power. The main thing that they had to compromise on was tuition fees. He gave in, he not only compromised, he threw it out the window. 

The financial implications of attending university are now at an extreme level. They are a barrier to many being unable to attend university. Many middle income families struggle to afford to support their offspring through their degree as student finance does not often cover the cost of accommodation, never mind the living costs. It is fundamentally wrong that some families are held to ransom by the cost of university accommodation. Even worse that politicians think that it is right that they should hold young people back from studying at university level because of a money saving exercise that comes under the disguise of Fiscal Policy.


     
BallotBoxUK | No comment yet

Cameron's Millionaires Boys Club

Who's in the cabinet? What do they do? Ballot Box UK gives you a guide to the main movers and shakers who inevitably fuck up the country...

George Osborne 
He cried at Thatcher's funeral. He's the chancellor of the exchequer, this means that he does very complicated maths to tell us that we still don't have any money, nor will we have any for a few years. Overdrafts for all.

Theresa May
Once announced to the country that the reason a person was able to stay in the country was because they had a cat. That aside she's the Home Secretary and champions women in politics. The Home Secretary is in charge of the Home Office, so basically she runs the department that controls controversial issues such as immigration and oh that small matter of deportation. 

William Hague
Old Mr. Hague has a boring voice, but he's from Wath! He's the Foreign Secretary, so deals with any matters that may concern the UK abroad, so can be seen frequently hanging around in Brussels, and recently Angelina Jolie as her role as a UNICEF ambassador. 

Vince Cable 
Vince Cable in 2010 decided that he would declare war on Rupert Murdoch, over Murdoch's bid to takeover BSkyB, this was the ultimate declaration of war, ultimately ending Murdoch having to close a newspaper, which was no skin off his nose, he just said he had no idea about anything going on his company (News Corporation) and everything carried on as normal. Played Vince. 

Phillip Hammond
He's the Defence Secretary, so his job is to make sure our troops are well equipped and trained enough to cope with war. He's not really pro gay marriage either, probs best to give him a wide birth...

Michael Gove
Hated by many, Gove was there when £9,000 was deemed to be a reasonable amount to pay for a university degree. Pretty much every teacher thinks he's poor at his job. He clearly has no experience of front line teaching and the demands placed upon teachers. 

Jeremy Hunt
Paxman called him a C**T. Says it all really... He's the health secretary so he's in charge of the NHS Budget and reforms. A highly controversial figure at the moment with the complete reshuffle of the NHS. 
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)