Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

In isolation - but not alone

I’ve been trying to find a suitable collection of adjectives to describe the current state of our world. Surreal, unbelievable, crazy. Anxiety-inducing, depressing, uncertain. Sad, unstable, unpredictable, stressful. All of those words apply but they’re not sufficient. I feel like I’m living through an episode of Black Mirror (or Fringe, but many of you might not know that show - something to watch in isolation). We are all facing the global crisis of the Coronavirus. As of last Sunday night London has been on lockdown. It is the biggest social restriction since the Second World War and we are now a week in with more to come.

2020 has been a bumpy year for me so far, personally. My boyfriend went through a hard time, which affected me; there were disruptions in my social circle, and overall I felt low. There were also the disruptions and tragedies on a greater scale - the final exit of Britain from the EU, the bushfires in Australia, just to name two. Things were starting to look up for me in February when Matteo and I escaped to Barcelona for a few days to stay with our friend Tash in her flat. It was exactly what we needed. We walked in the sunshine, ate delicious Tapas, played football and drank beer on the beach, danced in VIP clubs. We were reminded of the vast joys of life, something both of us had lost sight of in the previous couple of months.

When I look back at that week now, the memories appear like a haunting daydream. I see an eerie sequence, reminiscent of something out of a sci-fi film, full of sunshine and laughter when everything is at peace, just before the chaos starts. The serenity before the crisis.



Fast forward to now and we are in the midst of an unprecedented storm. The world is in uncharted territory and we are all living through it.


I’d already had a taste of self isolation just before the lockdown. I was sick - not with Coronavirus but with Gastroentiritus, a very nasty stomach bug. I had a taste of the social distancing and quarantine before it became a government directive. The day I got the bug, I was gutted because I was missing our university varsity week. Heavily involved in the uni sports scene, I got major FOMO watching all my friends go to our big sports games and celebrate. By the end of the week, the big finale game of football got cancelled due to the virus. Now it’s not just me and there’s a much bigger picture. The world is on lockdown and my tiny experience, insignificant in the scheme of the crisis the planet faces, gave me a taste of what was to come.

I’ve been glued to my phone watching the people I follow on social media broadcast the crisis through their respective lenses, from empty shelves in supermarkets, brawls over toilet paper to budding Tik Tok careers. Everyone I know has chosen where they want to be and who they want to be with to get through the lockdown. In this time of isolation, who do you call? When the shutters go down, where do you go? Who do you want to be with? It’s fascinating to see where people land. I have an international group of friends and peers and many have fled to their home countries to be with their families.

COVID-19 is going to test more than just our geography and our relationships. It will be a defining moment of our generation. Businesses will go bust, the economy will be catastrophically effected, lives will be lost. Thousands of students will be affected - studies disrupted, exams cancelled, experiences and memories shifted from nights out to weeks in. Our mental health will be put under more pressure than ever before. There may be a baby boom of sorts - look for a higher birth rate in nine months from now. In years to come, I will meet people born in 2021 and I will ask if they were a product of COVID-19 isolation.

There is nothing but uncertainty. People are scared. Some, trying a positive spin on it say we should use this time to read, write, draw, cook. Great advice which may help for a while but I’m not sure if that’s a long term solution should this go on for months rather than weeks. I am a definite victim of cabin fever already, how do I proceed?

In 2016, I wrote a post after the election of Donald Trump, referencing his win in the US election and the UK’s decision to leave the EU. I titled it, ‘The Year the World Went Crazy’. I don’t think any of us could have anticipated subsequent events. I wrote some words at the time:

‘I’m going to remember exactly where I was when the US election result came in. And I'm going to do the same for the day when the Brexit Referendum was announced. These events and this year, 2016, will be studied in history, by my children, your children and their children. My advice is remember where you were, remember how you felt, because it will be important to hand on those stories to the next generation. It will be a tale of deep divisions, of political classes being challenged by different groups who are united only by their discontent. It will be remembered as a time of setbacks, protests, possibly revolution. And who knows what else?’

With a few adjustments I could write the same for March 2020. Remember where you are, who you are with, what you are feeling, who you are talking to who you are not, who you miss, who doesn’t matter. How you survived. Keep a diary. Because while historians will study the facts, economists will study the economy and medics will study the disease, it is the personal stories which should endure. When I’m 90 and in a nursing home (hopefully a luxurious one with a pool and a bar) I can imagine my great-grandkids studying for their history A-levels and telling me they’re writing about the 2020 pandemic and I can tell them what it was really like to be there.

We don’t know what is coming but we know that it is era defining. Stay in touch with the people you love and value. Take care of your physical and mental health. Try to have fun, as trivial as it sounds.

Write it all down. Live to see the other side. Take your stories with you.


Are You Brave Enough?

Our generation has the ability to read a seemingly infinite pool of opinions.  At first glance, this seems to be empowering. Our access to information is greater than ever, with social media driving a mass of news and media to us at all times. But have you ever stopped to assess what you're consuming? Although we have access to immense diversity of media, both in culture and opinion, how much of it do we actually let through?

With the ability to select who we follow, we're able to filter our feeds and customise them to our likes and interests. I can select my favourite bloggers, publications, news agencies, and cultivate a wealth of information tailored to me. Even on Snapchat, although it showcases a variety of publications, I only read those that interest me, and that I trust. This is a great luxury, one I wouldn't necessarily change. But it raises an important question. While social media gives us great power to broaden our horizons, are we actually narrowing our perspective by filtering what we consume?



The self-selection of news is becoming a big issue and it is easy to be drawn into it. If you only consume the views of those who think like you, it can only serve to reinforce what you already think and reinforce any prejudice you have.

If you're a Trump supporter, and have no interest in hearing criticism of his administration, it's easier than ever to mute those who disagree with you. Likewise if you hate Trump, it makes sense to follow and support publications which aren't afraid to criticise him. Perhaps you loathe a certain boy-band because of their young female audience, but have you ever actually listened to their music? Maybe you're a die-hard fan, but are you brave enough to have your opinion challenged by someone who isn't?

If we only ever read opinions that reinforce our own, we are never tested. Those views are  solidified, perhaps subconsciously, by the fact that everyone else on our feed agrees with us. And doesn't that cause of a roadblock in social change? 

The Year The World Went Crazy

(source)

I was discussing my blog with someone recently, and they referred to it as 'light reading'. Overall, they were very complimentary, and told me how much they admired me for doing what I do. My blog, by and large, is designed to be a light read - my musings on fashion, art, social trends and media. I occasionally comment on issues beyond my normal realm such as politics. For example, I wrote this piece in June, asking why 16 year olds weren't given a vote in the EU referendum. 

I acknowledge that this isn't normally a space where I make profound revelations about philosophy, or discuss the inner mechanics of the human mind. However I'd like to think that when I delve into heavier issues, my blog is becomes more than 'light reading'. 

That brings me to the present day. On Wednesday the 9th of November, 2016, Donald Trump was elected as President of the United States. And the global reaction was huge. There was shock, tears, anger, fear. Somewhere in the world, I'm sure there were cheers, hugs, smiles, celebrations. It's the former bracket of reactions which I fell into. 

I can't pretend to be fully versed in politics, but I'm by no means ignorant. Although there are sporadic elements of politics on my blog, I almost feel it would be wrong to go on without commenting on this. It is a monumental event in history, and who knows what the repercussions will be.

All I can say is that I'm scared. I'm scared for women, people of colour, Muslims, the LGBTQA+ community, Mexicans, and all those who don't fit into what is considered by Trump and his followers as normal. I'm scared that a man who has been accused of sexual assault by over 20 women can be elected into one of the most powerful positions in the world. It seems progress that has been made over the last few years in terms of rights for women, the LGBTQA+ community, and so many more, is in jeopardy and at risk of being reversed. That is the most scary prospect of all. 

I'm also sad. It seems if it had gone the other way, women's rights and overall position in society would have made a leap ahead. Had the US elected it's first female President, it would have been an empowering social milestone. Regardless of what you think of her politics, the UK has Theresa May, its second female Prime Minister. 2016 could have been the year of female leaders. I'm deeply disappointed and saddened that we're not going to have a female President (at least for the next four years). 

I'm going to remember exactly where I was when the US election result came in. And I'm going to do the same for the day when the Brexit Referendum was announced. These events and this year, 2016, will be studied in history, by my children, your children and their children. My advice is remember where you were, remember how you felt, because it will be important to hand on those stories to the next generation. It will be a tale of deep divisions, of political classes being challenged by different groups who are united only by their discontent. It will be remembered as a time of setbacks, protests, possibly revolution. And who knows what else?


The other question we must ask - what do we do now?


-LEXI

Why can't we vote in the EU Referendum?

A once in a lifetime political decision is to be made by the UK this Thursday - that is whether or not the UK should remain part of the European Union. There have been countless articles, new reports, debates and claims arguing for both sides. It has been a bitter campaign which has divided the country. Should I be interested? Absolutely. Should I have the right to vote as this a decision that will affect my generation more than anyone else? Yes. Am I and other 16-17 year olds allowed to vote? No.  

(source)

Regardless of the outcome, we younger people will have to deal with the consequences of the decision. Our voices should have been heard in this debate and we should have been involved in the decision making process.

Politicians will argue that young people have not been engaged in this debate and have shown little interest in the issue. I would argue that had we been given the right to vote, we would have been actively engaged and made sure our voices were heard.

I wrote an article last May about whether 16 year olds should be given the vote, highlighting the keen interest in the general election shown by my peers and dispelling the myth, in my view, that young people aren't interested in politics. However, on the EU referendum, there has been some evidence that young people (18-24 year olds) are not engaged in the debate. The Electoral Reform Society published that 21% of 18- to 24-year-olds say they are very interested in the EU referendum, compared with 47% of those over 65. According to this article by The Independent, this is due to 'missed opportunities to educate young people about the benefits of membership'. 

I argued last year that the interest shown in the general election from young people was due to the mass of information spread on social media. With a newfound tool for exposure, every party was able to get its policies heard, and in turn, views were formed. 

Perhaps the lack of efficient and effective internet campaigning is the reason young people are not more interested in this monumental decision.


Lowering the voting age was considered in December last year, but was blocked by MPs in a vote 303 to 253. Despite the fact young people will deal with the referendum result more so than anyone else, Conservative Justice Minister Lord Faulks argued the move could "seriously undermine the legitimacy of the referendum". Thanks very much Lord Faulks. According to this BBC piece, It would have cost £6m for 16-17 year olds to be able to vote. Did this influence the decision not to allow us our voice?

What confuses and angers me most is that 16 year olds were given the vote in the Scottish Referendum. And quite right too, as this was a once in a generation decision. The Electoral Reform Society said that based on the Scottish Referendum, 16-17 year olds have higher rates of turnout than 18 to 24 year olds. I believe that if we were given a vote in the EU referendum, we would have actively taken part in the debate. The fact the voting age was lowered to 16 would, in itself, create such a buzz it would trigger interest in the key issues and spark active debate among young people and across social media.

Do you agree? If you had the right to vote, would you be taking part? Do you want a vote?

-LEXI

Should we be allowed to vote at 16?

The results of the UK election today were surprising. None of the opinion polls predicted the outcome. I was also surprised by how engaged young people were in this election and how passionate they were about it. This is the first election I've been properly engaged in myself, so observing the results and people's reactions has been fascinating. 

 ( via )

For the past few days I've watched my peers get into heated debates over who they believe are the best party and who they would vote for if given the opportunity. Even those I wouldn't expect to take an interest in politics had a view. I think the spark to this wide interest was the use of social media. As soon as the Conservative majority was declared, my twitter feed was flooded with fellow internet kids expressing their views. Social media has engaged young people in the election. Whether it was looking at the election Snapchat story or reading about the Green party on Tumblr, social media has allowed young people to be exposed to a vast range of opinions, allowing them to form independent views. I've heard it said many times that young people aren't interested in politics, but in my view they have been keenly interested in this election. It is perhaps because this election was so close and opinion polls said there could have been any number of outcomes. That made it interesting for everyone.

In this digital age, young people have access to thousands of resources and opinions which can educate and inform them on politics. Their views can be expressed and shared, reaching people all over the country. What I've seen over the last few days has made me ask the question of whether the voting age for the General Election should be lowered to 16. At 16, you gain access to new responsibilities. You can legally join the armed forces, get married, get a job, have sex, be charged with a crime - you are a fully fledged member of 'adult' society. You could argue it's the people of my generation who will inherit the decisions made in this Parliament, so should we not have a say in who is elected?  

( via )

One argument against would be that 16 year olds wouldn't know enough about the parties and their policies to make an informed decision.  You could also argue that the major issues don't affect us teenagers. I don't have to deal with income tax increases or the non-dom status.

These arguments have merit, but based on what I've seen over the last few days, a large number of people are interested in, engaged in and informed about politics, partly due to social media and their access to various opinions. The Scottish Referendum was a prime example of 16-17 year olds being given the chance to vote on an issue that would affect their future. More than 100,000 16-17 year olds voted on the issue, embracing this new opportunity. I hope this sets a precedent. I'd vote yes on this issue.

I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments. What were your opinions about the election and do you think we should lower the voting age?


-Lexi xo