Teenagers in the UK these days are amongst the best educated children anywhere in the world. Exam results continue to rise, showing that the current teenage generation is also the cleverest we have had - ever - in Britain. True, you can argue with the exam system and suggest it is flawed. Yes, you might suggest there's some political fiddling going on to make the education ministers look good. And, it is possible, of course, that there were much cleverer youngsters before all the measuring began. But, on the whole, kids today are brighter than when I was their age.

So, why is it, we get so much "teen bashing" from this Government? Today we see another Government-backed scheme announcing research which shows that teenagers are doing themselves harm by using a "different language" to the rest of us. Indeed, says the Government "guru", they are making themselves unemployable. Really?

Teenagers have always used a different language to adults; it is part of their development of self-identity. When I was a youngster everything that was good was "groovy", now it's "cool". Texting has enabled them to develop a completely new form of language that actually allows teenagers to communicate highly efficiently - much more so than their parents. Language always evolves like this - after all, we don't any longer say "thee" or "thou" and the idioms from the Victorian age are no longer with us. So, the fact that this new research finds that today's teens are using different language is, well, obvious..! Well done Government - you've told us something we already knew.

But that's not all. According to the Government's Child Communication Czar, Jean Gross, "we need to help children understand the difference between their text speak and the formal language they need to succeed in life". Every study of communication tells us that it is the formal communication that causes the problems. But informal, emotionally-laden and expressive communication is what works, time after time. And that's exactly the style being adopted by today's youngsters.

Business leaders complain that today's crop of teenagers don't have the communication skills to survive in the cut and thrust of the office world. Yet in truth, it's those business leaders who lack the communication skills. They are effectively asking today's teenagers to come down from their higher level of communication to an old, formal, difficult language style. The FTSE100 bosses really should be having communication lessons from teenagers.

It's not that texting-teenagers lack the words for work, but that the world of work lacks the communication skills to deal with these highly educated individuals. What this report is suggesting is something akin to having an office where everyone speaks English, but are expected to communicate in Norwegian instead. Better for business is to allow the youngsters who work there to use the language they know the best and can use skillfully.

What that means is business putting in place technology that allows everyone in the office to text each other, Tweet each other and use instant messaging services. It means having a root and branch change in the technologies used by many businesses and a completely different focus in the way business is done. Teens today are used to webinars, audio chats and connecting via iPhone Apps. If you ask them to go to meetings and discuss things formally, they are lost. And rightly so - almost all meetings are time-wasters anyway.

So, here we have a Government which has allegedly produced the most gifted generation of all time. Yet that some Government is now telling us that this generation is unemployable. Both those facts cannot be true. What is true is that the Government is a mirror of British business - largely out-of-touch with modern technology and modern communication methods. That means that ultimately those teenagers who can't get a job in big business will walk away and set up their own companies that operate in completely different ways. And don't say that can't be done; that's exactly how Google started.

Gordon Brown and Ed Balls are today announcing the Green Cross Code for the Internet. The idea is that it will provide children with a means of staying safe online. The code has been drawn up following the Byron review of internet safety which resulted in the formation of a talking shop, known as the UK Council for Child Internet Safety. But the code is little more than a publicity stunt.

 

For a start, the whole concept of the "Green Cross Code" is an analogy to a character from the childhood of many parents which was about road safety. The notion that current children will "get it" is a mistake as they haven't even heard of the "Green Cross Code Man". The Internet Green Cross Code also demonstrates yet more of a lack of understanding about the Internet from the Government. The tag line is going to be "Zip It, Block It, Flag It". Apparently the "Zip It" is going to mean that you should keep your passwords safe, as in zipping them away inside your wallet. Of course, all children using the Internet will interpret "Zip It" to mean file compression - the current online meaning of the word "zip".

Besides which, children already know this; it's their parents who don't understand. Children are careful about constructing strange, difficult to interpret passwords. Their parents on the other hand tend to use the word "password" or their own name....derrr...!

I spoke recently to a group of over 100 children and teenagers. When I told them that some people write down their passwords on sticky notes attached to their monitor, they thought I was joking. When I told them that many people use the word "password" they thought I was making it up. And when I told them that vast numbers of people leave their computers while still logged in to some sites, they thought I was just being silly. "Who on Earth does that?" they asked. "Grown ups," I said.

And there's the issue. Children are savvy; they understand the Internet landscape much more than their parents. They know what they are doing in terms of the "Green Cross Code for the Internet". Yet, apparently, this subject is going to be part of the National Curriculum - where adult teachers will be instructing pupils in what to do. It should be the other way round...!

Here's the simple truth of the matter. When you don't understand an environment you are fearful of it and don't assess the risks accurately. Ask those celebrities who went into the Australian jungle recently whether their experience of life under the canopy actually matched up to their expectations. When you do understand an environment, you are able to assess the risks in a more informed way. For example, in some parts of the country it is OK for children to play in the street; parents know that the traffic is light and doesn't travel fast. But if you leave near a motorway, the risks are somewhat different. Because parents have experienced these different situations they are able to assess the risks for their children.

However, parents often do not have any real experience of using the likes of Facebook or game sharing sites - the places where their children go online. The result is that these parents - many of whom appear to work in the Government machine - make up in their own mind the risks their children are likely to face (in just the same way as those jungle celebrities misunderstood what they were due to experience).  And then these adults over-react. That then means the children rebel; tell your children they must not play in the street outside your house and get quite controlling about it...guess what? They will be even more determined to go and play outside their friend's house (where you cannot see what they are doing). Try and control their online activities? Guess what? They'll outwit you.

What parents need to do is not put in place some code for children, but go and learn more and more about the internet so that they understand the risks involved. Then, they can properly assess what risks their children are exposed to. It is true that children will face problems online - in just the same way as they face issues in your local shopping centre or down the park. But we don't have Government initiatives for a "Green Cross Code" for using the swings, or going shopping. That's because the ministers understand the risks due to experience; they clearly do not understand the online risks. Perhaps they are trying to appeal to the Daily Mail generation instead...gosh, is there an election coming up?

Politicians are consistently demonstrating they are growing ever further out of touch with the rest of us. A new study from the George Washington University in the USA shows that young people are interested in politics and they would love to get involved - if only politicians would talk to them and give them more, relevant information.

Meanwhile an earlier piece of research showed that young people under the age of 24 are increasingly politically active online, yet the older, established political elite are failing to connect with them in any meaningful way. Add to this criticism this week of the UK Labour Party from President Obama's digital strategist and you can see that Gordon Brown is in more trouble than he thinks. According to Thomas Gensemer, the Labour Party's online strategy is in tatters - too little, too late with no senior level buy-in.

At the same time as traditional politicians are failing to connect with the online generation, a group of independent candidates for the next British general election are clubbing together to operate their campaigns online. What's different about these independents is that they have lived in the "real world" most of their lives, whereas the Westminster crowd are in a world of their own.

And therein lies their problem - and yours. Failing to understand the world as other people see it is at the crux of every business problem you face. Just like politicians, if business owners do not inform people and connect with them in the way they want, then you are actually disconnected, no matter how hard you try.

Yesterday I was speaking at a meeting when a Ph.D psychology student who is looking at email communication in the business world came up to me after my talk to explain his current study to me. He has taken emails from business people who were responding to requests for work and who failed to get the job on offer. He has analysed the original email of the person seeking the work and then looked at the communication style of the responder. He then asked the responders to re-write their emails in the same style as the original emailer. Guess what? The re-written emails were judged as successful by the person seeking the work.

What this tells us is that we need to communicate in the preferred way of our recipients. Politicians may be "at home" in the Newsnight studio or on Radio 4, but to truly connect with the people who are actually interested in politics they need a completely different approach. Radically different.

And so it is true for business. Your preferred communications methods and styles may not be those of your customers. If you fail to communicate in their preferred style you actually fail to communicate at all. Take note Gordon Brown.

Seventy years ago today the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, declared war on Germany at 11.15am in an address to the nation on the radio. It was the first such public declaration of war, but not the last. George Bush declared his "war on terror" on 21st September 2001, live on television. The next war will probably be announced online, perhaps on Twitter, since the military establishment has already built "cyberwar" initiatives, where much of the fighting will be done on the internet.

Yet, you might think the internet could help prevent wars. After all, it is the biggest, speediest, most open communications system we have ever had available. The reason Chamberlain went to war against Hitler was because the German government failed to communicate; their silence started the war. If only communication had taken place, history may have been altogether different. This is a point not lost on last year's Nobel Prize for Literature winner, Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio, who said in his speech following the award that the internet may actually help prevent wars. He was making the point that Hitler would not have succeeded in getting his message across had the internet been around because opposition would have more easily surfaced.

That was the case recently in Iran, where the internet - especially Twitter - was used to mobilise people against the Tehran establishment. Even so, the popular uprising was defeated; the power of the internet was no match for the political elite. In the end, the opposition and the rulers will have to talk. So too will the West and the Taliban. It was talking that stemmed the tide of destruction in Northern Ireland, after all. No matter which war you think of, in the end, it all comes down to communication. Which means the internet must have a role because it is such a powerful communications tool.

Yet the political powers which could use the internet as a means of reducing conflict appear to spend all of their waking moments plotting on how they can use the web to create conflict. Indeed, we get a raft of politically derived reports telling us how bad the internet is for us, how Facebook will be our downfall, how children are being turned into monsters - none of which has any evidence to support it. The fact is, politicians have realised that the internet removes power from them. The only way they can remain in power is to ensure we all think the internet is downright dreadful. And when politicians are in power, the only way they can remain powerful is war.

In the end, the internet is creating a war between the people and their rulers. And that means, that eventually, the political elite will have to talk to us. And when they do, they will inevitably lose power and it's at that point we may be able to claim that the internet played a role in reducing wars.

Now, interesting as all this could be, it does have some lessons for us. Nations at war only ever solve their problems by talking to each other. Politicians will only ever solve their fear of the power of the web by talking to those of us who use it. And businesses will only ever solve conflict by talking to people. Yet, here online, you'll find it almost impossible to actually talk to many businesses. For instance, ever tried getting hold of someone to help you with Blogger? Ever tried contacting Google directly? Tough. You'll find loads of protest against Google online, inevitably. Does the company respond? Hardly ever. Lack of communication could well be their downfall. Rather than ignoring the people against them, they need to engage with them, learn from them, persuade them - talk to them. If not, like a bedsore, the niggling against Google will continue to grow.

So what's happening at your business? Are people criticising you, ganging up on you, being negative about you in their blogs or Tweets? If so, you need to engage with them and talk with them, before it is too late. Unlike Mr Chamberlain you can prevent a war against you - by using the internet effectively.

Jacqui Smith, the British Home Secretary, appears to misunderstand the Internet at every turn. It seems she now wants to monitor everything - yes everything - you do online. Whether it's a simple email message, a search on Google, a Tweet in Twitter or a posting on a social networking site - Jacqui wants to know about it.

Apparently it's because we are now communicating more online so the security services need to know about it so they can prevent terrorism. When will the Home Office take some basic lessons in using the Internet? Even if they want to monitor everything, anonymising software and encryption together make it virtually impossible for the security services to find out anything if someone is determined to hide it.

Most of us couldn't care less whether Jacqui Smith knows what web sites we visit, but the people she is trying to catch do care - and they will use every available tool to prevent her from finding out. The result will be millions of pounds of taxpayer's money being spent on a fool's errand. Worthless information will be obtained, bringing the security services no nearer to defeating terrorism than they are at the moment.

In fact, one of the principal reasons for the existence of terrorism is the fact that people feel controlled by the state they live in or they feel that another state is trying to control their way of life. In other words, all that Jacqui Smith is doing is adding fuel to the fire by her latest suggestion. Not only is the Home Office showing its ignorance of the way the internet works, it is demonstrating a lack of understanding of the psychology of terrorists.

Quite apart from the ever-increasing state control over our lives the British Government appears to want to take, it is yet another example of how our leaders fail to understand the basics of the technology that runs the country. At every twist and turn they show a failure to even attempt to understand the internet. In the end, that will be their downfall.

Why? You only have to look at the BAFTAs, which were aired last night on UK television. These are the annual television awards and the "viewer's choice" award went to a programme about teenagers, called Skins. This gets a viewing figure of around 1.5m. Yet it was up against X-Factor and Coronation Street, both of which have audiences of around 12m. So how come the less popular programme received the most votes from the public? Easy. The public had to vote via the web or via text message. The teenage viewers could easily vote for their favourite, whereas the grannies who love Corrie or X-Factor would have had a much tougher time.

Come the next election in a year's time, the youth vote will evaporate from the Labour Party as the younger generations will be able to mount online campaigns and motivate people much more easily to vote against them. Combine that with an apathetic older generation who simply feel politics has let them down and you have a looming disaster for Gordon Brown. Many people will tell you that the state of the economy determines an election result. This time around, it will be the internet. And since the Government has shown again today with its call for monitoring all online activities that it consistently fails to understand this technology, they are doomed.

And Jacqui Smith thought her only problem was her husband watching porn movies.

Alistair Darling's latest budget was brilliant - at least that's what you think if your name is Gordon Brown. The body language at the Dispatch Box yesterday was remarkable. As soon as the Right Honourable Member for Edinburgh South West had delivered his budget speech, his boss from Number 10 Downing Street was all smiles and happiness. He even touched the Chancellor several times, whispering in his ear at the same time. Alistair Darling had the smug look of a teenage boy who had at long-last pleased his father.

And that's the point. It seems that this budget was mostly delivered to just one person - Gordon Brown. It was a budget designed to impress his boss. "Look Daddy, did I do the right thing?". Alistair Darling was speaking to his buddy, rather than the rest of us.

It is, of course, the budget speech that Gordon Brown always wanted to deliver himself - a 50% tax rate for the "rich" - but his boss, Tony Blair, just wouldn't let him do it. Now, Gordon's protege has done what he always wanted. Whoopee...!

But hang on a minute....I thought we were in an economic downturn. Aren't businesses going to the wall every day? Don't we have the highest number of people out of work for more than 25 years? Isn't the country up to its eyeballs in debt? True enough - and, no doubt, the man who delivered the second shortest budget speech on record yesterday will say that his plans do allow us all to recover in the future. The problem is, no-one seems to believe him - except Gordon.

Wherever you look today online, or in the newspapers, the budget gets the big thumbs down. So what was going on yesterday? Two things are clear. Firstly, Alistair Darling appeared to be pandering to Gordon Brown in such a way that whatever happens in the next election he knows his boss will look after him. Secondly, they were trying to box the Conservatives into a corner. If the Tories oppose the 50% tax rate, the Labour Party would have considerable ammunition at the next election, claiming the opposition won't be able to raise the money to get us out of the economic mire.

And therein lies the problem for many web site owners, strangely enough. The budget speech had two audiences - Gordon Brown and the Conservative Party leadership. The rest of us were forgotten - bit part players in the nation's economic woes. A budget for the people it certainly wasn't.

Like many web sites, the budget speech yesterday was focusing on the wrong audience. By trying to please Gordon and stuff the Tories, the budget failed to engage the British public - except for the millions of us left speechless by the disastrous figures revealed. Similarly, many web sites also focus on the wrong audience. Big business web sites often are produced internally with an eye to the boss, rather than the customers. Small business web sites are frequently produced with no real description of the audience in mind.

Focus your online presence on your real audience - the people you really want to attract and engage. Millions of web sites fail to succeed because they try to please everyone. Focus, focus, focus - make sure your web site targets your precise audience, rather than "everyone".

Luckily, you can test to see if your web site is appropriately focused - specifically on your customers - by taking the "WeWe" test. Use the Customer Focus Calulator at FutureNow to see if your web site comes up to scratch. It will guide you in the right direction - perhaps the next Chancellor should run their budget speech through it first.

Facebook is to be used by the British Government in a bid to deal with terrorism. People often ask "who is looking at my Facebook page?" - well now we know, Gordon Brown's henchmen. They plan to monitor every conversation on Facebook because it is "needed to tackle crime gangs and terrorists". Now forgive me for being picky - but where is their evidence for this assertion? Did the 9/11 attackers use Facebook to co-ordinate their efforts? Did the July bombers in London use Facebook? Not that I know of. Did the world's biggest bullion robbery get planned via Facebook? Not according to the coverage of the case. Did Madoff conduct his gigantic fraud via Facebook? You get my drift.

It doesn't mean, of course, that terrorists and criminals do not use Facebook; it just suggests that the Home Office claim is weak, very weak. Already your every phone call and email is now monitored by the British Government. Now they want to see what you are up to on social networking sites.

Are you surprised? Probably not - after all, the UK population is one of the most heavily monitored group of people anywhere in the world. There are an estimated 4.2m CCTV cameras in the UK; that means that one in five CCTV cameras in the World are taking pictures in Britain. Even repressive regimes have less monitoring. Maybe they know that CCTV doesn't actually reduce crime - indeed in some areas of the UK crime has increased since the installation of CCTV.

The Home Office knows that CCTV has little effect - after all, it has done the studies which show almost negligible impact. The Home Office also knows that monitoring what we do online has had no impact on crime reduction or been useful in anti-terrorism. So why do they persist in increasing their monitoring of us all?

PR - public relations. They are pandering to the "Daily Mail" attitude which they perceive as important in getting votes. Being seen to be doing "something" is more important than actually doing something, so they think.

But should you worry? No. Ignore it, forget it, just carry on as normal. After all everything you do on Facebook and other social networking sites is already monitored - by everyone who uses Facebook. What you do online is public. Every blog you write, every Tweet you send and every forum comment or discussion you enter into can be seen by anyone, anytime. Forget the Government monitoring you - think instead about your customers, potential customers or your staff. They too can monitor what you do.

Are you happy that your customers can see your holiday snaps of you in a drunken giggle? Are you pleased that your staff can see your swearing rants on some discussion group? Are you willing for potential customers to see your sexual activity in some chat room? All of this can be seen - nothing is private.

Your reputation will determine your future much, much more than the Government mistaking you for a terrorist. The risks of being snooped on by the Government are low; the risks of being snooped on by customers, employers and staff are huge. Make sure that everything you do online you are happy for anyone to see.