January 2009 Archives

'The biggest hurdle seems to be the cost'

The government released hundreds of millions of pounds of contingency funds last week to keep work on the London Olympic 2012 venues on track amid a worsening credit crunch.

Some people have welcomed the Olympics with open arms and some have said that Britain and London has enough to deal with without the burden of hosting the games in 2012.

But, even though it's already going ahead anyway, some people are still dubious as to whether it was the right decision to make.

And while we think that, if China can organise a fortnight of running and jumping - we can too, no one really likes the idea of Lord Sir Pope Archbishop Earl Duke King His-Royal-Highness Seb Coe as chairman of the Olympic Games Committee.

Some people really like the Olympics; they like the idea of training, dedication and the glory of winning medals - a way of getting people involved in something national, and it supposedly gets young people off the street where they put holes in each other, and into an event where they can burn off a little steam and have a purpose at the same time.

All very good.

While I'm not really a fan of sport (or movement, for that matter) and while running is useful if you're late for the train, or fun if you're aged 7, I may find it difficult to be enthusiastic about the Olympics.

But whether you like it or not, it's there.

And the biggest hurdle seems to be the cost.

With a budget running up to nearly £10billion, it could easily be argued that quite a few baby incubators could have been bought, with enough left over to set up a whale sanctuary, and shove a new hip into every pensioner in the land.

It has been suggested that the National Lottery start to fund even more towards the Games, instead of funding schemes like Age Concern's £40,000, for a project called Meals on Wheels for Gluten-Free Birds.

And another problem is that, for some reason, the notion of sport has somehow become the business of government.

The moment when a sports competition got into the hands of those who built the Millennium Dome, attempt to run the NHS, allow our transport system to look like it's been designed by a toddler with a crayon, set up the ever-so successful Child Support Agency, took 21st Century Britain into war and couldn't balance the books at a primary school tombola, seemed to pass everyone's notice.

The new stadiums and set designs are said to symbolise modern Britain. Even the public, street viewing of the torch handover in East London was cancelled in London because a teenager got stabbed.

So if we jump forward to the summer of 2012, to the opening ceremony of the London Games, what are we likely to find? A perfect, ethnic blend of school children prancing about in the half-finished stadium wearing hard hats and protective goggles just in case they get exposed, in some way, to the Olympic flame.

And there will be no swimming events just in case someone drowns or slips on wet tiles. And no javelin events because you could have someone's eye out with one of those things.

We may have to see who can get a gold in crocheting or cross-stitching - making sure everyone wears metal gloves so they don't prick themselves on the needles.

And don't be surprised if, in four years' time, the Olympic torch is carried into that half-finished stadium in East London by Kerry Katona, following a 50-gun salute from the Wembley Crazee Killaz drive-by shooting posse, and a concert by Boy George.

The best idea would be to have a really cheap Olympic Games that's all crammed into one stadium in one day.

Then we can spend nearly the full £10billion on the most important part of the Games.

The fireworks.

'Millions of people watching all over the world, street parties and mass celebration'

A NEW dawn is upon America and upon the world.

Ever since Barack Obama first announced his candidacy in Springfield, Illinois, almost two years ago, we have witnessed a series of historic moments - each more significant than the last.

Barack Obama is, today, the world's most influential person, second only to Oprah Winfrey.

Of course, it wasn't only his ethnicity, charisma, and calibre that has made Obama the 44th President of the United States.

Even a flea, a dustpan, or Paris Hilton would have been better than George Bush.

At $42million Obama's inauguration party is set to be the most expensive and most-watched in history.

Almost $10million has been pumped into security as anyone from terrorists to plain idiots had to be looked out for.

But that shouldn't be too bad as, apart from Bush, all the other stupid people are either locked away in the Big Brother house or squabbling about obesity in Parliament back here in the UK.

And Obama's ceremony that has been going on for the last couple of days consists of, or has yet to consist of, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Mary J. Blige, Stevie Wonder and Shakira.

Compare this to George Bush's inauguration parties in 2001 and 2005 in which he pretended that Macy Gray, Lyle Lovett, Asleep At The Wheel and ZZ Top were his favourite artists, and so they were invited to come and perform to his audience of about 7 spectators; who were probably forced to watch at gunpoint or were just too slow to run away.

When asked about his terrible performance line-up and why no well-known singers were performing for his second inauguration, Bush used the excuse that America was "now a country at war".

This supposedly means that all of the best performers didn't come to his ceremony because of the war.

That's it. That's why he had singers no one had heard of.

It wasn't because they didn't like Bush but; Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan, Diana Ross, Barbra Streisand, Elton John, Fleetwood Mac and Chuck Berry who were willing to perform for Bill Clinton's ceremony, were obviously too busy digging trenches at Afghanistan's front line to perform for George W.

And last week, Bush booked 15 minutes on all of the major television networks so he could make a speech about all of his achievements while in office. It's not yet decided, however, what he's going to do with the other 14minutes and 59 seconds.

He may decide to name the two things that didn't go quite to plan. Namely his first and second term in office.

And just to think that the most powerful man in the world, for two terms, is a man who asks questions like: "Is our children learning?" and has his finger over the big, red nuclear button with an unnerving idea that God is at his side.

Obama's personal train, over the last couple of days, has made its way from Philadelphia to Washington - following the same route that Abraham Lincoln took in 1861. A rustic old train.

I would have much preferred a private jet travelling in a high-altitude convoy, so you can step off the plane and wave at fans while walking down the steps like The Beatles or the Pope. All the spectators cheering and jumping for joy as you cross the tarmac without the regular holiday-makers with uneven sunburn, cheap airline headphones, an intoxicated slur, and deep-vein thrombosis.

But the American's certainly know how to have a party. Millions of people watching all over the world, street parties and mass celebration. The most we would manage in Britain is a shrug of the shoulders and a cheese sandwich for a new Prime Minister - each new one the same as the last.

But people all over America aren't just crying tears of joy and cheering that Bush is finally out of the White House, they're rejoicing at the fact that history has been made and the global table has been turned.
They see the world as a new place with just the election of one man who, at least, promises some sort of hope, no matter how fairytale, to add a new chapter to the American Dream.

A symbol of supremacy in the anti-racism movements and equality factions that have shed much time and blood throughout history - now as an icon, a stature, and an exemplar of social mobility on an international stage.

But with the economy, unemployment, the Guantanamo Bay issue, climate change and the like, all building up to catastrophic proportions, it would seem that Obama has taken the helm of a country in decline.

And now, as the USA welcomes its first black president, Americans have finally advanced beyond their racial past, and, perhaps ironically, picked a black man to clean up their mess.

'It seems the only ones who will be benefiting are ITV with increased viewing figures for Jeremy Kyle'

WE'VE HAD Christmas, New Year and the January sales. The time when people push each other over to buy things they don't need with money they haven't got is over, and, a few weeks into January, the year is officially in full swing.

And we're already hearing the 'crisis' stories. No money. Global warming. Recycling. Credit Crunch. Broken Britain. The end of the Earth.

David Cameron said, last month, that we should all think a little less about money and more about our standard of living.

Of course, this is nice for parents who have time to play scrabble with their children, stay at home trimming the hedge, and spend their time scattering grain for the chickens. And for their children who come out of school, across the village green, with rosy cheeks; throwing their grammar school hats in the air and heading off to catch newts in the local stream.

Unfortunately, many people can't do that. There's food to buy, mouths to feed, and Dancing On Ice voting to be done.

Hundreds of jobs are disappearing every week, and with the unemployment level estimated to be reaching 3million this year it seems the only ones who will be benefiting are ITV with increased viewing figures for Jeremy Kyle.

A story last week suggested that some long-distance commuters are giving up their jobs because the fuel prices and taxes meant the jobs aren't worth getting to. And the only reason the government doesn't ban driving altogether is because it needs the income from fuel and motoring taxes to bail out Jaguar, Land Rover and the last few cogs of the British motor trade.

Owned by India.

And the motor industry is failing because no one is buying cars - perhaps because they can't afford the extortionate taxes. A vicious cycle.

But don't worry. Mr Brooooon is going to be creating 100,000 more jobs this year. Only 2,900,000 left to create.

But it's not his fault there are no jobs; that's America's fault as well.

And as people can't sell their houses, Eastern European's will build you an extension. They charge good money, turn up on time, work hard, don't shout remarks and whistle at women, and don't urinate in your sink. You couldn't ask for any more.

And like a lot of telephone switchboard-manning jobs, many train operators have moved their telephone enquiries abroad.

Third World wages for Britain's Third World transport system.

By doing that, they're hoping to save up to £12 million - currently the going-rate for an open return ticket from Birmingham to London.

And, unlike in Britain, when you call the rail enquiries hotline abroad, you won't get an answer phone recording with the message: "We're sorry to inform you that all trains are currently buggered. We apologise for any inconvenience caused."

So, with jobs disappearing faster than something really fast, everyone will have to get retained in something politically correct and preferably offered by the council or HM Revenue and Customs.

Perhaps a job in which the government will be on your side, give you a six figure salary, and 300 days a year holiday. Many people will have to train as a global warming press officer, ladder-climbing trainer, or a bereavement counsellor for the One-Legged Lesbian Alliance

'We may soon be in an age where bartering and trading posts will replace currency'

Welcome to 2009. Broken windows. Graffiti. A sinister wind rattling past the boarded shopfronts. Children eating sloppy handfuls of scraps from the bottom of dustbins in order to survive. No money. No food. No Woolworths.

The country could do what every problem is solved by nowadays: turning itself off and then turning back on again.

They say that cutting back is the only way we're going to be surviving 2009. Maybe a small amount of cannibalism. But cutting back is prominent.

But, it would seem that 2009 is actually set to be a good year. Why? Not because everyone's going to lose their jobs and have to eat their fingers and toes to stay alive, but because - with something collective to worry about - there should be less emphasis on the silly little things that don't matter quite as much.

Realising that their houses are worth about as much as a few grains of sugar and setting them alight to stay warm; people will probably start forgetting about whether the bananas they buy are organic, carbon-neutral, nuclear-free, and personally blessed by Jamie Oliver in a pesticide-liberated wind farm just north of Rio De Janeiro.

After all, during the great depression of the early 1900s and two World Wars, there were no loonies chaining themselves to a fence demanding we save the whales and polar bears, and prevent new roads from being built in case vehicles crush any slugs or ants.

We can only hope that being united by universal financial demise will mean there will be less time and money spent on the unimportant.

In 2008, while the banks collapsed, everyone's money went up in smoke and the government were in their bunkers creating a 10-week crash course on how to change a light bulb safely; everyone let them get away with it because they were too distracted by Madonna's divorce or which coloured bin they needed to put their plastic bottles in.

And the environmental protesters seemed more bothered about the greenhouse gas emissions coming from the back of an Army tank as opposed to the high-explosive tank rounds at the front killing women and children in collateral damage.

Therefore, in 2009, with everyone frying their goldfish for extra protein and shopkeepers offering to massage your feet if they thought there was even half a chance of you buying a Twix, there should be no news of any composting of potato peelings or a celebrity's nose or breast dropping off.

We may soon be in an age where bartering and trading posts will replace currency.

So, can we expect a year when government efforts and money are directed in the way of something useful?

No.

It seems, this year, that Britain's last morsel of common sense has joined Woolworths, Eldorado and Spangles as things of the past.

Enter Change4Life: the government's £75million initiative that's going to turn Britain in to a slim, healthy nation. The new adverts say "Move! Live!"

Supposedly, the adverts in 2010 are going to suggest that we "Blink!" and "Breath!" - just in case the public, with hydrogenated blubber exploding their brain cells, may forget to do anything for themselves.

Because, of course, they think the public, without their intervention, are going to die with a tripplebypassburger and fries hanging out their mouth while reading the Daily Star.

That's probably why the new initiative's has a "4" instead of "four" - because they think the dense public that they govern are having trouble with words.

Or, it may be so fat kidz on da street will understand it and start dodging bullets while jogging in the local park instead of playing on PlayStations.