Recently in Current Affairs Category

'You are just 9 questions away from a lifetime supply of teabags'

If you ask a MP their thoughts on crime, they'll say it is a bad thing indeed. If you ask them their thoughts on the economy, they'll say it's a very, very bad thing indeed. If you ask a MP about immigration, they'll freeze and look like they've just broken wind in front of the Queen. In a confined space.

The topic of immigration manages to get the government hot under the collar for fear they will be criticised for being unpatriotic if they fully open the borders to every Tom, Dick and Hunrikadelz - or classed as racist if they say no to immigration.

The new points system for immigration, in which the term 'new' is used loosely, is said to be 'working well,' but the idea of an island as small as Britain reaching a population of over 70 million residents in the next 20 years has caused a stir.

The new points system is to replace the near-automatic entry in to Britain. Before this, anyone who has lived in Britain for at least 5 years without a criminal record was guaranteed legal citizenship. That is, if you break the law for 5 years, you were then protected under a new one.

However, there are many other systems that have been tested over the last few years and may still make a comeback. For example, there was much talk of having a 'Britishness' test that those wanting British citizenship must pass:

Welcome to 'Who Wants to Be a British Citizen?' You are just 9 questions away from a lifetime supply of teabags. Please answer by circling Yes or No.

1.Do you have an incredible fixation with the weather? Yes/No

For your own information:
Although here in Britain we have free speech, don't say anything. A housewife is now a 'domestic engineer', old people are 'senior citizens', and aliens are 'universal freedom explorers'. Please do not walk anywhere carrying any money - but it's unlikely that you'll have any anyway. The economy has gone down the pan so the only things in the black at the moment are Alistair Darling's eyebrows.

Another suggestion has been to create a booklet that teaches potential immigrants about Britain and the British norms and values; condensing everything that defines the nation into one book. But how do you explain to potential immigrants about Cillit Bang? And Gillian McKeith? And how everyone in the country sings for Simon Cowell's supper?

Forgetting all democratic processes, the government could erect a large wall around the United Kingdom with turrets on the top. But, then again, try building a 7,500 mile wall around the UK without the help of migrant workers.

The current immigration situation over the last few years has been blamed on everything from global warming, to the economy, to the government under Mr. Anthony Blair - whose wife is currently said to be suffering from swine flu (a direct result of the family continuing to have their snouts in the trough for the last few years).

But it's a difficult situation to talk about and while gets discussed and debated in Parliament, Britain is made out to have the same immigration policy as the Native Americans.

There's always going to be arguments over immigration, and the debate about whether it's being racist to suggest that no one should be allowed into the country will go on for even longer. It will oppose the view that immigrants have made an improvement to the economy and the healthcare system and they should be allowed to migrate to the UK as they please, as long as they meet the requirements.

In 1973 when Britain joined the EEC, there was a mass wave of immigration. Crowds of Dutch people poured into Britain forcing everyone to wear clogs and eat waxy cheese and soon the windmills were going up at the end of every street. 'It was awful,' someone said. 'Before you knew it the place stunk of tulips and everyone was cycling everywhere, speaking perfect English.'

'Some of them come here, don't work, and then expect the state to give them money so they can go and buy cigarettes and Beatles memorabilia.'

'Then came the Belgians with their fancy larger and delicious chocolates and their...I can't remember any more stereotypical national characteristics but they were a pain in the neck.'

'And what about those Polish? They come over here to work as handymen; turn up on time, work really hard, don't rip you off, and refuse to shout offensive remarks at women. They're ruining our traditional British values!'

On the one hand, the media portray Britain as bulging under the strain of the population with not enough health services and schools to accommodate everyone. Whereas some portray the condition of immigration as being the largest boost to the economy since Hogwarts joined the EU.

It depends which way you look at it.

There is also the fact that over 55,000 people are ditching the shores of sunny Britain for a home abroad compared to the approximate 230,000 entering the country every year. But with the government's top secret plan to continue to aggravate the British public, the emigration figure is expected to rise dramatically.

Some say that the immigration problem is caused by people from all over Europe flooding into Britain to take all the jobs that British people don't want to do - like clean toilets, harvest vegetables or score 25 goals per season in the Premier League.

And others say that it's the more skilled workers that are being imported by the UK to work as nurses, scientists, and doctors. And, if this is the case, the cause of the immigration problem may just be the fact that half of Europe has moved to Britain to get an appointment with their local GP.

'This means having to stop off several times on the journey to rob a bank'

It's coming up to the height of the summer and over the last few years three things have been certain to take place around this time.

Firstly, the Met Office will apologise for promising a hot summer. The amount of rain that has fallen so far will mean that the name 'barbeque summer' will consist of redundant barbeques collecting rainwater in the garden - unless people turn them upside down, climb aboard, and use them to float down towards Cornwall on a flooded M5.

Secondly, MPs have embarked on their mid-year, 82-day break - meaning that the state of the country should improve slightly between now and September. They'd better be sure to spend their holiday on British beaches, showing their support for the environment and making sure the press photograph them with as many pensioners, children, and culturally diverse people as possible while they stand in the freezing sea with their trouser-legs pulled up.

And thirdly, Prince Charles, the Archbishop of Narnia or [insert hypocritical figurehead here] will tell everyone that we are destroying the planet with our greed, gluttony or trips to Florida in a Land Rover. Before deciding where to invest their next £billion.

The environmental debate usually reaches its peak in the summer where MPs make the headlines once again as they jet set across the world and get criticised if they venture out of the UK for their summer holiday.

Every summer, people come on the television and say that to save the planet we must not get aboard a plane and they'll try and make you feel guilty if you do.

But it's also said that the planet has been through worse events than the proliferation of the human being. They say that the earth has undergone earthquakes, volcanoes, extinction, magnetic storms, hundreds of thousands of years of being bombarded with asteroids, continental drifts, solar flares, cosmic rays, flooding and recurring ice ages. But if you buy an energy-saving light bulb, put your left leg in, your left leg out, in out, in out, and you shake it all about we'll save the planet and make the world safe so that people of the future can happily drive around in their Volvos.

The debate as to whether Heathrow should have a third runway looks like one that is set to last and will continue to divide the Labour and Conservative parties throughout the rest of the year and beyond.

The Conservatives oppose the decision to build a third runway because of the damage to the environment. Some have even suggested that the site could be used to create a wind farm where environmentalists can go and spend some time hugging wind. But the Labour Party are standing in favour of the new runway because of the benefit to the economy that it will bring or because a new wind farm will mess up Gordon Brown's hair.

So, as it's summer and everyone is ready to go on their holidays, those who don't want to face the ecomentalists that will scowl at you as you board a plane will be heading off for a holiday in the UK.

But Britain isn't known for its seaside hotels and they are frequently said to be among some of the worst in Europe. We may have one or two decent beaches, respectable scenery, and excellent cream teas but the latest report from mystery shoppers has suggested that British hotels are particularly bad.

A 4-star hotel would probably be the equivalent of Fawlty Towers. And a 3-star hotel would probably be less comfortable than a South American jail.

The toilet paper may be folded into a little V, the breakfast may be something people would describe as 'hearty', and you may have a quaint little view of the ocean. But the maids have a habit of vacuuming at 3am (scoring extra points if they hit the skirting board), there's bacteria in the bathroom that's so big it's sitting and reading a newspaper, and in terrible British fashion you find that the previous occupant has actually pooed in the kettle.

Yet, to go on holiday in Britain it is likely that you would travel by car. And this means having to stop off several times on the journey to rob a bank so you can afford the petrol.

If, on the other hand, you want a hotel with revolving doors, lots of plants, and a chirpy wake-up call, you'll probably have to step on a plane.

But this is a nightmare in itself.

Taking a plane usually involves arriving at the airport early so you can be stripped naked in front of hundreds of people and poked and prodded to ensure you haven't got anything sharper than a tissue.

But at least going on a plane is more interesting than travelling by car. Children can spend time looking out of the window at the clouds as oppose to listening to their parents making an announcement every time they see a sheep or having to hold their noses. Because it's a well-known fact that the countryside stinks.

It's also a well known fact that, when looking through an aeroplane window, only posh houses can be seen. Usually surrounded by hedgerows that look like Jilly Cooper.

A downside to travelling on a plane is having to listen to the safety announcements telling you how to put on your seatbelt and the dubious phrases that they use.

In the 'unlikely event' (= an interesting expression coming from a company who lie about departure times) of a sudden change in cabin pressure (= fuselage splits in two), oxygen masks will fall down. Place the mask over your nose and mouth and breathe 'normally'. (= 'Normally' as in the way that a person breathes when they are in vertical freefall at 1,000 miles per second inside a large aluminium can that is heading for a cornfield.) During a 'water landing' (= the plane plunges into the ocean), life vests are available under your seat and the cushion on the seat itself can be used as a floatation device (= you will be stuck in the middle of the Pacific Ocean for several days holding on to a cushion that smells of farts).

Another downside to flying on a plane is the change in people's behaviour when they are several thousands of feet in the air. When a member of the cabin crew tell you to 'be aware of the nearest exit' you start to look around and make a plan in case the plane crashes into the sea.

You form a master plot in your mind that involves surveying the other passengers to see who you can push aside to get to safety if something does go wrong.

It's survival of the fittest.

As the plane splashes down, react fast. Avoid the nearest exit as there is a very large passenger in the way who looks like they may take too long to escape. Make a beeline for the second-nearest exit which involves stepping on the head of the widow with the big hair, knock over the man you've seen rubbing his bad ankle, and push aside the emotionally disturbed passengers before exiting the plane where you can help others. You're of no use to anyone if the large passenger's fallen on top of you during a badly-planned emergency strategy.

Another change in personality occurs when it's meal time. Despite having many meals during their lifetime, people have never been so excited to have a meal on a plane. Just seeing the meal trolley coming down the aisle can make someone so excited they may just experience total euphoria as they all sit up, pull their trays down and repeatedly tap nearby passengers on the leg to announce that the 'FOOD'S COMING!'

People know it will taste like an old sock and yet they get so excited when it arrives.

The meat in the meal, whatever meat it is, usually contains grill marks on either side as if they think people actually believe there's an open air grill on the flight deck. The food is also usually served with some kind dressing that is packaged in something from the space program and the sauce itself tastes like it has been made of rejects from Russia's nerve gas agency.

So, the environment/third runway situation is still debatable and the debate will continue until well after the summer recess.

And the idea of the most environmentally method of travel isn't going to go away anytime soon with large amounts of money set to be offered to scientists who can invent a method of vastly reducing damaging emissions from aircraft.

One of the other interesting reasons why local residents argued that the third runway would be a nuisance was not just because of the noise or the pollution; it was actually having bright airport lights outside their houses.

So, doing my bit, I have come up with an idea that I may even consider taking on Dragon's Den.

Being a wild thing, my idea is to try hanging pieces of material up over the window.

I think I'll call them 'curtains'.

'People use whatever terms they can to create an impact'

Last week the Advertising Standards Agency slapped KFC's chickeny bottom for their advert that suggested that KFC has fresh chicken delivered to each store every day, when this actually isn't true.

But this is hardly surprising. We all know that companies sometimes tell lies to make them seem more appealing: It's said that Bold 2 in 1 is part of the fabric of life, Red Bull gives you wings, and that the government want a fairer, stronger, and more prosperous Britain.

There's been much in the news lately about how companies/executives/political parties have been deceptive. Everyday another group of people are being exposed.

So if you're Al Gore and you make an international film telling everyone they're going to burn in Hell you get the Nobel Peace Prize. If you embezzle the British public of their savings you get a six-figure pension. But if you say your chicken is delivered fresh everyday it will mean the ASA will send a man round with short trousers and a clip board to pull angry faces at you and tell you he's very, very cross.

It's the same with television programmes. If Bear Grylls goes out into a lake to catch a fish and can't manage to find one, the show would not be worth watching. So if they buy a fish from Sainsbury's and pretend he caught it in the name of entertainment it's not the end of the world.

And some viewers complained when it emerged that Andrew Marr doesn't actually drive a Nissan Figaro as is shown in the opening segment of his show. Oh God, no. Say it isn't so.

Some television has to be staged or it would not be worth watching. There would be no point in upsetting housewives who had settled down with a box of tissues to watch a reunion between a woman and her long-lost father on daytime television - only to have the father turn up at the woman's house when she's not in. It would be about as interesting as watching ITV3.

People like to be entertained when they watch television; it's why programmes like Countdown and Through the Keyhole get such low viewing figures. They don't contain any danger, exploding helicopters or car chases. For anyone to want to watch Through the Keyhole, a contestant would have to take the panel hostage and David Frost would have to explode into a million pieces, or at least break a few bones and then escape down a mountain with Keira Knightly while being chased by transvestite neo-Nazis.

It's the same when advertising products. Advertising is the fine art of making you believe that something you've never seen before is what you've been waiting for your whole life.

An advert for shampoo seldom takes place in a shower where most people wash their hair. The advertising agencies seem to believe that the majority of the population frequently wash their hair in the hot and steamy waterfall that they have in their back garden while tropical birds dry their hair with a towel when they're finished.

And it's not good enough to have an advert for shampoo that says, 'It makes your hair clean.' According to advertisers shampoo needs to invigorate, enrich, and cause multiple orgasms.

Back in the old days when people were born in chimneys and were only let out to be beaten, the adverts were much simpler. In magazines and newspapers it stated exactly what the product was, how much it cost, and included a little information about it. These days, an image of an orange on a beach where the sky is slowly turning to cheese is supposed to advertise a car. It's the power of dreams apparently.

Food becomes 'zesty' (sour), a 'delicacy' (something you would never dream of eating), 'cuisine' (an extra 60% above the price of 'food'), 'lemon-flavoured' (contains no lemon whatsoever) and 'old-fashioned' (from when E.coli was a side-dish).

Adverts are full of tedious music - like the Boots advert with 'Here Come the Girls' - who have been coming for nearly 2 years and obviously have no intention of arriving because in every advert they're always on their way and don't seem to be getting closer to their destination.

Or everyone seems to be holding their abdomen; walking around saying they're 'bluuurrrttedd', and having to take biffidus fartidium which is good bacteria.

And if they're not bloated they're either constipated or have severe diarrhoea.

I've been on the toilet for days with terrible diarrhoea, but if I take new Imodium Super Bung, I can save it all until tomorrow! So now I can carry on with my super life, run my hands through fountains in the town square, and smile at strangers!

Advertisers run the risk of irritating the public so much that they will never end up selling any products and it wouldn't be surprising if the woman from the Curanail/Criminail adverts has full police protection for her own safety. The advertising campaign is about as useful as having Jo Brand as the face of Actimel.

Comparethemeerkat.com is scientifically proven (we love microscopes, we do!) to lower cholesterol and build a healthy immune system because you're worth it. Terms and conditions apply. Batteries not included. May cause death.

Also, blinding people with vast amounts of information about extra features gets people to buy what is being advertised. A washing machine no longer only washes clothes. It has sat nav and internet and can send photos to mobile phones - which no one's really bothered with since Rebecca Loos.

It's also the same with the news. The language helps to create the tone. The Sun may say 'Dirty Old Pervert Finally in Jail', while on Newsround they may have 'Poor Little Kitty Goes Missing' and Newsnight would say 'George Osbourne to scrap failed FSA.'

The language helps to set the tone and make the audience go 'Ahhh' when there's a bag of puppies that have been found by the canal. Or 'Boooooo' when an MP walks on screen. But there's usually more use of the terms 'Recession', 'Turmoil', and 'Death' on a serious programme like Newsnight and phrases like 'Celebrity', 'Celebrity Wedding', and 'Celebrity Mansions' on the lower-key programmes.

You wouldn't expect Jeremy Paxman to introduce Newsnight and they sit at the desk showing the audience at home pictures of nipple-slips from Heat magazine.

Many companies from advertisers to newsgroups are beginning to be scrutinized about their use of language; creating effect but inadvertently not being technically correct.

But the use of emotive language has taken to the streets. People use whatever terms they can to create an impact.

For example, a thug may stop you in the street, smash the base off a glass bottle and say, 'I'm gonna glass you!' - which certainly creates impact and sounds quite threatening and mean. But you would have to stop and think very carefully and explain to them, in the heat of the situation and in the name of language, that 'glass' is a noun, not a verb, and therefore should not be conjugated.

Then hope this doesn't make things worse.

'People would trample over each other just to catch a glimpse of a legend'

When the "news" and images of celebrities in the media consist of stories about their lives in glossy magazines, you may just think that everyone in the public eye automatically start marrying goats, drinking their own urine, and throwing phones at paparazzi - only to go home and have cocaine shovelled up their noses by a trio of burlesque dancers.

Seeing a celebrity walking down the street obviously means they're going to meet Meg Ryan for lunch and not just going to the supermarket, and therefore it should make national news. The sky is falling down, Gordon Brown has just declared war on South Wales, and a nuclear power station has just exploded, but Helen Mirren has just bought some new earrings so that is what, of course, makes the News at 10.

We seem to be living in a celebrity-obsessed society where celebrities have a huge influence on people's lives.

A product that could turn saliva into gold would be dismissed as ludicrous unless it's endorsed in an advert with Jane Fonda and then it's flying off the shelves.

But for all the superficial celebrity attention, there's a rare time when one person, can have such a dramatic effect across the globe.

You know you've made your mark on society and on the world when the news channels show images of people of all ages coming together on the streets to sing your songs, people wear a single white exfoliating glove in the shower in tribute, and people all over the planet are trying to moonwalk from the dinner table to the kitchen sink - even if they look like a giraffe with a bowel complaint trying to wipe gum off the bottom of their feet.

The high activity of social networking websites and text messages at 400,000 per second last Thursday evening meant that the news of Michael Jackson was all over the world within hours of his death. Even faster than on the news channels. After the vast surge in text messages, the viewing figures for the Sky and BBC News rocketed as people rushed to confirm if the news was true.

Believing all information received in a text message could be a risk with so many people texting hoaxes like the statue of liberty has come alive and is in the process of terrorising New York or Gordon Brown has gone rabid and has bitten a chunk out of Harriet Harman's ear while dressed as a Nazi.

But either one of these rumours would have been less shocking than hearing that a music legend had died. By 10.30pm, last Thursday, with the news circulating the planet, the news channels still hadn't caught up. You would probably expect no mention of Michael Jackson on BBC News - they usually drag their feet and check the facts before they make any hasty announcements. You would have expected Sky News to be slightly bolder and have quoted the news of his death from another source under a Breaking News headline. And you would expect Fox News, being American, to have seen a rumour on Twitter, which was good enough for them, and to be already holding a live séance in the studio.

The following day, people awoke to the confirmed news that Michael Jackson had died and those at Glastonbury emerged from their tents looking like Worzel Gummidge to the sound of tracks from Thriller, the world's fastest ever selling album. All over the country, news rooms were interviewing people who were lining up to say that they had met Michael Jackson - who had been to his concerts, stood next to him in a lift or was once sneezed on by the man himself back in 1984.

It was in the up and coming days that the focus changed from that of shock to a lament of a lifelong tragedy.

When images of his transformation from a child star to the 50-year-old, unconventional man that he had become appeared all over the news and on entertainment programmes, the words "misfortune", "pity", and "sadness" cropped up - and they were words that were used to describe the life of Michael Jackson on so many levels.

With mass moonwalks taking place, live re-enactments of the Thriller routine, and thousands of people of all ages meeting in the street to sing his songs across the globe, Michael Jackson has cemented his place in history as the world's foremost pop star who had become a living legend when he was still only a child.

Despite some of the negative opinions of him - distorted by the medium that is the sensational speculation from the media that, ultimately, contributed to his downfall - the fact that people idolised his music, would trample over each other just to catch a glimpse of a legend, and the vast number of tributes all over the world shows that he meant something to a lot of people.

And yet, already, there have been people criticising him and even criticising his fans for their mass tributes as though all of the attention is exaggerated. But it's a rarity that someone's talent is celebrated on such a large, international scale - especially for a performer who, in life, was a troubled perfectionist who would never be satisfied with himself and who heavily criticised his own circumstances - even without the media doing that for him.

For anyone who is not a fan of Michael Jackson, the fact that his work is an inspiration to many people should not be condemned.

Michael Jackson; with his unique style, being the ultimate live performer that broke all music records, created his own genre, performing from the age of 4; gave his whole life to entertaining others and trying to instil happiness into many people's lives. He has developed into an idol, a cultural phenomenon in life and in death. His lyrics and dance moves have become globally renowned, and his songs have become a soundtrack to the lives of multiple generations of people, and will be remembered like anthems that immortalise parts of history in people's minds like the ghosts of a long-gone summer.

'There has been the emperor's-new-clothes effect concerning modern art'

If you've been keeping up with the news lately you may have been given the faintest inkling that the world is in financial meltdown. We've been constantly bombarded with stories about how everyone is out of pocket and, according to the headlines, people are selling their homes in exchange for rice. In fact, you're probably looking at your pets right now and wondering what they taste like.

So, in this tense economic situation, it could be considered a risk to be spending money on any elaborate pieces of public art - especially when it is of the "modern art" variety, and therefore not so well liked and appreciated by everyone.

People are obviously against the idea of their hard-earned money going towards something that offers little benefit. After witnessing the public reaction to the recent MPs expenses scandal that left the nation baying for blood, there must be council officials all over the country sweating and drawing short straws about who's going to have to appear on Newsnight and explain the £3million 40ft turd they've commissioned to be constructed at the local precinct.

Visiting art galleries is on the increase, presumably as most of them are free. It seems even people who would have never visited an art gallery before are becoming tempted by the cheap days out - even if it is looking at a painting and pretending to admire the lighting before an American tourist steps in your way. And then run off to buy a Monet fridge magnet to advertise your new-found culture.

Generally, the public believe that true "art" refers to the old-fashioned style, where you have some idea as to what the work is supposed to represent. They like to look at something like the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo for hours because the people look like real people and it's been painted on the ceiling - so they can sit and compare it to how they've never been able to paint their ceiling at home without getting paint in their hair.

A room where the lights go on and off would not necessarily be considered as art by everyone who saw it. Walking into a room to see the lights going off for 5 seconds and then coming back on for 5 seconds would not necessarily cause people to stare in amazement at how it represents the division in society and the divinity of human beings in the extensive magnitude or dimension that is the universe. They're more likely to walk in and say 'Is there something wrong with the lights?'

In general, people don't seem to like modern art. A television programme last week showed people offering their opinion on modern artists. Surprisingly, one of the most frequent comments from people was that artists look scruffy.

There would have been a time when you could walk into an artist's studio and see that he had white hair and spectacles and a waistcoat and you would assume that he knew his onions.

But people obviously don't seem to like the modern, open-toed approach to art as they see it as a move away from more respectful, traditional methods of creativity.

But there has been the emperor's-new-clothes effect concerning modern art. People used to stand and shout at the fact that the council have just paid £8million to see the "art" that is a chair in the middle of an empty room.

In order to impress the aloof critics, people have started to pretend that they actually see the reasoning behind the exhibits.

So now, people pat the artist on the head, call them "amazing, darling", and ask them how they got the ingenious idea to paint on a wall while wearing a blindfold and then urinate over it.

People used to have paintings of flowers and rivers and trees on their wall by artists who were creative enough to be able to represent flowers and rivers and trees to scale. But now there're going to feel like they should be keeping up with the times and staple one of their cats to the wall instead. Or cut off their own hand and mount it above the television. It's art, baby.

Some form of controversial art appears in the news every week. Last weekend, it was the new exhibition by Banksy - who is one modern artist that people often enjoy. This time public money was spent creating the exhibit and not taking it down as it usually is.

More notoriously, one of the most controversial pieces of "art" was announced under the headline "The Tate Gallery has paid £22,300 of public money for a work that is, quite literally, a load of excrement" - which referred to a man who left a personal touch by filling cans with...his, let's say artistic "vision".

An Italian named Piero Manzoni died in 1963, but not before ensuring that he filled a total of 90 cans with his vision.

If someone sent a can of vision to your door, you would most probably take offence and contact the police. But it seems if you send a can of vision to the local museum it gets you £22,300.

This does however; leave open the possibility of art fraud from millions of people having visions every day.

Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it and antiques, as well as art, are becoming a more and more popular investment.

There must have been a time in the middle of the 20th century when people suddenly thought that the past is 10 times better than the present and started to collect old things.

Presumably though, a Georgian desk would probably be of a much higher quality than a flat-pack desk that, if you tried to assemble yourself, would get covered with the contents of your arteries.

And giving someone a 40-year-old sofa would be an insult, whereas giving them one that was 200-years-old would be much more of a worthy gift.

It seems that in this economic downturn, people are investing more in antiques. While their own house may only be worth £14.50, their Victorian writing desk is worth a killing.

But it seems undecided yet as to whether people are going to embrace modern art or stick to their guns with the more traditional approach. Either way, it's not going to be the last we see of sawn-in-half cows and a pile of rubbish on top of a bed.

It seems the Mona Lisa is so last week. Poor Leonardo da Vinci (an avid reader of this blog); he's probably turning in his grave. It's not his fault he was born before the days of innovative art. We can only imagine what he could have done with empty rooms and a can of vision.

'Advancing technology seems to give rise to new problems'

Last week the BBC made valuable use of licence fee payer's money to conduct a survey asking people if they feel that the proliferation of technology has benefited their lives.

38% said Yes and 62% said No.

It was also suggested that people would much prefer to live a less complicated, technology-free life and sit outside their homes like The Waltons, relaxing and playing with a piece of dust.

The enquiry then lead to a mini-debate as to the extent of the question, and also caused leading scientists to suggest that, to no surprise, Britain is no longer at the leading forefront of technological advancements and that technology that actually complicates things is unwelcome.

Now, unless you're an MP you probably don't catch sight of many £50 notes. But if you do, you will notice that the new £50 notes feature Birmingham's own Matthew Bolton, the engineer who formed a business partnership with James Watt in 1773 to make huge developments in the steam engine industry.

If you don't have wiry hair and wear comfortable shoes this probably doesn't interest you all that much.

But the larger subject at hand is Britain's contemporary input to the world's inventions and just how far the baton has been passed on to other parts of western Europe, America, China and Japan in terms of inventions, developments, and discoveries.

Britain has been home to many inventions and discoveries; including the fax machine, electric motor, steam and jet engines, light bulbs and, most importantly, perforated toilet paper.

But lately, things have started to slow down in terms of technological advancements from Britain, and, if there's such thing as the £50 note in the future, there's going to be no one to feature on it.

Unless they add Simon Cowell, Levi Roots, or What's-his-name from Eastenders.

And even in the world at large, technology can't seem to decide which direction it's moving in. It's difficult to come to a decision on whether we're actually technologically advanced.

When drawing on the debate as to whether we are moving backwards in terms of technology, the retreat of Concorde usually crops up.

There was a time when you could get to America in less than 4 hours on Concorde, and in a step back for technology, it now takes around 10.

But Concorde, as an advancement in technology, created large problems - the spelling of the name between the British and the French, the decided market portrayal and safety of the 4 subordinate engines, and the fact that the Americans said the sonic boom knocked over their cows.

Technology is expensive and even Concorde, in 1976 cost the taxpayer £1.34 billion - which, even in today's money could get a home for at least 2 MPs.

As always, advancing technology seems to give rise to new problems.

And there are also a considerably large number of people who have refused to embrace technology; people who spend their day dressed as Windy Miller to churn butter, who only consider spam to be a canned meat, and are just coming to terms with corduroy.

There was once the idea that technology was going to make life more simple and make complicated tasks easier to complete.

But every new piece of equipment comes with a new instruction manual the size of War and Peace and a remote control that is guaranteed to make your nose wrinkle every time you look at it.

And while DVDs are more convenient than VHS, they can, for some people, be more difficult to operate.

To the less technologically apt, playing a DVD is like guiding a Harrier Jet through a missile attack. Only more complicated.

Every time you watch a DVD, you're forced to watch a message telling you that you are only allowed to watch that film if you're at home, not in a public place, and you're wearing green.

And you also have to sit through messages about pirate DVDs - giving you the implication that the SWAT team is about to burst through your window and confiscate it.

And by the time all the messages finish, you're 191 years old and it's time for bed.

There's something interesting about the fact that people have suggested that technology doesn't make you happy - if anything it makes everything slightly more complicated.

Believe it or not, there are some people who just want a mobile phone to actually call a real human being - and not to send nude images to the Philippines, launch espionage satellites, or boil an egg.

But it seems that progressing with technology is actually going to mean taking a step backwards, turning away from the over-complicated nature of recent advances.

We may think we're advanced because we have a satellite dish on the wall of our house, because we can watch penguins falling over in documentaries on our plasma televisions, and check the weather on the other side of the world in over 100 languages.

But if there was the option for it to all disappear, how many people would ever choose that option?

Technology obviously isn't making everything easier.

For a world that has managed to launch rockets into space, put a man on the moon, and make high-tech machinery to prevent it from raining on the Olympic games, we still can't manage to print a document without the printer passing through hundreds of blank pages or saying "You have performed an illegal operation. This computer will now self- destruct."
Considering we can view images of robots looking for water on Mars, or can attach cameras to the back of a wasp, you would think you'd be able to watch something as simple as a television much easier than 30 years ago.

In the past you pressed a button the television came on.

Today, if you're trying to watch Deal Or No Deal (for reasons known only to yourself) the digital box will say that there is no satellite signal being received - only for you to have to call customer services, tell them your password, shoe-size, and the number of hairs on your head; so they can announce that the digital box isn't working because you've got to turn it on and off 17 times, take the viewing card out, sing to it, and then swipe it between your bottom cheeks.

You wouldn't expect your television to suddenly stop working in this day and age. If you were on the frontline of a military war zone or in the middle of nuclear fallout you may expect a small degradation in picture quality. And it would be OK if the picture cut off when something like Emmerdale was about to start.

The BBC study stated that people liked the technological advancements in the '80s - new, but not too complicated. If there's ever a time machine invented, it seems 62% of people will be packing up the computers, satellite navigation systems, and satellite-launching mobile phones to join Gene Hunt back in 1981.

Click here for a printable version

'There's something very different about local MPs'

Elections to the European Parliament and English county councils are coming up on 4 June. Ironically, it's about the worst time to be an MP at the moment, with their profession having probably fallen behind that of traffic wardens and serial killers in the list of the least respected people in society.

In a time when there's economic gloom and high crime rates, people are afraid to leave their houses in fear of being faced with a masked gunman, an axe-wielding maniac or a Member of Parliament.

On the one hand, people are voting for a representative of the local area and, on the other, people are voting for a representative in Europe - the place that really pulls all the strings.

Every day, 650 members of parliament in Westminster decide what new laws they are going to impose on the nation.

But it's not just them.

We have parish councils and borough councils and county councils and the House of Lords and the European Parliament - amassing to thousands of people who decide what you eat, what you say, where you go, how much you're paid, and how often you go to the toilet.

And every now and then people get outraged by them and, after an election, they're replaced with thousands more who do the same.

It's said that the European parliament passes around 24,000 new directives per year. It's for this reason that people seem to be against them.

By the time you've read this, there have probably been another couple of new laws.
You are no longer allowed to decorate your bedroom without planning permission and it's illegal to sneeze on a Thursday.

Generally, we like, and want to preserve, locally-run businesses much more than we like globalisation and multinational superstores.

People frequently reject the European Union in favour of good ol' Westminster, and sometimes like the idea of local councils even though people believe they're run by snoring lunatics.

We like our police to be like The Sweeney or Dixon of Dock Green as oppose to the FBI.

We fight to prevent supermarkets from opening even though they sell convenient, cheap food - and we strive to save local shops even though they're expensive and the vegetables look like Andrew Lloyd Webber covered in shrivelled weeds and mud.

So it's not surprising that people are said to be against voting for a European representative and the turnout is said to be low.

People don't like the idea of large groups deciding what's best for them as the effort is too generalised.

So, with that, you'd expect people to get a little more enthusiastic with local council elections.

But recent suggestions say that many people don't even know who their local MP is; the only thing they notice with regards to changes in the local area is the occasional bus lane popping up or a sign telling you that you will be fined if you don't pick up your dog's bowel movements from the pavement.

The leaflets full of MPs smiling, for what appears to be the first time in their life, have appeared on the doorsteps all around the country - taking their place beside the adverts for pizza takeaways and full instructions about how to wash your hands.

There's something very different about local MPs.

They operate on a much smaller budget and so they can only respond to complaints of litter in the street, stand outside Post Offices in high-visibility jackets, and smile while having photographs taken with children, owners of local businesses, and broken incubators at the local hospital.

And of course, the highlight in the life of a local MP is when there has been a flood.
It's universally acknowledged that that any MP should, after a spell of local flooding, put on a suit and some wellington boots and talk to the victims of the flood as their wardrobe floats out of the upstairs window.

They must also congratulate the emergency services for doing what they're paid to do and to not selling their stories of corruption to the Daily Telegraph.

Apart from the occasional appearance in the local newspaper or on TV at election time, it's rare that you'll ever hear from your MP - that's saying you even know who they are.

It has been said, that for many people, the little leaflet that comes through the door at election time with photographs of the local MP at the neighbourhood community centre is the first time they've ever seen their face.

Many MPs do occasionally offer a local surgery where people can go and voice their opinions and ask questions over tea and custard creams - questions of which MPs are probably trained to either not answer at all or to answer in a way that doesn't actually give any information or promise anything.

Having attempted to interview an MP on the radio, it soon becomes apparent that you're not actually getting anywhere and they just keep changing the subject - they like a little less conversation and more photographs with Post Offices and potholes in the road. It seems all of this aggravation ain't satisfactioning them.

Voting for an MP seems to be like voting for which candidate you like the least.

While people are disillusioned with the whole idea of elections and voting -- when it seems that one vote will make no difference, that same vote can do no more harm.

Democracy: the power being with the majority of the people and being able, through voting, to change the current state of play. We should try it some time.

At the moment it feels like democracy is the freedom to elect our dictators - on a local or international scale, and it feels like a vote is a choice between shooting yourself in the left or right leg.

'It's understandable that people are angry'

The news today hit the streets of Britain where citizens took time out of window-shopping outside Marks and Spencer's to express outrages at the latest scandal of MPs expenses.

Not surprisingly many said that they were thinking of moving abroad.

They said that they had lost all faith in the government and, if they had the money, they would be off to make a new life in the Bahamas.

It has recently been reported that last year, nearly 50,000 Britons moved abroad, and it is said that nearly a third of people have the intention to do the same.

The amount of people wanting to become expats and swap Costa del Birmingham for somewhere more colourful is on the increase.

And there's little wonder why.

In a land where tea bags are the essential ingredient for any crisis, tutting at someone is how you express that you are absolutely livid, looking at your feet or reading a newspaper gives you the right to ignore whatever is happening in front of you, and queue-jumping is on par with treason; there are still people who can't help being a partisan and would rather stay in Britain and face the music.

Even if the music is the tinkling of your smashed car window, the screams of people running for their lives in the streets, or the sound of an MP running off with your last two pennies.

But no one actually starts the day by thinking "I'm completely happy, I have the perfect job and a huge salary. I'm moving to New Zealand."

You're more likely to say "I'm extremely unhappy. I hate my job. I have no money and there's nothing good on the telly. I'm moving to New Zealand."

Everyone's going to New Zealand. The other popular choices are Greece where they like to stand on the side of the pool and jump on your head while you're swimming, or throw a ball in your face - or to Florida where they don't swim; they shout and play volleyball.

While many Britons, especially pensioners, prepare to pick up sticks and look for warmer climates, a report from hotel-owners all over the world have said that when British people go abroad they're badly dressed - if at all, loud, untidy and binge drinkers.

Apparently, hotel managers don't appreciate it when the Brits get drunk, do the Macarena in the hotel reception at 2am, and then run off to spread chlamydia.

So that's the pensioners' retirement plans ruined.

But it's hardly surprising people are getting the urge, now more than ever, to move abroad. They're tired of crime, the weather, and the government.

There are two rules in life. Rule number 1: Never undertake Morris dancing. Rule number 2: Always show resentment towards the government.

While it's sometimes dismal to hear constant criticism of the government and of life, it's understandable that people are angry.

The government may have been glad that the swine flu issue dominated the headlines since they knew their revelation about their expenses were coming up - to take the limelight away from their spending habits and their new refurbishments.

There was a time when unjust theft would have got you a prison sentence. Today if you're an MP it gets you double glazing and a knighthood.

People have spent their lives working and saving only to be left with no savings and no pension.

Having once dreamed of world cruises with sunlight dancing over their rum punch when they retire, they'll now have to settle on Complan: shaken not stirred, and a self-catering trip to Butlins.

And the money they pay the government in taxes has gone to funding war, a new kitchen in their second homes, and a £7.4million advertising campaign showing you how to sneeze in a tissue.

So it's no surprise people want to move abroad; spend their days in the sun until their skin goes to leather. Because a nation will turn its back on a country and government, if their government has turned its back on them.

'It's time to initiate a health warning'

"We interrupt this programme to bring you news of confirmed outbreaks of swine flu that is reported to slowly wipe-out all populations on the planet, sending the whole world into a CATACLYSMIC DISASTER THAT WILL END ALL MANKIND. RUN! But don't panic. We now return to A Place in the Sun".

There always tend to be two trains of thought on any pandemic or high-profile situation. There are those who sit in their makeshift steel bunker that they've built just for the occasion, ensuring they have enough baked beans, industrial facemasks and a portable radio so they can hear how the world is dwindling away.

Or, there are those who shrug it off and carry on about their business as normal, their head in the air telling everyone they've survived the World War II, Chernobyl, and Tony Blair- so they're ready for anything.

New ice ageism; nuclear winterism; vCJDism; globalwarmismisation; SARSation; avian fluism; terrorismisation; food crisisisation; climate changeism; oil crisisism; recessionitis, swine flu?...Next please.

But with many deaths already reported and the confirmed cases in the UK, the initial jokes about turning into a pig and about the issue being a load of old hogwash has run dry.

The vast comment on the situation, the methods for keeping the virus at bay, and warning for people to stock up on oinkment is running over the news and the internet like some sort of mass epidemic.

Although the government have said that they have enough Tamiflu for half the population, they say that they believe that they are thoroughly prepared to tackle the spread of the flu. Despite this, some people still believe the government are telling porkies.

It's easy for the government to tell everyone to keep calm when, as MPs, they're probably the first to get a vaccine.

Not that it will have any effect, as many people know that MPs have been suffering from swine disease for a very long time.

The disease causes you to still manage a smile, like you might actually be deranged, while you're holding up a budget in a briefcase that's 10 times for people's lives worse that any flu.

And the fact that people were stepping off the plane from Mexico and Canada without a single test for the virus, it may be hard to believe that we are prepared to stop it spreading.

You can't go on the plane with a toothpick or an eyelash, but you can get on with a virus that could wipe out a whole population. Or, even worse, have them locked in their homes playing Monopoly and watching reruns of Dad's Army until the next ice-age.

Many people are actually starting to get worried. But with deaths already hanging around the 100 mark, it's nowhere near the 4,000 people who die from normal, less news-worthy flu each winter.

And yet, since the news channels have put on their Breaking News signs again, and are using words like "Mortality", "Grave Danger" and "Pandemic", it's time to initiate a health warning.

Bird flu was expected to kill 150 million people. Instead it managed 257. Yet, the virus wasn't as easily passed to humans. Unlike the new swine flu that seems to be dominating the headlines.

But there are thousands of soldiers in the world losing their life for insignificant wars. Across Africa, 25 million people have died of AIDS. And 11.6 million have been made orphans. Why are they all poor? Where's the contraception? Rarely featured in the news bulletins.

And just over a 100 people die of swine flu and it's all over the news. The World Health Organisation. The White House. Downing Street. It's a threat to the West. Down the hatchets. Step back. It's a global tragedy.

'We'll probably somehow end up giving a massive boost to the German car industry'

After ignoring the British car industry for more than a decade, Gordon Brown has finally decided to get involved. The Prime Minister's latest - and probably, only - message to the sector that employs almost a million of his citizens, is that he intends to save it by establishing the UK as the international epicentre of the electric-car industry.

Never mind that South Korea and Japan produce more than 6 times more vehicles than we do, and that they are light-years ahead in terms of battery technology.

This week's budget is set to announce that the new electric-car scheme will create additional employment for up to 400,000 people, followed by announcements that everyone should be driving electric cars by 2020 - in any colour you like, as long as it's green.

And this is all supposed to happen when the government hands out up to £5,000 if you buy an electric car.

The debate as to whether electric-cars are better than their hydrogen-powered counterparts has raged on for as long as VHS vs. Betamax. It seems the decision to use electric has been decided upon by the government - the ability for the country to utilise hydrogen power went out the window when all British scientists moved abroad for proper jobs - avoiding the need for scientists in Britain to only research whether marshmallows give you deep vein thrombosis.

The idea of electric cars is nothing new; milk floats came, got abused for going too slow, and went. But every few years, some rich, elderly Japanese men appear on the television and tell us that the world of petrol and diesel is over.

If the electric-car idea had taken off years ago, no one should be driving around in a Bugatti Veyron - we should all be in a Toyota Turnip: 0 to 60 in 9 and a half days, turbocharged carrot juice injection, and quad speakers that play Cumby-yah in surround sound while you're out purchasing lentils.

The new plans are set to include roadside charging stations where people can plug their car in.

When the news was first made public, the eco-mental vegetablists got excited. They got all their friends around to their yurts for a glass of free trade South African wine and probably sacrificed a marrow.

But of course, while everyone wants to save the birds and the bees and the lesser-spotted Guatemalan honey frog; unless the electric cars are going to be powered by a fairy-operated, free-trade peace windmill in Scotland, the world is still going to burn.

There is also the fact that electric cars aren't exactly aesthetically pleasing and they're so small you'll probably have to drive with your knees in front of your face.

It's more like walking, but less comfortable.

In early reports, it states that there is no automatic gear box between the two front seats and, taking into consideration the high force involved with steering a car so compact, it sometimes means that the driver will slide across to the passenger's seat.

In a way, this is a bonus because people may then think you're the passenger and, therefore, this stupid car isn't yours.

The fact that the government are supposed to hand out £5,000 so we can buy a new electric car, and the fact that they're going to lose out on their fuel tax, means everyone's going to be taxed another way. Even if you don't care about the environment, you can be sure that the electricity companies will push through a massive hike in the price of power.

And while the rest of the world embrace hydrogen power and are flying around like the Jetsons, we'll all be chugging around in Gordon's green machines with a 3-tonne Duracell attached to the back just to get to the end of the street.

Financially, the plan shouldn't work anyway.

First of all, £250million has been allocated to make the scheme, and £100million is to be spent developing new batteries which will produce more power and last longer than those we have now.

In the past, General Motors, Ford and the American government have invested billions and billions of dollars to make better batteries and they still weren't adequate enough to get you to Sainsbury's.

The government would be better off burning the money. Or giving it to Fred Goodwin. Or spending it on Pot Noodles.

And they say it will only cost £20millon to erect roadside chargers in every town. £20million is nothing in government circles - to them, that's the equivalent of buying a spanner or a porn film.

With all of Britain's transport system supplied by electricity, let's hope our power stations, with generations worth of incompetence, won't bring the country to a standstill when everyone puts the kettle on at the end of Britain's Got Talent.

However, all the talk of electric cars is a stark contrast to the news we were hearing about the government's scheme which pays drivers £2,300 to replace their old banger with a shiny new car.

It has supposedly worked in Germany where the plan is to give a grant to those people who own a car more than 9-years-old. And this has worked very well for the 4 Germans who actually own a car that's 9-years-old.

The cars will then be scrapped and recycled.

This seems a little odd, considering the fact that buying a new car now would mean you have to buy a gas-guzzling one as the new electric cars won't yet be available.

Are they saying that they want people to buy new cars to save the economy at the supposed expense of the planet?

The government have spent the last decade trying to get people out of cars and into legs or public transport. Now they say that people should get back into cars.

But with the current economical climate, people don't really want to buy cars at the moment.

The government have obviously got some kind of plan here. The only way they're going to get people to buy new cars and encourage driving is by making the trains expensive and always delayed, ensuring that the buses stink and that riding your bike on the road leaves you with a head shaped like a pancake and a colostomy bag...Seems to be working so far.

We'll probably somehow end up giving a massive boost to the German car industry. Seeing as the British car industry died circa 1979.

And you can tell that Peter Mandelson is behind the scheme. If anyone knows about recycling things that have been banished to the scrap heap, it's Peter Mandelson.