Skip to main content

Day: 27 April 2013

Music and Politics – What’s going on?

Recent events, in particular the passing of a certain Margret Thatcher (the name should ring a bell) have called into question the press’ ability to report the true feelings of the British public. The former PM’s life has been celebrated on the BBC and in the newspapers, however the media has also simultaneously been undermining and above all ignoring a lot of protestor’s views on the “divisive” figure. One of the main sources of backlash has come from the music world, notably Morrissey’s rather damning statement on fan site true-to-you.net where he claimed “no British politician has ever been more despised by the British people” amongst other things.

As entertaining as it was to read, it can be hard to take the once gladioli branding singer seriously, despite his stern comments. And should musicians even be getting involved in such a matter? Stevie Wonder told us “Music is a world within itself, With a language we all understand” and it would seem a waste if this universal medium wasn’t used to its full potential, which of course means tackling topics with a bit more gravitas than a song like ‘Call Me Maybe’.

Mozza’s comments hit hard but perhaps the most damning piece came from Elvis Costello, in 1989’s ‘Tramp The Dirt Down’ where he hoped he would still be alive at the time of the Iron Lady’s demise “Because there’s one thing I know, I’d like to live, long enough to savour, That’s when they finally put you in the ground, I’ll stand on your grave and tramp the dirt down”. It is possible to enjoy the Spike album without embodying such hatred yourself.

Of course, the combination of music and politics is an already well-established one with left-wing activist Billy Bragg almost basing an entire career on it, as did much of the Punk bands of the time and more recently of course Pussy Riot. The music of a certain decade has come to reflect and define crucial moments and events in time, whether it’s something tasteful like Marvin Gaye’s ‘What’s Going On?’ or something a bit more naff (musically speaking) i.e Paul Hardcastle’s “n-n-n-n-nineteen”.

We often mock the likes of Bono for his involvement with politics and Africa, but it isn’t really too absurd for musicians to have opinions. Australia’s deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan claimed Bruce Springsteen predicted the global economic crisis “You can hear Springsteen singing about the shifting foundations of the US economy which the economists took much longer to detect, and which of course everyone is talking about now”. Now if that doesn’t justify the involvement of politics in music I don’t know what does.

To claim music should be undiluted with these matters is something slightly insulting to the listener. It’s nice to escape with a harmless, care-free pop song but there also comes a time where we also want something with a bit more meat on the bone. Sadly the days of the intelligent, political song seem to be up with the idea of Punk now something we tend to ridicule for its extremity and bad make-up.

 

Preview – Star Trek

With the notable exception of Spiderman 2, film tie-in games are rubbish. Often re-skinned or shoddy imitations of AAA titles, rushed to coincide with big budget films releases in order to ride the hype train all the way to the bank. With this in mind, when I first heard they were making a game to coincide with the new Star Trek my curiosity wasn’t peaked. I enjoyed J.J Abrams’ reboot of the series, but as I am not a Trekkie, I had little interest in playing a game based on the films. I assumed it would be another rushed affair, similar to the plethora of terrible tie-in games already available. However it appears that I may have jumped the gun on this one.

Brian Miller, Vice-President of games at Paramount Picture, the game’s publishers, blames the poor quality of most film tie-ins on their short development period (usually 1 year), “That’s not enough time to do it right.” Hoping to solve this problem, development on ‘Star Trek: The Video Game’ began 3 years ago. This gave Digital Extremes the opportunity to build the game from scratch and give it the extra polish rarely seen with tie-ins.

Details on the story are scarce (kept secret to build anticipation no doubt) but we do know that its set between the first film and the upcoming sequel, and features classic and much loved Trek villains the Gorn. Re-imagined for the reboot, the Gorn have a reptilian look not dis-similar to the Lizard in the latest ‘Spiderman’ reboot.  The Gorn “seed mayhem and destruction as they destroy populations and deplete planets of their resources”, and should make for tough adversaries throughout the campaign.

Built from the ground-up as a co-op experience, it appears to be in a similar vain to Army of Two and Gears of War, with Spock and Kirk assuming the roles of the protagonists. Gameplay will be split between exploration, co-op platforming and cover-based shooting, the third-person shooter staple we’ve all come to know and love/loath. The developers have been keen to stress that the game contains two ‘vastly different gameplay styles’; Kirk is impulsive and headstrong, preferring to shoot first and question whatever survives, meaning his play style is similar to the running-and-gunning of the Gears of War series. Spock on the other hand is more thoughtful and measured in his actions, reflected in a more stealth-focussed skills set, which includes Star Trek staples ‘Mind Meld’ (the ability to enter another characters mind) and the ‘Vulcan Nerve Pinch’.

Furthering this difference in play style, the game’s upgrade system encourages players to stay in character; Kirk’s upgrades are focussed on improving accuracy and damage, whereas Spock’s focus on his Vulcan abilities, improving his speed and stealth abilities. Of course, its still possible to play a gung-hoe Spock, or a more strategic Kirk, but its clear the developers are aiming for the characters to embody their on-screen personas.

Aesthetically the game is very appealing; character models closely resemble their real-life counterparts and environments are detailed and life-like. The game also has the trademark ‘Lens Flare’ present in much of the reboot, which adds a shiny, modern look to surroundings.

Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto reprising their roles as Kirk and Spock. Present too are Simon Pegg as Scotty and Zoe Saldana as Uhura. It’s this level or polish and detail that Digital Extremes hopes will make Star Trek standout from the movie tie-in crowd.

Until recently no one has been allowed to play the game, which caused alarm among the gaming public. However early reviews have begun to appear, and the overall opinion is positive, with many claiming the game is a blast when played with friends. Star Trek may be the first film tie-in game in years worth your money.

Venture Arts: ‘Articulate’

Venture Arts are proud to announce their fourth major art exhibition ‘Articulate’ in the Lowry to celebrate the talents of their brilliant team of over 100 people with learning disabilities. Despite being a small charity, no other arts-based organisation has succeeded in showcasing art produced by people with learning disabilities in such expansive and professional shows. Venture Arts organise arts and crafts workshops which provide a fun and lively space where people can build confidence, experiment with their creativity and discover skills they never knew they had. Thanks to a hard-working management team and a group of dedicated volunteers, Venture Arts runs twenty interactive two-hour workshops per week. Still going strong since 1985, the charity provides an outlet for people with learning disabilities to express themselves through art when they may feel unable to do so in other ways.

Following this idea is the new project ‘Articulate’ which highlights the importance of personal expression and explores different forms of communication interpreted in creative ways. Many people who work with Venture Arts are non-verbal, have hearing impairments or find it difficult to express themselves through speech; ‘Articulate’ gives these people a Voice Through Art. After discussing ideas of ways to approach this project as a team, textiles and especially sewing seemed to be a strong point; part of the project included hand-stitched letters and envelopes to be sent to a friend or a favourite celebrity. To look at more modern forms of communication, such as the telephone or the television, the group experimented with various types of art techniques. This included drilling metal and stitching electrical wire or drawing favourite TV programmes on clay frames that were blasted in the kiln.

Not only has this project provided a way to focus on personal talents as individuals, but it has given certain people the chance to pass on the skills they have learnt through the centre. The group created a ‘How To Hand-Stitch’ handbook to explain the process to each other in an accessible way, and some members of the group even got to visit young people in schools to try their hand at a bit of teaching. Venture Arts strives to help these people with learning disabilities develop their artistic skills but also grow in confidence; they leave the workshops having learnt new skills yet also come away with a feeling of self-worth and purpose. Venture Arts sees the person, not the disability, and endeavours to uncover their hidden talents and exhibit their impressive work to a wide audience in order to accredit their abilities as artists.

Manager Amanda Sutton believes that after the inspiring performance of the athletes in the Paralympic Games of July this year it is a perfect time for society to recognise and celebrate the previously unseen talents of people with learning disabilities. She states “it is groundbreaking and marvellous that people who have learning disabilities get the opportunity to showcase their work and gain a well-deserved profile in the arts”.

The exhibition is running in the Lowry in Salford from the 12th of April until the 6th of June 2013.

Everyday Analysis: Charity

EDA: Charity

Charity, as a cultural practice, keeps evolving. One example of what it increasingly looks like is Benetton’s recent ‘Unemployee of the Year’ campaign. Last autumn, the Italian clothing retailer’s Unhate Foundation offered to fund 100 ‘creative’ projects proposed by unemployed young people around the world with 5000 € each. In the accompanying poster campaign, various doleful-looking but attractive people pose in corporate attire, like ‘Katerina, 30, non-manager from Greece’, ‘James, 23, non-sound engineer from the UK’, ‘Michaela, 29, non-photographer from Czech Republic’. The caption under each picture reads: ‘1 of the nearly 100 million people under 30 years of age in search of a job’.

What does this say about charity today? First, and most obviously, this kind of ‘brand-aid’ charity can barely disguise what is nearly always true: that in the first place, it helps the charitable. Benetton needs to flog multi-coloured knitwear, and their carefully constructed image as charitable-meets-controversial helps with that.
It is this ‘controversial’ aspect of the campaign that points towards a more general function of charity. If there is already something slightly unnerving in the perverted use of that corporate people-management tool, the ‘employee of the year’ badge, this is taken further in the campaign film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKZ3w_Vg4o8) where in one shot, mounted police threateningly guard unemployed protesters. For a moment the question is held out to the viewer what 100 million unemployed under-thirties might do if they got organised; of course, this possibility is quickly withdrawn with the call for entries for the charity project at the end of the film.
Here, the film and poster campaign inadvertently direct attention to an uncomfortable idea: That charity is about avoiding conflict and preserving the status quo. The charitable give to the needy in order to prevent them from rebelling against social inequality in unpredictable and potentially threatening ways. Slavoj Žižek comments on this phenomenon in relation to charity barons like Bill Gates and George Soros and capitalist economics at large: quite regardless of whether their multi-billion charity is ‘sincere or hypocritical’, Žižek insists, ‘it is the logical concluding point of capitalist circulation, necessary from the strictly economic standpoint, since it allows the capitalist system to postpone its crisis’. Charity avoids the confrontation with the question of how it became necessary in the first place – and how its causes might be addressed by changing the system.
Marcel Mauss, writing about the anthropology of gift-giving, comments on how in some cultures offerings to the gods and alms for the poor become equivalent calculated sacrifices in the sense that both are about appeasement: appeasing the gods so they don’t interfere in human life, and appeasing the poor so that they don’t interfere with business. One might say, as Jacques Derrida has suggested in his reading of charity, that the poor actually occupy the position of gods, or of the spirits of the dead; from their marginal position, excluded from the process of production and the circulation of wealth, they always threaten to come back to haunt, to interrupt those processes. So charity attempts to exorcise them. By giving some, but not too much, the threat is held at arm’s length and a fundamental distinction is preserved: that between the charitable and the receivers of charity.
There is at least one more level on which the ‘Unemployee of the Year’ campaign is revealing. Benetton is not just giving away money – they are running a competition, via facebook, where competing ‘unemployees’, with their creative projects to find ‘new ways into work’ are voted for by the (facebook) public. In the Black Mirror talent show allegory ‘15 Million Merits’, competitors for the big prize are the lonely, isolated, exploited human parts of a technocultural machine that runs on managing their desires (and their pedalling power), and converts any potential challenge into a part of the process. Benetton’s campaign has no such power – ‘we can’t change the world’, the chairman humbly admits. Perhaps what continues to be interesting then is that the campaign doesn’t quite work – it functions like a symptom: it draws attention to itself, it draws attention to the fact that 100 million unemployed is a problem that has outgrown the capacity of neo-liberal capitalism to reproduce itself. Trying to address it with a social media based game show format doesn’t ‘reach out’ to young people to show that ‘being non-employed doesn’t mean being useless, lazy or an anarchist’, as their press statement reads. It merely documents a bigger, repressed anxiety.
As tends to be the way with ghosts, gods and spirits, botched exorcisms provoke unwelcome returns. Amongst many recent news items about charity was last week’s announcement that donations to UK universities are up 14 % ‘despite the grim economic background’. Despite or because? Whether the gods and ghosts accept the offering remains to be seen.

Review – Dishonored: Knife of Dunwall

Fans of Dishonored may have be wary of purchasing DLC after the first add-on offered nothing new in the way of story. But those who purchase The Knife of Dunwall will be rewarded for their faith.

The Knife of Dunwall follows Daud, the assassin who killed the Empress in the opening sequence of Dishonored. He seeks redemption for his actions, entering an investigation into a mysterious woman called Delilah in a thoroughly confusing plot, which fails to make you care for Daud’s fate as you did with Corvo’s. Not even Mr Blonde himself Michael Madsen’s voice work could engage me with the plot. This was a shame, as the story in Dishonored is strong and made the assassinations matter.

While the Knife of Dunwall is weak in terms of plot, it more than makes up for it by providing three mission of top notch gameplay. If you are a fan of Dishonored’s open-ended levels, which allow you to finish the game without killing a single enemy, then you’ll love the Knife of Dunwall. The opening Slaughterhouse level has all the hallmarks of a great Dishonored level. It has dozens of rooftops walkways, places to hide, and enemies to target. Once you enter the Slaughterhouse you are presented with a truly interesting environment with pools of whale blood and terrifying butcher enemies  attacking you with deadly rotating blades.

Playing through the Knife of Dunwall, you begin to notice that enemies aren’t so easy to pick off. It’s not that they are stronger, just that there are more of them and they’re closer together making stealth a greater challenge. Unless you are setting out to finish the game without killing anyone, you will most likely end up in combat with multiple enemies relying on your trusty pistol and chokedust grenades to get you out alive.

The Knife of Dunwall is worth buying for one reason alone, it gives every Dishonored fan what they wanted after finishing Dishonored, more Dishonored.

Battle lines drawn as Labour stake economic plan on outspending the Conservatives

Ed Miliband and the Labour Party are preparing a bold pledge to outspend the Conservatives at the next General Election in 2015. The strategy, in line with their “too far, too fast” mantra of Opposition, is a risky one as Labour faces the risk of another 1992-esque “tax bombshell”, where John Major’s Conservatives successfully capitalised on Shadow Chancellor John Smith’s plan to raise the top rate of tax to 50p.

There are risks to economic credibility and concerns in the Blairite wing of the party, with former Chancellor Alistair Darling stating “”I don’t think my Labour colleagues need to take a position until we see what the present government is proposing”, adding that the current state of economic affairs is “very uncertain and unpredictable”. However, the move could prove to be a popular one within Manchester. The Labour Party returns four out of 5 MPs for the city of Manchester, and with an unemployment rate of 8.6% in the North West region, Manchester economists have called for Government intervention.

As reported in ‘Mancunion Matters’, the Chief Economist at Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, Dr Brian Sloan, has said “ the level of unemployment in this region remains well above the national average. This is unacceptable, but does offer the capacity for growth in the future”, adding that the Government “could address unemployment and the needs of businesses in the North West by targeting any savings announced in the Budget at the region’s infrastructure needs”. The Labour Party had recently proposed a house-building programme, funded by a banker’s bonus tax, but has ruled out “massive spending increases” on the NHS, refusing to commit to the Coalition’s spending levels.

Labour Councillor Michael Lee Amesbury, a representative of the Fallowfield ward and a member of the National Policy Forum, has played down the reports of the spending pledge, describing them as “speculative”. Amesbury added “nothing is decided at this stage. This far from an election, it would be wrong to suggest that we’ll outspend the Tories. The priorities are about jobs and growth”. When questioned on the possibility of a house-building programme, Amesbury said “we need to look at an element of stimulus into the economy; the IMF have reaffirmed that the Government are cutting too far, too fast. House-building is a priority for the future Government, but we can only spend what the country can afford”.

Despite Labour’s latest policy initiative, John Leech, Liberal Democrat MP for Manchester Withington, has questioned Labour’s integrity on the matter, telling me “You can’t believe a word that Labour says on cuts, spending or tax. They promised ‘cuts worse than Thatcher’ in office, and now oppose everything proposed whilst still promising ‘tough choices’. Despite their U-turn, Labour’s fiasco over the 10p tax rate left more half a million low-paid workers worse off”. Attacking their record in office, Leech added that Labour “cut income tax for millionaires by raising their personal allowance every year until their final month in office… the poorest fifth of the population paid a greater proportion of their income in tax than the richest fifth”.

In response to Labour’s spending plans, David Cameron has accused Miliband of “turning left” and of promising “more spending. More borrowing. More debt. More of all those things that got us into this mess”. However, the Coalition has been under fire for its “omnishambles” Budget of 2012, with the decision to cut the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p still an unpopular one.  Despite this, Leech has insisted that “over the five years of this Parliament under the Coalition, a millionaire (earning £1m p/a) will pay £381,000 more tax on their income (income tax and NICs) than they did under the last five years of the Labour Government”.

If Labour’s initial policy proves to be popular closer to 2015, the country may yet endorse Ed Miliband’s ‘One Nation’ message, possibly justifying Miliband’s belief that the political centre is moving to the left. A 23rd April ‘poll of polls’ has placed the Labour Party on 39%, the Conservatives on 30% and the Liberal Democrats on 11%, giving a projected Labour majority of 96. If these figures remain stable, the Labour Party’s tax and spending proposals may yet gain support and credence.

Why I think the Green Party should change its name

The Green Party are approaching their fortieth birthday. Over those forty years they’ve seen slow, but steady, growth across the country. In 2010 the country elected its first Green MP, Caroline Lucas in the city of Brighton. The Green Party now has two MEPs, a new leader (Natalie Bennett), many councillors, and even came third in the last elections for the London Assembly, pushing the Liberal Democrats into fourth.

But here’s the issue: there is an increasingly large gap in left-wing British politics and with the Green Party’s left-wing stance and policies, they should be doing better.

The British Labour Party in the 1990s took a radical step in modernisation under their re-brand, creating the centrist party of New Labour. This not only moved their politics to the right, but it amassed a huge amount of publicity and attention in the media (not to discount Tony Blair’s charisma). The idea of the re-brand was to communicate the modernization of the Labour Party, put forward a strong opposition to the lack-lustre Conservatives under Prime Minister John Major, and build up solid party-line rhetoric through the creation of a high-ranking communications leadership. Why did they do it? Over the previous twenty years of the 1970s and 1980s, the Labour Party looked increasingly unelectable due to their negative brand image. Many of the public had an image of the Labour Party in their head of a party that couldn’t handle the Unions and couldn’t get the country on its feet. By changing their name and re-branding Labour was re-born with an entirely new public perception.

That is the thing you see, public perception is hugely important in politics. The Conservative Party in the late 2000s desperately tried to update their image under a re-brand, but they didn’t change their name. Come 2010, even with a flailing Labour Party, they still couldn’t win the election out-right. Many of the public still have a clear image in their head of what they think the Conservative Party means – Thatcherism. It can be incredibly difficult for a party to distance themselves from the publicly-perceived mistakes of the past.

My proposal to the Green Party is simple – change your name and re-brand.

Many will argue that it comes from the ground-work; it comes from the hard work of every member in the party talking to the public to change their image. My point is this – you are forgetting the impact that the media has on British politics. What the media say about you matters, and it matters a lot! People may give the example of UKIP in how to build
up a media presence, but the problem here lies in that UKIP often pander to prejudices, especially the prejudices against the ‘foreigner’. I definitely would not condone this of any political party. Even though UKIP stand for far more than anti-immigration (including the fact they are the own libertarian party), their media personality has become that of the
British man condemning the outside World, and they are doing so well because in politics these days only the people who have strong opinions actually vote.

Re-naming the Green Party could ground their roots in the left of politics. A re-brand would encourage new public thinking beyond the perception of the tree-hugging environmentalist. A re-brand would also give the party the best possible bet of media coverage, and the best possible bet of more votes. Most people in the country don’t look up what policies political parties offer. What most people do is get their ballot card and vote, for who they think, from the media coverage, is the least rubbish. If the Green Party want people to think of them beyond the tree-hugger a re-name would help. The fact that the party stands for the nationalisation of public goods like the railways and have equality-based policies such as the Citizen’s Income (where everyone in society would receive a basic income from the state) are very left-wing policies indeed. Do people think of the Green Party as left-wing? Not generally.

The Green Party need to establish their roots in left-wing politics whilst the field is left open. A Labour Student may disagree with me and argue that the Labour Party is the true left-wing, socialist party. I’m sure their national heads of communication, however, would be moving very uncomfortably under these ideas. Centrist politics is the consensus now; pragmatism, the markets and choice. I’m sure even under Red Ed (Miliband) wouldn’t argue for a re-nationalisation of railways or a move towards more state provision and state ownership. The road to 2015 starts now for all of the parties in the UK and it’s time for the Green Party to capitalise on their left-wing beliefs and re-name and re-brand!

Confrontation: yay or nay?

Beth:

I love a good argument. I will argue with anyone, be it friends, family members or boys. If I’m fired up I could rant at a brick wall. I do honestly believe that confrontation is healthy. Those who are not afraid to speak their mind and push their points are often the most respected and successful people in society – after all, the late, great Maggie Thatcher didn’t become Britain’s only female PM because of her timid personality, did she?

For me, an argument is a good way to clear the air and build relationships with people. There is nothing more awkward than treading on egg shells around people because you are afraid to tell the truth and hurt each other’s feelings. It doesn’t have to be a complete slanging match; if you can both sit and down and put your issues out there, everything will become so much easier. Remember that your friends, family and co-workers aren’t psychic: if you have a problem, you shouldn’t be afraid to voice it.

Arguing also helps you to get what you want. When I’m in a club and a creepy lad starts to dance with me, I will tell him where to go. This makes me far happier than the ‘nice’ girl next to me, who feels obliged to let him grind on her less-than-enthusiastic body. Yes, there have been times where I’ve been called a bitch, but if arguing provides me with an outcome I’m satisfied with, why shouldn’t I continue to do it?

 

Lauren:

Confrontation and I do not get on. I will go to great lengths to avoid an argument with someone. Basically, I’m a self-confessed coward. In secondary school I once threw a muffin at a girl whilst sticking up for a friend. We stood staring for a second, both equally shocked by my outlandish and out of character behaviour before I turned, legged it and vowed never to act so boldly (or waste a blueberry muffin in such a manner) again.

Usually I will walk away from a situation; I don’t see the point of making people upset for what is often a petty and insignificant reason. It’s not that I don’t see the point in arguing, quite the contrary. I am of the opinion that people should stand up for what they believe in and I do, it’s just that my tactics are slightly different. I try and keep my angry thoughts inside so that when I do tackle the root of the problem, I can get them across more collectedly. I will argue to stand my ground if I really have to, I just don’t like it whatsoever.

Too many people provoke others because they enjoy the thrill of an argument, causing unnecessary aggro and stress as well as sometimes deeper, long term tensions. Yes, life’s too short to be walked all over but it’s also too short to have to keep up with who you’re on talking terms with and who you’re not. So no, I will never be the girl who screams and shouts to get her own way, but that doesn’t mean I’m a doormat either.

 

Tattoos and tashin’ off: RAG #Lost2013

Tattoos, tashin’ off and tough challenges all featured in RAGs #Lost2013 challenge last weekend.

The reverse jailbreak hike for charity saw teams driven in a blacked out coach to a mystery location in the UK in the middle of the night.

The 12 teams then had to figure out where they were and race back to Manchester without spending a penny, trying to beat the other teams and complete tasks along the way to score more points.

Challenges included swapping an item of clothing with a stranger, building a sandcastle and visiting seven different pubs.

Two of the teams took to twitter to track their journey and search for support. Jonathan Phan and Lisa Williams of @TeamWheresWally?! prepared themselves the night before by ensuring that they had their essentials with them – Where’s Wally costumes and cereal bars, while Georgie Calle of team Blue Belles @Lost2013_ tweeted ‘literally have my whole life in my back right now.’

Dropped off just before 3 am. the two teams quickly realised their location. ‘We’re in… Newcastle! No buses until 6.00am, looks like we’ve got some waiting to do…’ tweeted TeamWheresWally, while Georgie and Charlie of team Lost2013_ took a less practical approach: ‘Have to get back via York. First plan: ‘tash on with a Geordie ’#Ready.’

Only nine minutes later this was followed with the tweet: ‘Challenge completed!’

Both teams made their way from Newcastle to York, TeamWheresWally tweeting a photo of Lisa stopping off to get a RAG tattoo on the way and team Lost2013 managing a free tour of York Minister, all before 10.30 am.

Lisa Williams, Team Where’s Wally, stops off for a RAG Tattoo in York

Trying to complete as many challenges as possible in York, Georgie and Charlie tweeted: ‘Big update: just got locked up, found a ghost, donated in a charity pot, crossed dressed and found a ‘celebrity’!!’

At 12.29 team @Lost2013_ tweeted: ‘Thank you SO much to the conductor on this train. We’re now on our way back to MANCHESTER!!’

But they were not quick enough, as @TeamWheresWally made it home by 11.20 am, just over eight hours after they found themselves in the mystery location, scoring themselves a bonus 100 points.

Team member Jonathan Phan tweeted: ‘Over and out! First team that made it back to Manchester! Amazing experience, loving my new RAG tattoo..’

Team @Lost2013_ burst through the barriers at Manchester Piccadilly at 1.50 pm, arriving in fourth position.

But once all the teams’ challenges had been taken into account and awarded points for, the Blue Belles of team @Lost2013_ pipped @TeamWheresWally to the post, scoring 750 to their 745, and winning RAG #Lost2013.

The Manchester RAG team followed the teams’ tweets from a base in Newcastle, hosting a live map of the teams’ progress and giving them new challenges on the way.

‘One team has hitched a ride back to Manchester in an Audi 2.5 TDI convertible! Livin’ the dream! #LOST 2013 #YOLO’ they tweeted at 10.49 am.

By the evening they were back in Manchester to welcome home the teams whose journeys had taken slightly longer.

At 9.50 pm team ‘I want it Weldon, I’m wild(er)’ made it back, having managed to score four free pints along the way.

At 11 pm the RAG team were waiting for only two more teams to return from the adventure, with only an hour of the challenge left.

Each team took part in the challenge in an attempt to raise money for MAG, the Mines Advisory Group, an impartial humanitarian organisation that clears the remnants of conflict for the benefit of communities worldwide

TeamWheresWally are still collecting donations but have currently raised £30, while winners team Lost2013 are currently on a total of £520.25, including an anonymous donation of £250.