My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

News

Is it worth £3.3 BILLION to hold the OLYMPIC GAMES in London

90 replies

JoolsToo · 22/11/2006 20:13

here

Just pondering where that amount of money could be better spent

Preventing hospital departments being closed down
Herceptin and other cancer drugs
Education
etc etc

OP posts:
Report
alexa1 · 22/11/2006 20:33

I am clicking on the link and it's saying page cannot be displayed.
anyway, I agree, the money could be spent elsewhere but having the olympic games in London..WOULD BE GOOD.

Report
TwoIfBySea · 22/11/2006 20:35

Noo Labour are such good accountants:

The Dome
The Scottish Parly

So I would imagine that, taking those two examples into consideration, that double the amount, add a little more, double it again and then just guess a number.

And all that rubbish about it being beneficial for the whole of the UK. Bull, not even the rest of England will get any benefit, it is a London games and that is that.

Report
Cappuccino · 22/11/2006 20:37

there will be an awful lot of money diverted away from the arts because sports and arts share a pot

Report
flack · 22/11/2006 20:43

I just don't believe in the whole thesis that organised sport, watched and adored by millions/billions, is somehow good for society.

2012 Olympics in London will not dent the obesity epidemic or turn many kids away from a life of crime.

They will make London a terrorist target, though.

A lot of money that could have been spent on other sports facilities (local community schemes) will get diverted to this, too.

Report
WideWebWitch · 22/11/2006 20:44

Oh GOD NO! I said this before, a load of money for some stupid running races, total waste of money imo.

Report
WideWebWitch · 22/11/2006 20:44

Almost no-one agreed with me btw when I said it was a waste of money for a load of running races!

Report
JoolsToo · 22/11/2006 20:48

the link is working for me

here ...

"Cost of 2012 Olympics 'up £900m'

The costs of the games have gone up 38% in just over a year
The expected cost of the 2012 London Olympic park has risen 40% since the games were won in July 2005, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell has told MPs.
The extra £900m cost was likely to be met by London council tax payers and lottery funds, Ms Jowell suggested.

The new £3.3bn estimate, which does not include a revised security bill or regeneration costs, is still far below the £8bn some critics say is likely.

The Tories said the budget had one "disastrously wrong".

Ms Jowell told the Commons culture, media and sport committee the rise was partly due to a doubling in the price of steel and also a decision to revise transport costs to take into account inflation in the years to 2012.

London legacy

But it also included an extra £400m to pay "delivery partner" CLM to make sure the games come in on budget and on time.

Ms Jowell, who said the games would leave a legacy "for ever" in east London, told MPs an unexpected VAT bill for building costs was unlikely to add to the overall cost to taxpayers of the games.

This project is under control

Tessa Jowell
Culture secretary


Q&A: Olympic costs

And she insisted a newspaper report that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was to investigate London's soaring costs was "untrue".

"This project is under control. Cost control is a daily part of the rigour. Locog (the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games) are confident that they are going to raise their sponsorship target," she said.

"The IOC commission has said we have hit every milestone to date. They know that we are further ahead than any other Olympic city at this stage."

Security 'inadequate'

Asked who would meet the extra £900m cost, Ms Jowell said discussions were on-going, but the earlier "memorandum of understanding" had been for overspends to be met by a mix of London council tax payers, and lottery games.

Planned security measures, drawn up before the 7 July attacks on London, were "inadequate", she said and were being revised.

But she said she did not assume costs would continue to rise over the next six years.

The original budget includes a contribution of £625m from London council tax payers - which works out at £20 a year for 25 years - and £1.5bn from Lottery games.

It was put to Ms Jowell that one other option was getting the Treasury to waive its 12p take from Lottery tickets sold.

She did not confirm or deny that possibility, saying only that "discussions" were taking place in private about a range of funding options.

The MPs were assured that whatever funding arrangement was agreed had to be "fair, sustainable and proportionate".

'Entirely predictable'

Shadow Olympics minister Hugh Robertson said: "The secretary of state has admitted to a 40% increase.

"She has failed to disclose the true cost of VAT, contingency, building cost inflation and security, much of which was entirely predictable at the time of the bid.

"Today's increase is just a starting point. While the figures remain ambiguous, we can only expect further increases."

Liberal Democrat culture, media and sport spokesman Don Foster said: "The government must get a grip on the chaos and confusion surrounding the Olympic costs."

Any extra plans for regeneration should be privately funded and further government funding should be restricted to extra security, he added.

But Pete Wishart, for the Scottish Nationalist Party, said London "must pick up the bulk of the tab", as it was London that would benefit the most.

The ODA and the government are reviewing the original budget for the games and are expected to announce a revised financial plan next February"

OP posts:
Report
plibble · 22/11/2006 20:51

I love the Olympics. My friends in Sydney all had a great time with theirs. It could be a really amazing party and an opportunity to show off all the good things about London and the rest of the UK (and there are many, but we are prone to whinging). I am a bit of a Pollyanna, though.

Yes it is going to be expensive, but now that we have got it it would be great if everyone could be more positive about it and make it a real success. And it would be good if the politicians stayed out of the planning. Their involvement can only be a bad thing. I fail to see how costs could have gone up by so much already. I would sack the builder...
And what the heck is a "Delivery Partner"? I bet I could do that job for less.

Report
nearlythree · 22/11/2006 20:54

No, it isn't worth it.

Did you know that the famous football pitches on Hackney Marshes that see dozens of Sunday amateur matches every week are going to be made into a car park for the Olympics?

Report
JoolsToo · 22/11/2006 21:03

so how is that helping the community.

those are the little bits of local news the rest of us don't get to hear.

presumably the local footy clubs are not happy?

or have they been offered alternative grounds?

OP posts:
Report
nearlythree · 22/11/2006 21:22

There are no alternatives. I have no idea what the local clubs think but I can't imagine they are happy, obviously. The marshes ahve been used for years. They are also used for funfairs, circuses etc. I no longer live in east London but I have family that do and they see it as a great white elephant - the costs will fall to them far more than the rest of the country and they see few benefits.

Report
nearlythree · 22/11/2006 21:30

I should also add that the East End doesn't really need improvements in its infrastructure. It's already got pretty good rail and road links and there are regeneration schemes all over the place, most of which were well under way before the Olympics got the go-ahead. What it needs are decent schools, more hospitals, more police so people feel safe and a helping hand out of poverty for some of its residents.

Report
TwoIfBySea · 22/11/2006 21:39

nearlythree are those pitches the ones that were on that advert a few years ago? I can't remember the product but there were dozens of footie pitches and famous players mixed in with the amateurs. Really good ad, although I suppose it didn't work if I don't remember who it was for!

Ridiculous that they are getting rid of what are presumably free sports facilities. I would imagine more kids want to play footie than run about a track.

Report
nearlythree · 22/11/2006 21:58

Yep, those are the ones. Absolute mud baths but tons of character. It's a real piece of heritage that's going. Not to mention a rare green space.

Report
Adorabelle · 22/11/2006 22:05

Is it worth it? Is it Bugger.

My family & I certainly won't be able to afford
a ticket to go & see the games on any such given day.

I'd love to take my little sister whose 11, to go & see the gymnastics as she's an avid gymnast herself, but the cost of the tickets will be way out of many a working class families weekly wage.

My dh & I have a 2.6 dd & live on the 4th floor in a block of flats. No garden, No play area for the little one & we've been told cos we're 'adequately housed' we can't go on the council waiting list for a home.

I know where i'd rather the money be be put, & the Olymipic Games isn't it.

Report
batters · 22/11/2006 22:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Blondilocks · 22/11/2006 22:51

When's it on? It'll be a good time to leave the country me thinks.

Report
worldgonewild · 23/11/2006 08:05

NO, definitely NOT!

Yes, I know about Hackney Marshes being taken away from the local kids.....that these games are meant to benefit.

While everyone seemed to be celebrating the games coming to London when we pipped Paris at the post, I was in despair. Seven years of wrangling about the bloody games construction, for two weeks of madness. The London economy and especially housing is already overheated and definitely needs to cool down; not going to happen now. The audacity to charge Londoners extra on their council tax! The pollution from 100s of planes flying in and out. More tourists....like we need more in London at the moment...NOT! All to see some drugged up cheats flying around the track...Zzzzzz.

I could go on.

Report
southeastastra · 23/11/2006 08:16

it's crazy if i were still paying council tax in london i think i would protest big time about the extra amount. what's going to happen when the games end??

Report
hana · 23/11/2006 08:21

shuddering at the thought of Ken still Mayor of London by then

Report
Tortington · 23/11/2006 08:29

is that all its going to cost?

i think the facilities left over - housing etc. and the long term benefits to deprived areas of london will be worth more than that.

the sponsorship to the waning british sports teams

the employment that the building is already bringing.


by default my husband and his 'crew' are employed becuase all the builders are working on the olympics - meaning that he was employed becuase they wouldnt otherwise have.

and i am sure this isnt the only case.

i have a problem with immigration and builders - but the govt set the agenda allowing it to happen and we are in the european union blah de blah .

the businesses it is bound to help, the economy, the tourism.

all very worth it.


besides you cnt just go around saying " that money is better spend elsewhere" thats just a pants argument - we all know that govt finances are compartmentalised specifically for certain things

i doubt very muchly that if the olympics with all its benefits did not come to england that the money would go to the NHS.

the same argument could be used for any war we get into

or any fucking mini roundabout that pops up needlessly.

we all know how to spend the govt/ council money more effectively dont we?!

Report
pooka · 23/11/2006 08:34

Londoners will pay 38p extra on the Council tax as a one off payment. No more, no less. Ken Livingstone has a written agreement to that fact.
I personally think that is worth it. Am proud to be a londoner and am proud that London will be hosting the games.
Ken Livingstone came to Bromley on Tuesday to do a talk to residents in the evening. Now Bromley is hardly home territory for him i.e. fewer Bromley residents voted for him than any other area in London. and he was AMAZING and completely wowed the initially hostile residents (apart from the Crystal Palace Campaigners).
He said that he takes issue with the 60% overrun contingency set by the Government because in his view that was no incentive to contractors to finish the job on time. I hope that this is not the case - and am desperate for it to be a big success.

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

LadyMuck · 23/11/2006 08:49

Pooka - I'd check your definition of "one-off". Londoners are going to have to stump up £625m in extra council tax according to Ken's agreement. The increase of 38p (per week) is due to run for 11 years - it started in April this year. Of course it is 38p for Band D - it could be up to double that.

Report
pooka · 23/11/2006 09:05

Ooops! That's kind of what I meant ()
Still think tis worth it. I so want it to work that I'm already worrying that it wont. Admit that the Dome was a disaster but think that that suffered from appalling press and pretty poor planning and (hopefully) we'll have learnt from mistakes.
I suppose the thing that makes me really cross is that there's this "can't do" culture certainly within the press that knocks any innovation or attempt to do something special or extraordinary.
I know people look at Sydney and maybe say that in the end it was just excellent PR and didn't have long-lasting effects, but I still would want to feel a part of that hoopla and positivity.

Report
edam · 23/11/2006 09:16

No, and anyone half-awake should have seen this coming. Am so glad I've moved out - those special traffic lanes allowing politicians and Olympic officials to speed past us mere proles would have made me foam at the mouth.

If they want to regenerate Stratford they can do it much more cheaply without the Olympics.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.