|
16 Mar 07 - 09:25 AM (#1998498) Subject: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Scrump The government have announced that the Olympics will cost £9.3 billion, nearly 4 times the original estimate of £2.4 bn, only estimated 3 years ago. Do you think it's worth it? Will the cost go up further? I believe Tessa Howell is well out of her depth - the 'Culture Secretary' role is usually given to someone useless as it's not considered important enough for a heavyweight. But the challenge of the Olympics requires somebody with a bit more nous than her. I'm not sure who would be available to replace her, though. Labour seems to have worked its way through just about everybody, and some of them can't be brought back, even with Blair's laissez faire laid-back attitude. See this BBC article for more details. |
|
16 Mar 07 - 09:39 AM (#1998518) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Scrump That should have said 2 years ago (the 3 was a typo) |
|
16 Mar 07 - 09:53 AM (#1998538) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: sian, west wales This Olympic bid was won in large part thanks to an extensive Cultural Olympics programme that was packaged in with the bid. The Olympics Committee cannot deliver this programme without a sizeable input from the community and voluntary/amateur arts communities ... and these are the groups most likely to suffer from the inevitable cuts in funding. On top of that, you have moves such as the announcement (end of 2006 was it?) that Singing In Schools is a Good Thing and We Must Do More of It. I was warned of this announcement in the early autumn by someone 'in government'. He knew that HM Treasury was desperately looking for places to find more money for sports (read, "Olympics"). Instrumental music needs instruments; instruments are expensive; can't completely cut music; so ... promote singing! Truly: this was their thinking on this. All this in the face of research (Mori, after the Commonwealth Games) that these mega sports events do NOT actually have a long term effect on people participating in sports. Also, research by Cardiff U. that mega sports events do NOT have a positive economic/social effect outside of the immediate region in which they are located. No news there, then. And of course the Powers That Be only use research which serves their purpose ... Yeh. OK. Friday afternoon, and I've just sent similar comments on to National Campaign for the Arts. Peeing against the wind. bah humbug sian |
|
16 Mar 07 - 10:32 AM (#1998594) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: sian, west wales BTW, here's a bit from the Friday bulletin sent out by National Campaign for the Arts: nca 1 Kingly St, London W1B 5PA www.artscampaign.org.uk Olympic funding Following the Secretary of State's statement in Parliament yesterday on the funding of the Olympics, Louise de Winter, Director of the National Campaign for the Arts said: "We have always been supporters of the Olympics, seeing the potential opportunities to the arts community for a strong Cultural Olympiad. However, the proposed transfer of an additional £675 million from the lottery to fund the Olympics shortfall represents a "double whammy" for the arts and other good causes. That figure represents one and half times the budget to the Arts Council, a massive amount of funding to be lost to the arts. "At a time when the Prime Minister has welcomed the valuable contribution our sector makes to Britain's economic and social wellbeing, we are now looking to the forthcoming CSR to deliver at least an inflation-linked settlement for the arts. "The arts can be a way of making the Olympics more meaningful, more memorable, more exciting. We see the Cultural Olympiad as central to the whole Olympic festival, so it should not be one or the other; the arts are at the heart of 2012 and were crucial to London's winning Olympic bid. " URGENT CALL FOR EVIDENCE: The NCA urgently needs your response to the funding announcement. If you think that the extra Lottery funding for the Olympics will affect you or your organisation, the NCA would like to hear from you BY 5:00 TODAY. Please email nca@artscampaign.org.uk or call 0207 287 3777 This press release is available on the website at: http://www.artscampaign.org.uk/press/releases.html sian |
|
16 Mar 07 - 10:35 AM (#1998598) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Scrump Bah, another typo - it should be Tessa Jowell not Howell. Not doing very well today... (Maybe I was thinking of her predecessor of folk music hating fame) |
|
16 Mar 07 - 10:37 AM (#1998600) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Scrump URGENT CALL FOR EVIDENCE: The NCA urgently needs your response to the funding announcement. If you think that the extra Lottery funding for the Olympics will affect you or your organisation, the NCA would like to hear from you BY 5:00 TODAY Glad they're taking it so seriously that they give less than a day's notice :-( |
|
16 Mar 07 - 10:44 AM (#1998609) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: John MacKenzie I am personally rubbing my hands with glee at seeing this crap government get yet another thing wrong. Why don't they hold it in the Dome, another monument to government profligacy? Still it's not their money is it, so what do they care? Politicians have become less and less accountable over the years, and of course the public's belief/trust in them has declined proportionately during that time. This government was elected by something like 13% of the registered voters in this country, when will people get out and put their X on a ballot paper? We should make voting compulsory. Also, why did it have to be in London in the first place? It could have been built somewhere nearer the centre of the UK, so that more people have a chance of getting to see it, instead of this constant Londoncentric crap, that seems to assume that there is no life outside the M25. As for robbing Lottery Funds to finance it, well that's the final insult. That money is supposed to be for good causes, not lost ones! Giok |
|
16 Mar 07 - 10:44 AM (#1998610) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: sian, west wales Yeh - I don't know what that was about either, except they may be responding to the government's own P Release. I think NCA has been working on the issue in broader terms for some time, although I actually feel that the Trad Arts communities flagged up the problems earlier than some other Arts sectors ... sian |
|
16 Mar 07 - 10:52 AM (#1998620) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Geoff the Duck I think it all stinks to high heaven. As far as I am concerned, if someone puts in a bid to do a "government" job, that is what it should cost us, the taxpayer. If they quote 2 billion, that is what they should be paid. Not one penny more. Their quotes are based on their shareholders or directors making a large element of profit. When they "double" the costs, you can guarantee that the percentage of the total taken for profit doesn't decrease. These so called increases are just blackmail - if the government refused to pay up, we wouldn't see these sort of price hikes happening. Threaten to take the cost of building out of the directors pockets and give it to someone who will do the job for the original quote. If they complain send them to gaol for fraud and extortion. Am I being unreasonable? I think not. Quack! GtD. |
|
16 Mar 07 - 11:04 AM (#1998628) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Scrump Jowell has presided over this almighty cockup and IMO she should be sacked for gross incompetence. But I expect Blair is too busy planning his "blaze of glory" appearance on Blue Peter and drafting his memoirs, to be bothered at all about this. The sooner he goes, the sooner something might happen to get the country moving in the right direction again. Since he announced his intention to stand down, the government seems to have gone into limbo as the cabinet ministers are too busy jockeying for position when Brown takes over (as seems to be the plan). |
|
16 Mar 07 - 11:04 AM (#1998629) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Paco Rabanne Only Sport can get away having such vast sums spent on it without rioting in the streets. Why? |
|
16 Mar 07 - 11:07 AM (#1998631) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: John MacKenzie Trident ? |
|
16 Mar 07 - 12:11 PM (#1998700) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Jean(eanjay) Scrump 10.35am Not doing very well today... You're doing better than Tessa Jowell! |
|
16 Mar 07 - 12:32 PM (#1998722) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Big Al Whittle I don't like sport much. but in a general way I was glad we got the Olympics. It must be worth something if all those other people wanted it. We've spent as much on worse projects. |
|
16 Mar 07 - 12:58 PM (#1998749) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Mr Fox No Next question? |
|
17 Mar 07 - 02:32 AM (#1999311) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Liz the Squeak From a BBC site, White City, 1948: "Wembley Stadium had survived the Blitz and after it had been fitted with a temporary running track it was used as the Games' main stadia. London was still rebuilding so athletes were housed in schools, government buildings and military barracks instead of the usual purpose built Olympic village." So why couldn't we use the facilities we already have? WLD - ever hear the story of the three brothers who fought each other to the death over a pot of golden treasure, only for the survivor to find the 'treasure' was nothing but worthless clay painted gold? Just because someone else wanted it, doesn't mean we should want it too. We still haven't seen any benefit from all this and won't until 2013, if then. LTS |
|
17 Mar 07 - 02:41 AM (#1999317) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Strollin' Johnny It's far more worthwhile than the crazy-money we've paid out for the war in Iraq (and will continue to pay for many years to come). I never believed the original figure anyway. Every scheme like this ends up two or thee times the original quote. They quote low to ensure that the taxpayer will wear it, then when it's too late to pull the plug, the real numbers start clicking up. Kidology on a grand scale. |
|
17 Mar 07 - 01:40 PM (#1999569) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: sian, west wales I've been in a meeting today and the Arts Council for Wales representative said that ACW is expecting to only get 50% of its previous allotment from Lottery money to spend on Arts projects. And there have been cuts in previous years as well. So many arts projects here depend on Lottery money, there's obviously no doubt that there will be hard times ahead. sian |
|
17 Mar 07 - 03:20 PM (#1999619) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Rasener Thats the worrying part. Rural areas suffer becuase of it. I have just sent in a grant for a music weekend and this sort of thing does not make me very confident. Once again rural areas who don't get much thrown their way will lose out. |
|
18 Mar 07 - 05:46 AM (#2000018) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Big Phil Olympics - are they worth the cost? NO |
|
18 Mar 07 - 10:57 AM (#2000185) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: McGrath of Harlow Every scheme like this ends up two or thee times the original quote. Two or three times? They're way over that already. |
|
18 Mar 07 - 12:09 PM (#2000239) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Big Al Whittle look do you want to see a load of drug fuelled characters running and jumping about, or not.....? if you phone up Paris now, they may still take it off our hands - but they will probably want the common market (that means us) to pay for it. so I reckon as you were probably going to pay for it - you might as well have it. It confers great honour on the country that gets to superintend, who can take the most drugs without being nicked - so be proud to be English (a mug) once again. How come they never had a who can wee furthest up the wall event? Who can fart the loudest? Who can do the biggest crap? I believe there is room for innovation in this tired celebration. Who can bore the arse off most people with an ancient ballad? (sorry they already tried that....) I couldn't give a stuff who can take a micro second off the 110 metres run. |
|
18 Mar 07 - 03:58 PM (#2000457) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Strollin' Johnny I was trying to look on the bright side, McG! :-) |
|
18 Mar 07 - 07:19 PM (#2000610) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T "From: Scrump - PM Date: 16 Mar 07 - 10:35 AM Bah, another typo - it should be Tessa Jowell not Howell. Not doing very well today... (Maybe I was thinking of her predecessor of folk music hating fame)" Not her predecessor Scrump, they were partners in the let's kill off live music campaign. She seems to be New Labour's equivalent to a "Typhoid Mary". Everything she touches turns to s**t. Don T. |
|
18 Mar 07 - 08:41 PM (#2000681) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: folk1e I seem to remember that one or two people thaught that we would make a hash out of the "commonwealth games" as well. Granted we did have them in Manchester, but that was only because London didn't want it..... anyway they were a resounding success! London might just suprize you (and me)! Is it worth it, YES it is a win /win for us northerneers! If London pull it off, all well and good, if not at least we can tell "them" what a cock up they made of it! 4 Billion it's cheap mate! |
|
19 Mar 07 - 02:52 PM (#2001290) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: McGrath of Harlow From this independent cost benefit analysis for the 2002 Commonwealth Games: "The public investment in the Games and the associated regeneration infrastructure and activity has increased from £640m to over £670m, at 2002 prices, of which some £570m has been or will be in East Manchester. The net additional public sector investment of the Games venue construction and operation are some £320m at today's prices, of which some £120m was contributed by Sport England, with a further £225m of regeneration spend associated with the pre-Games and parallel activities. The Games have, in addition, brought forward a number of major transport schemes (with a total cost of nearly £800m), and we estimate the additional public investment in transport infrastructure to be £125m." If the Olympics were to be on that scale of cost, fair enough. But those figures are small change compared to what's happening in London. A Money Pit. |
|
19 Mar 07 - 04:21 PM (#2001393) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Liz the Squeak So I suppose after the events of Saturday night (where a 15yr old boy was stabbed to death in the borough of Newham, where the 2012 Olympics are due to be held), we'll be seeing a bill for increased security... wonder if that will push it up into the double billion figures? LTS |
|
19 Mar 07 - 06:25 PM (#2001473) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Folkiedave The Commonwealth Games in Manchester had an almost unlimited budget. Sheffield (which already had major facilities and infrastructure left over from the Universiade in 1991) would have bid, but the financial risk was too great. |
|
10 May 07 - 07:42 AM (#2047855) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: sian, west wales I've just been sent a link to a new petition, found here . (The PM's Office must seriously regret this e-petition idea!) Interesting that community sports groups are also now complaining about the funding crisis. Sports England has dramatically cut its participation targets due to loss of funds diverted to the Olympics. And, in Cardiff, a youth gymnastics project involving something like 400 kids and which has been running for 30 (?) years has been asked to leave the National Sports Centre. The Centre management has decided the Centre will be given over entirely to training the upper echelon of athletes for the Olympics. OK - they've been offered alternative facilities, but not as well-equipped or as central. Funny old world. sian |
|
11 May 07 - 02:29 AM (#2048898) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Liz the Squeak Remember all the promises of local jobs and work for all? The promise that at least half the work of clearing and building on the site would go to local firms? Didn't happen. Less than a third of the workers involved in clearing the Olympic site are from the local area. And I don't mean foreign workers who live here... I mean, that 2/3rd of the workers travel for more than 5 miles to get here. After 2 years work, the site is only a quarter cleared, already behind the original schedule. As for jobs afterwards... I suspect it will go the way of the Millennium Dome. I was unemployed in 1999. As these things go, I was offered two job interviews on the same day, one for the Inland Revenue and the other as a steward at the Dome. Timing was such that I could only attend one. Just as well I took the Revenue interview, I'd've been laid off within 6 months at the Dome. That's why I'm sceptical about this 'jobs for all' promise. The Dome gave a similar promise - local resources, jobs for all, no outsiders need apply.... Now there's just a big, upturned barbeque waiting for someone to torch it. LTS |
|
11 May 07 - 09:18 AM (#2049150) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: McGrath of Harlow This site - Games Monitor has a lot about the downside of the Olympics - including the eviction of gypsy travellers from an established site they've lived in for decades, because it's wanted for this two week "sports" event. Also stuff about similar humans rights abuses involved in other Olympics Games, such as the one in Athens, and the one coming along in China. |
|
11 May 07 - 11:45 AM (#2049271) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Big Al Whittle 'After 2 years work, the site is only a quarter cleared, already behind the original schedule.' well thats your poncy tory voting southerner for you! they get all the good gigs and can't be arsed to turn up. Now if they'd offered the job to a hardworking, salt of the earth Northern community; the drug dealer would already have his anabolic steroid stall set up, there'd be slug racing, and who can eat a bag of chips really fast taking place in readiness. |
|
12 May 07 - 10:23 AM (#2049944) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: Liz the Squeak Tory voting southerner? This borough hasn't had a Conservative council for decades! LTS |
|
18 Oct 08 - 01:47 PM (#2469250) Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Olympics - are they worth the cost? From: GUEST,Jason U The 2012 Olympics in London are going to be an amazing cultural experience. Imagine the hordes of international fans - Poles, Czechs, Russians, Hungarians, Latvians, Africans, Jamaicans, Indians, Pakistanis, Iraqis, Turks, Greeks, Thais, Australians, South Africans - all of whom will have travelled as many as 10 miles to watch these games. |