|
rover 623gsi
1,946 posts
30 months
|
you asked me to come up with a figure, so I obliged
the only reason I mentioned the £3bn a year figure is that, imho, the cost of staging the Games should be considered over the lifetime of the planning, organsising and hosting of it. The money spent on the Games should be compared to all govt expenditure since 2005, not just expenditure going on at the moment.
I don't have a problem, in principle, with the idea that some public money should be spent on 'the nice things in life'. Personnally, I'd be quite happy to see a reduction in the amount of money spent on the NHS.
|
|
|
dmulally
2,762 posts
49 months
|
SmoothCriminal said: You can have a shiny new oylmpic park with brand new stadiums but the downfall of this games will be the transport system. Sydney during the 2000 games remains the only time I have enjoyed driving around town. The place was a ghost town due to everyone thinking that billions of rental cars would clog up the place.
|
|
|
eldar
6,986 posts
65 months
|
rover 623gsi said: except, of course, that we wouldn't have done. The housing benefit bill would have remained just the same. In that case, every man, woman and child would have been £286 richer, and we could have watched the Olympics on TV.
|
|
|
rover 623gsi
1,946 posts
30 months
|
if it's only costing us £286 each then it's even more of a bargain than I thought.
|
|
|
Colonial
9,728 posts
74 months
|
dmulally said: Sydney during the 2000 games remains the only time I have enjoyed driving around town. The place was a ghost town due to everyone thinking that billions of rental cars would clog up the place. Stop posting things based in fact. This is a traditional UK moan thread. When things work out they will go strangely quiet, and then read something else about people on benefits or something and have a moan about that instead.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
dmulally
2,762 posts
49 months
|
Colonial said: dmulally said: Sydney during the 2000 games remains the only time I have enjoyed driving around town. The place was a ghost town due to everyone thinking that billions of rental cars would clog up the place. Stop posting things based in fact. This is a traditional UK moan thread. When things work out they will go strangely quiet, and then read something else about people on benefits or something and have a moan about that instead.  So true.
|
|
|
XJSJohn
13,351 posts
88 months
|
dmulally said: Colonial said: dmulally said: Sydney during the 2000 games remains the only time I have enjoyed driving around town. The place was a ghost town due to everyone thinking that billions of rental cars would clog up the place. Stop posting things based in fact. This is a traditional UK moan thread. When things work out they will go strangely quiet, and then read something else about people on benefits or something and have a moan about that instead. So true.  interestingly, the build up to the Olympics on TV, news and other media is definitely very good PR for the UK from what i am seeing in Asia, it only seems to be the people back in the UK that are moaning miserable gits about it! From here it looks like it will be a bloody good show!
|
|
|
dmulally
2,762 posts
49 months
|
XJSJohn said: From here it looks like it will be a bloody good show! You popped over to Darwin I see. AICMFP. 
|
|
|
XJSJohn
13,351 posts
88 months
|
dmulally said: XJSJohn said: From here it looks like it will be a bloody good show! You popped over to Darwin I see. AICMFP. only if you are buying the Stubbies!
|
|
|
superkartracer
6,663 posts
91 months
|
Derek Smith said: obob said: As for the Queen I don't give a s  t either way, I just can't see why anyone would be interested in what she does. How is it different from any other celebrity? She fills a post. She is head of state. This is a vital position. It is one that can be abused. The Queen, however, performs her function with little fuss, she entertains foreign heads of state whom I wouldn't like to be in the same road as, and does it with very little scandal. Other countries do it differents. We could have a president: George W., Clinton anyone? The Queen holds a role that is apolitical and, remarkably, does it well. Further, the armed forces hold an allegience to the Queen and not to a political party. You don't have to look far to see how important this might be. There is much wrong with the royal family but if it was to go it would be replaced by something different. How about Varsi? Perfect post for her. She would not be able to fiddle her expenses claim for accommodation. Because that is the type of person who would probably replace the Queen, a career politician. There's an article in the Telegraph today about whether oligarchy is the problem rather than monarchy. As a country, we are lucky to have her as the head of state. Hardly a celebrity, she has a function and performs it well. smartypants said: AJS- said: No, I think we already are a quiet little backwater of the EU, with more pretense than ambition on the "world stage" whatever that is. You hate the UK so much, moved away and then still moan about it? Wasn't the point of moving away so you were unaffected about the thing in the UK you dislike so much? Olympics is great to have the UK. However we are doing a very very good job as making it as tacky as humanly possible. That logo is awful. That melted helta skelta - WTF? However the stadiums and facilities we're building are top notch. Hopefully they will get some use afterwards. It's a great thing for the UK, but I'll try and avoid it as much as possible I'm not big fan of the olympics. It's main function is to sell advertising space. However, it promotes sport as a secondary function. I think that the dedication required to perform any sport well is something that should be encouraged in the young. There's a very rough estate in Brighton. I don't want to name it so let's call it West Rhodean. If you wanted to split the kids, the male kids at least, into two groups then there are those who play (rather than follow) a sport seriously and those who cause trouble. There is some 'seepage' of course, but the rule is that if the kids take up sport seriously then there is hope for them. Their coaches are the real social workers. There wre three lads of the same family. Two played football and the other, the runt, didn't. The LBO told me that he'd spoken with the coach of the football team hoping to turn the youngest around. Unfortunately the lad didn't take kindly to having to work hard so he was 'lost'. One wonders if it wasn't for football whether the elder two would have avoided the temtations of the estate. The olympics is an advertising fest. On the playing fields and arenas it rewards excellence but not those who work hard. However, it motivates. Get more kids into kit and we'll get more kids being productive. It's seems she actually does a fair bit of work http://projectbritain.com/royal/role.htm
|
|
|
hairykrishna
8,964 posts
72 months
|
eldar said: In that case, every man, woman and child would have been £286 richer, and we could have watched the Olympics on TV. I hadn't really thought of it in those terms. Can I have the money instead please? 300 quid for a sports day is a bit steep for my liking.
|
|
|
DSM2
3,624 posts
69 months
|
rover 623gsi said: if it's only costing us £286 each then it's even more of a bargain than I thought. If you think it's a bargain perhaps you would like to pick up my share too?
|
|
|
rover 623gsi
1,946 posts
30 months
|
all of us pay s t loads of tax - loads of my tax goes on stuff I am not interested in, nor have any use for. Horses for courses...
|
|
|
Laurel Green
14,830 posts
101 months
|
|
|
iphonedyou
2,504 posts
26 months
|
DJRC said: Come again?
Take a look at who runs for office in the 2 foremost Republics in the world...France and America.
Now correlate what you just said with the above, available real world evidence. The notion that I would have to elect a Francois Hollande, Nicholas Sarkozy, Segolene Royal, Marine le Pen, Barrack Obama, Bush, Clinton, Romney, Al Gore, John Kerry...
...the country would revolt within a generation.
Elected politicians are elected politicians the world over. The best part of 2500 years of human history experimenting with democracy has shown that with absolute, irrevocable, cast iron proof. Be it the Greeks with the Demos, Romans with the Senate or modern polics. In all that 2500 years of democratic history, which has been the most stable, successful and popular system? The British system. We've kept it going for 1200 yrs, longer than anybody else has managed any other system at any time in human history.
You can keep ideology, Ill go with history thankyou. I couldn't agree more, with both your stance, and that of Derek Smith. What very much struck me about the Jubilee celebrations - quite apart from the clear, vocal and majority support for the royal family - is how much of a constant the monarchy is. And how much I appreciate that constant in a time where everything is changing, and much of it for the worse.
|
|
|
AJS-
Original Poster
9,974 posts
105 months
|
Laurel Green said: Interesting machinations, but a sort of false innocence about it to me, and I would guess many others, who never thought the Olympics was anything other than a big corrupt gravy train.
|
|
|
hidetheelephants
5,580 posts
62 months
|
jbi said:  This is the biggest stain on the olympic landscape IMO. WTF were they thinking? It was mostly paid for by some Indian bloke; granted it is inexplicably ugly, but at least it was (nearly) free. hairykrishna said: eldar said: In that case, every man, woman and child would have been £286 richer, and we could have watched the Olympics on TV. I hadn't really thought of it in those terms. Can I have the money instead please? 300 quid for a sports day is a bit steep for my liking. More of a sports fortnight really.
|
|
