On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:18:53 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:


On May 25, 6:57*pm, Bruce wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:26:32 +0100, "Robin" wrote:

I think you'll find a fair few self-aggrandising Ministers (now former
Ministers) who wanted the games. *But if you, quite reasonably, don't
count them as people I do of course withdraw my comment.

For that matter, not many backbenchers or opposition MPs opposed the
bid. *But then no one was going to repeat the lessons of the Dome, were
they?

Compared to the 2012 Olympics, the Dome was a bargain.

The 2012 Games does at least have a solid focus, unlike the Dome.


No, it's exactly like the Dome. Both could be accurately described as
"grandstanding". The only difference is, the Dome was a bargain.


Plus, what's your take on how it will promote the image of London and
Britain abroad, both in terms of tourism and in a wider sense as a
place where things can be done.


It will be like any Olympic Games that has been held in a first world
country - a complete waste of time, money and effort.

It's OK for countries like China and, for the World Cup, South Africa.
It will put them on the map and bring in people and business that
would otherwise probably not have come. It will do sod all for the UK
except cost an inordinate amount of money.

It might even help to convince some
Brits that a 'can do' spirit isn't something to be mocked but
celebrated.


Only if "can do" equates to "can spend an inordinate amount of money
on something that has no long term benefit".


Plus there's all the regenerative effects of the Games on
east London.


All of which could have been obtained for just a small fraction of the
£10.6 billion so far committed. And there are no regenerative effects
anywhere else.


Mock away...


It's not mocking, it is taking an objective look at how public money
is spent. £10.6 billion would have paid for most of Crossrail. The
Channel Tunnel only cost 30% more, and even I would admit that it has
brought some long term benefit to the UK, although nowhere near
anything that justified the cost.

The Olympics has brought no benefit at all. It has overheated the
construction industry in London and put up contract prices across the
board, so many clients have had to pay a lot more for their projects
just because of it. Jobs have been lost because businesses displaced
from the site have not all reopened. Local residents have had to put
up with the noise, mess and traffic for several years and for what? A
park that no-one has the faintest idea what to do with.

Even the accommodation for Olympic athletes will require extremely
expensive conversion to make it suitable for social housing because
the designers didn't deliver on their promises.

I think the people who are really doing the mocking are those who
promoted the Olympic bid, promising it would be delivered within a
budget of £2.7 billion.

The out-turn cost will be more than four times more. Those people
were taking the ****, and so are you.