Sorry, after the bit about China I should have added that countries
which could benefit from the Olympics in this way probably couldn't
afford to host them.

On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:10:00 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

Being boring, my (slightly more serious) take is that many Londoners
were keen on the idea of it during the bidding phase, but as time has
past a significant number have gone somewhat colder on it all.

I don't doubt that at all. As someone living in Manchester in the run
up to the 2002 Commonwealth Games (and two previous failed Olympic
bids, one of which generated enough cash for the carbunk^H^H^arena
above Victoria Station) I don't think many locals really cared about
what was happening during the development years. But as the stadium
took shape and the city changed character, people really began to take
it on board.

It was much smaller in scale and in a much smaller city but I reckon
come 2012 the attitudes will swing back in London. Great atmosphere
and something from the legacy - though how much regeneration that was
promised in the Eastlands area actually happened as a result of the
Games is debatable.

On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:35:29 +0100, "Peter Smyth"
wrote:
"Stephen Furley" wrote in message
...
On 25 May, 17:14, MIG wrote:

I've met a person who thinks that having the Olympics in London is a
good idea. So that's at least 651 odd people ...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What percentage of the population would you say were in favour of the
Games? I certainly don't have any accurate figures, but the
impression I've got from hearing people talk about them is that it's a
minority, and not a very large one; probably less than 20%. Most
people seem to think that they're just too expensive.

75% of the UK actually.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-2012-games.do


Of course no-one would have told the people being asked what the
Olympics will have cost them. Before asking the question, it would be
instructive to tell them that an average household in the UK has had
£400 taken from them for this festival of greed.

Perhaps they should be asked "As a taxpayer, on what would you like to
see £10.6 million of your money spent?"

I doubt the Olympics would appear in the top half of the answers. And
most of the respondents would prefer the money to be spent somewhere
other than London.

On 25 May, 20:41, Ivor The Engine wrote:

As someone living in Manchester in the run
up to the 2002 Commonwealth Games (and two previous failed Olympic
bids, one of which generated enough cash for the carbunk^H^H^arena
above Victoria Station) I don't think many locals really cared about
what was happening during the development years. *But as the stadium
took shape and the city changed character, people really began to take
it on board. *

It was much smaller in scale and in a much smaller city but I reckon
come 2012 the attitudes will swing back in London. *Great atmosphere
and something from the legacy - though how much regeneration that was
promised in the Eastlands area actually happened as a result of the
Games is debatable.

I think the 'much smaller in scale' is significant. The Olympics are
simply too large in scale, and too expensive. As for the size of the
City, in most of London you're not really aware of the games, but in
Stratford you certainly are aware of them; they totally dominate the
area.

On 25/05/2010 19:10, Mizter T wrote:

On May 25, 6:20 pm, Arthur wrote:

As for the Olympics, I thought the argument was that absolutely everyone
in the country outside London wanted them, it was just tight-fisted
killjoy London taxpayers who didn't, and that was why were lumbered with
them...

So that's the Figgis take on it... I see!

Being boring, my (slightly more serious) take is that many Londoners
were keen on the idea of it during the bidding phase, but as time has
past a significant number have gone somewhat colder on it all.

Admittedly many of the sort of people I know are the sort who probably
aren't going to be too enthusiastic anyway. And I suspect if you grabbed
figgis 2 and his mates as they came out of a stadium and asked what they
think of Velaro-D services to Stratford the response might not be great
either :-)

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Tue, 25 May 2010 20:45:14 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Of course no-one would have told the people being asked what the
Olympics will have cost them. Before asking the question, it would be
instructive to tell them that an average household in the UK has had
£400 taken from them for this festival of greed.

Perhaps they should be asked "As a taxpayer, on what would you like to
see £10.6 million of your money spent?"

And of course they would reply "It's £10.6 billion, you old fool!"

;-)

On May 25, 7:43*pm, Bruce wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:18:53 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
[snip]
The out-turn cost will be more than four times more. *Those people
were taking the ****, and so are you.

I am, am I... well, who am I to question the great Tony Polson, sage
of sages, knower-of-all.

On 25 May, 21:32, Bruce wrote:

Of course no-one would have told the people being asked what the
Olympics will have cost them. *Before asking the question, it would be
instructive to tell them that an average household in the UK has had
£400 taken from them for this festival of greed. *

Perhaps they should be asked "As a taxpayer, on what would you like to
see £10.6 million of your money spent?" * *

And of course they would reply "It's £10.6 billion, you old fool!"

;-)

People were asked, though I'm not sure by who, how they wanted the new
millennium to be celebrated. There were various answers; most wanted
something of permanent, or at least long-term benefit, a hospital or
two, schools, sporting facilities. Some wanted something basically
Christian in nature; others wanted third world debt to be written
off. One of the least popular options was for some sort of short-
lived event, festival, exposition etc. Guess what the chosen option
was? The Conservatives were all in favour; Labour weren't so sure.
If elected in 1997 they might cancel it. They were elected, and
decided that a New Labour Dome (the event, not the actual structure)
had to be even bigger and better than a Conservative Dome.

Most people who went were not that impressed with it, 'ok' and 'quite
good' were about the most positive terms I heard. Of course, in some
ways it was bound to be a disappointment; it couldn't hope to live up
to all the hype surrounding it. The visitor numbers were actually
quite respectable, better than I expected, and if the numbers
predicted had actually turned up the facilities couldn't possibly have
coped. As it was there were long queues at times. The costs spiraled
out of control, and there was no hope that the costs could ever be
recovered during a life of just a single year. All of this was
exactly as I, and many others, had predicted years before.

On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:52:10 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:
On May 25, 7:43*pm, Bruce wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:18:53 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
[snip]
The out-turn cost will be more than four times more. *Those people
were taking the ****, and so are you.

I am, am I... well, who am I to question the great Tony Polson, sage
of sages, knower-of-all.


I note you had no reply for any oF the points I made, just the usual
ad hominem attack when you cannot think of a response.

On 25 May, 21:32, Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 20:45:14 +0100, Bruce
wrote:



Of course no-one would have told the people being asked what the
Olympics will have cost them. *Before asking the question, it would be
instructive to tell them that an average household in the UK has had
£400 taken from them for this festival of greed. *

Perhaps they should be asked "As a taxpayer, on what would you like to
see £10.6 million of your money spent?" * *

And of course they would reply "It's £10.6 billion, you old fool!"

;-)

I thought Eurostar services were contingent on the DLR extension. I
understand that's been pushed back a few months, but only months?