Sign up or login now! You'll be able to join in the conversations, earn Kudos, and have fun in your city!

Why are the bloody Olympics such a good thing?

Keef

Posted by Keef over 3 years ago
Last active over 2 years ago 2 responses

I’m against the whole idea myself. And I’ve yet to hear any really convincing arguments to persuade me otherwise. So please, Fridaycitizens, tell me, why are the bloody Olympics such a Good Thing?

If the east end is worth investing in (and it is) then it’s worth investing in regardless of running and jumping. Also, the whole thing is starting to look like a bit of a con. Funded by our council tax and money nabbed from charities. And is it not just a bit obscene to be spending this amount of money and hard-to-come-by London enthusiasm on a two week showcase for corporate advertising and an opening ceremony featuring Chas ‘n’ Dave and Madness?

Boo. Grrr.

Atom feed | Digg this | Newsvine

2 responses

cobo04

I agree, I’ve never seen the real point of the modern olympics. They may have been a good idea in Roman times but to bring them back as the moden olympics in 1896 and then every 4 years (bar the WW’s) onwards at more and more expense each time. There are some countries who hosted the olympics who are still paying for them and will do for years to come. As may we do.

Okay it’ll moderinise the east end, but at what expense – all those businesses who have traded for years, decades have to be demolished and moved (like where to?). The only winners in this race are corporates like the ‘design’ company who put the logo together, what a joke that was. How much more money will be wasted if this is a ‘good example of the olympic movement’ (Seb Coe).

It’s not being ‘humbug’ it’s a simple application of common sense.

Posted over 2 years ago by cobo04

BartMalik

How about this: it gives government (local and central) an incentive to invest in the east end. It’s very difficult to focus investment and political will on one particular place. By hosting the Olympics, we’re forcing the authorities to actually spend money in Hackney and Newham and so on.

Otherwise, some of the same money might have gone that way, but it would have been in the form of small, disconnected projects. This way, you get a huge lump sum of investment spent there. The same applies to transport projects. Hackney remains the only central London area without a tube connection. The ELL extension won’t be a tube line, but it will provide decent rail services. We might – might – even get Crossrail in time for 2012, this way.

As for being ‘a bit of a con’, the budget overspend is certainly very fishy, but remember that the majority of that is going on construction costs. Now, we can argue over how much of that money will actually be spent on buildings and how much will line people’s pockets, but, in theory, most of it should be spent on stuff that’s still there long after the tourists, liggers and suits have left.

I wasn’t in favour of us hosting the Olympics, and I don’t like watching the games, but I can’t agree with you that it’s all bad news.

Posted over 2 years ago by BartMalik