Olympic lunacy

[Scott_F]

Just a note re 'I did not vote for it'...

It does sound like a plausible argument, although in representative democracy, unlike the original Greek version of it, we elect the people to represent us in Parliament rather than vote directly on each decision.

Similarly, we elect the government to govern us. If we are unhappy with the choices they make, we can vote for different people next time.

So much like the photo, this argument is mostly entertaining...

Did the intention to bid for the games appear in the manifesto of any major party in the 1997 or 2001 general elections ?

And with Labour, the Conservatives and Lib-Dems all cheerleading for the Olympic circus how do we differentiate between the major parties on this issue ?

 

[Dieselman]

Did the intention to bid for the games appear in the manifesto of any major party in the 1997 or 2001 general elections ?

Why would it?

Did things like the Underground network or Thames barrier appear in any manifesto. Of course not, such decisions are made by the people "We" chose to Govern us.

If you don't like not having a say, become an MP.

 

[Scott_F]

Why would it?

Did things like the Underground network or Thames barrier appear in any manifesto. Of course not, such decisions are made by the people "We" chose to Govern us.

If you don't like not having a say, become an MP.

Similarly, we elect the government to govern us. If we are unhappy with the choices they make, we can vote for different people next time.

If they're planning to spend billions of pounds of public money on a 3 week vanity project, it would be nice to know about it and vote accordingly.

 

[Dieselman]

The Daily Wail strikes again.

 

[Scott_F]

The Daily Wail strikes again.

More your style than mine.

 

[Dieselman]

More your style than mine.

Hmm... Look who's moaning on...and on...and on...

 

[Scott_F]

Hmm... Look who's moaning on...and on...and on...

Isn't about time you got another ban ?

 

[markjay]

argumentum ad hominem

 

[MOCAŠ]

And with Labour, the Conservatives and Lib-Dems all cheerleading for the Olympic circus how do we differentiate between the major parties on this issue ?

With cross-party consensus, perhaps it's you that's out of step on this one.

Also, please note that a referendum will rarely be called on an issue that has cross-party support. They're generally used to endorse a decision that a future government might otherwise seek to overturn.

 

[MOCAŠ]

London didn't bid - politicians and their appointees used a lot of public money to create a bid team to put London's case. The games were not foisted on London but no one asked the people of London, or anywhere else in this country, if they thought it was a goood idea.

Not foisted. London is used to hosting events, we're used to road closures; we're used to large-scale construction projects - we take all of this in our stride. It's part of the lifeblood of the city. And it's also why this probably couldn't have happened anywhere else in the country: it would have been killed off by petty-minded nimbies. Well, it's their loss.

After 7 years of cheerleading and hype, a lot of people are pretty fed up of the Olympics already. Did we really want several minutes of last night's primetime news dedicated to the arrival at Heathrow of some Italians and Yanks that we've never heard of ?

It matters not whether we've heard of them - it's the reason why they're here that makes them newsworthy. Would you be so disrespectful towards troops returning from Afghanistan, just because you'd never heard of them?

The issues over security, Olympic lanes and problems with buses getting lost etc. are fairly minor in the scheme of things and shouldn't be blown out of proportion. However, people will pick up on minor negatives as, along with many millions of others, they feel that their voices haven't been heard above all the Olympic tub-thumping.

Do you really believe that? As far as I can see, the naysayers are just picking up their negative vibe from the tabloid press. Nothing new there. But if the press were being overwhelmingly positive in their reporting, what would those that had no first-hand experience have to moan about (other than the cost, which people will always moan about anyway).

 

[finisterre]

IIRC Tony Blair made the decision pretty much on the spur of the moment after a ten minute chat with Tessa Jowell.

All part of being led by a man with a mission.

Bless.

 

[Scott_F]

With cross-party consensus, perhaps it's you that's out of step on this one.

Also, please note that a referendum will rarely be called on an issue that has cross-party support. They're generally used to endorse a decision that a future government might otherwise seek to overturn.

I refer you to post #31.

There are millions of people in this country who view the Olympics as a vast waste of public money.

But with politicians of all parties eager to bask in the reflected glory of the hoped-for "feel good factor" and a compliant media (often with their own agenda - such as the BBC) the dissenting voices aren't allowed any real outlet.

 

[mattc]

it's also why this probably couldn't have happened anywhere else in the country).

Sorry but thats BS. Lets be clear. It could have happened elsewhere in the UK, Birmingham and Manchester would have managed just fine; the reason it's in London is not down to cheeky chirpie salt of the earth cockneys taking it in their stride it's down to IOC members wanting a free trip to London at our expense with the very best that 1 of the 2 World Cities can offer. any one remember all our failed bids until we decided to host it in London?

 

[AlanD]

Wow, there are "millions" who feel it's a vast waste of money == it is. Brilliant. And I very much doubt that many. It's like Jonathan Ross all over again - easy to find people who won't like something; pretty much impossible to find something that all will like.

If you like boring countries who never do anything, there are a couple well known for it on the mainland. I don't. I'm not a big Olympics fan, but I'm glad it's on. I'm glad we do things like that. I'm glad the yanks went to the moon. I'm glad all sorts of things happen that a committee of miserable gits would never reach consensus on!

Representative democracy. No such thing as total democracy because it can't work. Ever. Thankfully.

Think calm thoughts .. ignore it for 5 weeks!

 

[markjay]

....There are millions of people in this country who view the Olympics as a vast waste of public money....

I can believe it.

However, if you substitute 'Olympics' with almost any other large scale project in living memory, your sentence above will still be true.

 

[markjay]

IIRC Tony Blair made the decision pretty much on the spur of the moment after a ten minute chat with Tessa Jowell.

All part of being led by a man with a mission.

Bless.

On another note, finisterre... you are wanted elsewhere.

http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/1509968-post5840.html

 

[MOCAŠ]

Sorry but thats BS. Lets be clear. It could have happened elsewhere in the UK, Birmingham and Manchester would have managed just fine; the reason it's in London is not down to cheeky chirpie salt of the earth cockneys taking it in their stride it's down to IOC members wanting a free trip to London at our expense with the very best that 1 of the 2 World Cities can offer. any one remember all our failed bids until we decided to host it in London?

Manchester is perhaps the only other credible host city. Birmingham? Tell me when to stop laughing. They couldn't even make the motor show work there, in the midst of what was then the Briitish motor industry.

It's as much about available infrastructure as the location itself. You can build all the sports venues anywhere (within reason) but people need to be able to travel between them, and those coming from abroad for the duration need accommodation, and entertainment when they're not at the games themselves. There's no point holding them in he middle of nowhere with just the odd Balti house for repast.

Also, let's not get hung up on the idea that the Games are only being held in London. There are venues as far apart as Dorset and Kent, and football matches being played in Manchester, Coventry, Newcastle, Cardiff and Glasgow.

 

[Scott_F]

Not foisted. London is used to hosting events, we're used to road closures; we're used to large-scale construction projects - we take all of this in our stride. It's part of the lifeblood of the city. And it's also why this probably couldn't have happened anywhere else in the country: it would have been killed off by petty-minded nimbies. Well, it's their loss.

And your £10 BILLION gain.

It matters not whether we've heard of them - it's the reason why they're here that makes them newsworthy. Would you be so disrespectful towards troops returning from Afghanistan, just because you'd never heard of them?

There are 2 obvious flaws in your comparison. Firstly, the troops returning from active service have performed a demanding service for this country. Secondly, troop returns merit about 30 seconds of local news coverage (if that) rather than 3 or 4 minutes of national coverage right at the top of the 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock news.

Do you really believe that? As far as I can see, the naysayers are just picking up their negative vibe from the tabloid press. Nothing new there.

And the cheerleaders are just following the "aren't the Olympics wonderful" line that the media have been feeding us for the last 7 years.

In case you hadn't noticed, rather a lot of people in this thread appear to be "out of step" as you put it. There are millions more too, although most just don't happen to live in London and they are able to distinguish between nimbyism and wasting money on vanity projects.

 

[Scott_F]

I can believe it.

However, if you substitute 'Olympics' with almost any other large scale project in living memory, your sentence above will still be true.

But no other project costs £10 BILLION for 3 weeks of sport (and a very iffy "legacy") does it ?

 

[AlanD]

Next you'll say Eurovision isn't a good idea!!

No wait, that isn't helping ...