Paxman destroying Chloe Smith..hilarious and cringeworthy!

[st4]

There is no Olympic underspend. The massive overspend just isn't as great as was predicted.

Lol. Actually lol

 

[MOCAŠ]

There is no Olympic underspend. The massive overspend just isn't as great as was predicted.

Not so. We've had this argument before - the original budget was for the Games themselves, most of which was covered by private investment and sponsorship. The overall budget included the long-term regneration of the Stratford area, and has been brought in £0.5bn under budget.

 

[st4]

Paxman is rapidly losing his remaining credibility as a skilled interviewer as he relies far to heavily on his previous reputation and intimidation tactics to achieve his results rather than intellectual lines of questioning.

I though Ms Smith far from "crumbled", she maintained a dignified and consistent line of answers. I do however think that putting her in this position showed a serious lack of judgment on behalf of the Treasury and not a little cowardice in keeping some of their big guns safely shielded.

Paxman is a formidable interviewer and character, and by going on that show, you are set up for a pasting.

She did ok actually and didn't quite have the answers for him, did enough that she wasn't completely owned by him.

MOCAS has the answer for the half billion, however, it remains a matter of opinion whether we needed the Olympics at all, and perhaps greater savings could have been achieved without them at all. Scott F ( as rare as it is for me to agree with him) paints the correct picture that a lot of our money has been sunk into this, not as much as predicted, but still a lot.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

That's what advisors are for. Ministers essentially need to be decision makers and policy formers, and they need to be versatile enough to pick up virtually any brief handed to them.

It must be the most important job I know of that you learn as you go along, they should be at least knowledgeable about their ministerial post beforehand IMO.

Can you imagine the job of head of marketing of say Tesco going to someone that didn't have extensive knowledge of the 'market'? That you'd be shuffled from marketing to the finance side of the company, then when you invariably get up to mischief, they'd put you in charge of IT?

 

[Scott_F]

Not so. We've had this argument before - the original budget was for the Games themselves, most of which was covered by private investment and sponsorship. The overall budget included the long-term regneration of the Stratford area, and has been brought in £0.5bn under budget.

I beg to differ.

What is the real price of the London Olympics? | Jules Boykoff | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

The whole thing was appallingly costed from the start and the taxpayer has made up the shortfall with no questions being asked.

We have discussed the legacy before too. And a couple of wealthy football clubs bidding to take control of the stadium whilst the Olympic village is sold off to Middle East developers says more than I ever could.

Or let's give the Daily Mail their say.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...developers-557m-deal-costs-taxpayer-225m.html

 

[davethemus]

I also think it's very reckless to have the Olympics while we are still occupying Afghanistan.

I'm not usually the type of person that worries about terrorist attacks but I know for a fact that you couldn't pay me to go to London this summer, and the amount of manpower the security forces are spending on the Olympics tells me that they have similar concerns.

I just can't see it going by without incident.

 

[MOCAŠ]

I beg to differ.

The whole thing was appallingly costed from the start and the taxpayer has made up the shortfall with no questions being asked.

We have discussed the legacy before too. And a couple of wealthy football clubs bidding to take control of the stadium whilst the Olympic village is sold off to Middle East developers says more than I ever could.

You can't have it both ways, as much as you'd like to. On the one hand you complain about the cost of the project to the taxpayer (which incidentally had to be approved by Parliament) while on the other you ciriticise the sale of key assets to the private sector - albeit with subsidy or at a loss, but nevertheless for the best return available at the time.

 

[st4]

You can't have it both ways, as much as you'd like to. On the one hand you complain about the cost of the project to the taxpayer (which incidentally had to be approved by Parliament) while on the other you ciriticise the sale of key assets to the private sector - albeit with subsidy or at a loss, but nevertheless for the best return available at the time.

Wouldn't it have been better if Parliment etc decided they (the Games) not what London needed.

I also think it's very reckless to have the Olympics while we are still occupying Afghanistan.

I'm not usually the type of person that worries about terrorist attacks but I know for a fact that you couldn't pay me to go to London this summer, and the amount of manpower the security forces are spending on the Olympics tells me that they have similar concerns.

I just can't see it going by without incident.

Will the enhanced security around London mean our other cities and area (where the other 80% of the population of the UK live) be less likely to be monitored by intelligence services and therefore more vulnerable for an attack by terror groups?

Just a thought...

 

[MOCAŠ]

Wouldn't it have been better if Parliment etc decided they (the Games) not what London needed.

That's a different question and opinions will vary. I've gone from being fairly neutral to being largely in favour (while despairing at the whole commercialisation aspect imposed by the IOC).

However, I will say that as the Opening Ceremony creeps ever closer and the preparations are now becoming tangible throughout London, the general level of enthusiasm is growing substantially and there is a real buzz about the place.

 

[Scott_F]

You can't have it both ways, as much as you'd like to. On the one hand you complain about the cost of the project to the taxpayer (which incidentally had to be approved by Parliament) while on the other you ciriticise the sale of key assets to the private sector - albeit with subsidy or at a loss, but nevertheless for the best return available at the time.

I don't want it both ways - one way will be fine thank you.

And that way would have involved never committing ourselves to the whole project based on (and I'm being generous here) "unrealistic" cost projections that leave us with white elephants that don't fit the regeneration needs of the area and which allow the private sector to make vast profits at the taxpayers' expense.

 

[st4]

That's a different question and opinions will vary. I've gone from being fairly neutral to being largely in favour (while despairing at the whole commercialisation aspect imposed by the IOC).

However, I will say that as the Opening Ceremony creeps ever closer and the preparations are now becoming tangible throughout London, the general level of enthusiasm is growing substantially and there is a real buzz about the place.

Thats fine for Londoners, but what about the rest of the country? IMHO, and this is all opinion now, I think its an appalling thing for our county be committed too and for the costs involved, for only one city to really benefit is not fair and just. Plus the benefits post Olympics, for the people moved out of their communities remains to be seen if they are benefits.

 

[Scott_F]

That's a different question and opinions will vary. I've gone from being fairly neutral to being largely in favour (while despairing at the whole commercialisation aspect imposed by the IOC).

However, I will say that as the Opening Ceremony creeps ever closer and the preparations are now becoming tangible throughout London, the general level of enthusiasm is growing substantially and there is a real buzz about the place.

You'll find that such enthusiasm becomes more muted as you head further north.

Mind you, with the wall-to-wall coverage offered by the BBC and other media it really shouldn't be so. For the last two evenings, the BBC's local 6.30 news was given over entirely to the non-event that is the progress of the Olympic torch.

Or to be more accurate, for two evenings we were treated to 30 minutes of impromptu chat with gormless members of the public whilst we waited for people in dodgy white shell suits carrying gaudy pieces of fake gold (that will soon be flogged on Ebay) to grace us with their presence.

Don't believe the hype.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Thats fine for Londoners, but what about the rest of the country? IMHO, and this is all opinion now, I think its an appalling thing for our county be committed too and for the costs involved, for only one city to really benefit is not fair and just. Plus the benefits post Olympics, for the people moved out of their communities remains to be seen if they are benefits.

Well, it had to be based somewhere. But it's not just London that will benefit - Olympic events are being hosted up and down the country.

As for the (true) cost - it's not much different to what some individual banks have set aside to deal with missold insurance, or the cost or running the NHS for less than a week. It's not that significant in real terms.

 

[MD5]

I get the impression Osborne was too scared to face the questions himself, but gave her the brief to cover his ar$e, come what may. Don't shoot the messenger springs to mind, and what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I suspect the question of incompetence was for Osborne's benefit.

 

[MD5]

Well, it had to be based somewhere. But it's not just London that will benefit - Olympic events are being hosted up and down the country.

As for the (true) cost - it's not much different to what some individual banks have set aside to deal with missold insurance, or the cost or running the NHS for less than a week. It's not that significant in real terms.

If we had the money!

 

[MOCAŠ]

You'll find that such enthusiasm becomes more muted as you head further north.

Mind you, with the wall-to-wall coverage offered by the BBC and other media it really shouldn't be so. For the last two evenings, the BBC's local 6.30 news was given over entirely to the non-event that is the progress of the Olympic torch.

Or to be more accurate, for two evenings we were treated to 30 minutes of impromptu chat with gormless members of the public whilst we waited for people in dodgy white shell suits carrying gaudy pieces of fake gold (that will soon be flogged on Ebay) to grace us with their presence.

Don't believe the hype.

Everywhere the torch relay has been, it has been greeted by cheering crowds, come rain or shine. That shows that there is building enthusiasm for the Games and what they stand for all around the country - even in parts that won't host the Games themselves. Of course not everyone is going to agree, but I do get a sense that excitement is now building rapidly after a very long run-up process.

 

[renault12ts]

I had to laugh. My daughter as you may recall, moved to London last October...she flew over. A week later we drove over with her "stuff".

We happened to mention that she was well placed for the Olympics, to which she replied..." it'll be awful here with all those tourists". After a week she'd found out the stock Londoner answer to the Olympics...oh how we laughed.

 

[MOCAŠ]

I had to laugh. My daughter as you may recall, moved to London last October...she flew over. A week later we drove over with her "stuff".

We happened to mention that she was well placed for the Olympics, to which she replied..." it'll be awful here with all those tourists". After a week she'd found out the stock Londoner answer to the Olympics...oh how we laughed.

If there's anything Londoners take in our stride, it's tourists.

 

[Scott_F]

Everywhere the torch relay has been, it has been greeted by cheering crowds, come rain or shine. That shows that there is building enthusiasm for the Games and what they stand for all around the country - even in parts that won't host the Games themselves. Of course not everyone is going to agree, but I do get a sense that excitement is now building rapidly after a very long run-up process.

The media (and the BBC in particular) have been pushing the Games relentlessly. Since 2005, we've been given primetime news insights into the design of the Olympic logo, the completion of the Velodrome, the synchronised swimming trials etc. etc. etc.

In the last 12 months this intensity has increased and by the time the torch arrived they were barely able to contain themselves.

It should therefore come as no surprise that people will turn out to cheer after so much publicity. And some people will turn up to the opening of an envelope if it offers the possibility of getting their boat race on the TV.

Of course, the overwhelming majority who didn't turn out and who have no interest in the torch or the Olympics in general remain unheard.

 

[st4]

Indeed, the press hype and relentless hype and build up about it being a monumentous occasion have indeed installed the public hysteria about it.

Tell me this, if it were football world cup, there would not need to be such hysteria, as people tend to like football. Athletics etc is not so popular as EUFA and FIFA football tournaments.I bet a Football world cup would be cheaper to host and be more popular with the public.