Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Front Room' started by gmloki, Jan 17, 2004.
From a social point of view. Anyone give a rats ass ?
Not hugely. I think it would be nice, but I don't feel a huge desire for it. When I see news reports I get the impression that people are really caring about/suppose to be caring about this but it just doesn't seem to matter to me. I feel kinda left out.
I've got 8 years to get excited though so I'm not too worried
too far away, too much hassle, i'll be past my years. Far too much news coverage over this. Now if it was the World Cup, that would be interesting
Yeah just what the rest of the country wants, 17 billion spent on London, again.
Erm, 17 billion? What are you talking about?
if they ever get around to doing something with Wembley stadium, then i might get excited.
Think its pointless spending all that money, as the returns will be far less than they shell out (i guess), so why bother?
Also saw on the news that Rio de Jenerio (sp) is bidding....shouldnt they spend that money on the shanty towns which huge amounts of people live in, rather than the minority of rich people?
Which is what I kinda think of our London bid. Dont want to turn this into an Anti Blair rage but to pipe on about how great it will be for London to get the Olympics and the regeneration it will bring yadda yadda yadda. Then in the next breath try and justify fee's for university is somewhat shortsighted imho
Two words. Beach volleyball.
The placey where they do the horsey training by the royal guards. They are gunna use their for the beach vollyball
That's what most people said about Docklands, Greenwich, etc. They do shit like this as it gives them a justification for redeveloping a shit area with public money that could give people a feel good factor (obv the dome was a fuckup in that respect).
Don't have problem with spending the money (although I gather it will put my Council Tax up - again), I kind of think we don't spend enough on 'public works' in this country - the French are much better at that, it's just...the Olympics? Does anyone give a toss? It's also pretty tainted; the IOC are the biggest bunch of shysters in sport.
Actually, i give a toss. It'd just be nice to have something as prestigious/historical as the Olympics come the UK. It's down to personal preference really, some/most people are passionate about football in this country. Whilst i enjoy a nice afternoon, admiring world class athletes "run around a track" (how boring you might say :/).
Though the Olympics are more than that, but i can't be bothered to go into it, as i won't be able to convince yourself or indeed others, otherwise.
I also think it would be great!
I think having the olympics will give the benefit of more tourism, attract investment, regenerating crappy parts of London, improve transport in that area.
The Manchester Stadium which was the centrepiece of the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games and has certainly been very good for Manchester...
But as Ash says, its London again.
What about regenerating the Midlands, or the North?
Because no-one outside the UK gives a toss about anywhere inside the UK except London. Almost all the cities in the running are world famous cities like London, Paris, New York and Rio; do you really think Sheffield or Leeds would have a chance against these cities on the world stage (its also why the German entry, Leipzig, doesn't have a chance). I'm a Northerner, but I'm not daft enough to overlook reality. Besides, some events would be outside London.
Because none of the workers at Barclays, HSBC & any of the other major banks wear flat caps on a regular basis?
Or for actual reasons like http://www.seeda.co.uk/introduction/index.htm
* Over £116 billion economy;
* Eight million people;
* Over 100 universities, further education colleges and research centres;
* Over 25% of the UK's research and development;
* The South East would be the 22nd largest economy in the world based on GDP;
* More than 4,700 foreign-owned companies;
* The leading location for European headquarters of multi-national companies;
* The capital of the UK's pharmaceutical, information and communications technology, bio-tech and healthcare, aerospace, defence and environmental industries, and
* The hub of the UK's communications network with Heathrow, Gatwick, Southampton and six other commercial airports serving the region, along with 11 international seaports and four container ports.
Think he's not on about moving the venue of the olympics. But rather developing somewhere else rather than london. Large amount of money poured into a binary town.....not good.
Isnt that a list of reasons why it SHOULD be spent elsewhere?
That's personal opinion. The main point is that those are the reasons why no where else stands a chance of getting it, and therefore would be a waste of money trying. It's not a battle of good vs. evil where the plucky smaller city wins through on the day after a rousing speech from the working class dweller turns the opinions and breaks the stone hearts of the IOC. It's the Olympics.
He doesnt mean "spent elsewhere inorder to get the olympics". Just see it as a fantastic waste of money piled into a region that doesnt need it
Investing money where there is already money is easier to justify than "lets spend 20 billion on some shithole in the middle of nowhere" but I don't make the decisions. There are regional development funds all around this country anyway which redevelop the shite parts outside london, the bullring in birmingham (?) for example. If you want to go for "shoulds" by the way, I personally think that each area should get reinvested into it a proportional amount of the treasury budgets based on the proportions they contribute. However I'm a realist and this kinda "nice theory" don't work in the real world.
As a resident of East London, in and around the exact area where most of the development would take place, I only see one thing that would make me favourable towards having the Olympics here.
Basically they'd have to shift out most of the drug dealers first
I have mixed feelings on the subject, Most of the development would be demolished after the event.
Should public funds be used,there have been so many white Elephants in the past.
The Dome being one of them.
I do also think It's time the North had a look in.
Why would most of the development get demolished? That hasn't happened in other Olympic cities. Truth is, over the past few years, most of the publicly funded sports infrastructure development has happened up north; Manchester had all the work for the Commonwealth games, (and Man City got a nice stadium out of it too) and before that Sheffield got the gig (World Championships? Student games? I forget) and had a stadium built. London hasn't seen much investment lately; wembley is still a building site and the Pickett's Lock stadium didn't happen either. The north has had more than a few 'look-ins' over the past few years, and Manchester has two failed Olympic bids behind it already; besides, its not as if the streets are paved with gold in East London either, Hackney, Stratford and the Lea Valley could all do with investment as well.
My feelings are very much NOT mixed.
I couldn't give a flying fuck about London and I couldn't give a flying fuck about the Olympics.
If I want to see people running I shall go down the local crack dealer's when the next raid is on, if I want to see people chucking spears I'll visit the abbo's in Queensland, etc.