El Barbudo wrote:
Congrats on avoiding my other comments about the true cost and about one-term spending plans.
Oh, and the points made by others about cross-party agreement.
As I said, I'm not getting into politics, as this isn't a politics thread. So, no avoidance there. I simply refused to talk politics.
However given you asked, £27m is outlandish however it's paid for. A £27m opening ceremony won't attract anyone who wouldn't have been there to witness a £1m opening ceremony. I don't care who's paid or how the cost is broken down; that money could have been used on other, non-olympic things.
If you think £27m for an opening ceremony is good value, or you even THINK that kind of money should be spent on it, then quite simply, you need your bumps feeling.
On a similar note, I dread to think what the 3 month, 8000 people, torch carrying will have cost, given that (I hear) everyone has to wear - and gets to keep - both the uniform and the fecking TORCH! Again, why not just have ONE torch, sailing down the Thames immediately prior to the opening ceremony? It would have been more fitting for the LONDON Olympics, and a hell of a lot cheaper. GO on, justify it.
The money wasted on this event is appalling.
As for the cross-party agreement. This was an agreement that an Olympic Bid should be made, based on, I assume, the costs as worked out by whoever Labour asked to work it out. How do those figures compare with the ACTUAL cost?
