Re: That unmentionable sporting event - the madness continue : Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:41 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Oh indeed, dearie. I consider voting to be the most simple and basic level of democracy. Not that we were ever given the chance to vote on the matter of the Games.

You could, of course, reveal here what elections were held in London (let's stick with the capital for the sake of the argument) and what votes we, the electorate therefore had a chance to vote in, when our opinion was sought.

Why?

Okay: lots of sporting winners. Great. But why? What does it benefit the country as a whole? What is the benefit to the community?

Livingstone was/is a banker. And that's irrelevant because I've said the same for years.

Urr! That's me, chuck! Are you seriously not paying attention? I'm getting no benefit. But that doesn't worry me. What concerns me are the businesses – and small ones in particular – that are SUFFERING as a direct result of the Games.

Could you get your brain cell around that, dear.

PS: glad to see you do not support British business.

Wow you really need to think before you post.

The OG was funded in the main out of lottery and taxes - lottery funding could be spent in our area instead of more superb facilities and regeneration for the wealthiest city in the country.

The decision to apply and fund the games was taken by democratically elected bodies, the fact you disagree doesn't mean you weren't consulted.

If we run a good games it must have a positive impact on the outside view of the country - it can only show the UK in a good light which will have positive commercial benefits later down the line. An example - Dave Brailsford the UK cycling bossman - he skills are already in big demand as the elite performance director in UK sport. Given what has happened in the OG do you think his reputation and demand for his services will have diminished? The benefit to the community - for one they don't have to look at the eyesore that was the olympic pary before its regeneration.

For every small business that is suffering - I think they will be few and far between - there will be many more small businesses who are benefitting from the increased footfall at the olympic venues. It isn't a massive leap of faith to suggest that many of the independant retailers arounf Eton have seen a boost to their turnover?

The fact you may not want to use any of the facilities doesn't mean you will not get any benefit - these facilities enhance the city and as such will be a revenue stream for many years to come. It is unrealistic to say these revenues and the spin off from them will not benefit the ordinary citizens of London.

Re: That unmentionable sporting event - the madness continue : Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:44 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I think I posted something about the general impact on the centre of town last week. But a downfall in trade at, say, John Lewis, will not have the same impact as the downfall in trade on a small business.

Why, over the last couple of months, have you metamorphosed into a champion of "small businesses." Can we expect the next phase of your slow transition into adulthood to be to pupate as a champion of multi-national business' unifying influence in an otherwise disharmonious world; before finally blooming into a wonderous champion of investment banking?

Re: That unmentionable sporting event - the madness continue : Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:51 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Wow you really need to think before you post...

Irony alert!

Sal Paradise wrote:

The OG was funded in the main out of lottery and taxes - lottery funding could be spent in our area instead of more superb facilities and regeneration for the wealthiest city in the country.

The decision to apply and fund the games was taken by democratically elected bodies, the fact you disagree doesn't mean you weren't consulted...

The decision to bid for the Games was never put to the electorate.

Sal Paradise wrote:

... If we run a good games it must have a positive impact on the outside view of the country - it can only show the UK in a good light which will have positive commercial benefits later down the line. An example - Dave Brailsford the UK cycling bossman - he skills are already in big demand as the elite performance director in UK sport. Given what has happened in the OG do you think his reputation and demand for his services will have diminished? The benefit to the community - for one they don't have to look at the eyesore that was the olympic pary before its regeneration...

Hang on – you're having a guess about a beneficial impact on one individual?

And as for the "eyesore" – I do hope they got rid of all the radioactive material they rather casually started uncovering.

It is hootingly funny to see some on the right suddenly coming out in favour of state spending on things.

Sal Paradise wrote:

For every small business that is suffering - I think they will be few and far between - there will be many more small businesses who are benefitting from the increased footfall at the olympic venues. It isn't a massive leap of faith to suggest that many of the independant retailers arounf Eton have seen a boost to their turnover?

In Greenwich, on the first weekend, stewards shepherded arriving fans away from the local market; at one point, actually putting barriers up, blocking off the road to the market. One stallholder, for instance, having paid his regular £50 for his space, actually only made £25.

I've mentioned before the case of the husband and wife catering team at the Excel – they have two vans and have been there since it opened. They have had to remove the vans and put them somewhere else, at their own cost, for the duration.

I have also mentioned the local furniture maker who was told that he could only open his workshops after 11pm each night – in an area where there are no buses etc running at those times, so most of his workforce wouldn't be able to get there. Locog didn't want "unnecessary traffic".

Then, as I think I've also mentioned, there's the cafe just off Euston Road where trade has plummeted to levels that, apparently, the owner says he has not seen since the week or so after they first opened.

These are examples I know about specifically. I suspect that I don't somehow know the only examples.

Sal Paradise wrote:

The fact you may not want to use any of the facilities doesn't mean you will not get any benefit - these facilities enhance the city and as such will be a revenue stream for many years to come. It is unrealistic to say these revenues and the spin off from them will not benefit the ordinary citizens of London.

One wonders if they'll be affordable to many of the public in the area. And as I touched on (which you have chosen to ignore), it's fine to be opening swanky sports stadia when you're closing libraries at the same time – and, indeed, after successive governments have ordered and presided over, the sale of sports fields and grounds (especially those connected to schools), and the closure of sports facilities that already existed, and which local people used.

Re: That unmentionable sporting event - the madness continue : Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:51 pm  

Dally wrote:

Why, over the last couple of months, have you metamorphosed into a champion of "small businesses."...

I haven't.

Next!

Re: That unmentionable sporting event - the madness continue : Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:37 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I haven't.

Next!

Good. I thought the world had gone mad.

PS Did you ever read the Paul Kingsnorth book I recommeded and you were going to purchase?

Re: That unmentionable sporting event - the madness continue : Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:56 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Glad to see that you're paying attention.

Yeah, it's funny.

I have never suggested that the sport would not be good.

Nope, you said you're getting no benefit. Enjoyment of the games is a benefit. Even if most of your enjoyment seems to involve complaining about them.

This does not change the assaults on civil liberties, the negative impact on small businesses in particular and the obscenity of the whole corporatist shebang. And because politicians have been promising that it will provide a big economic boost. Just because most of us suspect that politicians will say anything does not somehow change the fact that this was either spouted from ignorance/hope or simply a downright lie, because the Games are having a negative impact economically.

We went through this last time. You think a few weeks of disruption in a relatively small area of the country is the end of the world, devastating swathes of small businesses and leaving the downtrodden in its path. Alternatively, I think a few weeks of disruption is well worth it and the feel-good factor sweeping the nation (apart from a certain few of course!) is almost worth the cost alone - never mind the new and upgraded facilities, the boost to interest in sports, the hundreds of thousands who enjoyed the torch relay, the hundreds of thousands currently enjoying some astounding sporting events, the regenerated area of London, 5,000 new homes, transport improvements, etc. That amazing Saturday night was almost worth it - and if you don't appreciate that, you're missing the point.

I also think anyone who didn't expect a degree of disruption, or for the IOC and LOCOG to jealously protect their intellectual property and their much-needed sponsors, is naive or stupid, or both.

And I assume you have proof the games are having a negative impact economically nationwide? Not just a local market stall, a burger van and a cafe? Yes, traditional tourism is down in London, but anyone with an ounce of knowledge of UK tourism knew that was going to happen. Hotels didn't help by whacking their prices to obscene levels. But again, it's only a short-term effect.

Anyway, don't worry, it'll all be over in a few days.

Re: That unmentionable sporting event - the madness continue : Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:54 pm  

Cronus is right. I'm sitting less than 5 miles from the Olympic Park at the gateway to that part of East London and you wouldn't know there was an event in. Zero disruption.

Re: That unmentionable sporting event - the madness continue : Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:19 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I've mentioned before the case of the husband and wife catering team at the Excel – they have two vans and have been there since it opened. They have had to remove the vans and put them somewhere else, at their own cost, for the duration.

I doubt it will have come as a shock to them, this will have been written in their lease agreement as Excel has been a known venue for at least 5 years, were they given a chance to bid for a catering franchise there during the games? It may have been the cost of the lease during the games was too high, that is the problems a small operator faces. I know someone who runs a similar operation at Wembley, they were all given the chance to have their existing pitch before the rest went out to tender.

Why should anyone else pay to move and store their equipment?

Mintball wrote:

I have also mentioned the local furniture maker who was told that he could only open his workshops after 11pm each night – in an area where there are no buses etc running at those times, so most of his workforce wouldn't be able to get there. Locog didn't want "unnecessary traffic".

Yet you fail to answer the question of who told them they can't open. LOCOG don't have the authority and neither do the local council. It maybe the case that they want deliveries late but that has affected a number of businesses and they have adjusted to cope.

Re: That unmentionable sporting event - the madness continue : Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:19 pm  

Smirk Morrissey revels in Olympic fever

Smirk Morrissey revels in Olympic fever

Re: That unmentionable sporting event - the madness continue : Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:26 pm  

littlerich wrote: Smirk Morrissey revels in Olympic fever I used to think he was a prick, now I know he is...

littlerich wrote: Smirk Morrissey revels in Olympic fever I used to think he was a prick, now I know he is...