London Olympics... who's paying???

[peter macdonald]

Gibson Warns Of Olympics Raid
Highlands and Islands SNP MSP Rob Gibson says the Big Lottery Fund in Scotland should not have to gamble on its funds being raided to pay for the London Olympics. Mr Gibson words come as news emerges that Sir Clive Booth the director of the Big Lottery Fund in England claimed that “dark forces in Whitehall” are going to use lottery monies to plug the Olympics black hole. Mr Gibson said that the money people seek to spend all over Scotland was put to better use than a one off show piece event, "This money directly changes people's lives. Major land buyouts throughout the Highlands and Islands have been financed by the lottery. While numerous urban and rural projects have benefited.

yes and the cost has gone up 40% in the 18 months since London "won" the race to host the event

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/othe...12/6289045.stm
and that was before this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/..._feature.shtml

i just hope anyone looking for lottery funding applies quickly as they are not going to see much in the next few years

[scotsboy]

Enjoy the Olympics - it will be great.

[peter macdonald]

"At the moment it is mainly the Lottery and the London council tax payer.
The lottery will pay £1.5bn and London tax payers £625m. The only government money is coming via the London Development Authority and this amounts to £250m."

Thats a lot of good causes losing out grass roots sport included

"But some believe the Treasury should stump up the money if costs overrun."

No surprise here we will get the usual spin about the benefits to the "nation" See Millenium Dome 2000 for example

"There is a memorandum of understanding between the Treasury and the London Mayor that if they do, the Chancellor and Mayor will discuss how to meet the shortfall.
But MPs find this memo vague and feel it is not fair for London council tax payers who are already due to pay an extra £20 a year for the Games.
One source told me: "Is it fair if you live in Richmond and have to pay more for the Games when a few miles down the road in Surrey or Middlesex you do not?"

Well when your at the other end of the island (a lot of miles!) Why should we pay anything

"One suggestion is that extra funding should be provided by the London Development Agency, which will inherit the facilities in East London."

Sounds good but guess where the LDAs funds come from ....the treasury or in other words the taxpayer
Funny that the economic powerhouse of London seems to choking on this one

P M




SEE ALSO
London 2012 'to be greenest ever'
23 Jan 07 | London
Work begins on 2012 Olympic Park
14 Dec 06 | Olympics 2012
Tax-payers 'fear Olympics bill'
06 Dec 06 | London
Olympic bosses reject 2012 claims
05 Dec 06 | Olympics 2012
London scales down 2012 pool plan
27 Nov 06 | Olympics 2012
Mayor denies Olympic cost 'mess'
22 Nov 06 | Politics
Cost of Olympics to rise to £5bn
15 Nov 06 | London
Brown downplays Olympic VAT bill
07 Nov 06 | Politics
Athletes launch 2012 lottery draw
05 Jul 06 | London
Olympic plan 'on target' for 2012
03 Jul 06 | London
Coe confident over Olympic costs
22 Nov 05 | Olympics 2012
London beats Paris to 2012 Games
06 Jul 05 | Sport Homepage

RELATED BBC LINKS:
BBC London coverage

RELATED INTERNET LINKS:
London 2012 website
International Olympic Committee
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

[j4bberw0ck]

Funny that the economic powerhouse of London seems to choking on this one

The problem with that argument, Peter, is that it has a corollary. London will contribute between £5.8 and £20.4 billion to the UK economy in 2006 / 2007 (source >>>here<<<) and there's a large body of opinion there that wonders why, exactly, they contribute so much more per head of population than elsewhere, and why they don't get to keep the money for London's development. After all, the argument goes, if you want to live in the back of beyond, and enjoy beautiful views, low traffic volumes, low crime, why does London have to fund it?

I'm not defending that argument, before anyone starts on me, but it's at the root of the argument for those who believe London should have its own "Parliament". However, if London contributes to the rest of the country, why shouldn't the rest of the country contribute to London this one time?

Just being Devil's advocate....

[peter macdonald]

J Wok I notice that the report by City of London Corporation. has a few variables as explained in the notes to the editor the most important being the last one regarding the commuter workforce of 500000 who will contribute to company tax re their production My annoyance of this event as it was sold as for the benifit of the "nation"
Aye right

# The figure of £13.1bn for London’s net contribution to the UK public finances in 2004-5 is the mid-point in a range from £5.8bn to £20.4bn.
# For London’s contribution to tax revenues, the estimates range between £76.4bn and £87.2bn, depending on the exact mix of resident and workplace-based figures used.
# For public spending on London, the estimates range between £66.8bn and 70.6bn.
# The key variables behind these ranges are assumptions made about London’s commuter workforce (a net number of approximately 500,000), and the allocation of that part of central government expenditure (roughly 18%) of the total not clearly identified with a particular region.

[Highland Laddie]

The problem with that argument, Peter, is that it has a corollary. London will contribute between £5.8 and £20.4 billion to the UK economy in 2006 / 2007 (source >>>here<<<) and there's a large body of opinion there that wonders why, exactly, they contribute so much more per head of population than elsewhere, and why they don't get to keep the money for London's development. After all, the argument goes, if you want to live in the back of beyond, and enjoy beautiful views, low traffic volumes, low crime, why does London have to fund it?

I'm not defending that argument, before anyone starts on me, but it's at the root of the argument for those who believe London should have its own "Parliament". However, if London contributes to the rest of the country, why shouldn't the rest of the country contribute to London this one time?

Just being Devil's advocate....

North sea oil springs to mind here.

[j4bberw0ck]

J Wok I notice that the report by City of London Corporation. has a few variables

Absolutely, and I think there's a case for taking a "they would say that, wouldn't they" view of that article, which I linked to as the source of the figure and as evidence of a sort of "look aren't we wonderful" viewpoint.

However, what isn't in doubt is the huge amount of the Government's total revenue that comes from London and that indirectly finds its way into other regions which aren't able to generate such huge economic wealth.

My personal view is they must have been barking (geddit? ) mad to want to stage the Olympics in London and whoever concocted the early budget figure of around £1.75 billion for staging it was similarly afflicted. Estimates are now at £8.5 billion and climbing - to be honest, for that money, I'd rather see a schools building program under way, or hospitals modernised and replaced, and the Army given some equipment worth having in preference to this grandiose nonsense.

Fact is, though, it's happening and has to be paid for. The Lottery is an easy target; taxes is another. You don't think any government is going to watch a British Olympics fail as a shambles while the world looks on? Taxes will rise...... as surely as Gordon Brown or his successor breathes.