Should UK taxpayers pay towards the Olympics?
Posted by Ellee on Dec 1, 2006 in Uncategorized | 18 comments
Is it fair that London taxpayers should bear the full brunt of the astonomical costs for the 2012 Olympics, a national event that will benefit other parts of the country too?
This was one of the questions posed to a panel at yesterday’s inspirational Conservative Women’s Organisation’s conference. Their feeling was that the whole country should pay towards it.
Dame Pauline Neville-Jones said: “I see no reason for London’s taxpayers to bear the burden. It is a national burden and should be borne as a national charge.”
Shadow Women’s Minister for Women Eleanor Laing said: “I think the British taxpayer as a whole will end up paying very large amounts for the Olympics, but, of course, we will have a Conservative Government before then so all is not lost. Hopefully the Conservative Government will find entrepreneurial enterprising ways of making money out of thousands of people who will come here for the Olympics.”
She recalled how Australia had had a Minister for the Olympics to spearhead the project, but accused our Government of being clueless.
Greece suffered huge debts after hosting the games in 2004, there are many lessons to be learned from their experience.
I remember Croydonian expressing grave doubts on 18 Doughty Street about the benefits of the 2012 Olympics being hosted in London, the fact it would hit them hard financially for many years to come. Has anyone calculated what this extra cost will be on the London ratepayer? If not, I hope someone comes up with those figures, equates it to the individual taxpayer already struggling to make ends meet. Taxpayers should be made fully aware of exactly what the full burden is likely to be.
This is a special moment of national pride that the whole country will join in on, and as a country, it is only fair that we share the costs, hard up as we may be. Hopefully, the costs will be minimised with the right business backing so we do not end up suffering huge debts like Greece. The expected cost of the 2012 London Olympic park has risen 40% since the games were won in July 2005, the chances are that this will not be the final figure, it will continue to rise – a terrifying thought for London taxpayers. The Olympics needs to have full public confidence and support in order to succeed.
Do you feel only Londoners should be paying, or is it fairer to share the cost across the country?
While on the subject of the Olympics, please give a thought to the Iraqi sports people who have no training grounds, the fact that some have been kidnapped, and how even wearing a pair of shorts can be reason enough to be murdered.
Update: 13.30, How about this for timing, I’ve just had an email announcing the launch of the London 2012 blog: Work in Progress.
Welshcakes is not a grump. S/He is, in this, a realist. The whole thing is overpriced by being moved around in order to let the parasites of the gasbag classes eat to the full off the rest of us. I pay for my own pleasures; let sportifs pay for theirs, espepcially those who cream off, organising it. I also dislike the selfish pretence that we all want it. We don’t all want it, by a long chalk, nor the gormless, over-excited presentation. Same with the World Cup. (I have gone to a lot of trouble deleting my expletives here). There is a useful place for sport in the world but it is not lining pockets while boring quite a lot of us senseless.
We will end up paying for it. When the bill hits £15 billion, there’s no way that Londoners and the Lottery will be shouldered with that.
Should we? No. Certainly not. How does someone in Penzance or Swansea gain from the Olympics coming?
I’d personally rather give the money back to people, and they can entertain themselves how they like. I’d rather spend it on a plasma TV and a Dolby 5.1 system, and be watching the coverage from Paris.
It is clear that London as a whole will gain significantly from the Olympic Games (e.g. improved transport and electronic communications infrastructure, local redevelopment triggering significant economic growth, local jobs and visitor numbers during the event).
Whilst I am willing to make a notional contribution, until such time as someone can point to similar advantages to be enjoyed by my constituents as a result of London hosting the Olympic Games in 2012, then I remain unconvinced of the argument that calls for those of us living in Lincolnshire to invest significant sums of money in the event.
Dame Neville-Jones is right in the London Olympics being a national burden. Up here in the East Midlands, funding is already being cut for the National Watersports Centre at Holme Pierrepoint because it needs to be diverted to the 2012 project. Apparently that’s fine, because the centre and its users can bask in “reflected glory” whilst watching the algae consume it.
It’s absurd that the entire country should be expected to bankroll a vanity project that will only benefit one city. The city of Manchester didn’t go cap-in-hand to the rest of the country when it won the Commonwealth Games – the people and businesses of Manchester dug deep into their own pockets and made it a success. London should do the same.
Croydonian, I share your cynicism. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, this country doesn’t deserve to hold the Olympics. Our sports facilities are poor compared to other countries. This is all about political grandstanding. The “Games” should have been held in conjunction with the French.
I am yet to meet *anyone* who pays council tax in London who wants the bally thing. The whole wretched business is about as relevant (and as interesting) to me as the rugby league cup final.
I can think of many, many things I would rather do with £240 rather than subsidise the world’s largest open air steroid fest, not that I have been given any choice – beyond leaving the jurisdiction – in the matter.
James – sorry I dont want to pay extra taxes for “National Glory”. Now having moved into Notts – if say the Archery was held up here and facilities were built up here then people may be prepared to pay for towards it.
The infrastructure benefits Londoners, so Im afraid it is they who have to pay.
Just like the citizens of Montreal in 1976, they are going to face ever-raising costs.
It’s a good point about the dweller in the north. He’s hardly likely to get down and see them but on the other hand, he’ll bask in the national glory. I don’t know if it should be national or city. What about the expats too? Don’t they reap some of the radiated glory?
Icedink, I am confident that your source of info is accurate, that £12 billion figure is truly staggering. These exhorbitant costs have taken away the excitement of looking forward to something very special.
I suspect the cost will spiral beyond most people’s wildest imaginings – the latest estimate from an “insider” I’ve heard this afternoon is £12bn – four times the first figure given on the euphoria of last July. Council tax payers in London should certainly make a hefty contribution in exchange for a steeper rise in home prices and for new infrastructure, but the reality is that the nation will pick up the bill too – if it all gets built on time, that is.
Well there you go Croydonian if London gets it all, then London pays it all. Not a penny piece should come from national coffers. The benefit for people in the north will be minimal, and certainly won’t match up to what we will inevitably lose in terms of investment going into London and the south east.
I am a real grump re this one, Ellee, as I hate sport. If I were in the UK, I would really object to any of my taxes going towards this, just as I used to object to having to pay towards the upkeep of the Royal Family. But how many people really have time to worry about where their taxes go? All I know is, you earn money and whoever is in government wants to take it away from you!
Here’s the sticking point Elle: It’s in London.
If it had been somewhere like the Midlands or in the North then maybe a large number of people would agree that it’s fair to distribute the cost.
As it stands, I doubt the idea would get much support. Look at this way. I’m based in the Northwest, it would cost a fair bit to get down to London by train (not much hope) or by car. I then have the additional expense of an overnight stay. Which compared to costs up here, would be ridiclously high. Maybe if the the Olympics had been spread across the UK at more central points, then I think the cost distribution would be a fair one. It’s just a shame that Tezza Jowel is costing the project so much money.
Stuart – the IOC has come down hard on having events hosted away from the host city, so that was not an option.
It seems appropriate that Gordon Brown should tax the windfall increases in property values in South East London since the 2012 Olympic Games were awarded to London.
Both. Yes, the Olympics should benefit the whole country and therefore the cost should be shared. However, the greatest benefit will be to London therefore the greatest share should fall on London and not the rest of the country.
When LA held the Olympics some events were up to 400 miles away. If London does the same then it would be an argument for sharing the cost more equally. But, I don’t see that happening.
Even before the figures start soaring, £20 per council tax payer for 12 years is the baseline…
Thanks for the mention, by the way.