egafd.com

Boris Johnson, the sportsman:

Wiggins, or Wiggo as the tabloids call him, has gone from zero to hero very quickly. His jovial personality seems to be appealing to the media aswell. I can certainly see him being a star for ever more after his recent performances.

Left over cash, if there is any, will probably go towards those 'sport for all' type programmes to help people in inner city areas get into sport. Those programmes can be good things to help people find some focus in their lives.

spider wrote:

> Oh my mistake.
>
> Good old Boris, I believe everything he says.
>
> I must have misunderstood completely the process for funding
> the Olympics.


Well spider I have looked into this matter further and it appears that Boris was not entirely straightforward in his manifesto statement about the Olympic costs. I found the following exchange from the London Assembly meeting on 13 June this year:

John Biggs (Labour, City & East): Why during the election did you promise not to raise council tax to pay for the Olympic legacy, when you had already committed to the Olympic precept ending in 2016/17?

Boris Johnson (Mayor): As MQ 2224/2011 states, the Olympic precept does continue until 2016/17. My promise is clear: not to increase the Olympic precept.

So it appears that Londoners won't have to pay another penny for the Olympics, except for all the pennies they are already comitted to paying. If you see what Boris means.

Just for the record, if you are a London council taxpayer this is the amount that you are required to pay until the given date, i.e. 2016/17:

If you property is in band A: ?13.33 a year
Band B: ?15.56 a year
Band C: ?17.78 a year
Band D: ?20 a year
Band E: ?24.44 a year
Band F: ?28.89 a year
Band G: ?33.33 a year
Band H: ?40 a year

Don't forget that 25% discount applies to the above if you enjoy sole occupancy of your property.

That's a little like this proposition that the Olympics are coming in under budget.

It's easy to bring something in under budget - if of course you keep increasing the budget to a figure that's above the actual cost.

Which is what they have done with the Olympic budget.

spider wrote:

> It's easy to bring something in under budget - if of course you
> keep increasing the budget to a figure that's above the actual
> cost.
>
> Which is what they have done with the Olympic budget.


I believe your statement is incorrect. The Olympic budget was announced in March 2007 and published in full a year later in March 2008. It has never been increased or changed in any way since that time. The recently published figures showing that the Olympics came in under budget refer directly back to the originally announced figure in 2007, i.e. the Olympics are under budget compared to what was originally announced as the budget in 2007. There have been scare stories in the media from time to time claiming that the Olympics would overrun its budget, but these stories have proven to be unfounded. Again, to be clear, the Olympics did not overun it's budget, nor was the originally announced and published budget ever increased.

London won the bid to hold the 2012 Olympics on 6th July 2005 (the day before the bombings).

When the bid was made claim was that the total cost would be something like ?5 billion.

The budget announced in March 2007 and published in 2008 was something like ?9 billion.

Has the cost of providing soldiers to cover for the guards G4S failed to deliver been included in the current budget I wonder?

I of course believe every word politicians tell me when they say that there's no creative accounting at all involved when totting up the cost of any of their vanity projects.

The original bid estimated the cost of the Games at ?2.4bn but didn't include VAT or security costs.

The Labour government, chastened by the experience of the Millennium Dome and Wembley, built in a huge contingency fund of ?2.7bn when the current funding package of ?9.3bn was set in March 2007.



Build in a contingency fund of nearly 30% and I'm sure you can bring it in under budget.

spider wrote:

> Has the cost of providing soldiers to cover for the guards G4S
> failed to deliver been included in the current budget I wonder?


No. The cost is being charged to G4S.

spider wrote:

> The original bid estimated the cost of the Games at ?2.4bn but
> didn't include VAT or security costs.
>
> The Labour government, chastened by the experience of the
> Millennium Dome and Wembley, built in a huge contingency fund
> of ?2.7bn when the current funding package of ?9.3bn was set in
> March 2007.
>
>
>
> Build in a contingency fund of nearly 30% and I'm sure you can
> bring it in under budget.

Didn't New labour do this for absolutely everything?? lol