UKIP support Paris 2012 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Greyhound01
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#1
Today the United Kingdom Independence Party announced they support the Paris 2012 Olympic bid, because the London bid will bankrupt the capital and cost taxpayers (exclusively in London due to red Ken's lack of guts) huge sums of money.

I totally support this stance. Londoners tax bill is obscene enough, the olympics has proved to be all pain, little gain for most previous host cities. Montreal is still paying off its debt over 20 years later! Moreover, Ken in his infinite wisdom (ha ha) has pledged to spend whatever money necessary to keep the facilities running once built. The land designated for the facilities is on very low land which will undoubtedly be flooded in every few years in the future, costing us more and more money. Also this puts the final nail in the coffin of the crazy and unfounded suggestion put forward by a few nutters that UKIP is xenophobic, because they have carefully considered the evidence and chosen to support Paris over London based on whats actually best for London.
1
mobbdeeprob
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 14 years ago
#2
Paris is a much nicer city too.
1
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 14 years ago
#3
"exclusively in London due to red Ken's lack of guts" lol are you suggesting any other city should have to pay for that, should it go ahead?
1
Greyhound01
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#4
(Original post by fishpaste)
"exclusively in London due to red Ken's lack of guts" lol are you suggesting any other city should have to pay for that, should it go ahead?
I'm saying that as London's elected Mayor, it's Kens job to fight for Londons interests. By going out of his way to insist London pays for it all he has failed miserably, just like his whole career.
0
Minor_Deity
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 14 years ago
#5
I don't actrually live in London, but feel I should stick up for good old Ken anyway (go you labour rebel) (and yes, I know he's back in the party now).

Why do you reckon he's failed? I can't really argue with you 'cause I have no knowledge of London, but I'd be interested to know why. He seems to have had quite a good press really.
1
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 14 years ago
#6
(Original post by Greyhound01)
Today the United Kingdom Independence Party announced they support the Paris 2012 Olympic bid, because the London bid will bankrupt the capital and cost taxpayers (exclusively in London due to red Ken's lack of guts) huge sums of money.

I totally support this stance. Londoners tax bill is obscene enough, the olympics has proved to be all pain, little gain for most previous host cities. Montreal is still paying off its debt over 20 years later! Moreover, Ken in his infinite wisdom (ha ha) has pledged to spend whatever money necessary to keep the facilities running once built. The land designated for the facilities is on very low land which will undoubtedly be flooded in every few years in the future, costing us more and more money. Also this puts the final nail in the coffin of the crazy and unfounded suggestion put forward by a few nutters that UKIP is xenophobic, because they have carefully considered the evidence and chosen to support Paris over London based on whats actually best for London.
I don't know much about the London perspective. What I do know is that Sydney lost millions and so will Athens.

Hosting the Olympics really does more for pandering to the egos of politicians and giving Architects the opportunity to do what they do best (using other people's money to build monuments to their own vanity) rather than generate revenue.

The bottom line is always RED!
1
Greyhound01
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#7
(Original post by Minor_Deity)
I don't actrually live in London, but feel I should stick up for good old Ken anyway (go you labour rebel) (and yes, I know he's back in the party now).

Why do you reckon he's failed? I can't really argue with you 'cause I have no knowledge of London, but I'd be interested to know why. He seems to have had quite a good press really.
He relies on good press relations because his policies are ridiculous, the congestion charge is a hated failure. He has raised tax in London by obscene amounts to pay for ridiculous festivals exclusively for ethnic minorities (who he relies upon to get elected) and the honest hard working family is struggling, which explains why families are fleeing London in droves
0
Dajo123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 14 years ago
#8
UKIPs actions are nothing more than a cheap attempt to gain publicity.

I think the Olympics will be greatly beneficial to London by regenerating alot of run down areas whilst creating many jobs.
1
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 14 years ago
#9
(Original post by Greyhound01)
He relies on good press relations because his policies are ridiculous, the congestion charge is a hated failure. He has raised tax in London by obscene amounts to pay for ridiculous festivals exclusively for ethnic minorities (who he relies upon to get elected) and the honest hard working family is struggling, which explains why families are fleeing London in droves
I'd agree. He is something of a ****. He was a pillock when he chaired the GLC and he's just as daft now really.

It must say something about a city of 8 or so million when it can't produce a mayor of higher calibre than Ken Livingstone.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report 14 years ago
#10
(Original post by Dajo123)
UKIPs actions are nothing more than a cheap attempt to gain publicity.

I think the Olympics will be greatly beneficial to London by regenerating alot of run down areas whilst creating many jobs.
It could be almost as good as the Dome :rolleyes:
0
kingslaw
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report 14 years ago
#11
(Original post by Dajo123)
UKIPs actions are nothing more than a cheap attempt to gain publicity.

I think the Olympics will be greatly beneficial to London by regenerating alot of run down areas whilst creating many jobs.
Here, here.

Although I have a lot of qualms with the way the Olympics is run, I do believe that in the long-run, an Olympic games in London will benefit the most deprived in the capital. Living near Manchester, I saw what a fantastic effect the Commonwealth Games had on East Manchester - sparking some much needed regeneration of the whole of that area, which include some of the most deprived areas in the country (such as Ancoats, where my grandparents live). I am quite sure the Olympics could only have a similar effect in Londons poorest boroughs.
1
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 14 years ago
#12
(Original post by kingslaw)
Here, here.

Although I have a lot of qualms with the way the Olympics is run, I do believe that in the long-run, an Olympic games in London will benefit the most deprived in the capital. Living near Manchester, I saw what a fantastic effect the Commonwealth Games had on East Manchester - sparking some much needed regeneration of the whole of that area, which include some of the most deprived areas in the country (such as Ancoats, where my grandparents live). I am quite sure the Olympics could only have a similar effect in Londons poorest boroughs.
But why would you want to stage the Olympics in the *****iest part of London? Think of how this reflects on the city.....sportsmen and tourists from around the world in a vast complex of super dooper state of the art buildings surrounded by grotty tenement buildings. Hardly the image we want to project is it?
0
Dajo123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 14 years ago
#13
(Original post by Howard)
It could be almost as good as the Dome :rolleyes:
The Dome was obviously a white elephant from the start, whilst the Olympics will make a huge social and economic impact (for the better) to London’s landscape.
0
kingslaw
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#14
Report 14 years ago
#14
(Original post by Howard)
But why would you want to stage the Olympics in the *****iest part of London? Think of how this reflects on the city.....sportsmen and tourists from around the world in a vast complex of super dooper state of the art buildings surrounded by grotty tenement buildings. Hardly the image we want to project is it?
Thats why such areas would be regenerated. Thats exactly what happened in Manchester. Lots of money was plouged into regenerating such areas because the Government didnt want the world to see Manchester as some town of paupers.

Its the only way British governments ever seem to be encouraged to spend significant amounts on improving the living environment of the poorer parts of the UK.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 14 years ago
#15
(Original post by Greyhound01)
I'm saying that as London's elected Mayor, it's Kens job to fight for Londons interests. By going out of his way to insist London pays for it all he has failed miserably, just like his whole career.
Ah I see. Guess he thought that pushing his luck would be to the detriment of the campaign. I can't sit here in Manchester and say "the olympics are a waste of my money!" now.
0
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 14 years ago
#16
(Original post by Howard)
But why would you want to stage the Olympics in the *****iest part of London? Think of how this reflects on the city.....sportsmen and tourists from around the world in a vast complex of super dooper state of the art buildings surrounded by grotty tenement buildings. Hardly the image we want to project is it?
Because if you put the games in the less prosperous areas of London then they are more likely to spark a multiplyer effect which will create jobs and brings money to the area. I voted for Ken livingston and I will do so again I think that he is the best man for the job and is doing what is best for our capital. The congestion charge for example has drasticall reduced traffic and pollution in central London which is only a good thing
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#17
Report 14 years ago
#17
(Original post by randdom)
Because if you put the games in the less prosperous areas of London then they are more likely to spark a multiplyer effect which will create jobs and brings money to the area. I voted for Ken livingston and I will do so again I think that he is the best man for the job and is doing what is best for our capital. The congestion charge for example has drasticall reduced traffic and pollution in central London which is only a good thing
"spark a multiplyer effect" Very nice theory (whatever that means). Seriously, if the Olympics was a permanent fixture (like say Disney in Paris) I'd agree with you. But building a bunch of expensive stadiums for a 6 week drug enhanced test of sports endurance really isn't going to have much of a long term effect on anything.


As for Ken Livingstone..........well, we're all entitled to our own opinion.
0
Dajo123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 14 years ago
#18
(Original post by randdom)
Because if you put the games in the less prosperous areas of London then they are more likely to spark a multiplyer effect which will create jobs and brings money to the area. I voted for Ken livingston and I will do so again I think that he is the best man for the job and is doing what is best for our capital. The congestion charge for example has drasticall reduced traffic and pollution in central London which is only a good thing
I agree. I too voted for Ken and the congestion charge has been brilliant, i live near the border and peak time traffic dropped dramatically.
0
Minor_Deity
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#19
Report 14 years ago
#19
I've always liked to take issue with people who claim that something will cost too much (or, if we're being really posh, that the cost:benefit ratio will be imbalanced). Could someone please tell me what money is for if not spending? The stange thing about dosh is that, unless you use it, it's not actrually worth anything.

Also why does everything have to be about monetary profit when the joyess atmosphere and huge morale boost in the general public is obviously such an asset to society that the Olympics could bring. Afterall, it's not exactly as if they would destroy the British economy is it?

(NB I'm the kind of person who enjoyed the dome (I went twice, once with my theatre group to the McDonalds' Our Town Theatre) and thought that actruly, it was quite a good idea).

(Final bit: Having just attempted to post this message three times I suddenly feel that actruly, the money might be better spent on buying uk learning a bigger server )
0
Dajo123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 14 years ago
#20
(Original post by Howard)
"spark a multiplyer effect" Very nice theory (whatever that means). Seriously, if the Olympics was a permanent fixture (like say Disney in Paris) I'd agree with you. But building a bunch of expensive stadiums for a 6 week drug enhanced test of sports endurance really isn't going to have much of a long term effect on anything.
You are wrong. The transport infrastructure will be greatly improved, new homes will be built, the facilities can be used long after the Olympics have finished and thousands of jobs will be created. I think this can be called improvement.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (17)
30.36%
No (39)
69.64%

Watched Threads

View All