London Olympics exceed initial budget by £6.52bn

When is "under budget" not "under budget"?

BBC News, 1 February 2007:

How much will the Olympics really cost?

The overall budget for the London Olympics submitted in the bid to the International Olympic Committee was £2.4bn.

The figure came from a study carried out by construction company Arup in May 2002. It predicted the cost of the Games to be £1.8 billion.

The government then commissioned another report in 2004 carried out by accountants PriceWaterhouseCooper, who put the figure closer to £3.2bn. The government settled for a compromise figure of £2.4bn.

BBC News, 23 October 2012:

London 2012: Olympics and Paralympics £377m under budget

The cost of the London Olympics and Paralympics will be £377m less than expected, according to the Government.

The combined budget for the two events was £9.29bn, but the projected cost is £8.92bn.

Savings came from a drop in security, transport and construction expenses.

In other words, "Our £6.89bn overspend was actually just a £6.52bn overspend when all things are taken into account! Huzzah!"

The latest BBC News story doesn't even mention the original estimates at all, although an earlier news story - from July - at least featured Hugh Robinson evading the question: 

Addressing the original bid budget of £2.4bn, Sports Minister Hugh Robertson said there was a "recognition right from the word go that figure would have to change dramatically on the basis of delivering the Games".

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Show Hide image

Why a group of Brunel students walked out on Katie Hopkins instead of no-platforming her

"We silently walked out because Ms Hopkins has the right to speak, but we also have the right to express our discontent."

Earlier this week, columnist and all-round provocateur Katie Hopkins turned up to Brunel University to join a panel in debating whether the welfare state has a place in 2015. No prizes for guessing her stance on this particular issue

But as Hopkins began her speech, something odd happened. Around 50 students stood up and left, leaving the hall half-empty.

Here's the video:

As soon as Hopkins begins speaking, some students stand up with their backs to the panelists. Then, they all leave - as the nonplussed chair asks them to "please return to their seats". 

The walk-out was, in fact, pre-planned by the student union as an act of protest against Hopkins' appearance at an event held as part of the University's 50th anniversary celebrations. 

Ali Milani, the Brunel Student Union president, says he and other students knew the walk-out would "start a conversation" around no-platforming on campuses, but as he points out, "What is often overlooked (either purposely or as a result of the fanfare) is that the conversation at no point has been about banning Ms Hopkins from speaking on campus, or denying her right to speak."

Instead, students who found her appearance at the welfare debate "incongruous" and "distasteful" simply left the room: "We silently walked out because Ms Hopkins has the right to speak, but we also have the right to express our discontent."

Milani praised the student body for treading the line between freedom of speech and expressing their distaste at Brunel's decision: 

"They have respectfully voiced their antagonism at the decision of their institution, but also . . . proven their commitment to free of speech and freedom of expression."

The protest was an apt way to dodge the issues of free speech surrounding no-platforming, while rejecting Hopkins' views. A walk-out symbolises the fact that we aren't obliged to listen to people like Hopkins. She is free to speak, of course, albeit to empty chairs. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.