Vote!
Will the London Olympics be worth the money?
- 22% are saying yes
- 78% are saying no
comments from readers
- Carl Jones
23 April 2008 - no
It was such a shame that a voting error gave London the 2012 Olympics. I live in London and I can`t believe we`ll be paying and paying for a buch of drug taking cheats and that expensive 2012 logo which reads "ZION" when its rotated clockwise by 45 degrees. Its all a very poor joke on Londoners.
- swatantra nandanwar
23 April 2008 - yes
In the long term yes, we'll all benefit. But the burden should fall not just on Londoners but be spread to everyone. Its a chance of a lifetime to host the Olympics; I wasn't around when they were last held in London.
- Francis P. Lavelle
23 April 2008 - yes
Remember Prince Albert's Crystal Palace Industrial Exibit? It cost a fortune for it's day and landed up making a small profit. Ordinary people came by train from all over the UK. Some in the aristocracy warned of social unrest in London because of it. Phooey!
- emmagold
24 April 2008 - no
How can it be worth the money? BILLIONS for a sports extravaganza that will last only a few weeks when we can't - apparently! - afford life-saving drugs! Not everyone loves sport or was thrilled when London won the Games; as a Londoner I certainly wasn't! Even apart from other considerations it will violate my freedom of movement around London while it's on; I also read that many peope felt they had to leave Athens (the last venue for the Games) while they were on due to the anticipated (and probably actual) disruption they would cause. Why should we have to put up with this when our consent hasn't even been asked let alone obtained?
- giles
24 April 2008 - no
It surprised me how happy everybody seemed when London 'won' the games. London is the last part of the UK in need of more investment, and the Olympics will drain funds from places that need them more.
- William
24 April 2008 - yes
The money will be found anyway, so may as well use it in a media frenzy.
- nawawimohamad
24 April 2008 - no
Whatever other countries are trying to achieve by hosting the olympics have been achieved by Britain, without even having to host the ridiculous and exorbitantly expensive olympics. The money should be invested wisely elsewhere.
- VirjCherry
24 April 2008 - no
As much as i will enjoy the spectacular architecture that has been proposed for the London Olympics, I fear that it will not be complete on time cost nearly 10 times more and then after all that left to the elements as all the buildings cost to much to maintain. Why not invest in social housing and improve the quality of the lives of the homeless in london
- insomnia320
25 April 2008 - no
It is utterly meaningless for most Londoners whose lives will be affected throughout and whose taxes should not be paying for this white elephant of a games.
- rob
25 April 2008 - no
it simply enables the divisive spread of non-socially motivated investment
- Tracey BFCC
25 April 2008 - yes
Totally, this is something the whole country should be behind. The Olympics brings hope & dreams to our young people, encouraging them to try out sports to see if they could be the next Tanni Grey-Thompson, Kelly Holmes, Daley Thompson or Gareth Duke. I am totally looking forward to it even though I myself no longer take part in any sporting events I really cannot understand why so many are against it, I think it will be the breath of fresh air that the UK needs to revive it.
- Helen Heenan
25 April 2008 - no
We should instead spend the money on sports for young people, and build permanent Olympic venues on each continent.
26 April 2008- no
It will be a gravy train for the few British competitors who get a gold - the rest of us will have to pay for the rediculously expensive Olympics,as well as keeping them for life. What a total waste of money to waste on such people!
- Tirmizi
26 April 2008 - yes
it has refurbished EAST LONDON'S SLUMS
- Miriam, Salford
27 April 2008 - no
If it could have been done with the originally quoted 3 or 4 billion then maybe there was a case, but it's clear that that figure was purely arbitrary and not rigorously calculated - the parliamentary committee has recently said the same. The cost has escalated spectacularly since then to over 12 billion (I think) already, and who would bet against it rising again. It seems to be beyond the control of the organisers, and how many people give a monkeys about the Olympic Games anyway they are as boring as s**t.
- Cucumber Jones
27 April 2008 - no
No. Today on the radio I heard that the organisors will be spending a whoppping £10,000 on staying at posh hotels in London's Mayfair - so their bored wives can go shopping in the West End. The hotel accomodation has already been booked. They are even getting an Olympic lane on the motorway so they can get to the site faster. This is INSANE and we're paying for every penny!
- Laurence Wilson
27 April 2008 - no
We should have let the French have it, then we could have chosen to enjoy it for the price of a Eurostar ticket each. (If that is one had any desire to go; a desire which I must say is beyond me.)
- suell
27 April 2008 - no
No - I suspect we don';t yet even know the true cost, and it will make life hellish living in London during the event. London is unlikely to recoup the investment through any real permanent regeneration, and the rest of us won't particularly feel that we are a part of it.
Sue Lloyd
- birdman
30 April 2008 - no
I am a believer in Olympic World, a kind of athletic theme park in a fixed geographical location. Olympic World has all the facilities necessary to make organisers, sponsors and participants happy. In the years between Olympics it can be used for training. The effect will be to eliminate what resident’s of each host-city see as a terrible waste of money, with a seemingly ever-increasing budget given to venues and stadia which will have little use after the Olympic charabanc has left town.
