Site Moved

The Olympics has moved to www.olympicsdiary.com.

Olympics Threat To The Arts

The London Olympics juggernaut has been accused of crushing funding to the arts. A grouping of the UK's senior arts and sports administrators warned that the lottery money being diverted from the arts to the Olympics would damage the arts, and reduce participation in sport.

The Voluntary Arts Network, the Central Council for Physical Recreation, Heritage Link and the National Council for Voluntary organisations have also written to MP's; warning them that lottery cuts will jeopardise the legacy of the games at community level. They have asked for an urgent meeting with Tessa Jowell (culture secretary), claiming that arts, heritage and sports charities will lose more than £100m.

Jowell intends to divert an additional £675m from the National Lottery, to fund the Olympics behemoth (the budget for which has spiralled out of control).

Nicholas Hytner, director of the National Theatre, said:

"There is a spectacular lack of logic in using money earmarked for the arts to plug the holes in the Olympics bills. The money raided from the lottery will largely affect small, innovative, experimental organisations and individuals who are the lifeblood of creativity in the UK. Pulling the carpet out from under them and nobbling their money is undermining the future of our major arts institutions."

Tim Lamb, chief executive of the Central Council for Physical Recreation, said:

"If there is to be a real legacy of increasing participation in sport, it seems ironic, if not perverse, for money to be taken away from community sport to fund the Olympics."

Jowell claims that the diversion of funds will not begin until 2009; a cynic might note that by 2009 Labour will have been kicked out of office, and can therefore wash their hands of the entire sorry affair.

Money Well Spent?

Lloyds TSB Marketing Director, Nigel Gilbert, has been defending Lloyds decision to spend an estimated £50M to £80M on sponsoring the London 2012 Olympics.

The critics note that the 2012 Olympics is a "clean" event, whereby there will be no corporate branding at any of the venues.

Gilbert is adamant:

"Make no mistake: we will make money out of this."

He also noted that Lloyds wanted others to profit as well, and then rather over exuberantly stated that Lloyds sees its sponsorship as its duty to the nation.

LOCOG (the organisers of the games) commercial director, Chris Townsend, last week had to deny suggestions that the Olympics could become a marketing disaster on the scale of the Millennium Dome.

However, the auguries do not look good.

The Pig In A Poke II

Tessa Jowell has finally announced the budget for the 2012 London Olympics, it will cost £9.3BN (before running costs of £2BN).

In other words, as has been predicted on this site for many months, the costs of the Olympics will be around £12BN.

The question therefore arises, if I could come up with the figure so quickly and so long ago, why the hell did it take Ms Jowell so long?

The Pig In A Poke

Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary entrusted with overseeing the London Olympics 2012, will announce today the budget for the games.

Cynics amongst you might ask why there is still no budget, given the fact that Britain bid for the games some years ago.

One would have thought that a bid could not have been put together, or indeed accepted by the IOC, without a budget. However, in the world of Olympic politics all things are possible.

My own personal guesstimate as to the costs, currently stands at £12BN (which includes £2BN running costs).

At a stormy session of the Commons public accounts committee last week, officials were accused of presiding over a "pig in the poke" and "Alice in Wonderland" finances.

Quite!

However, whatever the budget figure announced today turns out to be, you can be sure that by the time the Olympics are held in 2012 it will be much more than that.

Never allow politicians to become involved in large scale projects.

Where's The Budget?

The British government is still very reluctant to come clean with the budget for the 2012 Olympic Games, saying that it has yet to be finalised.

The fact that everyone knows that it will hit at least £12BN, seems to have escaped the politicians.

However, I would ask this:

1 How is it Britain put together a bid for the Olympic Games, without having a budget?

2 Why did the IOC award the Games to Britain, if there was not a reliable budget in place?

2012 Olympics To Cost £12BN

As I predicted some months ago, the costs of the 2012 London Olympics are now expected to hit £12BN (including the £2BN running costs).

The original budget was a paltry £2.4BN.

How can the planners have go this so wrong?

Simple, the budget was not properly put together; because the politicians running this farce are incompetent.

Never, ever, trust a politician to run a major project like this; you only have to look at the Dome fiasco to see how bad things can get, when the politicians are entrusted with a project.

Blair's legacy will be:

1 The Iraq war

2 The Dome

3 The Olympic budgetary fiasco

Where's The Budget

In the run up to the 2012 London Olympics, the politicians who foisted this event upon the citizens of London would have you believe that everything was going "swimmingly".

Unfortunately there is one small fly in the ointment.

There is no believable/realistic budget!

The British Olympic Association (BOA) called upon ministers to come clean with respect to the budget, as concerns grow over the out of control costs.

Chairman of the BOA, Colin Moynihan, has quite rightly identified that the continuing uncertainty over the budget was damaging.

He spoke on BBC Radio 5 Live's Sportsweek:

"It should be (announced) as soon as possible - this debate is not helping the whole Olympic project.

It should then be accountable to the public at large."

Adding:

"When they do come forward, we will see if they have included in that budget a huge regeneration project in the East End.

What I have asked for is that there should be absolute clarity about the costs that are going to be required to deliver the Games on the Olympic Park."

As speculation intensifies as to the "true" budget, the current figure being bandied about is £9BN.

The more cynical amongst us would hazard a guess at £12BN in fact.

Politicians should never be trusted with large scale projects of this nature. Those of you who are still in denial over this should look to the Dome, as a fine example as to what goes wrong when politicians become involved in long term projects.

The Olympic Fiasco

The furor surrounding the farcical preparations for the 2012 London Olympics is growing.

A report from the National Audit Office (NAO), due to be issued on Friday, will demand as "a matter of urgency" that the Treasury sets a final budget for the Games.

It seems incredible that an event of this size, and prestige, does not actually have professional budget. However, we should remember that this is a project put together by politicians. Politicians should never be entrusted with large scale projects or financial budgets.

The report notes that, without a final budget for the Olympics, it will be almost impossible for the auditors to assess whether it is likely to be managed properly and whether it is good value for money.

I would suggest that the lack of budget will give the politicians exactly what they want, a large degree of wiggle room when things go wrong.

Taxpayers Lumbered With Cost Overruns

The out of control costs of the London 2012 Olympic Games will have to be met by the long suffering British taxpayers.

That at least is the view of the Commons select committee, looking into the cost overruns.

The committee has published a report that says:

"Just 18 months after winning the bid, it is clear that many of the cost figures are seriously outdated."

It went on to warn:

"If the financial pain of paying more for the Olympics is to be widely shared, it will require a contribution from the Treasury."

A revised budget is due to be announced this February.

It can be guaranteed that this will be one of many revisions upwards!

Costs of London Olympics 2012 Soar

The Culture Select Committee will launch a scathing attack on the government's incompetent handling of the London 2012 Olympics tomorrow, when they will accuse the Treasury of adding £2BN to the costs.

Costs have already risen as a result of security, construction inflation and a Treasury ruling that the Olympics Development Authority must pay VAT.

However, the committee will tell the Treasury to be more willing to pay the extra costs and not insist that all the extra funding has to be found from the national lottery.

The committee will also note that the Treasury's 60% contingency fund is excessive.

The latest estimates are that the Olympics will cost £8BN. Realists argue that the costs will be more likely to hit £12BN.

One major problem with the Olympics is that is is viewed very much as being one of Tony Blair's pet projects, as such Gordon Brown is vehemently opposed to funding the games.

One thing that is clear from this, is that politicians should not be allowed to run major projects such as the Olympic Games.

Legal Win

The organisers of the London 2012 Olympics have won a legal battle over the land for the proposed Olympics site.

They are now allowed to buy that land, and force some businesses currently occupying the area to vacate their premises.

Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) were confirmed by Industry Secretary Alistair Darling.

Manny Lewis, Chief Executive of the London Development Agency (LDA), said:

"Whilst we have been granted the CPO powers, we will continue to negotiate with landowners in an effort to reach agreements.

We have already managed to secure 93% of the land through negotiation and the LDA is on course to deliver an incredibly complex project on time."

The LDA claim that around 70 businesses may have trouble moving and some jobs may be lost, but the Olympics would lead to an extra 11,000 jobs in the area.

Livingstone Guarantees No Tax Rise

Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, has "guaranteed" that Harrow residents will not pay more tax to fund the 2012 London Olympics.

Speaking on BBC Radio London, Livingstone said:

"I know concerns have been raised recently about increases to council tax to pay for the Olympics, I guarantee to Harrow residents that there will not be a rise.

Last year we set the Olympics council tax precept at 38p for the average London Council Tax Payer. It will remain at 38p next year and the year after and the year after that. When people see that it has not risen from 38p they will accept my firm guarantee that Londoners will not be asked to pay any more to fund the 2012 Games."

Those of you with long memories may recall that Livingstone promised faithfully, when he stood for re-election as Mayor, that he would not raise congestion charges.

Once re-elected, he reneged on that promise and raised congestion charges.

Good luck to the people of Harrow, and London, if they really believe Livingstone's promises!

Barclays Boycotts Olympics

Barclays has withdrawn from sponsoring the 2012 London Olympics. This is rather ironic, as Barclays is housing the Olympic organising committee in its headquarters.

The sponsorship would have contributed to the currently expected costs of £2BN, needed to run the games themselves.

Barclays, which has loaned the organising committee £50M, was expected to have been among the leaders applying for main sponsorship places.

The winning sponsor, from the world of banking (sans Barclays) will be expected to put up £100M.

Had Barclays become a sponsor, it would have had the right to use Olympic rings in advertising, the right to associate itself with the games and personalities involved in them, and the right to advertise its name and logos at Olympic sites.

Despite what Tessa Jowell and the other Olympics organisers might try to claim, this withdrawal is undoubtedly a blow for the already shambolic Olympics.

The Olympics Bill

Approximately 66% of Londoners believe that they will end up footing the bill for the 2012 London Olympics, as costs continue to spiral out of control.

That at least is the finding of a BBC poll, which showed that 65% of those questioned said that they thought that Londoners will end up paying for the additional costs.

The good people of Greece could tell the citizens of London a thing or two about budget overruns. They are expecting to continue to pay for the financial disaster of the 2004 Athens Olympics for many years to come.

Radiation Hazard At Olympic Site

Jack Lemley the ex head of the building programme for the London Olympics, who quit over budget issues, has ridiculed the Government's preparations for the 2012 Games.

Mr Lemley claims that Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell and London Mayor Ken Livingstone repeatedly ignored his warnings that the budget for the event was spiralling out of control.

He also claims that his warnings over the chemical contamination of the Olympic sites were dismissed, because "all they wanted to hear was good news".

It is reported that Mr Lemley was forced to resign after he sent Tessa Jowell a letter warning that the construction of the Olympic sites faced such serious delays, that the Games might have to be scaled down.

Mr Lemley claims that:

• He told the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, and Tessa Jowell before he was hired that there was a serious contamination problem at site chosen for the Games.



• His warnings that the budget seriously under-estimated clean-up costs were ignored.



• His agency was pressured to hide huge sums that should have been added to the budget.



• The Government knew back in May that the Olympics faced an extra £1BN VAT bill, but hid the fact from the public.

Mr Lemley said he first saw a copy of a report by accountants KPMG in April/May:

"It said all the management costs were underestimated dramatically, by several hundred per cent. These numbers have been known for months by everybody and if Tessa Jowell hasn't told the Prime Minister, she wasn't doing her job. It's a swamp. There is misrepresentation of the situation."

On the subject of contamination Mr Lemley was equally outspoken:

"A blind man could see there was a huge environmental problem. I thought it was highly likely they underestimated. I talked to Tessa Jowell's senior people, Jeff Jacobs and his assistant, almost on a daily basis about this."

The question that we should be asking of our "respected" and "competent" government is why did they choose a site contaminated with scrapyards and hazardous waste from factories which produced items such as; soap, matches, ink, dyes, paraffin, rubber, creosote, fertiliser and varnish.

Seemingly there is even a radiation issue, plus a few unexploded bombs!

Quote:

"They now know there are drums of radioactive material buried at the site and they never had that in their estimates.

In the spring, I learned it was highly likely there was unexploded Second World War ordnance in the ground and I said: 'I'm not going to put a pile-driving crew out there with unexploded bombs.' I wanted trenches dug so people could understand what was going to have to be done to clean the ground up and then the contractors could price it."

Mr Lemley found that his views were not welcome:

"At Olympic Board meetings, I was never invited to speak. Tessa attended with Ken Livingstone and Seb Coe and British Olympic Association chairman Colin Moynihan. All they got was good news."

As I keep saying, politicians should never be entrusted with major projects. They are unskilled, inept, incompetent and venal; they are of little use to man nor beast.

On October 9 he sent a letter, repeating his concerns, to Jowell and copied it to Livingstone and Lord Coe.

Jowell refused to discuss its contents, and ordered him to resign.

The public, and the IOC, have been seriously misled by Labour over these increasingly expensive Games. Unfortunately it will be the public who carry the can for them, rather than the politicians who got us into this mess.

Over Budget and Overdue

In another example of the gross mismanagement and incompetence that is plaguing the organisation and planning of the 2012 London Olympics, the new plans for a "slimmed-down" Olympic aquatics centre have been unveiled that show a budget overrun of £25M and a completion date that is three years late.

When the designs were first submitted last year, Tessa Jowell, the Olympics minister, reportedly claimed that "a change in the specification had almost doubled the costs, which is simply unacceptable".

Despite that attempt to rein in the costs, the budget is still going to overrun by £25M.

To add to the Olympics misery Jack Lemley, the Olympics chief who resigned over the spiralling costs, accused Jowell of "mud slinging". This is based on reports that Jowell, whose husband faces criminal trial in Italy, secretly told MPs that Lemley was too sick to continue in his job.

Jowell had allegedly said that he had suffered a stroke and that he "fell asleep in meetings".

Lemley was in fact being treated for an irregular heartbeat, just like Tony Blair's "minor problem" in 2004.

When he resigned, Lemley said:

"The costs are going to go up on an exponential basis and I'm just not going to be part of that."

Jowell, needless to say has let it be known, via a spokesman, that she disputes Lemley's claim:

"We are not aware that she had any conversations in which she said what you are describing."

Politicians are not fit to run a brothel, let alone organise a multi billion pound event such as the Olympics.

Rats in a Sack

It is a rare event indeed when I find myself agreeing with a Liberal Democrat. However, I am more than amused and in agreement with the description by Don Foster (Liberal Democrat Culture spokesman) of the politicians involved in the Olympics planning debacle as being like "rats in a sack"

A very fitting description indeed!

Foster has called upon the Labour Party to stop fighting "like rats in a sack" over the funding of the 2012 Olympics in London, and to "shut up" until the final budget is sorted out.

Hah! If only politicians could be made to shut up!

Foster's call came after a particularly shambolic week, in which Ken Livingstone (mayor of London) and Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell publicly disagreed over the budget for the 2012 Olympic Games.

Foster has correctly identified that public confidence in the Olympics is "ebbing away", and that the country would face "serious difficulties" if the in-fighting didn't end soon.

Quote:

"This is nonsense arguing going on. We have got two different Government departments, we have got Ken Livingstone, we have got the Leader of the House, all acting like rats in a sack fighting each other. This isn't what it should be about".

Adding:

"Nobody knows where we stand and confidence in our ability to deliver the Olympics is sadly ebbing away when it is going to be absolutely fantastic. We should be celebrating it and I wish people frankly would shut up."

Quite rightly he is calling for a proper budget, which should be independently audited and presented to Parliament and the people. However, this budget should have been prepared and audited prior to the bid being put forward for the Games. That way we would have had a say as to whether we really wanted the Games or not, rather than having them foisted on us as a fait a compli.

As Foster says:

"If confidence ebbs away at the rate it is doing at the moment then I think we are in serious difficulties."

Never leave large scale projects in the hands of politicians, they are not capable of running them without allowing their own egotistical self interest to take priority.

Travellers Fight Olympics

As if the London 2012 Olympics did not have enough problems (including a budget that is out of control, and a site contaminated with toxic waste) it has now hit another hurdle.

Plans to move a group of Travellers, from Clays Lane Newham, to make way for the Olympics have come unstuck.

The Travellers who have lived on the same East London site for 35 years, part of an area designated for the Games, have been offered an alternative site. However, the site that they have been offered is one of the few green spaces in the area currently used for sport and recreation.

The Travellers and the residents have formed an alliance to fight the plans to move them on to what is being described by some as "a traffic island". Lawyers for the Travellers are threatening a judicial review, which would significantly delay any moves.

Tracie Giles, from one of 15 families, said:

"It's ridiculous. It's a local park."

Jonathan Green, a resident and chairman of a joint action group, said:

"Many of the houses and flats round here don't have gardens so it is the one green space they can go to."

It is clear that whoever did the planning for the 2012 Games either did not do a very thorough job, or assumed that "issues" such as this could just be bulldozed out of the way (as they are doing in China).

This bodes ill for the future/success of the 2012 Games.

Taxpayers Screwed

As befitting the arrogant incompetence of those who are mismanaging the London 2012 Olympics, Tessa Jowell (whose husband is facing criminal trial in Italy) broke the news to parliament yesterday that the Olympics costs were overrunning and that the taxpayer would be making up the shortfall.

Tessa Jowell, Secretary for Culture Media and Sport, finally had to come clean to the world that the costs were out of control.

Jowell, like all politicians, does not like being caught out; therefore it was a pleasure for many to see her squirm (one must take one's pleasure when one can).

However, this is small compensation for the fact that the British taxpayer (or rather more accurately the London taxpayer) will have to foot the bill for this unwanted white elephant.

Jowell said that she could not rule out funding the shortfall with a further raid on the National Lottery, or by increasing the contribution made by London's council-tax payers.

The original budget of £2.375bn has now been derided as a "fag packet" calculation, and Jowell conceded that the current figure is more like £3.3bn.

This figure is of course nonsense, as the real costs are likely to exceed £8BN.

Why do the organisers keep trying to hide the truth from people?

Answer: because they are incompetent and venal.

Jack Lemley knew the score when he resigned, he saw very clearly that the costs of clearing the toxic waste from the site selected to hold the Olympics would be astronomical.

Why did the organisers choose a toxic dump to hold the Olympics on?

Did they tell the IOC this when they made the bid?

Anyone care to spill the beans on that?

Jowell did her best to blame everyone and everything else for this shambles; rising costs on construction inflation, the doubling of steel prices and a revised figure for public transport links serving the Games site near Stratford. Rather oddly the the original bid figure did not include the £400M cost of hiring the international project management consortium CLM.

Jowell warned that there were further "potential liabilities"; the costs of Olympic security £1BN, the extent of a contingency fund within the budget and a VAT bill of £250M

None of these were in the original budget.

The fact remains a budget is meant to take into account all of the costs.

The organisers have failed, and should be removed from their positions of responsibility.

Whether that happens or not, it is clear that the taxpayers will be screwed as a result of this shambles.