Seven Billion plus VAT

The papers were saying the cost of the Olympics could be 8 billion. Tessa Jowell admitted costs were rising, but said they would be "only" 3.3 billion.

A 4.7 billion disparity. Which figure is right?

Today's Times suggests that they both are, sort of.

Tessa's 3.3 billion doesn't include the security costs, or the billion for "regeneration" (which means building a load of flats and facilities for the athletes, some of which with luck will be usable afterwards.)

These costs bring her 3.3 up to 7 billion.

And then there is VAT on top of that.

Going up - officially

I've recently reported speculation about the cost of the Games going as high as £8 billion - even more than the whole wretched war for a fortnight's preening by athletes.

Those speculative figures are contested by the Government that is trying to keep this terrible thing under control, of course.

But now even the Government's official estimates are rocketing. Poor Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary (I like the idea that synchronised swimming is culture!) had to admit to the Commons that the bill has gone up by 900 million - and that doesn't include security costs, which since 7/7 have rocketed.

"The extra £900m cost was likely to be met by London council tax payers and lottery funds, Ms Jowell suggested."

The original budget included a contribution of £625m from London council tax payers - which works out at £20 a year for 25 years - and £1.5bn from Lottery games.

How much more will the sporty quango incompetents try to screw out of the people of Britain?

These were the people who gave you the millennium dome remember. Or no - hang on a bit - it was we who gave these thickos the money to squander on that useless tent. The only hope for which is that it will cause more poverty, grief and corruption by becoming a super-casino, thanks to a dodgy deal with Prescott...

Let's get this thing in proportion

Some of my previous comments on this blog may have seemed a bit excessive and ranty.

I apologise.

Let's put the Olympics in proportion.

Yesterday's estimate of £8billion for the cost of the Games is not so much when you put it in context.

The Iraq War has so far cost Britain's taxpayers 7 billion.

I'm pondering hard - which is better value -7 billion for causing untold death and distress, destabilising the Middle East and inspiring terrorism in Britain.

Or 8 billion for a fortnight's running, jumping and synchronised swimming.

It's a bit hard to decide.

Contaminated games? We've got em!

What caused the speedy defection of Jack Lemley, the American called in at huge expense to be the Games construction supremo?

According to today's Times, Mr Lemley, 71, insisted that his health was not connected to his resignation but he was “very, very concerned” about the extent of toxic material and hazardous waste on the 757-acre site, much of which was industrial land. The clean-up operation could also unearth unexploded bombs dropped during the Blitz.

The American engineer was increasingly frustrated that the process of cleaning the land — known as remediation — had not begun, although contractors had been appointed to carry out the task in June.

Paul Deighton speaks

In October Paul Deighton, chief executive of the London Olympics Organising Committee, told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee: "We are certainly confident at this stage that the sources of revenue are sufficient to leave us at the organising committee with revenues that will match our expected expenditure.
In November they realised that they hadn't included VAT in their accounts.
Are these people fit to run the cake stall at a church bazaar, let alone a multi-billion pound international project with tight deadlines which will humiliate Britain when it fails?