malc d Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 malc d - 2021-05-31 7:34 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-05-31 6:29 PM Birdbrain - 2021-05-31 4:47 PM........................ If you want to discuss waste of public money what about sumat you know was a waste like Labours Millennium Dome Why was it a waste of money? It is an asset, it is in constant use, and it is highly profitable. This is what it's present owner says of it : https://tinyurl.com/8u9wv9h4 Can't be all that bad, can it? As far as I remember, the Millennium Dome was initially John Majors idea - further supported / promoted by Michael Heseltine. I don't think that either of them was ever in the Labour party. At least the Dome is accessible to the general public - I doubt if many of us will ever get to swan around on the boat. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 malc d - 2021-05-31 7:43 PM malc d - 2021-05-31 7:34 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-05-31 6:29 PM Birdbrain - 2021-05-31 4:47 PM........................ If you want to discuss waste of public money what about sumat you know was a waste like Labours Millennium Dome Why was it a waste of money? It is an asset, it is in constant use, and it is highly profitable. This is what it's present owner says of it : https://tinyurl.com/8u9wv9h4 Can't be all that bad, can it? As far as I remember, the Millennium Dome was initially John Majors idea - further supported / promoted by Michael Heseltine. I don't think that either of them was ever in the Labour party. At least the Dome is accessible to the general public - I doubt if many of us will ever get to swan around on the boat. :-| Chuckle ... This one doesnt seem to realise the Dome is "accessible" at personal cost ... Lordy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 Brilliant it can visit the capitals of Australia, Russia, Brazil, France and all those countries with inland capitals, oh hang on.... Now I'm not a fan of spending money on weapons, but if we've got £500,000,000 (cos let's be honest looking at HS2 etc) that is the minimum it will cost, obviously the savings from the aid budget cuts, do you sabre rattlers not think we should protect that previous willy waving investment? https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/06/26/heres-why-britain-is-struggling-to-form-a-fully-effective-carrier-strike-group/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted June 1, 2021 Author Share Posted June 1, 2021 Birdbrain - 2021-05-31 8:03 PM malc d - 2021-05-31 7:43 PM malc d - 2021-05-31 7:34 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-05-31 6:29 PM Birdbrain - 2021-05-31 4:47 PM........................ If you want to discuss waste of public money what about sumat you know was a waste like Labours Millennium Dome Why was it a waste of money? It is an asset, it is in constant use, and it is highly profitable. This is what it's present owner says of it : https://tinyurl.com/8u9wv9h4 Can't be all that bad, can it? As far as I remember, the Millennium Dome was initially John Majors idea - further supported / promoted by Michael Heseltine. I don't think that either of them was ever in the Labour party. At least the Dome is accessible to the general public - I doubt if many of us will ever get to swan around on the boat. :-| Chuckle ... This one doesnt seem to realise the Dome is "accessible" at personal cost ... Lordy Give up ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted June 1, 2021 Author Share Posted June 1, 2021 Barryd999 - 2021-05-31 10:55 AM the Royals are supposed to be impartial but there is no way on earth that our Queen could possibly approve of Johnson as PM. Oh I dunno She wouldn't have got a new yacht from Jeremy Corbyn He would be more likely to give the money to the food bank he volunteered at whilst BoJo was holidaying in the Caribbean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 Birdbrain - 2021-05-31 7:37 PM The Dome is paying its way now, certainly didn't for the taxpayer ... ...................... Except that profits are taxed, so there is eventual benefit to the taxpayer. There isn't much point in playing what if. I thought the idea barmy, and the exhibition tacky, from the outset, but it now exists on what was a large, dead, patch of land in Greenwich. Due to a good choice of architect it has since become a striking landmark that has been converted into a highly successful entertainment venue. Albeit that was by accident of history rather than by design. It could easily have been otherwise but, fortunately, it was not. The way buildings are used changes with time. The better ones tend to survive by being adapted to changing needs and opportunities. I understand some National Trust and English Heritage properties were once people's private homes or defensive fortresses. By the same logic, perhaps they shouldn't have been built either? Stuff happens. Its called life. There's no point in sulking because something you didn't approve of became a success, especially as it takes no skin from your nose. But that accidental success doesn't mean one should just accept whatever crackpot scheme is dreamed up without question. Had the dome become an expensive white elephant then it would demonstrably have been a waste of money. So, should we just turn a blind eye to wild ideas when they are proposed, or should we question them? The questioning should provoke the proposer into giving more thought to the potential benefits, short and long term. Result? Better decisions. What's not to like? Grand projects are prone to come unstuck. See here, on the SS Great Eastern: https://tinyurl.com/4zkn6hv6 . A little questioning is not without merit. :-D I'll leave the party political points scoring to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-06-01 11:32 AM I'll leave the party political points scoring to others. Oh Okay then! If Tweetiepie is going to get hung up on the Dome costs. Maybe he would be prepared to comment on the £53,000,000 spent on a bridge that doesn't exist, or the £5,000,000 spent on a feasibility study for a airport that doesn't exist either. But Doris did deliver, the original budget for the Thames Cable car was £8,000,000, its final cost was £60,000,000 making it the most expensive cable car system in the world - so world beating again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted June 1, 2021 Author Share Posted June 1, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-06-01 12:13 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-06-01 11:32 AM I'll leave the party political points scoring to others. Oh Okay then! If Tweetiepie is going to get hung up on the Dome costs. Maybe he would be prepared to comment on the £53,000,000 spent on a bridge that doesn't exist, or the £5,000,000 spent on a feasibility study for a airport that doesn't exist either. But Doris did deliver, the original budget for the Thames Cable car was £8,000,000, its final cost was £60,000,000 making it the most expensive cable car system in the world - so world beating again. So on BoJo's past record that inflates the cost of his boat from £200 million to £1500 million Which sounds more realistic I suppose :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-06-01 11:32 AM Birdbrain - 2021-05-31 7:37 PM The Dome is paying its way now, certainly didn't for the taxpayer ... ...................... Except that profits are taxed, so there is eventual benefit to the taxpayer. There isn't much point in playing what if. I thought the idea barmy, and the exhibition tacky, from the outset, but it now exists on what was a large, dead, patch of land in Greenwich. Due to a good choice of architect it has since become a striking landmark that has been converted into a highly successful entertainment venue. Albeit that was by accident of history rather than by design. It could easily have been otherwise but, fortunately, it was not. It's privately owned now by AEG but we still get 15% of net profits. https://tinyurl.com/54uutfc3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-06-01 11:32 AM Birdbrain - 2021-05-31 7:37 PM The Dome is paying its way now, certainly didn't for the taxpayer ... ...................... Except that profits are taxed, so there is eventual benefit to the taxpayer. There isn't much point in playing what if. I thought the idea barmy, and the exhibition tacky, from the outset, but it now exists on what was a large, dead, patch of land in Greenwich. Due to a good choice of architect it has since become a striking landmark that has been converted into a highly successful entertainment venue. Albeit that was by accident of history rather than by design. It could easily have been otherwise but, fortunately, it was not. The way buildings are used changes with time. The better ones tend to survive by being adapted to changing needs and opportunities. I understand some National Trust and English Heritage properties were once people's private homes or defensive fortresses. By the same logic, perhaps they shouldn't have been built either? Stuff happens. Its called life. There's no point in sulking because something you didn't approve of became a success, especially as it takes no skin from your nose. But that accidental success doesn't mean one should just accept whatever crackpot scheme is dreamed up without question. Had the dome become an expensive white elephant then it would demonstrably have been a waste of money. So, should we just turn a blind eye to wild ideas when they are proposed, or should we question them? The questioning should provoke the proposer into giving more thought to the potential benefits, short and long term. Result? Better decisions. What's not to like? Grand projects are prone to come unstuck. See here, on the SS Great Eastern: https://tinyurl.com/4zkn6hv6 . A little questioning is not without merit. :-D I'll leave the party political points scoring to others. £700 million to build and supposedly £1 million a month for the upkeep ... AEG were given the land for free ... Give me a shout when the taxpayer gets their money back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 Birdbrain - 2021-06-01 7:39 PM..............................£700 million to build and supposedly £1 million a month for the upkeep ... AEG were given the land for free ... Give me a shout when the taxpayer gets their money back Probably won't. But which is the least worst outcome? What you have now, or writing it off as a white elephant? You are where you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-06-01 11:32 AM I'll leave the party political points scoring to others. The Millennium project was dreamed up by Tories, and developed by Labour, so who do we blame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 colin - 2021-06-02 10:10 AM Brian Kirby - 2021-06-01 11:32 AM I'll leave the party political points scoring to others. The Millennium project was dreamed up by Tories, and developed by Labour, so who do we blame? I suppose that depends on what you think of the Dome. People who don't like it can blame politicians - and people who do like it can thank politicians. Either way - the Dome is used by, and for, the general public. The new ship, from which this thread has been successfully deflected, will only get to be used by a very small number of Brits. Question is : Will the general public get their moneys' worth from the ship that we will all be paying for ? :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 malc d - 2021-06-02 10:33 AM......................................The new ship, from which this thread has been successfully deflected, will only get to be used by a very small number of Brits. Question is : Will the general public get their moneys' worth from the ship that we will all be paying for ? :-| True, and I fell into the deflection, but before we finally bury the dome, suppose the new ship were to be financed in the same way that the dome was financed - from the lottery. Then, as with the dome, there would be no direct cost to the exchequer, so little to agitate the taxpayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-06-02 11:07 AM malc d - 2021-06-02 10:33 AM......................................The new ship, from which this thread has been successfully deflected, will only get to be used by a very small number of Brits. Question is : Will the general public get their moneys' worth from the ship that we will all be paying for ? :-| True, and I fell into the deflection, but before we finally bury the dome, suppose the new ship were to be financed in the same way that the dome was financed - from the lottery. Then, as with the dome, there would be no direct cost to the exchequer, so little to agitate the taxpayer. But you could argue that the lottery has many more worthy causes to consider chucking money at before a Johnson bonkers vanity project. If anything IMO thats worse than the tax payer funding it. If the Tories want a posh ship then they should pay for it themselves. LOL! They will soon discover however that even little boats are like holes in the water you chuck money into and that one is way way under budgeted for and the running costs will be astronomical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 Barryd999 - 2021-06-02 11:19 AM Brian Kirby - 2021-06-02 11:07 AM malc d - 2021-06-02 10:33 AM......................................The new ship, from which this thread has been successfully deflected, will only get to be used by a very small number of Brits. Question is : Will the general public get their moneys' worth from the ship that we will all be paying for ? :-| True, and I fell into the deflection, but before we finally bury the dome, suppose the new ship were to be financed in the same way that the dome was financed - from the lottery. Then, as with the dome, there would be no direct cost to the exchequer, so little to agitate the taxpayer. But you could argue that the lottery has many more worthy causes to consider chucking money at before a Johnson bonkers vanity project. If anything IMO thats worse than the tax payer funding it. If the Tories want a posh ship then they should pay for it themselves. LOL! They will soon discover however that even little boats are like holes in the water you chuck money into and that one is way way under budgeted for and the running costs will be astronomical. That's why I thought of the lottery, Barry - it's all a bit of a gamble. Wealth beyond the dreams of avarice, or nowt! Just seemed appropriate. There can't be a justification for publicly financing a venture in the absence of an explanation of how it would pay back, can there? So treat it as a punt, and let the punters pay! Simples. :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 malc d - 2021-06-02 10:33 AM colin - 2021-06-02 10:10 AM Brian Kirby - 2021-06-01 11:32 AM I'll leave the party political points scoring to others. The Millennium project was dreamed up by Tories, and developed by Labour, so who do we blame? The new ship, from which this thread has been successfully deflected, will only get to be used by a very small number of Brits. Question is : Will the general public get their moneys' worth from the ship that we will all be paying for ? :-| Deflected by the usual suspect who does his utmost to derail and disrupt other fm's threads. As for the 'national flagship', that will be totally off limits to the public. I think Johnsons delusions of grandeur have spiralled totally out of control and he needs reigning in before more money gets squandered on his insane ideas. If he's so intent on cruising the world on a luxury mega yacht then he can pay for it out of his own pocket instead of burdening taxpayers with his idiotic self indulgencies. These 'look at me' status symbols, as that's all they are, are absolute money pits and crewing and maintaining the damn things cost six figure sums every year and thats before they've even moved an inch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 Mmmm ... I should have known better than to offer a different opinion than the standard squad opinion ... I point out Labour public money waste on The Dome was more than the new yacht which may not even end up being a waste of public money and some of the usuals get in a tizzy ... Lets hope the usuals can unlike the last campaign refrain from bullying, trolling and posting up my personal details ... Lordy My Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aandy Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 I pretty ambivalent on this. It does seem an expensive vanity project but if it is to be built here most of the money will stay in the UK, creating jobs and helping the economy. I just hope that they have a public vote to decide what to call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 I wonder what the queen would prefer? Properly funded education for children? An end to the need for food banks? A shiny new yacht? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 aandy - 2021-06-04 9:57 AM I pretty ambivalent on this. It does seem an expensive vanity project but if it is to be built here most of the money will stay in the UK, creating jobs and helping the economy. I just hope that they have a public vote to decide what to call it. They tried that before and it was "Boaty McBoatface" but they decided they didnt like that! HMS Batty Brexit maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 Barryd999 - 2021-06-04 12:40 PM aandy - 2021-06-04 9:57 AM I pretty ambivalent on this. It does seem an expensive vanity project but if it is to be built here most of the money will stay in the UK, creating jobs and helping the economy. I just hope that they have a public vote to decide what to call it. They tried that before and it was "Boaty McBoatface" but they decided they didnt like that! HMS Batty Brexit maybe. It can't have the title of HMS because Johnson has already decreed it's to be the "national flagship" and Royals will only be able to use it occasionally anyway so they're irrelevant. Johnson will name it after himself because it's his vanity project. "Wet Noodle" in memory of his American girlfriend he dumped after using taxpayers money would be suitable or "Captain Nero" could be another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aandy Posted June 5, 2021 Share Posted June 5, 2021 "They tried that before and it was "Boaty McBoatface" but they decided they didnt like that!" They did indeed, and that's what prompted my comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 5, 2021 Share Posted June 5, 2021 Birdbrain - 2021-06-02 5:38 PM Mmmm ... I should have known better than to offer a different opinion than the standard squad opinion ... I point out Labour public money waste on The Dome was more than the new yacht which may not even end up being a waste of public money and some of the usuals get in a tizzy ... Lets hope the usuals can unlike the last campaign refrain from bullying, trolling and posting up my personal details ... Lordy My You offered no opinion as such, only that it was a) realised under a Labour government (while omitting to add initiated by a Conservative government), which is somehow supposed to counter arguments that this "Royal Yacht" (the subject of this string) appears to be an expensive project with little chance of pay-back. Two white elephants for the price of one? The best "bogoff" of all time?? Where's the connection??? This is not a "who wasted the most money, ever", string, it is about the economic benefit of the proposed new Royal Yacht, on which you appear to have no opinion save that it "may not even end up being a waste of public money". Well, Hallelujah! You also stated that the Millennium dome had involved £M700 of "taxpayers" money, when over £500M of that had come from the Lottery fund and most of the balance from (lower than forecast) ticket receipts. So far as I am aware the Lottery is not directly funded by the exchequer, so although you might have argued that every contributor was a taxpayer, meaning in that sense that all the money came from taxpayers, you didn't. I don't defend the dome, but it wasn't, in any normal sense, taxpayer funded, although the taxpayer has picked up some of the costs. The actual structure, which still stands, cost just (a below budget!) £43M of that £M700. So not a "tizzy", just a plea for an unbiased and accurate presentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted June 5, 2021 Share Posted June 5, 2021 If you're upset with the cost of the Dome Tweetiepie, you best not look into the cost and subsequent use of the Olympic Stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.