Olympic hypocrisy

[Greenkey2]

Newham borough council is attempting to relocate poor families out of London's east end and house them in other cities such as Stoke-on-Trent. Just reading this makes me sick.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17821018

Well now, isn't the world in for a nice show this summer when London hosts the games. I hope our international visitors will be happy to see that poverty and social injustice are alive and well in the UK.

My question is, where is the concern for improving the lives of the poor where they are already living? Why is the government trying to fob these vulnerable people off to even more poorly-resourced places in the UK?

For anyone who doesn't know, and according to anyone who is anyone (i.e. the rich and powerful), the UK consists of London and... let me think.... nope, it's not coming to me.

I was briefly excited when it was announced that the UK would host the Olympic games in 2012. Now, it seems like a huge white elephant stomping all over those who can't defend themselves. The hypocrisy is beyond staggering.

[peeves]

I'm quite shocked to hear that those poor familes will be outta their homes and in different cities. I mean C'mon! Why drive the poor to places where they can't live?

[Spong]

The British Government trying to sweep its social problems under the carpet so the place looks all shiny and awesome for the Olympics? That doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

[interstellardave]

This is what's wrong with the Welfare State. When you are on the dole, you are really not free. That is the consequence. It's always been a fact, but one that people don't like to think about... and one that wasn't so evident when the economy was better.

[Cochrane]

This seems like a bigger problem that is only partially related to the olympic games.

In general, I think the governments should do more to prevent slums from being created. That means providing more affordable (or social) housing even in higher priced regions. That isn't going to be cheap, though.

Originally Posted by interstellardave

This is what's wrong with the Welfare State. When you are on the dole, you are really not free. That is the consequence. It's always been a fact, but one that people don't like to think about... and one that wasn't so evident when the economy was better.

What's the alternative, though, when people can't afford to pay rents at market rates? If it's all private, then they will be driven outside the cities just the same.

[Greenkey2]

Originally Posted by interstellardave

This is what's wrong with the Welfare State. When you are on the dole, you are really not free. That is the consequence. It's always been a fact, but one that people don't like to think about... and one that wasn't so evident when the economy was better.

Unfortunately I've witnessed this first hand. If you're out of work, for whatever reason(s), you are treated like a criminal. If you've been trying to find a job for two years running, or don't have the right skill set, or have ill health, or there simply aren't any jobs in your area, you are made to feel like a worthless statistic.

And then this sort of thing happens. Politicians repeatedly hammer the message that we must make budget cuts here, take money off the needy there... but oh, hey, let's spend billions over budget on a month-long bananza of sport in the capital. Don't let London's press fool you - there is nowhere north of the M25 that has seen (or will see) any Olympic funding or assistance.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Cochrane

This seems like a bigger problem that is only partially related to the olympic games.

In general, I think the governments should do more to prevent slums from being created. That means providing more affordable (or social) housing even in higher priced regions. That isn't going to be cheap, though.

What's the alternative, though, when people can't afford to pay rents at market rates? If it's all private, then they will be driven outside the cities just the same.

I think the galling thing is we CAN afford such assistance to people. How much is the Olympics costing? I bet the same money could be used to better effect. Starting up schemes to help create jobs in less-expensive areas is only one example. The money does exist, but its distribution is biased towards individuals rather than communities. The gap between haves and have-nots has never been wider in my lifetime.

[Barry Matharoo]

Originally Posted by Spong

The British Government trying to sweep its social problems under the carpet so the place looks all shiny and awesome for the Olympics? That doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

This sort of thing happend in India When Common wealth games were happening.

[Greenkey2]

Originally Posted by Barry Matharoo

This sort of thing happend in India When Common wealth games were happening.

Exactly. It's not a local problem. It's a worldwide rich-versus-poor problem.

[patriots88888]

Originally Posted by Barry Matharoo

This sort of thing happend in India When Common wealth games were happening.

I was just going to say that this isn't anything exclusive to London/UK. Many cities aren't so keen anymore about hosting something which is evidently so costly. Makes me wonder if the Olympics will eventually be a thing of the past.

[Greenkey2]

Originally Posted by patriots88888

I was just going to say that this isn't anything exclusive to London/UK. Many cities aren't so keen anymore about hosting something which is evidently so costly. Makes me wonder if the Olympics will eventually be a thing of the past.

I think it was mentioned fairly recently (I'll need to research who said this) that perhaps, in the future, the Olympic games should be held on a neutral island location. Each nation wishing to compete would pay a small amount to its upkeep, but none of them would 'own' the island itself.

I think the idea has merit; especially considering, as you say, the crippling cost to an individual country or city.