Search questions

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

This is down to government and incentives. At the moment you say about companies wanting to locate here but people like Kraft moved their European headquarters out of Britain to Switzerland, because of our developing problems over ever higher taxes.You say that in about 2009 your successor will make the case for monies on the £300 million, but that just cannot be guaranteed. The money has to come from somewhere.You must know what is going to happen.

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

But they promised I think almost 100,000. I mean how on earth could they think of that?

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

You talk about these contingencies being set because of the experience of the Treasury over the last 80 years and feeling that that is a bit strong. The problem is it has been the experience of every other Olympic Games. When we first predicted, just over two years ago, that the budget, as it would finally be, would be around £10 billion, everybody said that was a ridiculous figure for us to state. The problem is, if you look at Athens, at Sydney and the rest, surely that is a reasonable contingency for the Government to put in?

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

If it is going to make a profit, as you say, can Council Tax-payers have their money back in 2013?

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

Can I just make another little prediction as well, as we were right on the £10 billion. You and others have quoted figures about jobs; 40,000, 50,000, 60,000. From everything else, including things like the IPPR (Institute of Public Policy Research) report and so on about Sydney and other aspects, practically everybody seems to be saying the Olympics do not provide long term jobs. I have to say to you I cannot see anywhere where anybody has truly quantified that there will be many long-term serious jobs as a result of the London Olympics. Can you just quantify exactly what...

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

The Government says that though.

• Reference: 2007/0851
• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

The Mayor recently backed the showing of Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" at City Hall. In order to further the debate on climate change, would he also support the showing of the recent Channel 4 documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", in which eminent scientists argue that climate change is driven by solar activity and that the current increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is a natural and harmless consequence of global warming rather than its man-made cause? Does the Mayor agree that if this hypothesis is correct, spending money on reducing man-made carbon emissions is futile...

• Reference: 2007/0850
• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

Lord James of Blackheath recently told the House of Lords about his experiences with the Dome, and the lessons to be learned for the 2012 Olympics. With the Dome sponsorship, corporate sponsors deducted large sums from the headline sponsorship figures to cover their expenses, in many cases reducing the net value of the deals to practically nil. How will you ensure that the same problems don't arise with Olympic sponsorship?

• Reference: 2007/0852
• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 21 March 2007

The Mayor has repeatedly stated that he will not increase the Olympic precept, but it would be useful if he could confirm the length of time Londoners will have to pay it. Mexico City taxpayers are still paying an Olympic tax for the 1968 Games and Montreal taxpayers have only recently paid off the debts from 1976. The Mayor has so far committed Londoners to pay the Olympic precept until 2017. In the absence of any renegotiation of the Memorandum of Understanding which gives unlimited liability to Londoners and council tax payers to fund any overspend on the Olympic Games...

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 21 February 2007

You say the Memorandum does not mention Council Tax but it does on a couple of occasions. It talks about increased Council Tax in point 8, and in point 9 it says an increase in Council Tax precept. So you can assume, surely, that when you move on to point 17 what it means is the Council Tax. If there is an overspend, then there is going to be a crisis. My main point is, irrespective of your claim, you are not going to be here on the centenary of your birth, some years hence, as Mayor, and that is...