Now the truth about the costs.

[capricorn]

He could do it for less if they do it on a military base

What?? With all those soldiers...with guns...and real bullets?

[nicky10013]

I can't see how he can say the costs will be that much less. They won't be.

Wait for it....Wait for it...I'm going to trust Sarkozy's experts. They know what they're doing.

[Smallc]

I'm sure our experts thought they knew what they were doing when the budget was $179M for security too.

[Molly]

Wait for it....Wait for it...I'm going to trust Sarkozy's experts. They know what they're doing.

Yessssss! Me, too.

[nicky10013]

I'm sure our experts thought they knew what they were doing when the budget was $179M for security too.

With the result, I don't know if they ever knew what they were doing. To lowball the estimates so badly speaks to only two things: either incompetence, or the experts (who, I'm sure were probably police reps) thought that using the summit as an excuse could get goodies like sound cannons (which were never used).

Furthermore, to act as though we're the only experts in the field and that the French don't know what they're talking about is pretty damn arrogant. Other cities have hosted this event with similar results for 10x less. That's a fact.

[Argus]

Wait for it....Wait for it...I'm going to trust Sarkozy's experts. They know what they're doing.

You think he consulted anyone before saying that? :-) It sounded pretty off-the-cuff to me. Still, he should be able to achieve some pretty good cost savings because, unlike Canada, he knows from the start that he'll be holding the G8 and G20. Remember that Canada was only planning for the G8, and was already deep in preparations when they decided to move the G20 up and hold it here too.

One thing certain, there'll be a lot more violence there. France doesn't need a G8 meeting to inspire riots. Almost anything will do.

[g_bambino]

One thing certain, there'll be a lot more violence there. France doesn't need a G8 meeting to inspire riots. Almost anything will do.

That's what I thought, too. Protesting and rioting almost seems a part of the national culture.

[normanchateau]

I don't care how much it cost elsewhere. The cost is obscene.

Now, why don't I hate the tories for it? .....I again cut the tories some slack here.

Imagine that...a Harper supporter cutting Harper some slack for obscene spending. Shocking.

This is reminiscent of Harper's budgets during his first term when he increased spending and handouts to Quebec by more than any Prime Minister in the history of Canada...and this was before there was even a sign of a pending recession:

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/flaherty-biggest-of-big-spenders.php

At what point do Harper supporters conclude that his sustained betrayal of fiscal conservatism is a reason for them not to vote for his party?

Surely his homophobia, social conservatism and blending of politics with religion is not sufficient reason to keep voting for a Prime Minister who spends hard-earned taxpayer dollars like a drunken sailor.

[Jack Weber]

That's a really good point, August. I don't know why people think that when Business Elites are in favour of something, it's automatically practical, just, and efficient; why we should summon their opinion (self-serving by definition...that's not a criticism, just the way it is) as an almost religious authority is...odd.

Because "they" control the message...

And most people don't take the time to think,they just follow...

And it is "they" that make it seem as if they are the true authority on things and anyone who would question them is somehow abnormal...

The best way to define it,at least for me,is if it is really good for business it probably is'nt very good for the rest of us.But the messaging should'nt shock anyone...These business types have paid for the access of the ears of politicians for a long time.It should'nt shock anyone that they get their way.

Right now,the rise of Corporate Fascism is just as bad as the rise of Communism almost 100 years ago....

Edited June 28, 2010 by Jack Weber

[nicky10013]

You think he consulted anyone before saying that? :-) It sounded pretty off-the-cuff to me. Still, he should be able to achieve some pretty good cost savings because, unlike Canada, he knows from the start that he'll be holding the G8 and G20. Remember that Canada was only planning for the G8, and was already deep in preparations when they decided to move the G20 up and hold it here too.

One thing certain, there'll be a lot more violence there. France doesn't need a G8 meeting to inspire riots. Almost anything will do.

Yeah but that's still the government's problem. They've had since 2007-2008 when the first G20 happened to say hey, maybe if we want to hold both now is the time to start planning. I've said this multiple times, these conferences take 1-2 years to plan. They had sufficient time but only chose to start the process 6 months ago. Either take the time to do it properly or not do it at all. This was all about the photo op and nothing else. I'm not at all sympathetic.

Edited June 28, 2010 by nicky10013

[Smallc]

Other cities have hosted this event with similar results for 10x less. That's a fact.

Actually, we have no idea if that's a fact.