Alright, don't speak to me then. Tessa Jowell and Seb Coe plan for 2012. Photograph: Sang Tan/AP
We're used to seeing the costs of our country's major internal undertakings spiralling in ever increasing circles. Computerised health service records, a high speed railway line, a national football stadium reflective of the nation's financial and other interests in the game: other countries have them, but we're used to waiting.
So when news this week emerged that - surprise, surprise - the 2012 Olympics project was going the same way, most of us responded accordingly by burying our frustration until another time. But it's rare that those responsible give the knife another twist.
This, it seems, is Tessa Jowell's latest strategy. On admitting to the commons select committee on Culture, Media and Sport that, regrettably, a £900m increase in Olympics spending would be necessary (a figure, moreover, which emerged with a very strong gloss of "watch this space", Ms Jowell then explained under questioning that the extra money would come directly from funds normally earmarked for the arts: lottery funded arts organisations would be left facing "significant cuts".
Or perhaps "explained" is putting it rather too strongly. Following the Commons statement, Ms Jowell seems to have gone to ground over the issue, leaving Ken Livingstone to defend the Olympic corner with claims that everything's going to plan - honest.
However, the chair of the Commons select committee on Culture, Media and Sport, John Whittingdale, put the matter more plainly. Explaining that all lottery-dependent" good causes will see a serious amount of decline", he told The Stage newspaper that "arts charities will see significant cuts in the amount available to them in lottery funding over the next four years." Even before Ms Jowell's appearance at the select committee, Mr Whittingdale had sounded a warning: "The impact on traditional lottery good causes could be horrendous. It is ringing all kinds of alarm bells at every lottery distributor."
What a difference a few months makes. Back in August Ms Jowell was more than happy to sing the praises of sustained arts funding and the difference it's made to Britain's cultural life. Defending the government's record on investing in the arts, she explained that while they couldn't take credit for a current renaissance of the arts in Britain, "we have provided financial stability (arts funding from the government has risen by 70% so far) and moral support".
The Olympics were sold to us - in so far as most of us didn't have much choice on the matter - largely in terms of national and local regeneration; arts policies, too, are often also promoted because of their regenerative effects. It seems incredible that the government is apparently prepared to let the latter fall by the wayside simply because it can't control the costs of the former.
